8th generation of consoles

Serge 13

Serge 13

Cranium Cat oTO
Orderite
So it seems that this next generation of console gaming thing is actually on it's way, according to this news at least.

Now Wii U has already been announced, hell they even announced a name change for it since Wii U is actually pretty damn stupid for a name.

So what do you think about the coming generation of consoles? How strong do you think the next Xbox or Playstation will be? How is it going to affect the gaming industry and PC gaming? I mean The Xbox360 and the PS3 still have games that look quite good even for todays standards.

But there also the question that will the developers be able to fully utilize whatever hardware these upcoming consoles have, or do they need another 2 years for that?

But enough jargon, discuss.

PS: There is also a rumor that the coming generation of consoles are "going to do something" about the usage of second hand games.
 
The question I ask is whether the current 7th gen consoles can or will be repackaged for the casual gamer now to enjoy the large library of games available now.

The concern mirrors sea's question of production costs.

With all the hub-bub about the next generation of consoles, it has to be said that the best-selling console still being produced isn't any of the current generation consoles, but rather the Playstation 2.

In our current economy, while the next generation of consoles looks great and all, it has to be noted that a 12-year-old platform is still being produced because sales are still pretty profitable and that there are developers (even if they aren't as big as EA or other large publishers) still making games for it, even when the PS3 has been around for 6 years now.
 
sea said:
From what I've heard, the next Xbox will use a custom Radeon 7000 series GPU downscaled from the desktop version. Chances are the new consoles will be more than powerful enough to compete with current PCs, at least superficially (720p and 30 fps rather than 1080p and 60 fps), but of course that will change within a year or two as it always does.
Click to expand...

According to rumour the new Xbox will use an Amd 6670 which is a 60€ entry-level card.

On pc this card is by no means capable of "maxing" out current games. In fact you would have to turn down/off a lot of settings to achieve a stable 30FPS @ 1,920 x 1080.

Personally I don't think this rumour will prove true, using such slow hardware seems too strange to be true.

Nevertheless this rumour made me wonder whether console gamers would mind paying 100$ more for a console with significantly faster hardware.

Article about this rumour on Eurogamer:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-01-25-next-xbox-gpu-based-on-50-radeon-hd-6670-card-report

Specifications of 6670 card:

http://www.amd.com/us/products/desk...6670/pages/amd-radeon-hd-6670-overview.aspx#2

Tom's hardware review:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-6670-review/1
 
Meh, I still play more games on my PS2 than on my 360, this new gneration of consoles coming just means one thing for me: 360 games are gonna be cheaper to actually get to try most of them without feeling like I wasted 80- 100 dollars (console games are fucking expensive here)
 
Serge 13 said:
How is it going to affect the gaming industry and PC gaming? I mean The Xbox360 and the PS3 still have games that look quite good even for todays standards.
Click to expand...

I mean The Xbox360 and the PS3 still have games that look quite good even for todays standards.
Click to expand...

:rofl:


Yeah no. Games look incredibly shitty by the standards of what technology is actually capable of these days. Developers have to intentionally make them look shittier than they're capable of just so they can run on the several year old console technology.

You've just gotten used to it.
 
I mean The Xbox360 and the PS3 still have games that look quite good even for todays standards.
Click to expand...

The only reason for that is because there isn't all that much to compare to. I mean, 90% of PC games these days with full 3D graphics are console ports. Even Crysis 1 was generally more powerful than Crysis 2.
 
Well I really hope the new consoles will be equipped with a more capable GPU but also with much more RAM and considerably faster CPU's so games can actually improve in more areas than just graphical fidelity. I can't imagine that gamers will accept fighting a maximum of 3-4 braindead enemies at a time in small linear levels for another 6 years or more.

Sure some developers can do crazy things with the limited hardware of the current generation of consoles (R* with Red Dead Redemption for example) but most resort to using simple tricks like very small linear levels, mediocre AI, 30FPS cap, a very limited FOV, limited view distance, excessive use of bloom to cover up low-resolution textures and lack of anti-aliasing.
 
I think some developers are just more talented at using the available resources. Isn't Uncharted 2 a PS3 exclusive? Anyway look at every Metal Gear Solid game. Extremely sharp while giving the illusion you are playing a game a generation ahead of it's time. Thats always how I felt at least.
 
Serge 13 said:
So Uncharted 3's graphics for example are shitty and we've all gotten used to it?!
Click to expand...

[spoiler:ba0bc793c6]
Uncharted-3-beta-1.jpg
[/spoiler:ba0bc793c6]

Pretty much, yeah. Nowhere near what today's technology is capable of.
 
Looks like we are getting to the point where the available polygons on screen are basicly "do what you want", but more ram/power for better textures, shaders, effects, lighting, ect still could be utilized.
<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6bl5_PiKXSY?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6bl5_PiKXSY?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
 
Courier said:
Serge 13 said:
So Uncharted 3's graphics for example are shitty and we've all gotten used to it?!
Click to expand...

[spoiler:2aacc819f2]
Uncharted-3-beta-1.jpg
[/spoiler:2aacc819f2]

Pretty much, yeah. Nowhere near what today's technology is capable of.
Click to expand...

Screenshot taken from the multiplayer section of the game and zoomed in like that?
...

[spoiler:2aacc819f2]
955125_20091005_640screen001.jpg


615426_20111024_640screen023.jpg

[/spoiler:2aacc819f2]

...try harder.
 
I am pretty sick of Microsoft's bullshit, so I may go back to Sony after it's all said and done. I find myself struggling to find games to buy on the 360, but I see a lot that I would buy for PS3. I may just upgrade my PC instead. The new Nintendo console looks horrible, so I doubt I will buy that one. Lately I have been playing my PS2 a lot more, since they have so many great games out. I go to Gamestop sometimes just to browse, but I usually end up buying at least one PS2 game. They have tons of RPG's, but the 360 has only a handful. I have always been more of a PC gamer, but it is hard to keep a PC up to date.

Uncharted 3 looks amazing BTW. Yes a PC can look better, but the PS3 is far from looking shitty. Yes a high speed PC will always look better than the consoles, that is to be expected. The consoles use older tech to make it affordable. If they used the best tech available then it wouldn't be a console - It would be a PC.
 
sea said:
From what I've heard, the next Xbox will use a custom Radeon 7000 series GPU downscaled from the desktop version. Chances are the new consoles will be more than powerful enough to compete with current PCs, at least superficially (720p and 30 fps rather than 1080p and 60 fps), but of course that will change within a year or two as it always does.
Click to expand...
Yeah. For the next 3 or 4 months or so until new PC hardware arrives and then PC players have yet again to wait 3 or 4 years until new consoles arrive again before they can see visual improvements in games :roll:

Seriously though. Nothing against console players. Because they complain about it as well. If even developers start to agree with that the current consoles limit the capabilities of games then you know something is wrong. Though not that it would be like someone is forcing the people to make console games and then "port" them to the PC without ever taking care about the specifications of the PC. I would rather see no port then a stupid one. Saves them money and time. But it really is not speaking for all those companies when PC players have to come up with high-resolution packs and "mods" which change the visuals. Those kind of mods have become now almost as numerous like gameplay modifications.

Not that I care about graphics that much. But it is about using the hardware in other areas as well. Like finally getting away from that 32 player support and getting more MP games with 64 players and bigger maps. It is technically possible without issues (it was already years ago ...). But its not used really.
 
TorontRayne said:
Uncharted 3 looks amazing BTW.
Click to expand...

I think you're confusing artistry with graphical quality. If the screenshots Serge posted weren't the resolution of a cellphone screen, we'd start seeing low-res textures.

If they used the best tech available then it wouldn't be a console - It would be a PC.
Click to expand...

True, but at the same time many people seem to use consoles as a standard for game graphics. For marketing at least, anyway. And as a result, all we get (and will always get) on the PC are crappy console ports. This needs to stop.

Also, IIRC, back in the early PS2 days, a lot of its games looked comparable to PC quality, so asking that isn't at all unreasonable.
 
The biggest problem is not with making games look good, it's the sacrifices they need to make. Ridiculous big guns and stupid small FoV are getting more and more common in this era, as are problems like Rage's with pop-in graphics. That's all because they have to make sacrifices in usability just so they can get it up to a required graphical fidelity. That is a problem.

And Uncharted 3 looks good. Not amazing, but good.
 
Maybe if there will be more spare resources on board, the AI in games will be better ('cause it didn't really change past last 10 years)...



Meh, that's probably just a wishful thinking. They will just throw more eye candies in.
 
I was pretty impressed with Arkham City, Uncharted 3, and LA Noire (As far as graphics go). I do use "amazing" a lot though.

I agree that there is definitely a issue with sacrificing gameplay for graphics.

Ausdoerrt said:
I think you're confusing artistry with graphical quality. If the screenshots Serge posted weren't the resolution of a cellphone screen, we'd start seeing low-res textures.
Click to expand...

That may be the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top