This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

"Consoles are holding gaming back".

#41ThePylonPosted 3/27/2014 8:06:27 AM
KJay489 posted...
I wouldn't necessarily it's holding gaming back...just graphical advancements. A game will still play the same among all consoles, just better looking on PC.


Is it just the graphics though? At cpu clock speeds the new consoles run at they could probably not even handle a 50 dwarf fortress. It is not just the graphics that suffer.
---
I play too many different games to even care.
#42JKatarnPosted 3/27/2014 8:10:51 AM
DiviDude posted...
Dawnshadow posted...
Better graphics=higher development costs=less creativity, more bland games that play to the lowest common denominator so companies don't go bankrupt.

So, in a way, consoles are helping gaming by holding graphics back. Gameplay, fortunately, is far less hardware-intensive.


I think there's actually some truth to this. Games like Deus Ex and System Shock 2 looked hell hell even for their time, but that's because so many resources went into having a more flexible and reactive game world that could be interacted with in all sorts of ways. Higher fidelity graphics almost requires more static (lifeless, if you'd like) game design because it would simply be too much to have both.

That being said, Deus Ex and System Shock 2 are both old and best played on PC so I'm not sure consoles are really doing anything to promote more breathable game design.


Deus-Ex may not have aged very well, but at the time of release (2000) it was a pretty nice looking game. It ran on the Unreal engine, a game that had just been release two years prior, and had fairly detailed (for the time) models and environments.
---
Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 Windforce OC
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NES
#43AlleRacingPosted 3/27/2014 8:20:23 AM
Dawnshadow posted...
Better graphics=higher development costs


Except there is no causation here. Better graphics are not necessarily more expensive.
---
http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/8325/scrunchface2copyfx0.png
http://www.xboxlc.com/cards/default/alle5.jpg
#44SohogojoPosted 3/27/2014 8:42:02 AM(edited)
of course when you consider this from a development standpoint, pcs are frequently custom rigs with choice components inside and unique in that respect. so, as a developer you either have to take the most common denominator to reach the widest base, the highest available specs and force people to adapt theirs to match, or the lowest end which sort of defeats the purpose of developing with the most advanced tech in mind and so you have to limit things just like on an older console. consoles give you uniformity, but pcs give you customization and user-made content (which I love), and neither holds gaming back. But gaming is still about playing games and the idea of anything that brings us more games being bad is just laughable. if anything holds gaming back it is the cost of investment for experimentation in a new ip, and consumers who limit their purchases to singular genres and franchises. Some games may cater more toward the casual user and others to the hardcore, and should I ever grow tired of what is on the market, I can not only keep my money, but play any of my current game collection.
---
"The greater the mind, the greater the need for the simplicity of play." - Captain James Tiberius Kirk
#45LEGEND_725Posted 3/27/2014 8:26:38 AM
Lol..? Console gaming is the vast majority of where the money is at. Without it PC gaming would nearly die (why don't you think more games are produced on PC only or PC as lead platform?)
---
Lift. Game. Academics. Party. = LIFE. Best mod dispute ever? http://i.imgur.com/db7oluz.jpg. Official dudebro of any forum... I lift more than you
#46Dalton Of ZealPosted 3/27/2014 8:39:01 AM
justchill433 posted...
Consoles only hold graphical advancements back. I still find some super nintendo games better than current gen games.
#47SilentHawk29Posted 3/27/2014 8:40:54 AM
Consoles aren't holding gaming back, they made gaming flourish. But they do hold back critical aspects of games.

As others have said, it's not just graphics that are being held back, but AI complexity/programming, and control.

The CPUs in consoles just can't handle rigorous tasks of a lot of AIs completing difficult tasks on top of everything else the CPU has to accomplish. This means that there are less enemies than there could be if this wasn't a bottleneck, and those enemies could have been a lot more intelligent.

Then there's control schemes. How many games do we have to have where there are multiple commands mapped to one button or key? What about games with auto-aim that can't be disabled?
---
PSN - Srikar || Steam - SilentHawk29
My car: http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/8583/86coupe.jpg
#48EvilCactusPosted 3/27/2014 8:42:44 AM
Dawnshadow posted...
Better graphics=higher development costs=less creativity, more bland games that play to the lowest common denominator so companies don't go bankrupt.

So, in a way, consoles are helping gaming by holding graphics back. Gameplay, fortunately, is far less hardware-intensive.


That's not true. Consoles are doing far more damage to creativity than they ever have. Big budget games for consoles need to appeal to a wide audience in order to keep shareholders happy, so they're focus group tested and designed by committees who merely go down a checklist. Look at all the "critically praised" console games of the past few years. Military shooters, QTE games, and a gameplay-deficient ripoff of a bad Walking Dead episode.

It's no wonder that studios with actual creativity and talent (Obsidian, Double Fine, Paradox, Firaxis, Triumph, CD Projeckt RED, etc) prefer to put their best works on PC only.
---
sig here
#49KabtheMentatPosted 3/27/2014 8:45:17 AM
EvilCactus posted...
Dawnshadow posted...
Better graphics=higher development costs=less creativity, more bland games that play to the lowest common denominator so companies don't go bankrupt.

So, in a way, consoles are helping gaming by holding graphics back. Gameplay, fortunately, is far less hardware-intensive.


That's not true. Consoles are doing far more damage to creativity than they ever have. Big budget games for consoles need to appeal to a wide audience in order to keep shareholders happy, so they're focus group tested and designed by committees who merely go down a checklist. Look at all the "critically praised" console games of the past few years. Military shooters, QTE games, and a gameplay-deficient ripoff of a bad Walking Dead episode.

It's no wonder that studios with actual creativity and talent (Obsidian, Double Fine, Paradox, Firaxis, Triumph, CD Projeckt RED, etc) prefer to put their best works on PC only.


Must've forgot that like half of those developers make console games.
---
Yeeaah...Somebody must've killed Darryl. Cuz that's what the guy had said.
#50ClouddxPosted 3/27/2014 8:46:14 AM
LEGEND_725 posted...
Lol..? Console gaming is the vast majority of where the money is at. Without it PC gaming would nearly die (why don't you think more games are produced on PC only or PC as lead platform?)


Without console gaming PC gaming would be the only choice for development, therefore killing console gaming and making PC the only place to go to play games. How would that exactly make PC gaming nearly die?
---
i7-920 @ 3.6 // 770 GTX // 12 GB G.Skill Sniper Ram // PS3 // 360
FiiO e9+17 // AD700 + M50 // Deck Legend + 82 // DAS Ultimate S