Consoles: holding back game design

removed, sick of getting banned

Holding back design:Imagine a world where the last console was SNES, all games need to be developed to run using a 100mhz processor and 1 MB of RAM. Instead of creating new advancement in immersion they are limited to trickery in code to provide a "wow factor" (Think DoF and skybox vs AA and distance rendering) In the end you get homogenized games because the system capability has peaked.

Guess what? This gen is now 6 years old, meaning that exact scenario is now happening. Games design has peaked, only trickery can be used to "innovate", and games are now the "same" because there is no juice left for true innovation.

Enter the PC, not limited by resources, but games are still the same as they were 6 years ago. Why? Consoles and multiplatform development.

Solution:

1. Develop for PC, port to console (see BF3) - problem: console rage about gimped features
2. New-gen of consoles - problem: console rage about losing their previous library, potentially expensive consoles

There are probably more solutions, but this is what I'm thinking are the two likely outcomes. Do you have a preference? Ready to drop this gen and rebuild your library? Or would you rather see two version of a game, the "full" version for PC and a console version with limited features?

Homogenizing: increased development cost combined with shareholder based decision making is creating a legion of the "same" games with different a skin and little variation. CoD/Halo/Gears/Killzone/Uncharted - that is consoles gaming lineup in a nutshell

haberman13

However I agree consoles just feel outdated now, PS3 might be able to hold on a bit longer but even that is clearly limited by RAM. This "HD" generation is not even 1080p standard...

There is another solution, give up graphics for gameplay. For example in BF3 because you mentioned it, I would take worse graphics for better framerate, more players (though they didn't say this was because of graphics but it would cause some problems still), etc. However these blockbuster AAA titles are expected to have the best graphics so it probably won't happen.

Consoles holding back the PC thread number: 23561

i know the console kids like to think this is fake, but cmon just look at Crysis2 level design and TES5's engine...

Consoles literally are holding us back at a technicale/engine stand point.

Jankarcop

No.Its just developers are holding back. Xenoblade is a massive open world with explorations and town and that game is on the Wii.

No.Its just developers are holding back. Xenoblade is a massive open world with explorations and town and that game is on the Wii.

console kidsJankarcop

[QUOTE="Jankarcop"]console kidslowe0

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="Jankarcop"]console kidsSamiRDuran

Galaxy was very linear compared to Sunshine and 64.SAGE_OF_FIRE

a world without consoles sounds pretty abysmal. if all I had was the PC I will honestly say with 100% certainty that I would not be a gamer. I would probably be an otaku, a cinema snob, or a comic book nerd.

it really gets me is when PC snobs try to brush aside

- all the castlevanias, bionic commando, metroid, all the ninja gaidens, battle toads, all the contras, all the marios, all the zeldas of the late 80s

- all street fighter games, super metroid, F-zero, all the super star wars games, all the sonics, all the marios, all the zeldas, chrono trigger, all the final fantasies and all the contras of the early 90s

- all the spyros, all the crash bandicoots, super mario 64, banjoe kazooie, all the twisted metals, CTR racing, Mario cart 64, super smash bros, orcorina of time, and all the final fantasies of the late 90s

- all the metal gears, all the splinter cells, all the ratchet and clanks, all the jack and daxters, all the sly coopers, smash bros mele, all the god of wars, zelda twilight princess, metroid prime, fable, and all the final fantasies of the last gen

- all the uncharted games, crackdown, all the killzone games, all the resistance games, no more heroes, all the ratchet and clank games, god of war 3, fable 2, smash bros brawl, MGS 4, infamous, Alan wake, of this gen

and you tell us that we dont know quality games. you tell us that the consoles havent produced anything compared to the PC. you tell us that consoles have held gaming back. you guys are out of your minds. what I listed here is not even scratching the surface of what consoles have done for gaming. this isnt even softly brushing it with a feather. thats not even taking into consideration the tens of thousands of other console (and handheld) games that are still just as fun today as they were 10-25 years ago.

the vast majority of innovations in gaming, probably well over 99% have not been from the PC. and I know you will deny that. You will never accept it, but its the truth. live with it. get over your elitist nonsense.

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"]Galaxy was very linear compared to Sunshine and 64.IronBass

[QUOTE="IronBass"]There have been more than enough examples in the history of gaming that a great developer will achieve great game design despite hardware limitations. Two of the best games this gen (Mario Galaxy 1 and 2) are created with what's practically GameCube hardware. What matters is that great games are made, not technological groundbreaking ones. Are great games being made? Yes. Plenty of them. Therefore I'm happy.SAGE_OF_FIRE

So was every other Super Mario games before Mario 64,

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"][QUOTE="IronBass"]There have been more than enough examples in the history of gaming that a great developer will achieve great game design despite hardware limitations. Two of the best games this gen (Mario Galaxy 1 and 2) are created with what's practically GameCube hardware. What matters is that great games are made, not technological groundbreaking ones. Are great games being made? Yes. Plenty of them. Therefore I'm happy.ZombeGoast

So was every other Super Mario games before Mario 64,

Galaxy in my opinion (and in most peoples opinion) is inferior to 64, it's debatable when it comes to Sunshine (depends if you liked the whole water system). SAGE_OF_FIRE

In the theoretical sense, yes. In reality? PCs are allowing consoles to hold them back. If piracy wasn't such a rampant issue on the PC (not saying it isn't on other platforms as well, just worse on the PC), developers wouldn't have to go multiplat or avoid the PC altogether just recoup costs and make sure that they turn a profit. Rockstar Games, for example, are one big publisher / developer that since the release of a big game on PC (GTAIV) and seeing how badly it was pirated have already made certain that subsequent releases (RDR, L.A. Noire) are on consoles ONLY.

Don't blame consoles alone for this. The PC screwed the PC.

Look at the amazing indie games coming out that are innovative. A new gen would really only serve for graphical & cinematic improvements for most games, & games that are focused on pushing a game technically in areas such as that aren't really the games you find innovation in. Game design doesn't need more power, it needs better designers.

gamers are holding back design because devs know we cant handel change so they wont take risks

In the theoretical sense, yes. In reality? PCs are allowing consoles to hold them back. If piracy wasn't such a rampant issue on the PC (not saying it isn't on other platforms as well, just worse on the PC), developers wouldn't have to go multiplat or avoid the PC altogether just recoup costs and make sure that they turn a profit. Rockstar Games, for example, are one big publisher / developer that since the release of a big game on PC (GTAIV) and seeing how badly it was pirated have already made certain that subsequent releases (RDR, L.A. Noire) are on consoles ONLY.

Don't blame consoles alone for this. The PC screwed the PC.

Ryan_Som

This would be true except very successful PC devs do the same thing whenever they want more money and go multiplatform. Look at crytek for example anything that couldn't be done on the console version of crysis 2 was cut from all the versions... and crysis did extremely well sales wise.. it got something like 3million copies sold (on a 22 million budget and alot were DD... do the math here) and warhead was 1.5 million +.

Here's the deal, good sales or not, they will go to consoles for more money, PC gamers have no control over this. You give them good sales, they spread to consoles development for more $$$$, you give them bad sales.. they blame piracy and go the console development and possibly abandon PC in the process.

seriously. great games are constantly released on all platforms. stop cryings.

Yawn same ol garbage argument.

I feel bad for you habberman always looking at games and critisizing it because it's not the way you want it, instead of taking the experience as it is. The games industry isn't burger king, they don't make it your way.

Yawn same ol garbage argument.

I feel bad for you habberman always looking at games and critisizing it because it's not the way you want it, instead of taking the experience as it is. The games industry isn't burger king, they don't make it your way.

deangallop

But ... I see console games as the "burger king" of gaming. Ergo, I eat at a fine restaurant usually, recently though BK broiler showed up at my Ruth's Chris, which prompted this analysis.

Fact is: consoles limit potential, and so do PCs as they aren't infinite in resource either, but had devs produced for the PC and then ported to console game design wouldn't be 6 years on the backburner as CoD XxX is released to "winning sales".

The tide is turning, and BF3 was the first sign of it. What is that tide? Devs waking up to the limitation and negative effects consoles have on game design (seriously, read some Crytek quotes about consoles and their limitations.) Devs are usually PC 'hermits', so I'm sure it breaks their hearts to essentially create web-based games in comparison to the power of PC.

Imagine CoD deved for a PC, its already semi-MMO as is, with PC memory/CPU they could do a huge open world persistent battlefield ala Planetside; except with full destruction and crazily realistic cities.

I agree, but there are a lot of good console games out there.

Can't say I really care if they are.soulitane

Isn't that near sighted? Or are you suggesting that you are happy with this generation for eternity?

If consoles are holding back games, why not get into developing and attack this so called problem for real? I see no problem here and I would wager neither do devs.cainetao11

[QUOTE="deangallop"]

Yawn same ol garbage argument.

I feel bad for you habberman always looking at games and critisizing it because it's not the way you want it, instead of taking the experience as it is. The games industry isn't burger king, they don't make it your way.

haberman13

But ... I see console games as the "burger king" of gaming. Ergo, I eat at a fine restaurant usually, recently though BK broiler showed up at my Ruth's Chris, which prompted this analysis.

Fact is: consoles limit potential, and so do PCs as they aren't infinite in resource either, but had devs produced for the PC and then ported to console game design wouldn't be 6 years on the backburner as CoD XxX is released to "winning sales".

The tide is turning, and BF3 was the first sign of it. What is that tide? Devs waking up to the limitation and negative effects consoles have on game design (seriously, read some Crytek quotes about consoles and their limitations.) Devs are usually PC 'hermits', so I'm sure it breaks their hearts to essentially create web-based games in comparison to the power of PC.

BF3 is the exception to the rule, the only reason they are making BF3 the way it is is because they don't want to hear the outrage from PC gamers like yourself , so they throw the dog a bone and give 64 player support, big whoop.

It's just smart buisness, it's the same reason Valve gives their L4D packs for free on the PC, The money isn't worth the stink Pc gamer will make if they charge for it, plus the makority would probably pirate it anyway.

The tides arn't changing companies will continue to support the people who pay the bills ( console gamers), while smart companies like DICE and Valve will avoid mutiny by throwing the dog a bone every once and a while.

[QUOTE="cainetao11"]If consoles are holding back games, why not get into developing and attack this so called problem for real? I see no problem here and I would wager neither do devs.-Unreal-

It also takes a lot of financial backing. Hence my now deleted paragraph was right: investors are scared to invest in "innovation" when CoD keeps breaking records.

It's like WoW now limiting MMO design because investors see it as the only "viable" design.

[QUOTE="soulitane"]Can't say I really care if they are.haberman13

Isn't that near sighted? Or are you suggesting that you are happy with this generation for eternity?

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

[QUOTE="deangallop"]

Yawn same ol garbage argument.

I feel bad for you habberman always looking at games and critisizing it because it's not the way you want it, instead of taking the experience as it is. The games industry isn't burger king, they don't make it your way.

deangallop

But ... I see console games as the "burger king" of gaming. Ergo, I eat at a fine restaurant usually, recently though BK broiler showed up at my Ruth's Chris, which prompted this analysis.

Fact is: consoles limit potential, and so do PCs as they aren't infinite in resource either, but had devs produced for the PC and then ported to console game design wouldn't be 6 years on the backburner as CoD XxX is released to "winning sales".

The tide is turning, and BF3 was the first sign of it. What is that tide? Devs waking up to the limitation and negative effects consoles have on game design (seriously, read some Crytek quotes about consoles and their limitations.) Devs are usually PC 'hermits', so I'm sure it breaks their hearts to essentially create web-based games in comparison to the power of PC.

BF3 is the exception to the rule, the only reason they are making BF3 the way it is is because they don't want to hear the outrage from PC gamers like yourself , so they throw the dog a bone and give 64 player support, big whoop.

It's just smart buisness, it's the same reason Valve gives their L4D packs for free on the PC, The money isn't worth the stink Pc gamer will make if they charge for it, plus the makority would probably pirate it anyway.

The tides arn't changing companies will continue to support the people who pay the bills ( console gamers), while smart companies like DICE and Valve will avoid mutiny by throwing the dog a bone every once and a while.

You are missing my point, BF3 is the spearhead (as in first) of this new tide. When it sells like crazy on PC (which is will) and on console (which it will) a new precedent will have been set.

Why now? Because consoles are calculators compared to my PC, that wasn't the case 4 years ago. (or even 2 years ago)

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"]Galaxy was very linear compared to Sunshine and 64.IronBass

64 is the best and we shall leave it at that :P.

Yes consoles hold back PC a bit. But hey all systems have great games, so come next gen we will see more power for everyone :P.

removed, sick of getting banned

Holding back design:Imagine a world where the last console was SNES, all games need to be developed to run using a 100mhz processor and 1 MB of RAM. Instead of creating new advancement in immersion they are limited to trickery in code to provide a "wow factor" (Think DoF and skybox vs AA and distance rendering) In the end you get homogenized games because the system capability has peaked.

Guess what? This gen is now 6 years old, meaning that exact scenario is now happening. Games design has peaked, only trickery can be used to "innovate", and games are now the "same" because there is no juice left for true innovation.

Enter the PC, not limited by resources, but games are still the same as they were 6 years ago. Why? Consoles and multiplatform development.

Solution:

1. Develop for PC, port to console (see BF3) - problem: console rage about gimped features
2. New-gen of consoles - problem: console rage about losing their previous library, potentially expensive consoles

There are probably more solutions, but this is what I'm thinking are the two likely outcomes. Do you have a preference? Ready to drop this gen and rebuild your library? Or would you rather see two version of a game, the "full" version for PC and a console version with limited features?

haberman13

Your pretend to be developer debate skills are excellent.

Your pretend to be developer debate skills are excellent.

HAZE-Unit

Actually, I am a developer, just not a game dev. * boring C# business code *

I tinker around with OGRE a bit, just for fun, so I at least know whats up with DX coding and in game scripting.

That said, what I said is correct isn't it? Older hardware limiting potential and all that jazz.

[QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"]

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

removed, sick of getting banned

Holding back design:Imagine a world where the last console was SNES, all games need to be developed to run using a 100mhz processor and 1 MB of RAM. Instead of creating new advancement in immersion they are limited to trickery in code to provide a "wow factor" (Think DoF and skybox vs AA and distance rendering) In the end you get homogenized games because the system capability has peaked.

Guess what? This gen is now 6 years old, meaning that exact scenario is now happening. Games design has peaked, only trickery can be used to "innovate", and games are now the "same" because there is no juice left for true innovation.

Enter the PC, not limited by resources, but games are still the same as they were 6 years ago. Why? Consoles and multiplatform development.

Solution:

1. Develop for PC, port to console (see BF3) - problem: console rage about gimped features
2. New-gen of consoles - problem: console rage about losing their previous library, potentially expensive consoles

There are probably more solutions, but this is what I'm thinking are the two likely outcomes. Do you have a preference? Ready to drop this gen and rebuild your library? Or would you rather see two version of a game, the "full" version for PC and a console version with limited features?

haberman13

Your pretend to be developer debate skills are excellent.

Actually, I am a developer, just not a game dev. * boring C# business code *

I tinker around with OGRE a bit, just for fun, so I at least know whats up with DX coding and in game scripting.

That said, what I said is correct isn't it? Older hardware limiting potential and all that jazz.

first of all, your thread title is "consoles : holding back game design" thats why I wrote what I wrote because it takes a real game developer to comment on this stuff to prove this point.

Second, your thread approach is more of a philosophical approach rather than anything else, there is no proof of your claims whatsoever since the contrary is happening right now, developers are working each and every year on delivering incredible experiences,how do you say such a thing when there are over 20 must have games this year alone?

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

[QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"]

Your pretend to be developer debate skills are excellent.

HAZE-Unit

Actually, I am a developer, just not a game dev. * boring C# business code *

I tinker around with OGRE a bit, just for fun, so I at least know whats up with DX coding and in game scripting.

That said, what I said is correct isn't it? Older hardware limiting potential and all that jazz.

first of all, your thread title is "consoles : holding back game design" thats why I wrote what I wrote because it takes a real game developer to comment on this stuff to prove this point.

Second, your thread approach is more of a philosophical approach rather than anything else, there is no proof of your claims whatsoever since the contrary is happening right now, developers are working each and every year on delivering incredible experiences,how do you say such a thing when there are over 20 must have games this year alone?

I disagree, it doesn't take a game dev to prove this point.

Think PC graphics cards, new ones come out every year. Why? Because the hardware capabilities are constantly improving, more memory/faster CPU/more efficient versions of DX. Consoles are static, you can't increase their physical capabilities; hence, games developed for console have limitations that a PC won't have. Much like the original NES, where memory restrictions dramatically altered game design, console games are similarly conservatively developed with memory restrictions in mind.

A recent example is the new Crysis game, while still a great game, the design has changed from a huge open world to a more linear and streamed experience ala corridor shooters. Even top-end PCs at the time of Crysis 1 couldn't max the game, but that was OK (well, there was rage) because in the end Crytek developed their vision in full.

Your second paragraph is an argument I am not addressing, consoles certainly have great games coming out, obviously you love them right?

[QUOTE="deangallop"]

Yawn same ol garbage argument.

I feel bad for you habberman always looking at games and critisizing it because it's not the way you want it, instead of taking the experience as it is. The games industry isn't burger king, they don't make it your way.

haberman13

But ... I see console games as the "burger king" of gaming. Ergo, I eat at a fine restaurant usually, recently though BK broiler showed up at my Ruth's Chris, which prompted this analysis.

Fact is: consoles limit potential, and so do PCs as they aren't infinite in resource either, but had devs produced for the PC and then ported to console game design wouldn't be 6 years on the backburner as CoD XxX is released to "winning sales".

The tide is turning, and BF3 was the first sign of it. What is that tide? Devs waking up to the limitation and negative effects consoles have on game design (seriously, read some Crytek quotes about consoles and their limitations.) Devs are usually PC 'hermits', so I'm sure it breaks their hearts to essentially create web-based games in comparison to the power of PC.

Imagine CoD deved for a PC, its already semi-MMO as is, with PC memory/CPU they could do a huge open world persistent battlefield ala Planetside; except with full destruction and crazily realistic cities.

Haha I'm sorry but every time you say ergo I'm reminded of this.

[QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"]

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

Actually, I am a developer, just not a game dev. * boring C# business code *

I tinker around with OGRE a bit, just for fun, so I at least know whats up with DX coding and in game scripting.

That said, what I said is correct isn't it? Older hardware limiting potential and all that jazz.

haberman13

first of all, your thread title is "consoles : holding back game design" thats why I wrote what I wrote because it takes a real game developer to comment on this stuff to prove this point.

Second, your thread approach is more of a philosophical approach rather than anything else, there is no proof of your claims whatsoever since the contrary is happening right now, developers are working each and every year on delivering incredible experiences,how do you say such a thing when there are over 20 must have games this year alone?

I disagree, it doesn't take a game dev to prove this point.

Think PC graphics cards, new ones come out every year. Why? Because the hardware capabilities are constantly improving, more memory/faster CPU/more efficient versions of DX. Consoles are static, you can't increase their physical capabilities; hence, games developed for console have limitations that a PC won't have. Much like the original NES, where memory restrictions dramatically altered game design, console games are similarly conservatively developed with memory restrictions in mind.

A recent example is the new Crysis game, while still a great game, the design has changed from a huge open world to a more linear and streamed experience ala corridor shooters. Even top-end PCs at the time of Crysis 1 couldn't max the game, but that was OK (well, there was rage) because in the end Crytek developed their vision in full.

Your second paragraph is an argument I am not addressing, consoles certainly have great games coming out, obviously you love them right?

you know what, think about the Wii for a sec or how about the iPhone and all of the different platforms of gaming like steam, xbl or psn?

gaming is not always about the new hardware or a good gpu or cpu.

its not only about GRAPHIX AND TEXTURES :?