Consoles: holding back game design

No, you know what's holding back game design? The higher costs that this gen requires. Making better use of hardware isn't "trickery," it's just resourceful. The entire industry can't afford to be bleeding edge. Japan couldn't really afford this generation to begin with.

Us poor console and handheld gamers are doing just fine without the help of the glorious pc.

There's definitely a limit to what a controller can do that's for sure.

But Nintendo certainly made an impressive 3D platformer with the use of the Wii Remote.

It's not impossible to progress game design on the consoles, but I just can't see it happening unless the dualshock and the 360 controller are out of the picture.

Consoles are certainly not. An innovative developer can work around hardware constraints. skrat_01

LOL wut?

In terms of graphics and depth of gameplay what kind of work arounds are u talking about? Console hardware is 6 years old and was obsolete when it was released, right now low end laptops have better cpu and ram than consoles. You maybe thinking u do not want to pay for a new console but I think 6 years is long enough

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]Consoles are certainly not. An innovative developer can work around hardware constraints. NanoMan88

LOL wut?

In terms of graphics and depth of gameplay what kind of work arounds are u talking about? Console hardware is 6 years old and was obsolete when it was released, right now low end laptops have better cpu and ram than consoles. You maybe thinking u do not want to pay for a new console but I think 6 years is long enough

Even on PC, it seems big series seem to be sticking to there guns. Games such as Nidhogg, Minecraft, and Amensia are the ones being praised for their creative design - and besides Minecraft's massive size those games aren't exactly pushing any technical boundaries.

PC is my master.

No, you know what's holding back game design? The higher costs that this gen requires. Making better use of hardware isn't "trickery," it's just resourceful. The entire industry can't afford to be bleeding edge. Japan couldn't really afford this generation to begin with.

hakanakumono

You, sir, are correct. Making regular HD games is incredibly expensive. Most of the industry operated under the assumption that development costs for HD content would drop within three of four years, but that didn't happen. It's still as expensive as it was in 2005. You STILL need to sell somewhere around 1 million copies for your HD game to be profitable and that WAS NOT supposed to happen, at least not after all these years. Most developers thought that by 2009, development costs would have dropped enough for a game to be profitable with 300 k copies sold, which is what was required during the PS2/GCN/Xbox generation.

Kids, having to sell 1 million copies for an HD game to be profitable is NOT what the industry thought was going to happen. It is not even remotely close to being a good scenario for anyone. Developers are going bankrupt left and right and we have to settle with our yearly editions of Halo of the Call of FIFA: The Madden Edition because developers are less willing to do anything outside of the big franchises.

All of you "0Vercl0k3d i14 18 Gigs of RAM Geforce 180992334 DirectX 27 games NAO PLZ!!11" guys need to understand that, if the industry goes that way now or in the near future, you'll either end up with an industry that consists of exactly three developers and 12 franchises or having to pay 95 dollars for a video game. That's not good for anyone. We all lose.

The consumers need for over the top production values in their games leads to high costs and long dev cycles which lead to "safe" decisions which all in turn hold back game design.

You arent going to find too many devs willing to put out something radically different from a game design perspective that carries the budget of a big mass market game.

Blame gamers for holding back game design. We are getting what we ask for.

Sure, hardware can have an impact on new game ideas and designs. You couldn´t do Total War or Assassins Creed 15 years ago. But that´s not really the point here.

You would have a point of if weren´t for the fact that the PC devs that would actually take advantage of more powerful hardware are the same devs that have released the same games for the last 10 years.

Battlefield, Stalker, Total War, Civilization, Dawn of War and Crysis are fantastic franchises but they are also very milked franchises that could easily be compared to Gears, Halo and Cod.

These aren´t the games that push new ideas or designs. It´s games like Mount and Blade, Minecraft and Magicka that is driving PC gaming forward. Not Crysis 2 PC only with uber graphics and foliage.

Just admit that you are pissed that consoles are holding PC games back graphically and I will agree with you. That consoles are holding back new ideas and new game design is extremely false.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

No, you know what's holding back game design? The higher costs that this gen requires. Making better use of hardware isn't "trickery," it's just resourceful. The entire industry can't afford to be bleeding edge. Japan couldn't really afford this generation to begin with.

LordQuorthon

You, sir, are correct. Making regular HD games is incredibly expensive. Most of the industry operated under the assumption that development costs for HD content would drop within three of four years, but that didn't happen. It's still as expensive as it was in 2005. You STILL need to sell somewhere around 1 million copies for your HD game to be profitable and that WAS NOT supposed to happen, at least not after all these years. Most developers thought that by 2009, development costs would have dropped enough for a game to be profitable with 300 k copies sold, which is what was required during the PS2/GCN/Xbox generation.

Kids, having to sell 1 million copies for an HD game to be profitable is NOT what the industry thought was going to happen. It is not even remotely close to being a good scenario for anyone. Developers are going bankrupt left and right and we have to settle with our yearly editions of Halo of the Call of FIFA: The Madden Edition because developers are less willing to do anything outside of the big franchises.

All of you "0Vercl0k3d i14 18 Gigs of RAM Geforce 180992334 DirectX 27 games NAO PLZ!!11" guys need to understand that, if the industry goes that way now or in the near future, you'll either end up with an industry that consists of exactly three developers and 12 franchises or having to pay 95 dollars for a video game. That's not good for anyone. We all lose.

Indeed.Costs need to go down somehow.Otherwise,you could really say that graphical progress is pushing gaming forward...to it's early grave.

Sure, hardware can have an impact on new game ideas and designs. You couldn´t do Total War or Assassins Creed 15 years ago. But that´s not really the point here.

You would have a point of if weren´t for the fact that the PC devs that would actually take advantage of more powerful hardware are the same devs that have released the same games for the last 10 years.

Battlefield, Stalker, Total War, Civilization, Dawn of War and Crysis are fantastic franchises but they are also very milked franchises that could easily be compared to Gears, Halo and Cod.

These aren´t the games that push new ideas or designs. It´s games like Mount and Blade, Minecraft and Magicka that is driving PC gaming forward. Not Crysis 2 PC only with uber graphics and foliage.

Just admit that you are pissed that consoles are holding PC games back graphically and I will agree with you. That consoles are holding back new ideas and new game design is extremely false.

JLF1

Battlefield, Stalker, Total War, Civilization, Dawn of War and Crysis are fantastic franchises but they are also very milked franchises that could easily be compared to Gears, Halo and Cod.

JLF1

Console franchises are milked much faster.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and Crysis both launched in 2007 and now sit at three games each, with their fourth entries at least a year away. Call of Duty 4 was already the fourth in its series when it was released in 2007 but there have been four games during that same period with a fifth entry reportedly releasing later this year.

Publishers are rapidly moving towards yearly installments for their console-centric franchises wherever possible, even putting multiple developers on the series to ensure a steady stream of sequels and DLC. PC-centric franchises are the complete opposite with most taking 2-4 years between sequels; The Witcher, also a 2007 release, is finally seeing its second entry this year.

Why is COD a "console franchise"?It's also on PC,handhelds,phones and pretty much everywhere a game can be If they could play games,would have probably found it's way to refrigerators and washing machines.;)

Crappy AI is the main thing holding back game design.

And decent AI just needs good coding, not masses of RAM and processing power.

Consoles are certainly not. An innovative developer can work around hardware constraints. skrat_01

Yeah, by making the interactive environment smaller.

i find that graphics is holding back game design, they care so much about making game look good that they keep removing feature

Consoles holding back the PC thread number: 23561

mrmcygan

I'm playing Zelda TP again, a 2006 game, if this is how consoles are holding back game desgn, then i preffer to stay in the past.

I don't think is as much to do with the hardware as it is to do with the audience.

For the most part console gamers like simple short games with high presentation values. This type of game sells the best so developers will continue to produce them.

another redundant argument. consoles arent holding gaming back. its developers looking to dethrone Halo ( Killzone series Call of Duty series etc etc ) and make the next tomb raider ( Uncharted series is tomb raider with a new coat of paint....as if no one but cows knew ) and keep franchises that should have died last gen alive despite our protests, THATS WHATS KILLING GAMING and holding game design back.

look at Limbo and Team ICO's games. these are games that use art and production and creativity vs pushing a trillion polygons per second and they go un purchaced and unrecognized by gamers.

look at how well the Wii is doing. no one is complaining over there, there just making BILLIONS! Apparently Reggie Philes Aimes has NEVER even heard of a Blu Ray. Nintendo Wii laughs at 360 and PS3 because they figured it out.

games are about concepts and design and execution, not about Polly counts, MORE storage space , the race to fill a blu ray and 2 trillion shaders.

Gran Turismo 5 is the best looking racing game out there but bores you to tears when compaired to Mario Kart. how in christ did THAT happen?

the answer isnt Blu Ray or a new console when CLEARLY the Wii has proven that nobody cared about multi core processors on consoles. the fact that Angry birds ( an I phone Ap no less ) sold more copies than Uncharted 2 hasnt gone unnoticed by developers..trust me it hasnt.

but Sony and MS keep marching to the tune of this Graphics arms race that is going nowhere.( and by the way, hows that worked out Sony? )

at least MS finally ( sort of ) got with the program with kinect, but were way off from seeing anything significant on that peripheral.

dance dance revolution isnt my idea of groundbreaking, especially after the death of the music game genre with Guitar Hero going under.

in closing consoles arent holding gaming back, not DVD 9 or 360 or whatever.

its game developers stuck in More More More mode, instead of lets make something FUN, thats whats holding gaming back.

I vote derv for PC. Not only that, start developing games that utilize the latest tech then port the sub HD version thats striped down to what a console can handle and be done with it. There is no game in existence that even makes my computer wake up from its nap while im playing. I cant even utilize 20% of my hardware with todays software. Its pathetic how far ahead hardware is then software.djsifer01

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]Consoles are certainly not. An innovative developer can work around hardware constraints. NanoMan88

LOL wut?

In terms of graphics and depth of gameplay what kind of work arounds are u talking about? Console hardware is 6 years old and was obsolete when it was released, right now low end laptops have better cpu and ram than consoles. You maybe thinking u do not want to pay for a new console but I think 6 years is long enough

Scope does, please keep that in mind.

Scope does not equal depth, nor does it simply mean complexity - audience is the major factor in changing this.

Still with me?

You don't say console hardware is dated, does that mean innovation is hampered?

The most innovative games I have played can run on dated computer systems, let alone console hardware.

Yes hardware is a factor to the outcome of a game, however you would be as wrong as you could ever be thinking better hardware means game innovation by design.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]Consoles are certainly not. An innovative developer can work around hardware constraints. DeckardLee2010

Yeah, by making the interactive environment smaller.

So because consoles are the platforms of choice for game making, that means the PC is getting held back? Even when you do get a PC exclusive title made just for PC without consoles on mind, you still don't get anything drastically different then what you can see on a console. Crysis was just a really pretty shooter witha cool suit that offered absolutely nothing in the way of innovation and does nothing consoles can't do. Same for Amnesia, hell DCUO shows just how capable MMO's are on consoles when they once were considered PC only ventures, same for RTS games like RUSE, Halo Wars and Endwar.

Its nothing more then the fevered elitest fantasy to believe that games would be miles ahead if there were no consoles.

So because consoles are the platforms of choice for game making, that means the PC is getting held back? Even when you do get a PC exclusive title made just for PC without consoles on mind, you still don't get anything drastically different then what you can see on a console. Crysis was just a really pretty shooter witha cool suit that offered absolutely nothing in the way of innovation and does nothing consoles can't do. Same for Amnesia, hell DCUO shows just how capable MMO's are on consoles when they once were considered PC only ventures, same for RTS games like RUSE, Halo Wars and Endwar.

Its nothing more then the fevered elitest fantasy to believe that games would be miles ahead if there were no consoles.

SPYDER0416

To accept what you are saying I would need evidence that hardware capability has NOTHING to do with game design.

Crysis can't, literally can't, run on consoles. Why? The entire level loads at once, this requires a lot of RAM, and totally changes the gameplay because you can now interact with objects a mile away from you. Can't do that in Crysis 2 where only the immediate area is loaded. Why? RAM restrictions on console.

That is one example. Shall I provide more?

Why would we be "elistist" if we didn't have elite requirements for games? Or are you suggesting PC elitism is just a ruse, nothing but ego behind it?

IMO elitism = higher standards

It's sad aint it? We are stuck with these consoles for more then 5 years now. That means all the old engines that came out on the systems are still in use today.

Advancement in gaming is pretty much dead because of this. Reminds me of that car commercial where people are stuck in the past because they didn't want to progress.

Consoles dont hold back the PC at all. You still have games that are PC only that are developed with a minimum spec in mind with obviously added graphic features for the higher spec systems. That will never change, if they made a game that needs a minimum of an i7 920, 8GB Ram, ATI 5850 to run, how many people are going to be able to purchase it? Then there is also the Piracy issue on PC, while not as severe as made out on here, its still substantial.

It's sad aint it? We are stuck with these consoles for more then 5 years now. That means all the old engines that came out on the systems are still in use today.

Advancement in gaming is pretty much dead because of this. Reminds me of that car commercial where people are stuck in the past because they didn't want to progress.

Truth_Hurts_U

You are such an elitist. Honestly if you drive a car made later than 1999 you are an elitist. Technology doesn't affect car design.

:)

Why would we be "elistist" if we didn't have elite requirements for games? Or are you suggesting PC elitism is just a ruse, nothing but ego behind it?

haberman13

I'd say it's a form of masochism.

You are such an elitist. Honestly if you drive a car made later than 1999 you are an elitist. Technology doesn't affect car design.

:)

haberman13

Sure it does. That's why we have baby cars with AWD and ones that can do 90 MPG. Aerodynamics also change how we sculpt cars. Technology is what advances us. We would still be driving model T if not.

People that don't want new consoles remind me of the Amish.

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

You are such an elitist. Honestly if you drive a car made later than 1999 you are an elitist. Technology doesn't affect car design.

:)

Truth_Hurts_U

Sure it does. That's why we have baby cars with AWD and ones that can do 90 MPG. Aerodynamics also change how we sculpt cars. Technology is what advances us. We would still be driving model T if not.

People that don't want new consoles remind me of the Amish.

A Model-T can produce the same errr.. graphics... as an Enzo! (or so say the console arguments)

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

Perhaps having a stable platform for several years with clearly defined limits actually forces developers to innovate, rather than continuously feed us the same well-worn formulaic game designs disguised by an extra gloss of paint.

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

Some PC Gamers can be so sad sometimes. I play online games on PC. There can be many kids in the games, as much as you will find on consoles.

Devs choose to develop mainly on console so you start whining and talking about 'consolisation' and 'dumbing down' of games and try to convince people that you play on the 'best', most 'superior' platform, filling threads with screenshots of games and talking about how old hardware on consoles are.

You have this feeling of superiority because of the hardwareyou play GAMES on.

Yet still, consoles keep getting great games and console gamers are satisfied. How about you be satisfied with your games too instead of trying to blame all kinds on things on console gamers.

I'm not talking about all PC Gamers here. Just the annoying ones on SWs.

Hermits have been whining more than usual lately.

RawDeal_basic

Having one of the most technologically advanced and appreciated PC FPS to come out this gen, turned into a console game that scales the visuals higher, will do that.

Console gamers have little to complain about, they're the ones being accommodated in this relationship.

One would have to admit, such as in the case of a game like DA:O, that changes were made to accomodate consoles. The total filesize of DA:O on the PC is immense, and a lot more can be loaded in.

But to be fair, another thing holding back PC game development are the 32-bit machines with only 2 GB RAM. PC games would really shine if the industry moved to the 64-bit standard with 4 or 6 GB minimum.

But to be fair, another thing holding back PC game development are the 32-bit machines with only 2 GB RAM. PC games would really shine if the industry moved to the 64-bit standard with 4 or 6 GB minimum.

topsemag55

I'd have to question the value of being able to tap more memory on PC, when existing memory amounts aren't being taken advantage of. When a console is involved, ram usage on PC is restricted to what works on consoles + stuff pre-loaded into memory in advance for later use. A single instance of game play is designed for 256mb of ram, that would remain the case if the high memory install base on PC was bigger; so long as consoles remained involved.

Confused. There is a console market. Developers develop games for this market. Not much else to say. If PC developers do feel that they are held back, then the wise decision on their part would be to jump into the console market. Problem solved.TheMoreYouOwn

So because consoles are the platforms of choice for game making, that means the PC is getting held back? Even when you do get a PC exclusive title made just for PC without consoles on mind, you still don't get anything drastically different then what you can see on a console. Crysis was just a really pretty shooter witha cool suit that offered absolutely nothing in the way of innovation and does nothing consoles can't do. Same for Amnesia, hell DCUO shows just how capable MMO's are on consoles when they once were considered PC only ventures, same for RTS games like RUSE, Halo Wars and Endwar.

Its nothing more then the fevered elitest fantasy to believe that games would be miles ahead if there were no consoles.

SPYDER0416

You simply will not find games such as STALKER and ArmA 2 to Dwarf Fortress, Minecraft, Combat Mission and Total War on a console, or IL2 1946.

The current console market doesn't allow it, simple as that.

Which is not to say there isn't innovation on consoles, and nor is this merely a 'hardware barrier' - it has to do more with developers and audience on their respective platforms.

On that note Crysis was an innnovative game. Point out five sandbox shooters that actually allowed to you change your gameplay style on the fly and formulate plans over such a scope? Let alone allow that level of interactivity?

There isn't one, and by all means this is capable on a console with adjustments, and hopefully Crysis 2 will realise that. Will it be different to the first in that scope and innovative edge? We will have to see.

More console games than ever are now on the PC, triple A games in general are more often than not multiplat titles, yet the PC still maintains itself as a dense creative platform without the blocks, costs and restrictions imposed by console development, which is why there are such rich titles emerging (Triple A, Indie, Mod, Experimental, Flash).

Innovation can be found on any platform, difference is the PC is at no limits to the creator, or distribution of the creation.

Otherwise of course there are stronger genres on the PC. Strategy games can work on consoles; difference is they are specifically designed, and there simply isn't much of an audience for them, though there are some small bridges closing the gap. Same can be said for action adventure title on the PC, you simply aren't going to play Enslaved on a computer, even if there is Arkham Asylum.