[QUOTE="LOXO7"]Lots of people think that the only way gaming is going to change is with better err more advanced hardware. There is so much more that can be done with this gen and previous generations to gaming. Does creativity stop when a system reaches four years old? It's like people think the only way there is going to be new stuff is with new hardware. And this is wrong.ChubbyGuy40
What if someones vision is ultra-realistic detailed racing game that the user will enjoy at say, 4k2k resolution, and run at 120fps for 3D?
Kinda like what the creator of GT5 wanted to do. His standards wern't that high, but its clear from multiple articles GT5 is NOT what he wanted it to be. You can only push the hardware so far.
Different developers need different requirements for their games. Developers could go for Crysis or Killzone 3, or they can go for Super Meat Boy and Minecraft. Theres many different ways to make different genres of games. These advances don't come with old hardware. Hardware progresses and so does creativity due to being able to make more stuff. So no, your statement is completely wrong.
I beg to differ, but creativity was never limited by tech, but on the contrary, creativity comes from limitations, not better tech. Like the saying "necessity is the mother of invention", it is limited technology that forces a developer to be more creative as they can no longer rely on better technology to do the same thing again with better graphics. It is no coincidence that there was far more creativity in the gaming industry during the late 20th century than there is today, and this was primarily because of the limited tech developers had to work with in those days. In fact, entire new genres were created due to limited tech, like for example, space shooters like Space Invaders or stealth games like Metal Gear would not have existed if the developers had better tech to work with.
In today's gaming industry, I would argue that better tech limits creativity, if anything. It is no coincidence that most ofthe creative games around today are lower-budget titles that can only rely on creativity due to limited budgets, in contrast to higher-budget titles which simply rely on doing more of the same with better graphics rather than trying something different (which would be a risky move considering the high costs involved). If the tech is limited for the next several years, that can only be a good thing as far as creativity is concerned, as developers will be forced to use the current hardware more creatively instead of relying on better hardware to release the same types of games again with better graphics.
Ive been gaming longer than most of you here have been alive...I dont recall this whole..."consolizing" terms being thrown around before this gen?? What is it with people saying this?? The thing is consoles are more powerful and capeable then ever before....From online to hdds to DD and everything in between.I have to wonder...IF FPS were not on consoles as much as they are, would people be bashing them as much? Seems that since FPS have been running rampid on consoles fanboys have been throwing fits one after the other..SO should we just be about platforming? familygames??ect..Would this help settle you guys down a tad??VanDammFan
There has always been a console vs computer divide for various genres, like for example, console RPGs vs computer RPGs, arcade racing (console) vs sim racing (computer), action-oriented (console) vs strategy-oriented (computer), fast-paced (console) vs slow-paced (computer) etc.
Log in to comment