That would work, but that's not the way things are done on consoles.

This is highly subjective but basically, I was disappointed by how low spec both new consoles are and I am disappointed that 60 FPS doesn't appear to be becoming a given in next-gen gaming. Better hardware wouldn't automatically mean 60 FPS would or objectively should but that's what I would have liked.

Quboid wrote on May 16, 2014, 09:16:
My computer can do 1920x1200 at an average of 80 FPS, because I sacrifice other things to reach that target. If I was to do console gaming, this would be a high priority for me so it's disappointing that I'm out of luck.

Ok, so you're complaining about not being able to change settings to have the game run the way that works best for you (and someone can do it how best works for them), gotcha. That makes a lot more sense.

Beamer wrote on May 15, 2014, 22:21:

Quboid wrote on May 15, 2014, 21:49:

Beamer wrote on May 15, 2014, 12:41:
I just don't know what more power can feasibly give us.

Consistently high framerates at 1080p and higher.

They should also do green and hamburger consistently.

These sentences are as useful, because so many things factor into resolution and frame rate that having expectations around them always strikes me as dumb. Your computer can't run everything 1080p/60hz. And, in order for it to, other things would have to be sacrificed.

If the new generation of consoles were as powerful relative to PCs as the previous generation were back in the day, the games coming out now could be higher resolution and/or framerate for the same graphical fidelity. I absolutely agree with you about diminishing returns but this the answer. You don't need to spend more on art to improve the graphics and the experience, the same textures and animation will look better.

My computer can do 1920x1200 at an average of 80 FPS, because I sacrifice other things to reach that target. If I was to do console gaming, this would be a high priority for me so it's disappointing that I'm out of luck.

harlock wrote on May 15, 2014, 23:44:

Beamer wrote on May 15, 2014, 22:21:

Quboid wrote on May 15, 2014, 21:49:

Beamer wrote on May 15, 2014, 12:41:
I just don't know what more power can feasibly give us.

Consistently high framerates at 1080p and higher.

They should also do green and hamburger consistently.

These sentences are as useful, because so many things factor into resolution and frame rate that having expectations around them always strikes me as dumb. Your computer can't run everything 1080p/60hz. And, in order for it to, other things would have to be sacrificed.

wow thats fucking brilliant... you must be a scientist!

Yes, you're acting as if I'm the one oversimplifying "it isn't next-gen unless it's 1080p and 60fps!" As if there are no other improvements that may be prioritized.

Beamer wrote on May 15, 2014, 22:21:

Quboid wrote on May 15, 2014, 21:49:

Beamer wrote on May 15, 2014, 12:41:
I just don't know what more power can feasibly give us.

Consistently high framerates at 1080p and higher.

They should also do green and hamburger consistently.

These sentences are as useful, because so many things factor into resolution and frame rate that having expectations around them always strikes me as dumb. Your computer can't run everything 1080p/60hz. And, in order for it to, other things would have to be sacrificed.

wow thats fucking brilliant... you must be a scientist!

Quboid wrote on May 15, 2014, 21:49:

Beamer wrote on May 15, 2014, 12:41:
I just don't know what more power can feasibly give us.

Consistently high framerates at 1080p and higher.

They should also do green and hamburger consistently.

These sentences are as useful, because so many things factor into resolution and frame rate that having expectations around them always strikes me as dumb. Your computer can't run everything 1080p/60hz. And, in order for it to, other things would have to be sacrificed.

Beamer wrote on May 15, 2014, 12:41:
I just don't know what more power can feasibly give us.

Consistently high framerates at 1080p and higher.

jdreyer wrote on May 15, 2014, 13:33:

Cutter wrote on May 15, 2014, 08:53:
I'm more concerned about the gameplay for Teh Division then the gfx. I'm super jacked on that title and afraid my hopes will be crushed.

You... you HAVE hopes?

<boggle>

Cutter wrote on May 15, 2014, 08:53:
I'm more concerned about the gameplay for Teh Division then the gfx. I'm super jacked on that title and afraid my hopes will be crushed.

You... you HAVE hopes?

Speaking of The Division, it's been delayed until next year

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on May 14, 2014, 21:31:

saluk wrote on May 14, 2014, 19:44:
Yay can we move on to the next overhyped excessively developed game now? Anyone have any guesses on what it will be or where it will come from?

Without question, it will be: The Division.

Oh, hell no. There's been little news about the Division at all, a few trailers and that's it.

You want to talk hype, you look at Destiny. $500 million, my ass.

Beamer wrote on May 14, 2014, 19:45:

Simon Says wrote on May 14, 2014, 19:44:
"A next-gen experience" @ less than 1080p and 30 fps. XD

Yeah... right!

Because resolution and frame rate are the only defining qualities, or even most important defining qualities, of "next generation?"

Well... If you upgrade your PC for 500 bucks, and after the upgrade it still runs the same framerate and same resolution as it did before, and it doesn't look massively better, would you be happy?

I know, it's early in the dev cycle, and they'll learn to optimize, etc etc etc, but on the flipside, both these 'consoles' are essentialy just PCs. So it's not as if the devs have to learn how to program a Cell processor or something else that's completely new. I'm sure most if not all of them know how to code for a PC.

So is it really the "Things will get optimized", or did MS (and Sony, to a lesser extent), just badly skimp on power to keep the box affordable.

I think that 1.6ghz CPU is going to kill them two years down the road, 8 cores or not.

Edit: And so far, this generation has offered ZILCH in other functionality. MS was pretending they were going to offer new things, until they did 7000 degrees worth of 180s, but the PS4 is just a "better PS3", except it really doesn't look that much better, and it runs this at 30fps at 900p.

NEXT GEN! Whatever. I vote we rename it Three-Years-Ago Gen.

This comment was edited on May 15, 2014, 13:15.

Quboid wrote on May 15, 2014, 10:08:
I hope you're right Beamer. I'm sure these things will improve but I'm not convinced they will improve much. The hardware is reasonably familiar to developers already as it has much in common with PCs. Performance on the Xbox One might get an upgrade when DirectX 12 is out if they can replicate the performance gains (I'm assuming DX12 will have roughly Mantle-esque performance boosts). Ultimately the hardware isn't very good by today's standards and is slipping ever further back.

Stupid Microsoft and Sony, developing hardware based on exhaustive price/performance analysis and not my whim.

Truthfully, I think we're about out of ways for "next-gen" to be next-gen.

Here's how it worked in the past:
1) SNES improved over NES by first giving more buttons, allowing more complex games, then by adding a pseudo-3D
2) N64 added true 3D and a way to interact with it
3) PS2/Xbox/Gamecube improved 3D and gave us true open worlds
4) PS3/360 gave us genuine online connectivity and HD
5) Next-gen gives us...?

Graphics are extremely expensive to create and I don't see this huge breakthroughs occurring here because it's too expensive and the definition of diminishing returns. Worlds were already about big and open enough in the last gen. Load times were never a huge problem. AI is kind of meaningless in most cases since enemies that live more than a few seconds aren't very satisfying (and enemies that live a few seconds don't have time to be smart.) Destructive environments are awesome, but truly destructive ones are cost prohibitive (to destroy a building you need to model the entire inside of a building.)

I just don't know what more power can feasibly give us. And, from the looks of things, neither do devs. I mean, it can improve things, but I don't know what it can do that last-gen couldn't. Better graphics, but not in extremely noticeable ways (especially from 8 feet away.) Larger, more seamless worlds, but did Skyrim really suffer from the limitations? I don't see any groundbreaking revolutions, just slow evolutions. More polish. I don't feel like paying $400 for more polish.

I hope you're right Beamer. I'm sure these things will improve but I'm not convinced they will improve much. The hardware is reasonably familiar to developers already as it has much in common with PCs. Performance on the Xbox One might get an upgrade when DirectX 12 is out if they can replicate the performance gains (I'm assuming DX12 will have roughly Mantle-esque performance boosts). Ultimately the hardware isn't very good by today's standards and is slipping ever further back.

Stupid Microsoft and Sony, developing hardware based on exhaustive price/performance analysis and not my whim.

Well it is basically an MMO so the gameplay will be formed by the peeps you play with.
The graphical details in that E3 trailer however looked stunning, but I have serious doubt the finished game will look anything like that.

SpectralMeat wrote on May 15, 2014, 07:54:
I wouldn't be so quick to judge the graphics of The Division just yet.
Do you guys remember how good Watch Dogs looked on the first reveal gameplay video? It was nothing like the trailers they are releasing these days.
I will believe in all the hype and "NEXT GEN GRAPHIX!!!!" when I see it running on my PC.
Until then I am very skeptical about what these new games look like, and reserve judgement until when I am playing them myself.

I'm more concerned about the gameplay for Teh Division then the gfx. I'm super jacked on that title and afraid my hopes will be crushed.

The real problem with "next gen" graphics is how huge the assets have to be. Downloading and storing 100 gigs for a game won't fly right now. So you're basically stuck with assets that are "good enough".

I wouldn't be so quick to judge the graphics of The Division just yet.
Do you guys remember how good Watch Dogs looked on the first reveal gameplay video? It was nothing like the trailers they are releasing these days.
I will believe in all the hype and "NEXT GEN GRAPHIX!!!!" when I see it running on my PC.
Until then I am very skeptical about what these new games look like, and reserve judgement until when I am playing them myself.

Bah, graphics; Next-gen, current-gen, last-gen... Once graphics pass my own personal threshold of "good enough", I honestly barely notice them once I start playing.

The Half Elf wrote on May 15, 2014, 02:31:

Fantaz wrote on May 14, 2014, 23:37:

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on May 14, 2014, 21:31:

saluk wrote on May 14, 2014, 19:44:
Yay can we move on to the next overhyped excessively developed game now? Anyone have any guesses on what it will be or where it will come from?

Without question, it will be: The Division.

Both that game and Watch Dogs may end up being good, but prepare yourself for the media/hype storm that The Division will bring, damn.

the graphics with The Division's Snowdrop engine truly looks current-gen. Watch Dogs graphics are only half-way between last-gen and current-gen.

"next-gen" is now current-gen, so they better start already looking like proper current-gen! we're almost half-way through 2014, so what's taking so long...

Remember how Far Cry 3 was suppose to look at E3 and how it really looked when the game shipped?

FC3 didn't look as good as the debut E3 footage but the final game still looked good. I expect the same to happen with Watch_Dogs.