New Console Stall

TheMadGamer · August 27, 2011

First let me get the obligatory, 'PCs are my gaming platform first choice - numero uno, top enchalada, big kahuna… yada yada' out of the way.

That said, videogaming in general has been my obsession since my very first videogame console, the original Magnavox Odyssey my dad got me sometime in the early to mid 70s.

I've managed to own just about every console since with varying degrees of disgust (Sega Dreamcast) and pleasure (Intellivision!).

For 30 years now, on average it seems that somewhere during the 3rd to 4th year of any console's life cycle, you would at least start to hear chattering about the next console from the mainstream press.

This is oddly absent for the Xbox and Playstation (heard about the new Wii on the way so I'm up on that one). Sure there are some rumors but all the rumors I've heard or read about are not mainstream.

Anyway, I'm thinking maybe the wife, the kids, the job, the terrible economy, and all the other BS has caused me to be out of the loop… maybe there is more news than I've been able to find.

Still it makes me wonder if the lack of concrete news about new consoles is rooted in the terrible world-wide economy. Wondering if any of you have insights.

The lack of news about new consoles (other than the new Wii) MAKES ME MAD!

Gorath · August 27, 2011

The other two manufacturers simply invested so much money into their current gen consoles that they'll be happy extend their lifecycle for as long as possible. Unless there's an announcement this year, a new gen won't come until 1013-14.

Drithius · August 27, 2011

I don't own a console, nor have I since circa 1990. Having said that, I wish they'd hurry up and release the next gen hardware... so game titles developed for multiple platforms wouldn't look like such shit on the PC.

Korplem · August 27, 2011

Well, yes, it basically is because of the state of the economy. MS and Sony just don't feel that people would want to drop another $500+ on a brand new console again.

A few years ago, MS (and maybe Sony) were claiming that this console cycle could last around 10 years. While this is probably true, it will most likely overlap with the next which we should start hearing about next year, if rumors are to be believed.

TheMadGamer · August 27, 2011

Gorath said:
Unless there's an announcement this year, a new gen won't come until 1013-14.

I better get my time machine out and head on back then!

Gorath · August 28, 2011

Why don't you just give me 1000 years of your time?

Dhruin · August 28, 2011

I find the current state of affairs quite agreeable. I spend less on hardware and game developers don't lock me out with exclusives too often.

Arkadia7 · August 28, 2011

Never got into consoles really, unless you want to count the Atari 2600 and Texas Instruments TI-99/4A which I had as a kid, but as a previous response said, it would be better for PC gaming if the new consoles come out sooner rather than later so they can get the technology advances up to speed in the games.

Alrik Fassbauer · August 28, 2011

Still want to buy myself a Dreamcast, because games of that era are cheasper now - and there are several ones I a wanted to play.

My next purchase would be a PS2 - one day.

sakichop · August 28, 2011

their have been several reports of a new xbox for 2015. haven't seen anything on a new playstation. If true their will we a lot of wasted pc power since almost all games are made for console.

It's for this reason I believe consoles are bad for gaming they stunt the growth of the industry and if these reports are true don't expect games to improve much from now till then. We are reaching the limits of what current consoles can do.

This won't just impact graphics either. It will affect improvements to AI, making games more believable and seem more alive. Two of the most important aspects of a game to me.

Alrik Fassbauer · August 28, 2011

I guess it will be called "XBOX Everything" since the 360 degrees are already used and "Universal" is already the name of a huge records company ... Or maybe Microsoft will just buy them, simply to get their brand name ...

TheMadGamer · August 28, 2011

sakichop said:
It's for this reason I believe consoles are bad for gaming they stunt the growth of the industry and if these reports are true don't expect games to improve much from now till then. We are reaching the limits of what current consoles can do.

Not sure I agree with that. some of the most innovative gameplay came from the early days when lack of processing power resulted some very innovative gameplay.

In my view, the advances in CPU speed, video processing, physics processing, media storage space, and available RAM have created a glut of games that are heavy on flash and light on substance.

Maybe with the current consoles sticking around a while perhaps we'll get some developers getting innovative again.

Drithius · August 28, 2011

TheMadGamer said:
In my view, the advances in CPU speed, video processing, physics processing, media storage space, and available RAM have created a glut of games that are heavy on flash and light on substance.

I could just as easily say that flash over substance stemmed from the inevitable tide of developers designing for people who pick up a console controller for 10 minutes at a time and prefer mindless pew pew

On the other hand, sitting at a computer, to me, changes my whole mindset: "ok, computer time: check email and play XYZ."

Although this computer mindset is likely antiquated these days in the age of melding computer platforms and social media, I still think ADHD gaming got its primary boost from consoles.

Nerevarine · August 28, 2011

TheMadGamer said:
Not sure I agree with that. some of the most innovative gameplay came from the early days when lack of processing power resulted some very innovative gameplay.

In my view, the advances in CPU speed, video processing, physics processing, media storage space, and available RAM have created a glut of games that are heavy on flash and light on substance.

Maybe with the current consoles sticking around a while perhaps we'll get some developers getting innovative again.

Those are my thoughts exactly. The current graphics and tech levels are more than good enough for my tastes, and with those elements "maxed out" for now, developers can spend less time on the superficial aspects of game development and focus more on the actual design. For too long, development studios have had to play catch-up on the tech side, and I think the "stalled" technology should be beneficial - especially for the not-quite-AAA studios like Piranha Bytes. With the current limitations on technology advancement, smaller studios can actually compete on close to the same level as the biggest companies.

Fnord · August 29, 2011

Still want to buy myself a Dreamcast, because games of that era are cheasper now - and there are several ones I a wanted to play.

Not only is the console cheap as dirt these days, with many of the games being incredibly cheap as well, but it lacks any form of lockout mechanism, so the homebrew community for it is strong. There are still commercial games being produced for the dreamcast (though Sega has nothing to do with them), due to how easy they are to make. Many are considered to be really good.
Of course, the lack of any form of lockout mechanism might have been one of the reasons why the console failed. With most other consoles, you had to install a chip or find some other way around the lockout mechanism in order to play pirated games, while the dreamcast just required you to burn the CD.

sakichop · August 29, 2011

Nerevarine said:
Those are my thoughts exactly. The current graphics and tech levels are more than good enough for my tastes, and with those elements "maxed out" for now, developers can spend less time on the superficial aspects of game development and focus more on the actual design. For too long, development studios have had to play catch-up on the tech side, and I think the "stalled" technology should be beneficial - especially for the not-quite-AAA studios like Piranha Bytes. With the current limitations on technology advancement, smaller studios can actually compete on close to the same level as the biggest companies.

I obviously would disagree with that. It's not only superficial aspects that could be improved.

dao-da2
gothic 3- arcania
fear - fear 3
etc

To me the move to console doesn't inspire innovation it only gives in excuse for the lake of features and innovations.

Take da2 the city was a ghost town. Bioware claimed it was that way due to lack of resources on the consoles. Not sure if that's true but gives them a good excuse.

I want dev's to make the best games possible not the best games they can make within the limitations of consoles.why not make the best game you can then lower it for consoles. console players will still get the same quality game and pc gamers can take advantage of the extra power.

Graphics don't just have to be eye candy either they can be used to create better immersion. Take deus ex hr for example. I'm enjoying the game and couldn't wait for it to open up some. The thought of exploring the city of detroit was pretty cool seeing as how I grew up there. So I step out into the city of detroit only to see a couple static cars, debris and paper all over that never moved and a few bums and hookers. (insert joke about how that's just like real detroit here.) I would have liked to step out onto a busy street lots of people on the side walks, cars actually moving on the streets, things actually happening around me, hookers soliciting johns, maybe 2 rival gangs fighting, maybe just a police officer ticketing a car and having it towed. Instead the game so far doesn't feel like anything happen unless it revolves around my character thus it doesn't really feel like a living and breathing world.

I would rather focus on advancements like that instead of being happy with the status quo for another 4 yrs.

badmofo · August 29, 2011

sakichop said:
Take deus ex hr for example.

I think this game is a great example of a modern game which focuses on gameplay over graphics, and if we have console hardware holding us back to thank (and I suspect that's a factor) then hooray for consoles for a change.

I'm tired of upgrading my PC and then still having to fiddle with options to get decent frame rates. Dues Ex HR looks great and runs fine, right out of the box.

Nerevarine · August 29, 2011

sakichop said:
I obviously would disagree with that. It's not only superficial aspects that could be improved.

dao-da2
gothic 3- arcania
fear - fear 3
etc

To me the move to console doesn't inspire innovation it only gives in excuse for the lake of features and innovations.

Take da2 the city was a ghost town. Bioware claimed it was that way due to lack of resources on the consoles. Not sure if that's true but gives them a good excuse.

I want dev's to make the best games possible not the best games they can make within the limitations of consoles.why not make the best game you can then lower it for consoles. console players will still get the same quality game and pc gamers can take advantage of the extra power.
...(snip)

I can see your point, but improved technology would make absolutely no difference in the direction that DA2, Gothic 4, etc have taken; the shortcomings of those games are the result of poor game design, not limited tech. I think we all know by now that any excuse from Bioware on recycled areas, the static city, etc can be attributed to rushed (or outright lazy) development, not limited technology caused by console limitations.

I also wouldn't mind some of the immersion-building elements you mentioned, but things of that nature would take more than just better technology to achieve; it takes a lot of time and manpower to create that sort of living environment, and a heavy focus on such things will always take away from other aspects of the game.

Take GTA4 as an example of the best living city that I have ever seen in a game, and it was accomplished on this gen's consoles. The city itself is stunning thanks to the amount of detail and life going on, but the game itself is atrociously boring with absolutely nothing interesting/meaningful to do, and it illustrates my point on why I feel that the focus on such things is detrimental to a game's development - it's almost as if Rockstar built this wonderful world and then forgot to put a game in it. I'll take a less impressive city environment with the gameplay and story of a DE: HR or Vampire: Bloodlines over a game that focuses on superficial immersion simulation elements (busy streets, loads of background events, etc) any day. No single game can accomplish everything, and I would much rather have developers focus on story and gameplay instead of pushing the boundaries of world simulation or graphics.

Also, games like Ultima 7 accomplished the feel of a living world better than most modern games with extremely limited tech, so I don't think better technology would matter much in these areas. It's not the limited technology imposed by consoles which causes the problems with most modern games, it's the console market that is to blame, and the decision by publishers to make "dumbed-down" games in an effort to capitalize on said market. Better technology would not go very far in covering up bad game design.

TheMadGamer · August 29, 2011

sakichop said:
I obviously would disagree with that. It's not only superficial aspects that could be improved.

My view is that all the modern horsepower of technology allowing devs to create flashy graphics and skin-deep physics is one of the biggest reasons why aspects of deeper and more innovative gameplay is more-often-than-not overlooked in favor of the superficial.

I see the same thing with the cinemea ever since CGI. When it comes to blockbuster movies that are sci-fi or fantasy or will otherwise have great visual effects as a feature - ever since CGI most movies are sorely lacking in the storytelling department.

I'm waiting for the CGI honeymoon to end so perhaps there will be a better balance between visual effects and storytelling in movies… same goes for videogames…. now that flashy visuals and physics are possible along with super fast CPUs and mega doses of RAM - can't wait for that honeymoon to end and start seeing some deeper more innovative gameplay married up with flashy visusals and physics.

sakichop · August 29, 2011

Nerevarine said:
I can see your point, but improved technology would make absolutely no difference in the direction that DA2, Gothic 4, etc have taken; the shortcomings of those games are the result of poor game design, not limited tech. I think we all know by now that any excuse from Bioware on recycled areas, the static city, etc can be attributed to rushed (or outright lazy) development, not limited technology caused by console limitations.

I also wouldn't mind some of the immersion-building elements you mentioned, but things of that nature would take more than just better technology to achieve; it takes a lot of time and manpower to create that sort of living environment, and a heavy focus on such things will always take away from other aspects of the game.

Take GTA4 as an example of the best living city that I have ever seen in a game, and it was accomplished on this gen's consoles. The city itself is stunning thanks to the amount of detail and life going on, but the game itself is atrociously boring with absolutely nothing interesting/meaningful to do, and it illustrates my point on why I feel that the focus on such things is detrimental to a game's development - it's almost as if Rockstar built this wonderful world and then forgot to put a game in it. I'll take a less impressive city environment with the gameplay and story of a DE: HR or Vampire: Bloodlines over a game that focuses on superficial immersion simulation elements (busy streets, loads of background events, etc) any day. No single game can accomplish everything, and I would much rather have developers focus on story and gameplay instead of pushing the boundaries of world simulation or graphics.

Also, games like Ultima 7 accomplished the feel of a living world better than most modern games with extremely limited tech, so I don't think better technology would matter much in these areas. It's not the limited technology imposed by consoles which causes the problems with most modern games, it's the console market that is to blame, and the decision by publishers to make "dumbed-down" games in an effort to capitalize on said market. Better technology would not go very far in covering up bad game design.

I'm in no way saying I want these things instead of good gameplay I want them to work on both.

Graphics are not my #1 concern I still play wizardry 1 a couple times a year and there's nothing immersive about those wire frame graphics but it is fun. Same with infinity engine games (if they made more today with no changes to the tech. I 'd buy it day 1.)

I think we both want the same things we just disagree on how to get there. I believe if they had better tech. they could make better games.( If they don't want to take advantage of the extra tech. to make a better game that's a different story.) You believe if they don't they will focus on better and more innovative gameplay.

My greatest fear is that we are both wrong. If tech. remains stagnant they won't improve any thing and just keep shipping out more of the same. If they get better tech they'll just throw some more eye candy on and forget about AI and gameplay.

Weather it's dumbing down, lack of technology or lazy dev's who just want to cash in I find myself enjoying less and less games every year which is a sad thing for me as gaming has been my hobby for many many years.

New Console Stall

SasqWatch

Prime Evil

Magic & Loss

Shipwreck

SasqWatch

Prime Evil

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

TL;DR

sakichop

Guest

TL;DR

SasqWatch

Magic & Loss

Keeper of the Watch

SasqWatch

sakichop

Guest

Tired but happy

Keeper of the Watch

SasqWatch

sakichop

Guest