Slashdot Mirror
PC Gaming 'a Generation Ahead' of Consoles, Says Crytek Boss
Crytek co-founder Cevat Yerli spoke recently about the growing gap between modern PCs and consoles like the PS3 and Xbox 360, saying that the desire to develop for multiple platforms is hampering creative expression. "PC is easily a generation ahead right now. With 360 and PS3, we believe the quality of the games beyond Crysis 2 and other CryEngine developments will be pretty much limited to what their creative expressions is, what the content is. You won't be able to squeeze more juice from these rocks." One reason this trend persists is because of the perception that PC game sales are not high enough for most developers to focus on that platform. Rock, Paper, Shotgun says this indicates a need for the disclosure of digital distribution sales numbers, which could dispel that myth. Yerli's comments come alongside news of Crytek's announcement of a new military-based shooter called Warface.
Clearly there is room for a new competitor in the console market, and OnLive ain't it. One generation beyond the 360 or PS3 would have a BOM under $100.
Before you start saying that these consoles are essentially tapped out, keep in mind that the PS3 isn't near its full potential yet.
PS3 still not maxed out - Andrew House (SCEE President)
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=248275
PS3 hard to develop for on purpose - Kazuo Hirai (SCEE Chairman)
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=248275
Now, when you've finally "tapped out this rock", then come back and complain. Until then, blame yourselves for your inability to develop good games that take full advantage of these platforms.
Just look at the newest games and how badly they perform on supposedly "powerful" machines. These games are not more creative, just flashy and poorly coded.
Take the Rage game on iOS for instance, it rivals some console graphics but is not running on powerful hardware. It has to run on a machine with less than 512 Mb devoted to the game and no access to Virtual memory. PC games are written by people who could not code on embedded machines if their life depended on it. Sloppy code.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
I haven't seen anything innovative done on a PC that couldn't have been done on a PS2. Crysis 2 is innovative? Oh please. Two extra bullet-points on the back of a box do not make a game "innovative". Portal: innovative. Tower of Goo: innovative. Minecraft: innovative. What do they have in common? They could run on hardware that is 10 years old.
I think the Mr. Crytek fails to see past his own problems: that the shiny that his company specializes in does very little to make a game special.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
a new military-based shooter called Warface
Sorry, facebook will insist that you change it's name.
dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
And it has happened again as it has happened every single generation of consoles and as it will in every future generation.
One platform is constantly shifting and upgrading, the other doesn't.
What do you think happens in the gap between console releases?
Unfortunately they're currently too busy trying to milk motion controls and using that as an excuse to not release new hardware. Hopefully Nintendo will just out of nowhere drop a magic console developed using their profits from their current gen console.
Either way some games are better on consoles (fighting, local multiplayer, driving games etc) , while other games I prefer my mouse and keyboard support (simulation, rts, fps, etc)
as long as the developers target the consoles and PC then you only have to match the specs of that console generation.
I used to spend all my spare time tweaking and upgrading my PC to be able to play games at the best possible frame rate, it was a hobby.
Then I got a job and with the money I was earning from that job, I got a life.
I'm now a console gamer because its convenient. Not having to worry about drivers, patches, different DRM systems and not dealing with retarded server admins who boot you as soon as someone you just spent 15 mins bitch slapping reports you for cheating.
PC's may be generations ahead in hardware, but they still don't offer the convenience and simplicity of a console, which is why they are popular.
All major publishers have games on steam, so I'm sure they have a reasonable idea of how well their games are selling even if we don't, just looking at the steam stats can give a rough idea.
To be honest I like being able to play the latest games with the settings on full, "developments will be pretty much limited to what their creative expressions is, what the content is" is not necessarily a bad thing, its the game play vs graphics argument.
Have the console support mouse/keyboard input (hell, I'll take a numpad with WASD on it).
Shinier graphics result in ballooning creativity costs, which have stifled creativity as companies start investing only in sure bets. These days, even a single big budget bomb can wipe out an entire company, like Haze did for Free Radical, Hellgate: London did for Flagship Studios, and Lair did for Factor 5. No matter how new and shiny a game is, gamers will always demand it be newer and shinier in the next iteration, which further increases risk aversion and stifles creativity. There's only so much more that can be done by making a newer and shinier Far Cry, Call of Duty, or Grand Theft Auto In fact, this emphasis on graphics above all has crippled the industry's long term health.
What developers really should do is take a step sideways into creative territory, rather than continuing their death march into Bigger and Better territory. Unfortunately, as their remarkable unwillingness to support the Wii has shown, Bigger and Better may be all that the gaming industry knows anymore. If this is true, then a second crash of the industry may not be far off.
Have the console support mouse/keyboard input
A few PS3 games already do, and the other two still support text entry using a USB keyboard. The Wii Remote is like a mouse, and unlike WASD, the Nunchuk extension controller has proportional (aka "analog") response.
PC is easily a generation ahead right now.
Wii showed that graphical output isn't the only thing that defines a hardware generation. In the seventh generation, while Microsoft and Sony were moving their output forward by a generation, Nintendo moved its input forward by a generation by bundling a Bluetooth handheld pointing device with the console. It took the other guys years to come up with Kinect and Move to match the Wii Remote.
But the major consoles are still ahead of PCs in how many simultaneous players a game will usually support. This is in part because consoles are ahead in what monitor size their makers can encourage their users to connect. Sure, using a TV as a monitor has been easy since HDTV became common starting in 2006, but home theater PCs are still a rarity for some reason. Is it usability, or is it a plain old path-dependent Catch-22?
I'm not sure what planet Cevat Yerli lives on, but last time I checked the content of a game was paramount. If indie games (and the success of some indie game devs) prove anything, it's that brilliant content will always trump brilliant graphics. In any case, I'll *never* buy a game from a company run by someone as retarded as this guy. All real gamers know that content comes first, graphics come second. What a douche.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Did you insist on Half Life being playable on 10 year old hardware when it came out too? Doom?
No, but I insist on a community around the game still existing once I get around to becoming able to run the game. A lot of games get the plug pulled on their matchmaking servers before I even consider buying them.
I'm not at all surprised that he believes that todays high end gaming rigs are one generation ahead of the consoles. They are four years old after all.. What a shocker. Pushing more pixels through a GPU doesn't constitute innovation though. What have Crytek done but yet another FPS? *yawn*
- Henrik
- when the Shadows descend -
its consoles. they are too locked in, and their companies do not put out new generations often. that is why the console market is dragging ALL gaming behind. developers are having to accommodate consoles that are a few years behind in technology.
not to mention the horrible, flat-out fascist attitude of the console producers towards any kind of free development, improvement, or modding on their devices.
really, it would be better if they are totally dropped.
Read radical news here
Yerli makes these sweeping statements... and then we have this:
Yerli's comments come alongside news of Crytek's announcement of a new military-based shooter called Warface.
Please tell me - how is all that extra PC horsepower being used in a way that's not possible on a console? I know all these "shoot people in the head" games are immensely popular... but come on! The same sorts of games exist on the XBox 360 and PS3 and look really, really good - so it's certainly not graphics performance or computations per second that's a limitation.
No, as others have pointed out: The limitation is the lack of creativity on the part of most developers. I can't blame them for going where the money is, but they need to at least put some thought into how their shoot 'em in the head game could set itself apart from the hundreds of other shoot 'em in the head titles already on the market. And, no - making the graphics slightly more realistic than the almost-lifelike games already out there is not a meaningful difference, nor is it innovative in the least.
#DeleteChrome
how often have you gotten friends around the pc monitor for playing a fighting game together
One PC in my house is connected to the VGA input of a VX32L, is a 32" HDTV made by Vizio. Emulators run beautifully, but I'm tired of having to break the law just to play more than single player.
I have a desk set up for a single person for work and gaming and a tv with a sofa set up for multiple people.
Put a slim PC next to the TV. I saw a nice Gateway in Best Buy the other day when I was looking for an Archos 43 tablet.
I'm now a console gamer because its convenient.
But is it convenient for you when the game all your friends are talking about is a PC exclusive because the console makers turned it down?
PC's may be generations ahead in hardware, but they still don't offer the convenience and simplicity of a console
Nor do consoles offer the selection of a PC.
Like Disney, the company is very dependant upon protecting their image as wholesome and family-friendly now
Yet explain how a Disney subsidiary green-lit Kill Bill.
So they are quite strict about what they allow to be published for the Wii.
MadWorld anyone?
Think a lot of people are missing the point here.
They are talking about hardware, not what the current PC games compare to their console counter parts.
See, this is the problem. PC are capable of so more, yet we get a dumbed down console port instead of a game tailored to the extra stuff modern PC's can bring you.
Most PS3 & 360 games are barely 720p, usually less. Crappy AA on them, etc.
Modern PC can do the 1080p, max AA and not break a sweet. And not break your bank. Get a Nvidia 460 1gb card for $200 and you got yourself a nice card that kicks ass.
And yes, I'm a gamer. Been so for 30+ years. I prefer my PC for gaming (even got me 3D Vision, which rocks), but I do have a Xbox 360 (jtag'd), a Wii (softmodded) and will have a PS3 whenever I get enough money for it (ya, and I'll hack it also, because that's how i roll).
It's funny, because I remember when arcade games were the better graphics systems, and computers & consoles tried to be that good. Then the computers surpassed both the consoles & arcade games. And we, the computer gamers have been paying for it ever since.
(sorry, when the PS3 & 360 game out, their graphics weren't really on par with computers, they were already behind, and it's a bigger gap now).
Be seeing you...
If you want to see gameplay innovation that requires a lot of CPU, check Achron out: http://www.youtube.com/hazardoussoftware
The way it should be.
you mean like 82 to 86 when the c64 was the domment gaming system and it was a pc. gotta rember consoles died in the early 80s. it wasn't until nintendo came alone with the nes that consoles got revived. and it wasn't no easy task for nintendo they tried for years before it got accepted by the usa people. gotta rember 30 million c64s where sold and that number still hasn't been beat for any single pc model to this day. so we have been there and done that with success. the problem now is we dont make soft where for each pc model anymore theirs to many different models out there. so they tend to try to taler to all of them for the last 3 years or so.
I can slap a disc in a $300 box with no buttons, and play it.
Unless the game isn't for your $300 console. Imagine that your friend has recommended a PC game to you. You check the developer's web site to see if a version is available for your console, but you find that the developer has posted a rejection notice from the console maker. Various overheads associated with becoming an authorized console game developer are part of why indie games tend to be PC exclusive. Even among major-label games, many are exclusive to a console you don't have, and by the time you've bought all three consoles, you've spent more than a gaming PC costs.
Hundreds of dollars for video cards, extra memory, high-end CPU's? You gotta be kidding me.
Yeah, it is silly, especially when a $300 ION nettop with a GeForce 9400 GPU can run indie games, older games, and even some newer games at lower graphics settings.
I would agree that there is a generational gap between true gaming PCs and consoles. That's always going to be the case. The upgrade and refresh cycles of gaming PCs are going to be much shorter than consoles. However, the console market is much larger than the true gaming PC market. In order to expand the market beyond this niche, game developers have to target "standard" PCs, and that is where the variability is hardware capabilities is an issue. If I develop a game for a console, every user is going to have essentially the same hardware (storage and peripherals may differ, but the core product is the same). Microsoft has tried to address this with WinSAT scores and games for Windows certifications, etc. However, at some point game developers have to compromise on a common denominator for hardware specs. To match the size of the console market, my guess is that the PC specifications would be comparable to or possibly less powerful than the latest generation of consoles (XBox 360, PS3).
Maybe someone should tell him that it's the GAMEPLAY that matters, not flashy graphics. I never did like Crytek's games because they felt more like tech demos that real games. Also, consoles have one more advantage. If I want to play a game I just stick the disk in and that's it. No worries if my drivers are current, or if my combination of mb+graphics would cause a problem etc. Also it's much cheaper to be a gamer on the consoles. Sure, the games are more expensive but ask yourself how often do you have to upgrade you machine? I did it every 6-12 months and each time i spend around $500 on it (new mb, new graphics and usually a new cpu) just so I could play the latest games with details on max
A PC beats a Console in almost every way. It can play games just like a console, there are online stores like Steam, plus it has other features like word processing, etc. But why do people buy Consoles? Because they turn on fast and they work in your lounge easily! So someone needs to make a Desktop OS that also works well for lounge gaming and has instant on. Huge opportunity right there.
I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
So lets look at some games:
- "World of Warcraft" just had The Shattering which revamped the graphics and game flow of the world adopting tech and design they learned from 6 years of successful gaming.
- Steam just told me that "Poker Night at the Inventory" is available for cheap. Although it is basically a poker game, the fun part is the conversations and jokes in the game.
- "Farmville" is still going strong
- "Minecraft" would be a hard sell if not impossible on consoles
So yeah, if you say so. I don't think flashy and poorly coded are a PC feature but something that comes from the developer regardless of their target platform.
I felt that one of the best Wii titles at launch was Wii Boxing, and it was precisely because of the motion controls, rather than the graphics. I still love playing Wii Boxing to work up a quick sweat, and I find it really improves your hand-eye coordination.
I'd love to see another game making use of Wii Boxing's punching mechanic. Perhaps a game like God Hand or something.
I'm thinking that Nintendo will launch a new console in 2011 no matter how many denials they're issuing, simply because then otherwise they have nothing new to show in the face of Kinect and Sony Move. I'd imagine it'll have noticeably better graphics than 360 or PS3.
From the News of Tomorrow department: Crytek has been sued for trademark infringement by FaceBook. At issue is the use of the word FACE in upcoming shooter WarFACE(tm). While some analysts point out the game has little to do with social networking. Others commented that the move is consistent with FaceBook's attempt to corner all social interactions over the web.. Be they posting pictures of your cats for your coworkers, or putting a mortar round through your neighbor's pixilated face(tm).
A disc? How quaint. On the PC we have this cool thing called an "internet" that lets us buy a new game at the click of a mouse button, and play it shortly afterwards without even having to stand up. I haven't needed to visit a bricks-and-mortar game store in years. That's one thing to be thankful for today.
As for difficulty running them, I haven't had any compatibility problems since like 1998, and -- thanks in part to the crippling effect of obsolete console technology that we are supposed to be discussing -- the cost of a system that's capable of running all the latest games is no greater than the combined cost of the basic computer you need anyway plus a console.
But, hey, don't let cold facts get in the way of your fanboyism.
That was a car analogy. It was just a really sloppy one, because he was working under a deadline.
http://xkcd.com/756//
It may just be me, but how many people play 4 player split screens for games these days?
I just got done playing Super Smash Bros. Brawl with relatives. Fighting games and Bomberman-style games don't need to split the screen, but then I guess they fall into a similar category to your "platformer type games". This category is way underrepresented on PC.
I thought it was bad during the time when tube TV's were standard
In the tube era, one had four 144x112 pixel windows on the N64 or four 288x224 pixel windows on the GameCube or Xbox. But now we're in the 720p era, and we end up with four 640x360 pixel windows: far less squinty.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Disney didn't make your TV
Analogy != perfect. I've seen Disney licensed TVs in Wal-Mart stores. These are 13" or thereabouts and apparently intended for a child's room. I've also seen Disney licensed DVD players.
Contrast this with the Wii, where it matters not who made the game, it is known to its users as a "Wii Game", and thus has a direct association with Nintendo's brand and image.
Do Windows games have a direct association with Microsoft's brand?
You play it on a Wii, it says "Nintendo" on the packaging
In that case, Nintendo made its own bed by using lockout chips to shut out unlicensed software.
Did you just insinuate that there are a lot of exclusive PC games that people would like to play?
I hope that was sarcastic, because other comments to this article praise the indie game scene and games with mods that extend their replay value. Both of these tend heavily toward PCs due to console makers' policies. Had Half-Life been a console game, for example, there couldn't have been a Counter-Strike.
why bundle a custom miniPC with a 360 Controller advertising "Games for Windows" that support the 360 controller... When Microsoft has already done exactly what you just stated.
Because Xbox 360 games don't have the sort of mods that PC games have. And though XNA is a great improvement over the nothing that the other two console makers provide, it's still reportedly a very limiting environment for indie game development compared to targeting Windows.
The Xbox 360 is literally a custom PC
The original Xbox was a customized PC. Xbox 360 is much different; the only link is that the operating system is based on Windows and DirectX.
(XBMC stands for XBox Media Center I believe ;) )
It used to. Now it officially stands for nothing. It supported the modded original Xbox first but no longer supports that platform. To my knowledge, it never supported Xbox 360.
They would basically agree on fixed specs for a cheap gaming PC that anyone could sell
That's what the "performance rating" in Windows Vista and Windows 7 was supposed to be.
Some games are the type that you pick up, play, master, and move on. Some games aren't, and have a longevity in the community.
Theodore Sturgeon's revelation: Ninety percent of video games are crud. I want to make sure that the ones I play are among those that aren't crud.
What about the more serious issue, of console sales are going to get raped by this 10 year console idea? my PC already has 4 cores and emulates a wii flawlessly, how long until it has 6 cores and starts doing xbox360? the 360 only has 3 cores, so I can dedicate 2 cpus per core... not to mention PC ram/gfx cards are already 4-5 generations ahead. PS3 shipped with a 7xxx Nvidia card. We now have had the 8000/9000/280/480/580GTX chips released since then. PC is massively ahead of consoles and I bet we start seeing those slower machines emulated soon.
If Microsoft is smart, their next Xbox will just be an standard PC running Windows 8 or maybe even some modified Windows 7 on an x86 processor. If they do this, Xbox(future) games will also run on a regular PC, and their future controllers (like Kinect, rock band gear, etc) will also work with ordinary PCs. I'm suggesting this because many people are getting living room PCs. Microsoft makes money from games, not game systems. So why not just target the PCs that are already in our living rooms? Then there doesn't have to be a separate Xbox port, which would really incentivize publishers to develop for the PC. To take care of the fact that generic PCs have different capacities, MS should just release a simple app that gives your PC a game hardware score, and then you can compare that number to what's on the back of the game box to see if your PC can play it. There are many benefits to MS from this move. One is that it puts Windows in more places and tightens their grip on the OS market. Another is that it cuts off the oxygen from Sony, because smaller developers will want to aim at the big, familiar PC/Xbox market and ignore boutique RISC systems. Basically, I don't see a good reason to keep a separation between PC games and console games.
Look man there is nothing wrong with liking gameplay. I am a full supporter of the "games need to have good gameplay" idea. However there is also no need to hate on graphics, which seems to common on Slashdot. A kind of techno luddism. "Oh these games would be just as good with older graphics on low end hardware." No, sorry, but that is false. A game is a rich experience. Part of that experience is visuals and good visuals go a long way to making that experience immersive.
So holding gameplay up as the One and Only Thing is no more valid than holding up graphics as the One and Only Thing. Also, guess what? There's more that a PC offers than just graphics. A big one that DOES relate to gameplay is memory. If you want to have a game with a big world, with a lot that goes on, memory is needed. This is part of the reason that the PC still sees the best strategy titles (keyboard and mouse are another). 512MB that you have to share with the video card, or 256MB that you don't (360 and PS3 respectively) is awful tight to try and store a big, active, world in. A PC can easily give you a gig or more for your dedicated use.
I agree that Crytek needs a bit of STFU since their gameplay is for shit they are graphics-only game makers. However let's not get up on the "Fuck graphics," techno-luddism crap. I play many games from many eras. I emulate old games from my youth, I play current high end games. While a good story (where applicable) and fun gameplay are key, good graphics and sound are great too.
Wolfenstein 3D is probably forever the most innovative 3D shooter since it invented the genre. However I'm sorry, but some of its less innovative modern counterparts are far better. Call of Duty 4 was a great game, and part of that was the wonderful graphics and sound. You couldn't do that game on a 286 like Wolf3D. Cut all the graphics, sounds, AI, levels, and so on back to what was required and the game wouldn't even be the same thing.
Progress on ALL fronts in game design is a good thing. Also holding "innovation" meaning doing something that has never been done before, up as the be-all, end-all is also silly. It is hard to be truly original and that isn't really a bad thing. We as a species have imagined a lot of thing, and there is nothing wrong with building on what is out there. Even most innovative things do. They are more original than some things, but you can still point out heavy influence from past works and other media.
I have to agree with Crytek that PCs have it better when it comes to games. They can do any console game out there that someone bothers to port and can do it higher resolution, higher FPS, better graphics and so on. They can also do titles the consoles can't. Look at Civilization 4 and 5 vs Civilization Revolutions. You can't do the full Civ games on a console, they lack the memory to handle it (among other things).
How about large game worlds? Consoles, with their tiny memory amounts, put real limits on that kind of shit. As an interesting study in this, look at Deus Ex 1 vs Deus Ex 2. DX1 was PC only, running on Unreal Engine 1. Levels were more or less large, continuous, zones. You'd start and just walk around the whole thing, no loading. Also it wasn't streaming, the whole level was active, NPCs moved around freely and did things off camera. DX2 was designed for consoles, using Unreal Engine 2. Despite being a number of years later and requiring better hardware, the zones are tiny. You are in a little area and have to move through doors or other interlocks to reach a new one. The reason is that the Xbox, which it also ran on, had only 64MB of memory. Zones had to be kept small to fit in that.
Now you can fake this, to a degree, with streaming. Stream the data from disc as needed. But you can't have a truly free world where everything is loaded and active all the time. Look at Grand Theft Auto 3 or Vice City. You discover that other than special objects, like police chasing you or cars for missions, nothing exists that is out of your FOV. Look at a street, turn around, then turn back. It changes because it is regenerated. Again, done because of the small memory on the PS2 which it also runs on.
These are gameplay affecting things. A designer has to engineer around that limit rather than making the game as they want.
Also I'm sorry, but graphics have a long way to go. They are good, but they aren't fooling me they are real. Until that day, more power is needed. The limit should be the imagination, not GPU power. As a minor example, take resolution. The consoles are only 720p devices (1280x720). Yes, they do basic upsampling but you gain no detail with that. Other than a few rare PS3 games (which suffer in therms of textures and so on because of it) that run at 1080, they all run at 720, and sometimes even less.
On a PC you can do far more. I like my 1920x1200 gaming, but really I want more. I want smaller pixels on a bigger display. I want the beyond 2k screens that are out there (2560x1600) and I want it at a smooth 60fps. PCs can handle that, generally, with high end hardware.
Of course past just resolution there are plenty of other things that could be made to look better too.
The idea that what we have now is "good enough" is silly. You could say that of any time in the past, but then when presented with somethign better, suddenly that better thing is rather nice.
I have said it before and I'll say again: a keyboard and mouse is far superior to a simplistic gamepad in most types of games (platforming aside). I cannot even bother to pick up a game pad for an FPS as it is to sad an experience. This will never change.
I really hate how you have to click through the "health and safety tips" every time you turn on the Wii or DS. Put in the light of being "family-friendly", it makes more sense that it's been included. That, or Nintendo is even more terrified of lawsuits than other corporations.
Perhaps it's because Nintendo has actually been sued over this.
Consoles jump several generations at a time and they generally like to keep the platform for as long as possible on the order of 5-8 years. When they do jump, they jump one generation ahead of PCs at a tremendous loss in money for every unit sold. One to two years later, the PC catches up but it keeps jumping generations every one to two years an it inevitably jumps ahead of the console. But when the next console upgrade happens, it will jump ahead again.
However I have a hard time plopping down $1000+ for a gaming PC when games on a $300 xbox or playstation look only marginally worse.
creative expression being hampered by lack of technology? My god what kind of BS is that... It's technology that limits creative expression, it was the lack of powerfull machines that made great games back in the days, because they where innovating and where extra creative because of the lack of tech.. Because you have better graphics or physics doesn't mean you can make better games.. Saying stuff like 'creative expression being hampered' only means you're lazy and don't have any creative expression in you..
There is a lot of truth to this.
I worked on an EA title once. Everything was going fine until one of the higher ups panicked, afraid that we weren't going to meet our launch date, and took charge. The first matter of business was to reduce the bug count. This was accomplished by simply not reporting any new bugs (save for bugs that would cause us to fail cert). A lot of the cert bugs were silly things that most users wouldn't notice or care about, but they took precedent over everything else. Under my producer's instructions, I regularly packaged numerous bug fixes into single changelists, since we were only permitted to submit changelists pertaining to specific bugs (and had to cite them). I also successfully petitioned to get a few non-cert bugs fixed for the more serious issues.
The crazy thing is in the month leading up to cert, I had very little to do. I wasn't allowed to fix anything. I had about two dozen changelists that they simply wouldn't let me submit - regardless of how simple or safe the bug fixes were, or how serious the bug was. I held onto them, but they never made it into any patches either. They simply did not care about the quality of the game. It was all about getting it out the door.
This happens with every generation of console. When they come out they are great (a fixed standard of decent hardware), but by the end of their life span, they are looking pretty rubbish against even a moderate PC. Not long after that really starts to be a problem, a new console is announced and not long after that, released. Then the cycle starts again. No nothing new here at all.
come on dont sweat it too much. you know that we are talking about from 1993-94 to present.
Read radical news here
I would've expected them to follow their naming traditions and call the game Warcry...!
What yous aid about having to upgrade was true 5 years 10 years ago, but not today. I have a machine which is two year old and it crank high FPS without a hitch, except on 2 games (FF14 MMO, and Fallout new vegas, and the last one I am wagering it is a bug). I don#t plan to upgrade in the next time, because I have *NO* reason, even game sold today I can crank at high settings and still get a good FPS. So your 6 month upgrade cycle is outdated.
And PC gaming is cheaper on a game by game basis. Average price of PC game I bought : 39. Average price of console game I bought : 59. That is 20 PER GAME. After 10 game i can buy the mega super shiny upgrade new graphic card *if I wanted*. As for driver being current, I haven't had a problem with that for years. Vista automatically upgrade my drivers.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Consoles have always had a simple weakness. Memory. Developers love it, consoles don't have it.
Netbooks now come with 2GB. The PS3 comes with 512mb. That is all, video and main memory and in some ways it really only 256mb. When was the last time you had a computer with 256mb main memory? Or for that matter a 256mb video card? Oh okay, my current netbook has but then I would hardly call it a gaming machine.
A perfect example was Morrowind, it performed horrible on the PC at first with frequent loading between "zones". Until a PC only expansion was added which increased the memory usage. Foila, no more loading. The original game had been designed with the console in mind and so was extremely conservative with the amount it used.
Games like Fallout 3 show it as well. My DUAL core PC not only has higher resolution textures by default, it can even run smooth with insanely high definition user made textures. That is a DUAL core PC, two cores are better then 6(or 3 I believe for the x-box)? Why yes, because while the consoles are chugging along with constant streaming from a slow HD, my humble PC just has it in memory, in the 1 gig (4x video memory of the console) video memory.
Further proof lies in the horrible PS3 as a linux machine performance. Seriously, who would want a linux desktop with 256mb memory? Why not just try to run linux on the DS and really hurt yourself... oh wait... someone is doing just that.
But can't clever programming offset this? No, not really. That same clever programming after all also works on PC's so they get the same benefit and STILL have tons more memory. While you can make a lot of fun games that use little memory, a lot of games just don't fit. You can't have a large open persistent world where you can zoom around and have non-streaming optimized content (Think GTA where you have lots of car models but only a couple loaded at the same time) in 512mb.
And no, it ain't just shooters. Think the Sims 3. All that user created content, were is it going to fit? A decent installation with a owner who wants her sims to be JUST right already can bring a PC to its knees with its memory demands. On the console forget it! The HD would catch on fire.
The simple fact is that once all the tricks on the PS2 were learned, it was still a horribly obsolete machine compared to an average PC. Only people that don't game think different. Why do think we still got PC only games? MMO development is PC only (the recent FFXIV is such a failure that it can't be counted)?
Somehow I think the guys at Crytek know better then some console fanboy.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Ahh, discs... the thing that makes it so slooooooooooooow to load the next level. Awesome experience for sure.
It's strange, isn't it? there is no PC-based console. A machine like that could be easily upgraded by replacing the graphics card, processor, CPU and motherboard, etc. The only thing required is a dumbed-down version of Windows or a special version of Linux.
The console could be sold with 3 configurations: one extra cheap with a low-level graphics card for playing older/smaller games, a middle range card for playing most games and a super-high-powered card for playing games based on the Crytek engine. The consoles would be easily upgradable by just opening them and replacing the video card.
System shock runs only on PC and no console (from the best of my knowledge). ;)
Hence, PC's are more 'innovative'
the average mobile phone is more powerful than some of our consoles.
Sure, some smartphones have more CPU, GPU, and RAM than a Wii console, but what definition of average are you thinking of? There are still a lot of "feature phones" out there, used by people who don't want to blow $70 per month for 24 months on a voice and data plan.
No, each player buy one copy
Which means two to four copies end up purchased in one household, one for each player living there. How well would the home version of Street Fighter II have sold if it required two Super NES consoles, two TVs, and two copies of the game?
and then takes their PC round mates house.
Good luck convincing someone else living in the same household who wants to use the PC for Facebook to agree to this. And good luck driving back home to go get your PC when you're already at a mate's house for some other reason and you feel like playing a video game. Shared screen invites spontaneity.
The multiscreen playing thing on consoles, but it is a bit of joke since you can always glance across at your fellow players screen and cheat.
I'll grant that split-screen doesn't make sense for some genres, such as 3D shooters that aren't cooperative. But the genres for which it does make perfect sense, such as fighting games, are precisely the genres underrepresented on PCs.
Just the nature of the beast.
Consoles lately in the last couple of years have gotten innovative with controllers however.
I think it is somewhat interesting that while they are behind in graphic power due to cost and how they are released, the real difference is how they use the changing online world.
One might argue that the BIGGEST innovation in gaming in the last 5-10 years has been the development of MMO's (Primarily Everquest and then World of Warcraft) . Consoles have yet to crack that nut. Sony tried with Final Fantasy without much success so far as I know. They sort of tried again with their 256 player shooter (which I think is a very cool idea), but again didn't get great reviews. Xbox has moved to a subscription and market place model for their online experience, and Sony will likely follow. Anyway they still have yet to even touch the market years and years later, which I find telling.
Could you imagine if any of the consoles released World of Warcraft? I mean that would be a pretty huge deal. However I can't see that happening. The most likely culprit being the fact that its a fight for control between Blizzard and the console makers, and the simple fact that Blizzard doesn't need them.
Are they seriously saying that developers don't know how many games they sold on a particular platform?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Corporate Wanker.
Want to see what puts PC gaming a generation ahead? Go play Minecraft. That won't be done on this generation of consoles. This week's Generic War Battle Blood Crisis Shoot Face Duty Tournament 58 game is nothing special.
its consoles. they are too locked in, and their companies do not put out new generations often. that is why the console market is dragging ALL gaming behind. developers are having to accommodate consoles that are a few years behind in technology.
not to mention the horrible, flat-out fascist attitude of the console producers towards any kind of free development, improvement, or modding on their devices.
really, it would be better if they are totally dropped.
Better for who? There is a reason why consoles are so much more popular for gaming than PCs - ease of use.
I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
better for all of us. what you are playing in consoles, have come to this point with the development of gaming tech, which was spearheaded always by pc. now, consoles are keeping it back. because console companies are increasingly lax in putting out new consoles.
Read radical news here
better for all of us. what you are playing in consoles, have come to this point with the development of gaming tech, which was spearheaded always by pc. now, consoles are keeping it back. because console companies are increasingly lax in putting out new consoles.
All of who? If consoles disappeared tomorrow it doesn't mean that all those former console gamers will buy a gaming PC. There is nothing lax about not putting a new console out, it's just the market forces at work.
I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
Consoles have larger monitors than PCs. [...] it's hard to crowd four people holding gamepads around a 17" monitor.
Hmm, it's hard to find anyone using a monitor with a worse resolution than their living room TV.
I can imagine a 1440x900 PC monitor and a 1080p TV. But at least as important as resolution is the physical size of the display. Some genres are designed for two to four people looking at one monitor rather than two to four separate monitors.
How many console games are designed for this? 4? [...] Keep your split screen multiplayer.
Shared screen doesn't always mean split screen. For example, Bomberman and Smash TV show all players on one screen, and so does every fighting game since Street Fighter 1, let alone II, including all Super Smash Bros. games. Tetris splits the screen, but it doesn't bother players because the playfield was vertical on a horizontal monitor anyway.
And not to mention the type I could care less about.
Other people do care about these genres.
they dont need to. the pressure can make the console operators give more freedoms to their users with their hardware and software.
hell, even the pioneering 'home computers' of mid 80s have expansion cartridges and whatnot. you could attach mem to amigas. some of them could even have coprocessors attached.
with the current state of chip industry, it doesnt take any effort to make consoles upgradeable at least in a few respects, like cpu power, or, gpu power, or mem, and allow users more freedom.
and that would make additional revenue for console operators too. instead of hauling out entire platforms in every 3-4 years, they can speedily sell more cpus, gpus, mem units to the owners, both making more profits and also making them happy. also cutting design costs.
Read radical news here
True to an extent though i've noticed that a LOT less games are offering single console multiplayer this generation now that consoles have online support.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
they dont need to. the pressure can make the console operators give more freedoms to their users with their hardware and software.
hell, even the pioneering 'home computers' of mid 80s have expansion cartridges and whatnot. you could attach mem to amigas. some of them could even have coprocessors attached.
with the current state of chip industry, it doesnt take any effort to make consoles upgradeable at least in a few respects, like cpu power, or, gpu power, or mem, and allow users more freedom.
and that would make additional revenue for console operators too. instead of hauling out entire platforms in every 3-4 years, they can speedily sell more cpus, gpus, mem units to the owners, both making more profits and also making them happy. also cutting design costs.
You don't really seem to understand the point of game consoles.
I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
with the current state of chip industry, it doesnt take any effort to make consoles upgradeable at least in a few respects, like cpu power, or, gpu power, or mem, and allow users more freedom. and that would make additional revenue for console operators too. instead of hauling out entire platforms in every 3-4 years, they can speedily sell more cpus, gpus, mem units to the owners, both making more profits and also making them happy. also cutting design costs.
And doing that makes them essentially the same as PCs and all the issues of designing a game around systems with different specs.
At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me
Console or PC they are not in the business anymore of entertaining, they find a marketable concept and run with it. Atleast with consoles I know that any content coming out for it will be completely compatible with it. With PC you always have to have a open door to you wallet to purchase new RAM, new processors, new mobos' to keep up with the straining demands of higher end PC games. This may appeal to some of course but for me? I enjoy the pick-up-and-play one button into the action fix that i get from consoles. Like most things however it has become less and less about making a quality, immersive, detailed game and more about the bottom line and it doesnt matter in that case if your pro PC, pro console or both.
When you dislike the human race as much as I do, Karma:Bad is inevitable lol.
you cannot innovate or move at a rapid pace when you want to control everything to try and milk every cent you can out of a console. PC Gaming has and always be a strong platform no matter how companies try to continue to game the sales stats to make it look like consoles are selling well. PC Games are selling great and always will.
beautiful graphics - though underwhelming with regards to expectations - and average to sub-par gameplay.
the game just needs more soul, synergy, life, whathaveyou etc.: weapon behavior is rather stale, enemy ai is ok (the range of their retaliation is rather bland), enemy animation is boring (esp enemy deaths), environments arent complex enough (lots of flat land), fighting enemy forces is usually the same affair (no backup with little NPC variance [ak47s, jeeps and the rare heli), the suit just encourages acting as an uber-rambo, just too much meh, really.
add dogs, include traps, add more enemy boats, have your path choices affect the undiscovered enemy forces greatly, dont have gun attachments magically appear on weapons when selected, develop more first person animations such as recoiling from an explosion and other sexiness, when lurking through a jungle have birds give you away, include deformable terrain (helps with traps and dynamic ai), develop a shit-ton more enemy animations such as wounded animations, allow you to break enemy limbs, have enemy fortifications expand beyond huts and fences, i could go on and on. any of these would make it a much more interesting game.