How Elder Scrolls could look using CryEngine 3

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Zhukov:
Consoles might be holding things back, but only in terms of graphics and processing power.

I'd prefer developers to invest some effort in writing rather than continue with the polycount dick-waving. You don't need top hardware for that.

Y'know, people on these forums seem to forget that "graphics" means a lot more than just high polygon counts and high-res textures. It's animations, lighting, particle effects, you name it. Things that can make a game not only pretty to look at, but increase immersion and personal investment in the story, characters and ingame universe.

Not to mention that better hardware leads to better AI algorithms, better physics, all things that can improve a game immensely just beyond it's textures.

With the current generation of console, I think what needs to be acknowledged is this: Basically, today's consoles are not cute little plastic boxes into which you stick your 1- to 4MB gaming cartridges. Today's consoles are, basically, locked down computers with a very specific (and limited) purpose. They chug data from optical drives, because they offer lots of data at a reasonable price. Internal hard drives are identical to standard computer fare, and it's the only thing they were able to adapt and let naturally grow over the past five years, going from 40GB to 320GB without too much hassle

If Sony hadn't gotten rid of Other OS/Linux, more folks would have had a chance to realize that half a gig of RAM really isn't enough.

As such, the coming generation could very well still manage to amaze us with graphical demos, real-time renderings and the showing off of computing power. That's all good and to be expected.

On the graphical front, it does not make too much sense to aim for anything much more beyond 1080p. It's the standard HD resolution and even though I very much prefer 1200 vertical pixels, it's the way it is, and it's the way it could very well stay for a while. If everyone were to aim for 4K production values, we'd have pretty visuals at the cost of... everything else.

However, the most limiting factor for the two most powerful gaming rigs is the very, very limited amount of RAM. I do hope everyone is aware of that.

I would welcome 1 or 2 GB of fast, dedicated video RAM. That should be enough for a while, and definitely more than the, what, zero to 256MB we got these days. "Shared" video memory only really makes sense when you don't risk running out of RAM for anything else. Currently, that's not a given.

Total amount of RAM should be around 8 - 16GB, and if price is an issue, I also wouldn't mind Sony and Microsoft offering upgrade options of certified RAM sticks from a provider of their choice, and a friendly little (screwed down) hatch on the bottom of that dedicated gaming computer of the now.

512MB of total RAM was already daring for a gaming rig back in '07, it's absolutely sad today. They could put in the most advanced, bad-ass processor and it would be of no use without enough RAM to actually load that data and dump those textures in. It's refreshing to see smart people work on workarounds, but RAGE really only made it clear that a workaround is still just a workaround, and not a proper fix to a problem.

Zhukov:
Consoles might be holding things back, but only in terms of graphics and processing power.

I'd prefer developers to invest some effort in writing rather than continue with the polycount dick-waving. You don't need top hardware for that.

I concur. The only thing consoles are "holding back" are development budgets from becoming even more bloated and the market from becoming even more risk-adverse than it already is. :/

simply put when you port to pc a console game you are developing for cutting edge pc 8 years ago. that said im not really complaining my pc isnt exactly the best.

hmm weird to look back at it but look at the size of daggerfall back in the day. im wondering how an updated version of the system used to create that sort of world size would work today.

a procedurally generated world might work. the indy game dins curse pulls it off really well worth checking out if you like diablo style games and no two games will ever be the same.

BreakfastMan:

Zhukov:
Consoles might be holding things back, but only in terms of graphics and processing power.

I'd prefer developers to invest some effort in writing rather than continue with the polycount dick-waving. You don't need top hardware for that.

I concur. The only thing consoles are "holding back" are development budgets from becoming even more bloated and the market from becoming even more risk-adverse than it already is. :/

That may very well be intended and the case 'in general'. Consoles with 'modern' hardware approaches have to be considered a special, locked down and 'optimized' fragment of the personal computer market, using standard components to keep the price tag low, yet still aiming for a maximum of computing power and the most simple and functional user interface possible. Gaming consoles could very well feature a Mango Mongo UI and we'd still all be happy, because all we want is to be able to play those games.

I hope that the industry is aware of the fact that heavily limited RAM is directly responsible for limited FOV, linear paths, tunnel vision, chugging data directly from optical media and other assorted annoyances; those are all really just modern iterations of problems of systems long gone. Apart from still not understanding the true power or just the architecture of the CELL processor, I would assume we have plenty of computing power for gaming in the current generation already, but we're starving on RAM. Basically, we expect developers to deliver us 1080p high definition at 60 frames per second on hardware that was already anemic and insufficient in 2006. That's a tough job.

That video with the fields of grass looks nothing short of amazing. Would love to play something like that.

Edit: And while we're at it, some more videos of what gaming could look like a couple of years down the line.

Yeah it's nice. But if I want to see a forest I will look out my god damn window. Best first person graphs I have ever seen. I guess I should keep in mind that most people live in a city not a forest.

yes yes very pretty, but i'd say the thing holding game development back is the people who still think graphics are the way forward. Now that we've reached the point that poor graphic are not in the way of anything, you know since in the past if you tried to make a halfway realistic game, you couldn't see what the hell was going on. Now that finished with that, can we focus on other things like story, game play and suchlike.

Yeah, we all thought (when the current gen first came out) that consoles could stand out at the pinnacle of graphical and performance gaming for twice as long as the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube could, assuming graphical advancement would slow down within a year or two.

Fappy:
Spoiler alert: We were wrong.

You might think they lasted longer but only because developers were nervous about pushing the systems to total failure. Even Microsoft (routing for source now) claimed they were surprised at how far they've pushed to technology of the 360 and say there's still room for a little more improvement.

Lets hope they don't completely discontinue current gen when next-gen comes out, but instead continue to embrace it as long as percentage of people still use it with connectivity to the newer models. Though we can all safely assume the Wii U will do that and the PS4 will not. Flip a coin for the 360.

Bvenged:
Yeah, we all thought (when the current gen first came out) that consoles could stand out at the pinnacle of graphical and performance gaming for twice as long as the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube could, assuming graphical advancement would slow down within a year or two.

Fappy:
Spoiler alert: We were wrong.

You might think they lasted longer but only because developers were nervous about pushing the systems to total failure. Even Microsoft (routing for source now) claimed they were surprised at how far they've pushed to technology of the 360 and say there's still room for a little more improvement.

Lets hope they don't completely discontinue current gen when next-gen comes out, but instead continue to embrace it as long as percentage of people still use it with connectivity to the newer models. Though we can all safely assume the Wii U will do that and the PS4 will not. Flip a coin for the 360.

I think a problem arose that no one quite saw coming. Most of us console gamers were fine stagnating graphical improvements if it was going to mean more games with higher quality for longer without buying new hardware. The problem is that many recent games have been pushing the hardware far too much more than just graphically. Look at Skyrim's poor performance on the consoles. Yeah you could chalk a lot of that up to poor quality testing but it's pretty clear neither the 360 or the PS3 had the power to get the full functioning experience even if they spent another year optimizing it. ME3 suffers from a similar situation in that they couldn't include holstering animations because they ran out of RAM on the current gen hardware. I didn't even know that was possible. The console generation could have lasted longer, but I think developers were unwilling to hold the industry back technologically.

RevRaptor:

Iszfury:

EDIT: Also, it's generally not actually implementing assets into a game that generates the ridiculous fortunes required to create them as much as the creation of said assets. EX: My work with modding in CE2. I could very well do something along the lines of that Total-War-esque scenario you're presenting to the public from my home computer in roughly 2 months, assuming I was provided the assets beforehand. Or, rather, the development of a game world that size. More time than money is required. I've built nearly 1KMx1KM maps myself.

Annnd that makes no sense, If you make a game 10 times bigger you need ten time the hours or ten times the staff, Time is money. Even if people are just populating an area with shrubs and trees that is still a lot of extra hours plus the bug testers have to go through it all afterwards creating even more drain on the budget not to mention the extra hours created by the need to put tasks/quests and enemies there all of which needs to be tested afterwards.

Modding a game is very different to developing it. Staff need to be paid, often quite a lot of staff an extra month or two can end up costing over a million dollars.

Let me introduce you to my friend, Procedural Generation - Pro for short. With his help, I can generate a varied, interesting 36-square-mile environment (that conforms to the rules of geology and ecology) in ten minutes flat. And, while he cannot yet simulate the internal logic of human society, I have a plan to allow him to do just that.

Zhukov:
Consoles might be holding things back, but only in terms of graphics and processing power.

I'd prefer developers to invest some effort in writing rather than continue with the polycount dick-waving. You don't need top hardware for that.

Exactly. I'm actually glad consoles are "holding down gaming" so developers can focus on more important things than making their games not run on 95% of PCs.

Noswad:
yes yes very pretty, but i'd say the thing holding game development back is the people who still think graphics are the way forward. Now that we've reached the point that poor graphic are not in the way of anything, you know since in the past if you tried to make a halfway realistic game, you couldn't see what the hell was going on. Now that finished with that, can we focus on other things like story, game play and suchlike.

I would like to direct you to a previous comment.

Dexter111:

Oh my days. Came buckets.

JoesshittyOs:

Hazy992:
That second one looks too warm to me. It looks like its somewhere tropical. I'm not denying the visuals are stunning but when I play skyrim I imagine it's a cold place

Well, Skyrim is just one part of the Elder Scrolls universe. There's a few Tropical places in Tamriel.

OT: This isn't the fault of Consoles holding anything back. This is simply a matter of price.

I'll full well admit that I don't know much about the extents of a PC, but it seems to me that you need a pretty hefty rig to run this, something that you aren't gonna be able to afford for under a thousand bucks.

If PC games were more easily accessible in price, than you'd be able to blame the console market. But saying that they're holding it back when the average gamer couldn't even afford something like this? That's going a bit too far.

But it is nifty to think that this is probably what the next elder scrolls game will look like when the time comes around. But then again, their problem isn't in the visual department.

You can probably run this stuff on a mid tier gaming PC if you want to.

Waaghpowa:

Noswad:
yes yes very pretty, but i'd say the thing holding game development back is the people who still think graphics are the way forward. Now that we've reached the point that poor graphic are not in the way of anything, you know since in the past if you tried to make a halfway realistic game, you couldn't see what the hell was going on. Now that finished with that, can we focus on other things like story, game play and suchlike.

I would like to direct you to a previous comment.

I'm not going to disagree that more power and resources can create larger and more immersion worlds and god know we need to do something about AI, however the video I responded to only displayed advanced graphics. Yes improving graphics will enhance games, but so far the thing most looked for in game development has been graphical improvement, look at the development of say the Total war series for example, since Rome the only thing to really improve has been the Graphics. I think that idea is coming to an end, the next major jump in games will not come in graphical improvement. This does not run in contradiction to your post, possibly one of the more eloquent arguments I've seen in a forum.

In another point about consoles slowing game development down, it's worth remembering a console and gaming pc run completely different life cycles. A console gets upgraded every 5 or 6 years, while a PC can be upgraded constantly at greater expense, but allowing for a more powerful machine. I'm not entirely convinced that games being marketed for the much wider console audience can be called holding the medium back, after all the worst thing for the medium would be if they were restricted to the more powerful PC's, as much as you want to drive the medium forward it is driven by money. But yeah I'll probably agree that my 360 looks a bit weak in comparison to a top end Gaming PC, but new generation coming in soon, so this argument will probably disappear once developers start focusing on the PS4, YBox 720 and the Wii U.

Daystar Clarion:

Animation for me, is more important than the polygon count, because if something moves properly, I can forgive outdated visuals.

One of the factors of the Halo CE remake that annoyed me is the fact that the graphics were up to date but the animation made all the cutscenes look horrible.

Zhukov:

Daystar Clarion:
Animation for me, is more important than the polygon count, because if something moves properly, I can forgive outdated visuals.

Truth.

Proof:

I clicked on the video skeptical, thinking that Half-Life will look like arse no matter how pretty the animations are. I was very wrong. Those animations make all the difference.

*Drool*
And people say graphics don't matter.
Still, I'm a bit worried about how this is going to affect the cost of development. I mean, better visuals also means higher developemtcosts and fewer risks taken. But then again, I wonder if the publishers can play it a whole lot safer then they already do

Noswad:
-

In regards to total war, I believe there was a significant improvement in AI. How good AI is and how many you can have running at once is a process that is handled by CPU, not GPU. The greater the resources we can get our hands on, the better these AI's can potentially be making games LIKE Total War that much better.

PC's don't have cycles per se as they are capable of much more than the average console with being modular and such. Upgrading is almost a non issue with the current generation constantly keeping the bar low as far as resource requirements are concerned. This is where consoles are holding things back to a certain extent.

Since almost every game will have a release on consoles, theoretically, it's better to develop for the lowest common denominator and work up because if you can get it to run perfectly on the weakest hardware, then the stronger hardware should be able to do it too. This is not that case. DICE knows what they're doing. They knew to develop Battlefield 3 for PC first because in software development, it's easier to remove features from a program than it is to add it later. Adding later causes some huge issues and numerous bugs. That is part of the reason why they focused development on PC first. I'm not saying all devs should focus on PC first because I feel entitled to a better game, I'm speaking as someone who has done his own bit of coding in the past and knows the horror of adding things after the fact.

This focus on the lowest common denominator means that a lot of games are rather small in scope because devs have to work with what little resources are available for platform A. This is why a lot of PC gamers are irked, simply because you have these games that just seem simple, small and lacking depth all because the platform that was chosen as lead can't handle much more than that. Not only that, but devs are forced to cut corners. A good example is in Mass Effect 3, I can't find a video to show you, but at the beginning you see people running away from the building on the ground. Thing is, they're cut outs running sideways..

I wont bother to go into too much detail regarding consoles and "Making games appeal to a larger audience" bullcrap. Publishers these days seem to think that the console audience is just plain dumb and so they "dumb down" their games to accommodate them. Christian Allen is quoted as saying that an unnamed publisher publisher told him that console players are too dumb. Syndicate (2012) was made as a FPS from the original Syndicate (1993) which was an RTS, why? Aside from the obvious "Shooters make more money", companies like Blizzard make major bank on RTS games, why is this a problem? Arguably it's the "They're too dumb for this" mentality.

In short, there are some aspects of the game industry in which consoles are holding things back, but it's not directly their fault. The fault comes from the publishers and developers who make short cuts, cut corners and focus far too much on the money. (Note: I'm not saying that they shouldn't make money, simply that publishers like EA are far more concerned with money than a quality product)

Zhukov:
Consoles might be holding things back, but only in terms of graphics and processing power.

I'd prefer developers to invest some effort in writing rather than continue with the polycount dick-waving. You don't need top hardware for that.

Agreed. Pretty graphics can't disguise a shitty game.

omicron1:

RevRaptor:

Iszfury:

EDIT: Also, it's generally not actually implementing assets into a game that generates the ridiculous fortunes required to create them as much as the creation of said assets. EX: My work with modding in CE2. I could very well do something along the lines of that Total-War-esque scenario you're presenting to the public from my home computer in roughly 2 months, assuming I was provided the assets beforehand. Or, rather, the development of a game world that size. More time than money is required. I've built nearly 1KMx1KM maps myself.

Annnd that makes no sense, If you make a game 10 times bigger you need ten time the hours or ten times the staff, Time is money. Even if people are just populating an area with shrubs and trees that is still a lot of extra hours plus the bug testers have to go through it all afterwards creating even more drain on the budget not to mention the extra hours created by the need to put tasks/quests and enemies there all of which needs to be tested afterwards.

Modding a game is very different to developing it. Staff need to be paid, often quite a lot of staff an extra month or two can end up costing over a million dollars.

Let me introduce you to my friend, Procedural Generation - Pro for short. With his help, I can generate a varied, interesting 36-square-mile environment (that conforms to the rules of geology and ecology) in ten minutes flat. And, while he cannot yet simulate the internal logic of human society, I have a plan to allow him to do just that.

Well duh, dev's have been using auto generating land for a long time now but some one still has to check all that other wise you end up with really bad clipping or terrain that traps players. Just because you can generate the land quickly dose not mean you have a polished product. That takes a humans hand. Why do you think Morrowind had a levitate spell. That one spell allowed for much laxer terrain checking as the player had the ability to get themselves out of the nooks and crannies of the terrain. Bringing that point up really doesn't change my original point.

Well of course it looks better on the CryEngine, but why would you want that?

I have a perfectly fine ps2 and ps1 in my room that play splendid games from long years past and I'd rather play them in their crudbasket quality then spend some 2000$ on a computer that can run everything nowadays on Cry.

I'd kiss the ass of any game devolper today that spend more time on Gamplay then he did in the Art room. (That Said; Notch has got some really red cheeks by now)

Fappy:
I think a problem arose that no one quite saw coming.

Actually, a lot of PC gamers saw this coming... but we're just butthurt elitists so what would we know? ;)

Most of us console gamers were fine stagnating graphical improvements if it was going to mean more games with higher quality for longer without buying new hardware.

Yeah, that's one thing that's always made me laugh... increasing expectations from static hardware setups... and then they talk about optimisation as if it's just something that happens rather than something that requires thousands of work hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars to achieve (and I'm lowballing this). Fact is that consumer demand for improvement without further investment on their own part is partially to blame for development budgets going fucking berserk.

RhombusHatesYou:

Fappy:
I think a problem arose that no one quite saw coming.

Actually, a lot of PC gamers saw this coming... but we're just butthurt elitists so what would we know? ;)

Most of us console gamers were fine stagnating graphical improvements if it was going to mean more games with higher quality for longer without buying new hardware.

Yeah, that's one thing that's always made me laugh... increasing expectations from static hardware setups... and then they talk about optimisation as if it's just something that happens rather than something that requires thousands of work hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars to achieve (and I'm lowballing this). Fact is that consumer demand for improvement without further investment on their own part is partially to blame for development budgets going fucking berserk.

The only issue I see in blaming the consumer in any regard is: how did the consumer show that they were fine with hardware stagnation and unwilling to invest more? I guess you could just assume this looking at the state of the economy for the past few years, but until recently (like what, the last 1-2 years) console sales have been pretty strong. Though, I suppose price cuts do factor into this.

I must admit I do find it depressing when I power up the latest title only to see the low polygon, AI shattering abuse wreaked on it by console constraints. Such a shame games are being held back like this to line Microsoft and Sony's pockets. Can't believe people still hand over 200+ for six year old kit that was behind the curve on release. Then to rub salt into the wound the internet connectivity is awful, Sony/Microsoft dictate what you can download and charge you a premium for doing so. Shocking really.

omicron1:
Let me introduce you to my friend, Procedural Generation - Pro for short. With his help, I can generate a varied, interesting 36-square-mile environment (that conforms to the rules of geology and ecology) in ten minutes flat. And, while he cannot yet simulate the internal logic of human society, I have a plan to allow him to do just that.

Which doesn't mean shit if the system you're trying to run it on doesn't have the resources to manage it.

Ashadow700:
*Drool*
And people say graphics don't matter.
Still, I'm a bit worried about how this is going to affect the cost of development. I mean, better visuals also means higher developemtcosts and fewer risks taken. But then again, I wonder if the publishers can play it a whole lot safer then they already do

The first two videos were actually made by a guy looking for a job in the games industry to add to his portfolio in his free time, there is a thread over here with some of the processes and more info in regards to that: http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=92546

The last video was made by a single artist that got hired by CryTek UK: http://www.mayvin.be/index.php

Dear Esther, one of the most impressive visual experiences in the past few years was made by two guys, most of the Level design by one designer that used to work for DICE on Mirror's Edge and that by using the Source Engine...: http://www.littlelostpoly.co.uk/

I'm sure a company like Bethesda, employing hundreds of people would manage... alas everything they design has to work well on consoles because it's the (perceived) larger market, and Skyrim for instance already really didn't because of too many variables and worlds that were too much for the hardware to handle in many cases.

Also, yes the costs would potentially increase but not exponentially, let me quote myself from somewhere else in regards to this video:

Alongside those tech developments they usually also develop better tools to make use of them along with APIs that make certain other tasks a lot easier, you've seen the dynamic AI pathing in the video above, nowadays there's APIs that handle real-time lighting (e.g. Enlighten), things like SpeedTree to make vegetation a lot easier and even "generate" entire woods, there seems to be more and more work going towards AI and dynamic AI (not only by CryTek), there's also APIs for realistic animations (like EAs ANT system), you can build UIs easier with Scaleform and once certain effects/algorithms like Realtime Reflections have been added to an engine which is being licensed (Unreal Engine/CryEngine/Frostbite etc.) there's not that much work involved by single developers using those tools. Time-consuming processes like setting up the lighting correctly and checking it or setting up AI pathways by hand that were a pain in the past become almost automatic or require little input and arranging.

Without those advancements (or the need for them because the console generation is literally blocking it) there is also no need for better/easier tools and implementations, why work on something that will "only" work on PC and might be used by that obscure MMO or Shooter every now and again when most major commercial releases still use Tech of yesteryear? Why develop better AI if there ain't enough RAM for a reload-animation in games like Mass Effect 3 anyway? The more advanced and harder to achieve things get, the greater will be the need for better tools and middleware to be able to do them easier.
They'll spend about the same kind of money trying to squeeze out better visuals from old consoles any way they can, by optimizing for months anyway (see Uncharted, RAGE, Battlefield 3 etc.), I'd rather they spend it on something constructive and innovative instead.

Tech development (in general) is also rather interdependent and you'll never know if something people call a "gimmick" (like improved AI or fluid body physics or whatnot) and make fun of one day might prove critical for the game concept of another game in the future. Not only that, but other fields like medicine and CAD have also tremendously profited from the huge commercial push into tech being made by both games and movie CGI in the past few years, they've even indirectly helped to save lifes.

Fappy:
The only issue I see in blaming the consumer in any regard is: how did the consumer show that they were fine with hardware stagnation and unwilling to invest more? I guess you could just assume this looking at the state of the economy for the past few years, but until recently (like what, the last 1-2 years) console sales have been pretty strong. Though, I suppose price cuts do factor into this.

I don't think that quite resembles reality, if these stats are anything to go by for instance: http://www.newzoo.com/img_content/Newzoo_us_grijs_tn3.png and the decrease in console sales over the last few years are taken in to account also there's definitely also stagnation in sales happening. It definitely prompted Nintendo to react and Microsoft/SONY likely to move their plans forward. I'm still waiting for their stats from this year, hope they release them soon too :P

I wouldn't say consoles are holding back games. But they are definitely holding back graphics.

Nobody wants to create amazing graphics for a fuck expensive PC's that only a handful of people own. It's just not a good business model.

Spend millions on said engine, only get a fraction of that when you sell it as a game, because nobody can run it.

Games can do perfectly well without the graphical grunt the PC can produce. Just take a look at metacritic and spy all the games that are highly rated, but don't hold much in terms of looks.

But with that said, you can give maximum praise to the likes of Nvidia, Crytek, Unreal, AMD for really pushing the boundaries, despite the bad business model for the soul purpose of pushing graphical capabilities forward. These are the real innovators that /care about console markets, and are concentrating purely on getting that fabled photo-realistic, 100% accurate scene, complete with amazing physics, lighting, characters, tessellation, geometry, effects, sounds, you bloody name it.

Consoles CAN'T advance with the graphics. It just doesn't work like that. Consoles pick a time to benchmark, and then that's it for 2 - 10 years. But PC's...? You can upgrade their hardware on the fly, you can upgrade their software. They will forever be stronger, faster, more adaptive, they change with the times.

For example, the second the tessellation breakthrough was made by Nvidia, the top end graphics cards all embarked on supporting that shit, and were patched and configured for this REALLY advanced form of graphical prowess in under a freaking week! And tessellation is reallllyyyy advanced! Consoles? I seriously doubt even the PS4 would even support tessellation as standard.

But y'know, the only thing holding the PC back? It's... hefty price tag.

Zhukov:

Daystar Clarion:
Animation for me, is more important than the polygon count, because if something moves properly, I can forgive outdated visuals.

Truth.

Proof:

That looks great. I definitely agree, animation trumps graphics any day. Clunky and awkward animations pull me out of an otherwise immersive experience faster than anything else.

Fappy:
The only issue I see in blaming the consumer in any regard is: how did the consumer show that they were fine with hardware stagnation and unwilling to invest more?

I never said 'fine' or 'unwilling'...

However, by the simple fact that consoles sell by the shitload (at least when economies are good) shows that the consumer is willing to accept fixed hardware configurations and the very nature of consoles and other fixed hardware systems means further investment in improved performance can't be done by the consumer...

Janus Vesta:

Fappy:
I wouldn't say consoles are to blame so much as it is the industry as a whole. Consoles just get blamed because we were stupid enough to believe console generations could last twice as long as they used to. Spoiler alert: We were wrong.

It's nt consoles themselves, but they are in the center of the issue. Publishers wont develop PC only title because, like it or not, mostof theirsales will come from the consle market and they'd be fools to shut themselves off from it. Developers can't take advantage of PC's power because they need to run thegames on consoles and optimising for both consoles AND the PC takes a lot of time and money.

Then there's Microsoft and Sony who want to bleed every cent out of the current generation and fear the current economic climate would make releasing a new console risky.

Consoles are holding gaming back but it's not because their bad machines and it's not really anyone's fault, everyone is just doing what they can to safely turn a profit.

one of the main thing people need to consider is it isn't the consoles themselves holding the gaming market back. Its the consumers. People don't want to fork over a good 800 bucks to make a great gaming rig that can run and render an interactive environment like a game. Consoles are the cheap solution and thats why the market is so centered around them, because so many people have them.

Genuinely though, that's pretty and all, but I can't honestly say it looks any better than skyrim already looks. That's probably from the video quality being lacking compared to having the actual game running though.

You know how expensive it'd be to design an entire game like that?
Also I am not fond of the trend of polygon dickwaving instead actually writing a decent story and invest funds in tweaking gameplay mechanics.

RhombusHatesYou:

omicron1:
Let me introduce you to my friend, Procedural Generation - Pro for short. With his help, I can generate a varied, interesting 36-square-mile environment (that conforms to the rules of geology and ecology) in ten minutes flat. And, while he cannot yet simulate the internal logic of human society, I have a plan to allow him to do just that.

Which doesn't mean shit if the system you're trying to run it on doesn't have the resources to manage it.

Which is a nonissue when multiple cores/gigabytes of memory are taken into account. Unless you're talking about current gen consoles (and really, there's no reason to do so anymore when innovating), there is power aplenty for all purposes.

evilneko:

Jesse Billingsley:
Warning: Requires super computer

Yes. This came to mind for me as well.

Skyrim runs on my 3.5 year old PC that was mid-range when I got it. (and thanks to its new engine, runs better than the Gamebryo games, god Gamebryo sucks)

Not everyone's gonna have dual GTX 560s and an Octocore and 20 GB RAM to go with it.

No idea what any of those letters and numbers meant but I'm sure its out of my pay range :P

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked