This, I think we'll see true next gen games around summer 2014 with games like Titanfall or Watch Dogs.
Comment has been collapsed.
OR read about what the "real" next gen is, which is pretty much the opposite of the nowadays' "I'll say it's next gen, because the dumb kids will believe it no matter what".
The real next gen means a brand new structural design in the graphic engine of the games resulting in better looking games, which require LESS hardware performance. And with this, the nowadays beta features, like: new lighting, shadow system, (even more) advanced phsyx can be implemented much more effectively, because with the new engine "type" it will require less hardware output, for the same result.
The "bad" news is you won't see any real next gen game until the end of '14, or more likely early '15. And no, just because Mr. GiefmoneyPleaze the CEO of GenericFpsShooter said their game is next gen, it's not.
Oh, and one more thing: If you care about next gen, forget about consoles, if you can understand the letters on the keyboard you can operate a PC, and read about why you paid +200$ for a weaker console, for a price of a very decent, powerful PC. Cheers! :)
Comment has been collapsed.
the definition of "next gen" is way more simple than what you try to interpret into it. ;)
and btw, you cannot buy a descent gaming pc for the price of a next gen console. not even close.
Comment has been collapsed.
sorry, but you can not buy a good gaming pc for 400-500$. ^^ i highly doubt that you can build a pc for this amount of money, which can run current and upcoming (next-gen) games on high settings (a pc should be able to compete with next-gen, before i call it a good gaming pc). for the graphics card alone you will need nearly half of that money. i would say you should at least buy a geforce gtx 760, to call your rig a decent gaming pc. and this card will cost maybe 200$. then you still need a good cpu (also not cheap) and mainboard (if you want a good mainboard for overclocking, it gets a little more expensive again), RAM hard drive(s), case, DVD/BD-drive and so on. very hard to get all that for 400-500$.
Comment has been collapsed.
You do not need GTX 760 to call it a "gaming PC". You need to play games on it, for it to be a gaming PC... And you can play games with all sorts of graphics cards. I actually once tried to put together a PC for £350 (the price of an Xbone, £20 more than a PS4, in the UK) on PCPartPicker, and it would've easily played most modern games at 1080p 35-40 FPS (better than PS4 as far as we've been told so far).
Plus, on a PC you have the option of turning settings down, so if you don't mind playing with mid/high, instead of ultra, your PC will last without upgrading for a really long time.
Comment has been collapsed.
i was talking about a good gaming pc. not only a pc that is able to play games (else i could aswell talk about my pc at work with his shitty graphics card ^^).
playing most 1080p games at 35-40 fps (and even without AA, i guess) is not exactly what i would call a nice gaming experience. i would rather set everything to minimum than playing at such a low framerate. a descent gaming pc gives you 60 fps at high or even ultra settings. at least that's my definition of a good gaming pc. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
This person you are arguing with didn't compare what could be built for the cost of a console to enthusiast gaming PCs. He simply said you can build a gaming PC for the price of a console that would be at/above the performance of a console. Which he did actually illustrate. A cheap, but well built PC could actually out perform a console, based on the fact that a console will run stuff at about equal to mid-line PC graphics settings, and at 24-30FPS typically, the same frame rate as movie playback. Which means, that really, a cheap PC built with an AMD A10 APU, 8GB of RAM, and a GPU ~$100 should cost around about the same price as an XBOne, outperform it at everything including gaming, allow you the flexibility of a PC gaming experience, as well as the utility of a PC. Thus making it, in all logical and rational ways, a far better purchase.
Comment has been collapsed.
why do you think that the next gen consoles will play games typically at 24-30 fps? only because of one or two examples which were in the news recently? i doubt that this will be the standard. in fact, battlefield 4 - the graphically most advanced game we have so far - will run with 60 fps (i know, it's 900p/720p, but still).
what is a good graphics card for 100$? according to toms hardware guide, the radeon hd 7790 is the best card for 120$. in battlefield 4 this card delivers around 30 fps in 1080p (without AA!). this is not exactly what i would call "outperforming". in fact, the ps4 is probably performing better than this card.
when comparing the performance of console vs pc, we have to consider that developing well performing games for consoles is way easier than for pc. the devs know exactly what hardware is in the console, so they can optimize the shit out of it. this level of optimization just doesn't happen on pc. if you are theoretically en par with the hardware of a ps4, you lose simply because of the lack of optimization (and other factors, e.g. windows using some of your performance).
if you are playing on a low-cost pc, either cpu or gpu is the bottleneck. depends on the game (e.g. crysis 3 pushes my i5-3570 way up to 80-90%, other games may only consume like 30% of the processing power, while the gpu is on fire). this means that in most games you are not able to use all your theoretical performance. you can bet your ass that ps4 games will use as much of the hardware as possible.
take your 400-500$ system and try to run battlefield 4 with high settings (not even ultra, and no AA) and 900p at 60 fps, like the ps4 does. i am pretty sure it won't work. :)
btw, i am a pc gamer. did i mention that? what i say here may sound different, but i love my pc and for sure won't buy a ps4 or xbox one. for me personally the pc is a way better system (a nice gaming pc, of course; not a 400$ lost-cost pc). xD
Comment has been collapsed.
The PS4 uses a modded HD 7850, so yes, it is better than an HD 7790.
Also, you've said on multiple occasions that you don't mind having slightly worse graphics to improve playability, yet you keep on whining that an HD 7790 won't run games at 60 FPS on ULTRA at 1080P. Now, most games won't be native 1080p on the Xbone at all, and the ones that will be 1080p on the PS4 will indeed run like crap... Whereas, as I mentioned before, you can turn settings down on the PC, if you don't mind slightly worse graphics (I honestly don't see much difference between medium and ultra in a lot of games) to increase the performance drastically.
I suggest you check out a reddit called BuildaPC. You'll be amazed at what some of the builds for 400-500$ are like. I think I saw someone today who managed to create a build with an HD 7850, a six core AMD processor (FX 6100, I think) and 8 GB of RAM for just over 420$. I'm not quite sure how much the PS4 costs in the US, but in British Pounds, 420 dollars equal about £275. That is £75 less than a PS4. Don't get me wrong though, in UK that PC would be more expensive due to VAT, I'm just giving you an idea of what the regional pricing is like.
Comment has been collapsed.
I paid $500 for my pc (+$140 for my monitor, which doesn't count since it doubles as my TV which you would also need for a console) two years ago. I still run most games at max settings. Not all, mind you. However, I have NEVER run into a game that I can't play at 50-60 fps.
Comment has been collapsed.
That said, I still want a PS4 and anti-console elitist/purists can go jump off a bridge somewhere or something.
Comment has been collapsed.
maybe the prices in your country are different from mine. ^^ what cpu and graphics cards is in that pc?
Comment has been collapsed.
I bought my PC 3 years ago for around 550$
Inter Core i5 @ 3.3Ghz ;8GB DDR3 Kingston ram; 1GB video ram GeForce GTX 460; 1TB HDD
The graphic card could have been better, but since it's 3 years old, I really can't complain. My graphically most advanced game is Tomb Raider (2013) atm, which runs nearly on max. at stable 30-35FPS (without the TressFX it runs smooth on max, with even higher FPS).
I'd like to mention it again that the computer is NEARLY THREE YEARS old for 550$.
Sure, the CPU, and graphic card was on sale, when I bought the rig, but that's just an extra, and not a disadvantage.
Comment has been collapsed.
I find some of the people I interact with out there to be worse AI than I find in some games...
Comment has been collapsed.
Um, I can play BF4 maxed out too and I dont consider it a "breakthrough" or something. Its just a little better.
Comment has been collapsed.
What graphics do you expect? real life graphics?
Go to your windows and be amazed of the unparalleled smoothness an lightning
Comment has been collapsed.
No, I don't expect life like. Just something to set a clear line between now and next. Think of the jump between ps1 to ps2, then to ps3, the margin was huge.
Comment has been collapsed.
The difference in graphix will be smaller and smaller each gen, but always trailing PC graphix
Comment has been collapsed.
Agreed. I think converting to PC probably had an impact on the wow factor for me.
Comment has been collapsed.
well, what youtube can't really show to you: next-gen will have significantly better textures (textures on 360/ps3 are just ugly as hell due to lack of memory) and 60 fps (at least many games, hopefully). it may be not as big of a step as ps2=>ps3, but it's still big. games which have 1080p and 60 fps will be a whole new experience for some gamers, who only saw ps3/360 games before. ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
I wonder what graphics card was used to power the Matrix.
Comment has been collapsed.
Clearly, it wasn't a graphics card at all, it was just BLAST PROCESSING!!!!!!
Comment has been collapsed.
lol I played that on my original xbox, it looked just like that.
Comment has been collapsed.
You will always see PC gamers when you talk about graphics (especially this "next-gen" graphics) Why? Because PC always will have better graphics (regardless of the difference)
Comment has been collapsed.
Did anyone catch that he spelled "incoming" wrong, while calling others retarded?
Comment has been collapsed.
Your edit tells us nothing besides you baiting people....
Comment has been collapsed.
Love those grammar-nazis typing your you're :P
That face always gets me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thx captain, I didn't knew they where so easy to fell for it....
Its like putting a mine on the ground with a neon sign next to it pointing an arrow to the mine with the text: "Caution! Mine!". And still stepping on it.
Pretty funny if you ask me.
Comment has been collapsed.
If I was a fish I would be eaten, hopefully seasoned well with some rice.
I don't like to be wasted on bad cooking skills.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nope, not at all. More like implying that someone who has the audacity to call others retarded should have their shit together.
Comment has been collapsed.
'NextGen graphics' is simple a way to hype the new consoles. It's an improvement because consoles are static, but it's a joke to use that term in pc gaming.
Another thing I find amusing is how console gamers get excited with the word 'exclusives'. it doesn't matter if the game is a piece of shit, but hey! my console has more exclusives, you know??!
Stupid.
I'm not a console hater. I own several of them. What I cant stand is the lame fanboyism
Comment has been collapsed.
Honestly Skyrim needs texture mods, I remember walking around and looking at the textures, some were fine, others were 1990's bad...I mean super pixilated ground in wilderness areas were garring and broke immersion when other stuff looked pretty good.
Comment has been collapsed.
"where it looks like you're looking at a piece of wood rendered by a PS1."
Same on PC if you ask me, I played it maxed out and saw ps1(Honestly worse in some places) type textures, its really just laziness by the devs, Bethesda doesn't give a shit imo, they pretty much rely on modders now to fix and complete the game...
Comment has been collapsed.
That's pretty sad. I had hoped for better on PC, but I hadn't seen it first-hand. Although, Bethesda's greatest contribution seems to be limited to giving us big sandboxes for modders to improve. I shudder to think of what their games would be like if they couldn't be modded at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
Now its bout things like lighting effects, reflections, bloom, etc instead of the standard more pixels because of something called diminishing returns.
Take a look at this: http://i.imgur.com/aFKEttJ.png
Comment has been collapsed.
I personally don't think it's going to be a large enough leap to convince the majority of normal gamers to invest $400+ in a system without backwards compatibility, and that the majority of PS4 and XBone purchases are going to be by dedicated console gamers (rather than the amount of casuals which resulted in this last generation having 70 million more console purchases than the previous, I honestly am having doubts that the three systems will even beat the PS2 in sales combined).
Comment has been collapsed.
At first when I clicked the link I was like wow, that does look next...oh, wait, that's Crysis 3.
My old english teacher owned a vintage games shop, one class he spent the whole time talking about the step up in the bits from 16 to 64 and how Nintendo skipped 32 all together. Pretty easy class to say the least.
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly technically the current gen is better then the so called next gen wave of systems so yeah its not super impressive. I could have used Metro Last Light also, Crysis 3 is a very good example though.
I felt that even though the N64 was amazing that the graphics on the PS1 had a certain detail quality to them that bested it, N64 was smoother pixel wise though, both were great upgrades for the 16 bit systems.
Comment has been collapsed.
What you are probably referring to is the fact that the PS1 was able to handle a larger amount of textures due to a horrible buffer oversight by the Nintendo 64 R&D (partially due to the cartridge-based media, but they made quite a few idiotic decisions with the system. For example, the tech inside is actually superior for FMV-playing compared to the PS1 and would have been able to run them at higher resolution . . . . except cartridges don't store videos or long sound samples that well so it's never used).
The N64 itself was closer to the Dreamcast and PlayStaion 2 in power than it was to the PlayStation 1. Not only did the N64 games have higher polygons, but it was capable of more post-processing options than the PS1 does, including being the very first home console to have anti-alias. If only Nintendo went with discs and a larger texture buffer, then the games could have looked like this or this. (note that Mario in Super Mario 64 was almost completely textureless, he mostly relied on the N64's excellent shaders to have the charm that he did due to the lack of texture space in the buffer)
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah thats pretty much it, forgot why exactly, makes sense, that is a shame, to bad the Nintendo/Sony merger didn't happen, probably would have fixed the issue....maybe we would have a had a disc based N64 without those restrictions/issues.
Comment has been collapsed.
TBH I like the Xbone, I don't care about the graphics that much. I go for the games like Halo, Titan Fall, Destiny, and Dice's new Star Wars Battlefront Series(I CAN'T F!#@ING WAIT!). I like the PC but I have no job and in community college, so money is tight here.
Comment has been collapsed.
years ago multiplying triangles in a model by 2 was resulting with extreme quality increase, now we have to multiply it dozen of times to make the thing visible, that requires A LOT more of power... "next gen" consoles got power of mid-range PC, so don't expect miracles here ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I stepped away from gaming for about a year once. Coming back, it was hilarious to me how people claimed things looked "realistic" (Crysis 2-era, I think it was). I think regular gamers are jaded by a continual experience of gaming, and over time end up with a warped sense of what looks acceptably "realistic".
IMHO, games still have a long way to go to catch up with reality, and with that in mind, yeah, I haven't really seen anything mind-blowing out there like I've hoped for for "next gen" graphics.
Granted, on the technical end, it takes much more art and code time, and takes more machine power (especially for real-time rendering), and consequently costs a whole lot more -- so I don't actually expect truly realistic looking graphics for a long time, until we have a good library of much of that being solved procedurally (kind of like what SpeedTree did for video game vegetation).
Comment has been collapsed.
No, until hardware makes a huge leap, there will not be real next gen graphics. The visual is limited by major or main stream hardware standard. Developers still need to calculate the max amount of triangles and vertices in each scene. That is why they still use normal mapping instead of displacement mapping. As far as I know, game engine like forstbite 3, cryengine 3 can do almost a 3d software like 3ds max can do. So the potential of game engine is pretty unlimited. As I said above, the current hardware is limited.
Comment has been collapsed.
The jump from say ps3 to ps4 was said to be nowhere near as drastic as the jump from ps2 to ps3, as is obviously evident.
Comment has been collapsed.
We really are not leaving a lot of places to go. To be honest the only thing battlefield 4 is missing is some crickets crawling around in the grass when I am in the prone. Granit, improvement can always be argued for things, but we have some amazing games out now so I am not getting any hopes up that my ps4 is going to blow me away. But some games are just better sitting in your recliner and played by simply inserting a disc.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bring Crash back, I really don't understand why it died so horribly....
Honestly could care less for other games by them....sadly.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well last year before I got new glasses lenses I though mw2 was more detailed than real life LOL!
Comment has been collapsed.
The specs for the new consoles are catching up to current gen PC's, so if you are a PC gamer you won't see too much differences from what you are used to in high gfx PC games until the 2nd or 3rd year of the next gen once devs get a firm handle on using the consoles resources to their full potential
Comment has been collapsed.
Law of diminishing returns. At a certain point, adding more polygons and increasing texture size doesn't really do anything.
Hence why every next gen game has asstons of HDR and post-processing instead.
Comment has been collapsed.
I could always care less about eye-candy and ear-candy. I care more about good gameplay in a fun game with a great story. Many adventure games still do it for me and with even less than current top of the line graphics. Heck, I still play some classic games from the late 80s and early 90s. I still cannot find a game as good as Master of Magic with all the supposed modern remakes.
Comment has been collapsed.
People creaming over graphics is what's wrong with gaming. All it seems is graphics graphics graphics. This is how you end up with below average games like crysis compared to other of it's genre, but hey it has good graphics !!111!!!
Comment has been collapsed.
you are seeing this wrong. i am very gameplay orientated. but in a discussion about next-gen consoles, of course the main topic must be the graphics. it's a new piece of hardware. what does new hardware for your gameplay? exactly, nothing (except things like the Wii, of course). i know, people on the internet always want to make clear, that their main focus is gameplay, gameplay, gameplay and good graphics are so bad and destroy the industry... ;)
and btw, did you every really play Crysis? These are descent games, actually. But again: a "core-gamer" on the internet has no choice but to hate. all and everything. to hate call of duty, battlefield, crysis, ea, ubisoft, dlc, sequels, prequels... did i mention ea? ^^
well, i like good graphics. of course i do. take the same game and add better graphics - now it's a better game. don't get me wrong, i also play classics from time to time. but to be honest: only few are still very good. lots of the old games didn't age very well. and many made horrible gameplay mistakes. of course there are games that never get old. Super Mario World is still the best mario game of all time. Colonization is my favourite game of all time, and i still play it from time to time (and it had bad graphics to begin with in 1994 ^^). but in general the old games are way worse than what we have now. what i want to say is, that the gameplay of today's games is not that bad. play the old games, and you know i am right. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
+1, most of the old titles I'm nostalgic about is nearly unplayable nowadays, and the overall quality of games had increased massively over years. New hardware brings not only the graphics, but bigger, more detailed worlds, accurate physics, better AI and more gameplay possibilities.
I tried to play through some of those old titles recently, it was painful. May they rest in peace in my memory.
Comment has been collapsed.
correct. but good graphics doesn't make a game worse either. ;) in fact, it makes it even better.
Comment has been collapsed.
33 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by Axelflox
1,831 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by Axelflox
92 Comments - Last post 50 minutes ago by Damark
15 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by vlbastos
9 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by Chris76de
386 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by adam1224
207 Comments - Last post 7 hours ago by sensualshakti
1 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by Kappaking
16 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by Tachikoma
192 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by antidaz
2 Comments - Last post 52 minutes ago by aquatorrent
58 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Lexbya
733 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by MZKLightning
61 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by samwise84
Am I the only one who doesn't see a huge difference? Granted, the consoles aren't out yet, but the videos don't seem to impress me much. Maybe i'm just becoming desensitized to graphical enhancements, but I remember the days when I would look at my N64 and be blown the fuck away.
EDIT: For the record, graphics will always be less important than gameplay and story for me, I'm just trying to figure out what everyone is shitting bricks about.
Comment has been collapsed.