68 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

Not a graphics wh*re, so I don't really care.

[Fiery Phoenix]

No, I'm completely fine with the current generation and its capabilities. Also, a while back Casey remarked that one of their major goals with the trilogy is to release it all during the 360's lifetime.

Modifié par Fiery Phoenix, 24 juin 2011 - 08:10 .

[Bocks]

All those pictures look quite bland, to be honest. They're mostly composed of just one colour. That's not very impressive.

[KotorEffect3]

Archangel437 wrote...

How would you import your save?

This

[Sailears]

No. One thing is that the difference in visuals would be jarring, especailly when the games are meant to be reasonably well tied together as a trilogy.

[charmingcharlie]

WOW some people have very very lofty expectations for the next bunch of consoles.  That Unreal 4 tech demo was running on a pretty hefty PC using THREE of the fastest graphics cards money can buy.  You will not be seeing graphics of that quality in the next consoles ... well unless you want to pay $2,000 for that console and get some builders in to add a nuclear power plant to your house to run it.

As for ME 3 waiting till the next consoles.  This will not be the last Mass Effect game, it MIGHT be the last ME game this generation though.  There are already rumours that Sony will show off their new console next year and Microsoft won't be far behind.

I don't particularly want to wait any longer for ME 3, from what i have seen so far I am suitably satisified about the graphics and I wouldn't want to wait another 2 years to see the end of Sheps story just so I can see it in slightly better graphics, especially since I already get "slightly" better graphics on the PC.

[Hathur]

charmingcharlie wrote...

WOW some people have very very lofty expectations for the next bunch of consoles.  That Unreal 4 tech demo was running on a pretty hefty PC using THREE of the fastest graphics cards money can buy.  You will not be seeing graphics of that quality in the next consoles ... well unless you want to pay $2,000 for that console and get some builders in to add a nuclear power plant to your house to run it.

And just think the video cards used to render those images on a top end PC are well over $500.. each.

The next console generation is going to see some modest improvements in graphics only... for the simple fact Microsoft & Sony know they can't put a $500 video card in their console, then price the console itself at $700-800, because nobody would buy it... at that price point you can already build a PC with more horsepower anyway.

The video cards and CPUs that go into the next gen consoles will still be old by PC standards - they can't put cutting edge hardware in it or the price will be too high for your average console gamer (who often staunchly oppose PC gaming because it's already higher priced than consoles... so no way are they going to start paying PC-like prices for their consoles).

Modifié par Hathur, 24 juin 2011 - 11:49 .

[Hathur]

Oh... and for those who think / thought the next console generation was closeby... think again... saw this news bit today:

http://www.shacknews...0-about-halfway

[Conquerthecity]

No, I would have been pissed. It took me a few years to buy a 360 and the same time frame will probably apply to whatever console is next. I would not want to wait that long to finish the ME series.

[Davie McG]

Hathur wrote...

Oh... and for those who think / thought the next console generation was closeby... think again... saw this news bit today:

http://www.shacknews...0-about-halfway

I do hope this isn't true, if it is it looks like I'll be buying a PC. I'd be interested to know how many mass effect games there will be this generation if it is to go on for another 5 years.

Irritatingly however I realise that if we are to see again the kind of leap in console capability that we seen between the last generation and this one we will have to wait another 5 years.

I know there are PC's now that can handle stuff that would make an xbox cry and run away but if they are going for that kind of jump in technology they'll basically wait untill the console games start to look glaringly out dated. Still, 5 years is alot, I don't know if my xbox will even still be working in 5 years, the best I've had out of one so far is 3 years.

Modifié par Davie McG, 25 juin 2011 - 03:15 .

[MrChowderClam]

I'm a graphics **** and even I think ME2/3 look fine.

The only reason I would maybe want next gen would be for hair dynamics and better animations/facial rendering. The animations in Frostbite 2 (with that EA ANT stuff) and LA Noir look pretty darn amazing and I would love to see some of that in ME.

But tbh ME2 looks plenty good and the art style makes it look nice even without any fancy effects like GI. The lighting is good enough without GI anyway, so even that is a moot point.

That said, I think if bioware really wanted to up the graphics, they could have done it. I would love some DOF with Bokeh to drive home that cinematic feel.

BF3 (the hw tesselation isn't even on. So beautiful T_T):



And ofc crysis 2:


http://blog.mangosan...kd50CiaW1qa0ufu

Modifié par MrChowderClam, 25 juin 2011 - 03:50 .

[Gatt9]

Hathur wrote...

charmingcharlie wrote...

WOW some people have very very lofty expectations for the next bunch of consoles.  That Unreal 4 tech demo was running on a pretty hefty PC using THREE of the fastest graphics cards money can buy.  You will not be seeing graphics of that quality in the next consoles ... well unless you want to pay $2,000 for that console and get some builders in to add a nuclear power plant to your house to run it.

And just think the video cards used to render those images on a top end PC are well over $500.. each.

The next console generation is going to see some modest improvements in graphics only... for the simple fact Microsoft & Sony know they can't put a $500 video card in their console, then price the console itself at $700-800, because nobody would buy it... at that price point you can already build a PC with more horsepower anyway.

The video cards and CPUs that go into the next gen consoles will still be old by PC standards - they can't put cutting edge hardware in it or the price will be too high for your average console gamer (who often staunchly oppose PC gaming because it's already higher priced than consoles... so no way are they going to start paying PC-like prices for their consoles).

Agreed.

Additionally,  heat and power are *massive* problems for console manufacturers.  Today's chips easily generate over 100 degrees faranheit of heat in a well ventilated case with high end cooling.  It's not unusual to crack 120 or even 150.  I do it all the time in a case with 9 fans,  a 120mm tower,  and a ASUS Nvidia 570.  They're *not* stuffing that in a little console when neither manufacturer can reliably handle heat on generations old hardware (Yes,  PS3's really do have problems,  just not as bad as Xbox).

Further,  these chips eat massive amounts of power.  My system requires 500w of power at a minimum.  There's no way they're managing something comparable on a console's itty bitty power supply.

There's a reason console manufacturers keep talking about "It'll last 10 years!",  it's because they can't figure out how to release an improvement that'll fit in a little box with minimal cooling. 

To be quite honest,  I doubt very highly there will be another generation.  By the time they figure out how to handle the issues,  the market will have changed.  The low end of the market will be a screen that uses a remote server where the game resides to play,  mid and high end systems will be a home server with 16-32 cores pushing displays in parallel without a performance hit,  with content stored locally.

Consoles are dead.  They existed only because PC's weren't ubiquitous and the technology didn't exist to wire in the lower class at minimal expense to them.  PC's are now ubiquitous,  tablets show you can sell screens at a minimal cost with remote access to systems that can process the data,  there's no need for consoles any longer.

[Hydralisk]

Warkupo wrote...

I have a PC so it doesn't matter to me when they decide to make you buy a new console =D

You just need to buy new parts for your computer.

[Hathur]

Gatt9 wrote...

Agreed.

Additionally,  heat and power are *massive* problems for console manufacturers.  Today's chips easily generate over 100 degrees faranheit of heat in a well ventilated case with high end cooling.  It's not unusual to crack 120 or even 150.  I do it all the time in a case with 9 fans,  a 120mm tower,  and a ASUS Nvidia 570.  They're *not* stuffing that in a little console when neither manufacturer can reliably handle heat on generations old hardware (Yes,  PS3's really do have problems,  just not as bad as Xbox).

Further,  these chips eat massive amounts of power.  My system requires 500w of power at a minimum.  There's no way they're managing something comparable on a console's itty bitty power supply.

There's a reason console manufacturers keep talking about "It'll last 10 years!",  it's because they can't figure out how to release an improvement that'll fit in a little box with minimal cooling. 

To be quite honest,  I doubt very highly there will be another generation.  By the time they figure out how to handle the issues,  the market will have changed.  The low end of the market will be a screen that uses a remote server where the game resides to play,  mid and high end systems will be a home server with 16-32 cores pushing displays in parallel without a performance hit,  with content stored locally.

Consoles are dead.  They existed only because PC's weren't ubiquitous and the technology didn't exist to wire in the lower class at minimal expense to them.  PC's are now ubiquitous,  tablets show you can sell screens at a minimal cost with remote access to systems that can process the data,  there's no need for consoles any longer.

Ah, good point - cost of the new hardware aside, cooling & power supply is it one of the biggest crippling points of the console... and if I recall, the early Xbox 360's had overheating issues as well and it took a few years for them to get that relatively under control... one must loathe to think how they would intend to use even semi-modern CPUs or GPUs in a new console without making their console the size of a PC (afterall, the heatsinks & fans we use alone for a high end or even medium-high end gaming rig use up the vast majority of space in the case).

Frankly I see consoles going more the Nintendo WII-U route... no real advancement in GPU / CPU and instead just adding new 'features' for the console.... new control systems, 3D, or whatever other gimmicky stuff they think of... because the reality is they cannot cram the components needed for a meaningfully more powerful console into a compact package.

At least not until the silcon microchip is replaced with affordable new tech that is more resistant to heat... as it stands CPU & GPU advancement is already being hampered by heat & power issues as is (the amount of power and cooling needed for gaming rigs these days is starting to get somewhat absurd... in winter my PC can actually warm up my small bedroom with all the hot hair the fan blows out the back).

It will be interesting to see what route the console developers go in the next 5 years... I think Nintendo realized this already and thats why their new console is said to not really be much (if any.. various news sites have conflicting reports) more powerful than the PS3 or 360.

[SalsaDMA]

Warkupo wrote...

I have a PC so it doesn't matter to me when they decide to make you buy a new console =D

It does matter.

Cause the PC version of a game gets heavily affected by what is possible on consoles.

After all, it's the "same game" they want to release on both systems...

[Hathur]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Warkupo wrote...

I have a PC so it doesn't matter to me when they decide to make you buy a new console =D

It does matter.

Cause the PC version of a game gets heavily affected by what is possible on consoles.

After all, it's the "same game" they want to release on both systems...

Well on the upside, the fact that Xbox and PS3 (or other future consoles) have such old hardware, the developers are constrained by the limitations of said console... I.e. if you bought a high-end gaming PC 5 years ago (when the xbox came out)... you technically didn't need to upgrade any of your PC hardware over the years the Xbox has been out since it already had greater processing power than the console.... and seeing as how most games that are on console that go to PC are basically ports, they don't end up pushing the hardware any.

Good example is ME2.... god awful textures by PC standards, but understandably low for the Xbox 360 (GPU limitations)... they could've  included much higher texture resolution for the PC release... but never bothered to.... so we got a game that looked almost identical to the Xbox 360, despite the fact even a medium end PC could have handled vastly improved textures.

To Bioware's credit, they at least did this for Dragon Age 2 as an optional download... and it is markedly better looking than the 360 / Ps3 version.... still, it's a rarity for any developer to this ... most games just ship the same visual fidelity of the console version to the PC version... making it unecessary to upgrade one's PC for many many years, theoretically.

[AETHELDOD2]

No