I'll just be enjoying games that don't have to be designed around ancient 2005 hardware. 512 MB of RAM in 2015, LOL!
That's only really a big deal if graphics make or break a game for you.
Having recently played through it, I still maintain that Half-Life which came out in 1998 is a game I enjoy more than any modern day FPS.
Solid game design doesn't need 16GB of RAM =P
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
I'll just be enjoying games that don't have to be designed around ancient 2005 hardware. 512 MB of RAM in 2015, LOL!
Yeah, the same kind of games that could've been released on that ancient hardware anyway.
In order to get something like what happened with SNES to N64, I think we're going to need some kind of a breakthrough in technology.
Even the graphical fidelity jump wasn't as much as PS2/Xbox to PS3/Xbox 360 due to us reaching the limits of what we can do with the silicon chip. We need exponentially more polygons in order to get the same graphical jumps, but our technology hasn't been growing quite as exponentially as it used to be.
I don't care about graphics. My point was that the design of games doesn't seem to justify the distinction anymore. So is it really just graphical changes that determine if something is next gen? I actually find it hilariously sad that people will hold graphics in such high regard when determining if something is next gen so maybe it's something I don't "get". Probably because this one component of a game as criteria is stupidly narrow.
Yeah, the same kind of games that could've been released on that ancient hardware anyway.
I don't care about graphics. My point was that the design of games doesn't seem to justify the distinction anymore. So is it really just graphical changes that determine if something is next gen? I actually find it hilariously sad that people will hold graphics in such high regard when determining if something is next gen so maybe it's something I don't "get". Probably because this one component of a game as criteria is stupidly narrow.
Yep, I'll never understand the whole graphics thing either. It's also one of the reasons why game budgets have ballooned in recent years, and is probably one of the reasons why the quality of games has shrunk.
Guest_John Wayne_*
Gameplay over everything else. There is a reason why games like Doom still have a massive fallowing and why people are still churning out a constant stream of user created content. Most modern and graphic intensive games will never, ever have the staying power of a game like Doom. Because graphics will never be as important as solid gameplay, no matter how good a game looks.
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
Yep, I'll never understand the whole graphics thing either. It's also one of the reasons why game budgets have ballooned in recent years, and is probably one of the reasons why the quality of games has shrunk.
It's definitely been a kind of a double-edged sword. From the consumer perspective, we want the new shiny thing. That's understandable. But a lot of people seem to have trouble dealing with the consequences of that constant technological progress we've been asking for, for like 40+ years now. DLC, microtransactions, pre-order bonuses, etc. Whether you mind them or not, are all consequences of the rising costs of developing on new hardware. And like you said, game quality is down, noticeably. So it gets to a point where someone like me asks themselves: Is this even worth it anymore?
I don't care about graphics. My point was that the design of games doesn't seem to justify the distinction anymore. So is it really just graphical changes that determine if something is next gen? I actually find it hilariously sad that people will hold graphics in such high regard when determining if something is next gen so maybe it's something I don't "get". Probably because this one component of a game as criteria is stupidly narrow.
We're missing someone to explain that to us.
I don't care about graphics. My point was that the design of games doesn't seem to justify the distinction anymore. So is it really just graphical changes that determine if something is next gen? I actually find it hilariously sad that people will hold graphics in such high regard when determining if something is next gen so maybe it's something I don't "get". Probably because this one component of a game as criteria is stupidly narrow.
Are you trying to summon "Him"?
I don't care about graphics. My point was that the design of games doesn't seem to justify the distinction anymore. So is it really just graphical changes that determine if something is next gen? I actually find it hilariously sad that people will hold graphics in such high regard when determining if something is next gen so maybe it's something I don't "get". Probably because this one component of a game as criteria is stupidly narrow.
There's not really much else to go on, to be honest. Even the Xbox -> Xbox 360 was just a great big graphical jump. All the advances in hardware are mostly just being used for fancier graphics and smarter AI.
Although I'll give credit to Nintendo, because at least they're trying to do new things with stuff like the Wii Remote, 3D screen on their handheld, and the screen in the controller with the WiiU.
Although at this point we don't really need more advanced hardware to do these things, just the input controller to be created by somebody. I mean, the 3DS can run a 3D screen and it's not exactly a powerhouse of a machine. All that putting it on a PC would do is better graphics.
Which is why I said that in order to get something as revolutionary as 2D -> 3D we'll need something revolutionary to happen within technology in general most likely =P
Spec Ops the Line was an 8 hour game, and actually featured a multiplayer mode
That's funny because both of my playthroughs were under 4 1/2 hours.
People cheat with God mode and advance through with maximum speed and ignore all the areas which are important loot wise and story wise, so the game finishes in 6 hours.
"This game sux, it's only 6 hours."
Well it was at least 15 hours, but you finish it mindlessly.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
I wasn't expecting it to be long, most of these linear shooters are short games.
I think we should withhold our judgement about the length until it's actually out in the wild. Plenty of games can be beat fast, but that doesn't emulate the typical style of play.
Guest_Dobbysaurus_*
I'll still play this. But I'll certainly wait until it goes down in price though.
Guest_TrillClinton_*
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
There's not really much else to go on, to be honest. Even the Xbox -> Xbox 360 was just a great big graphical jump. All the advances in hardware are mostly just being used for fancier graphics and smarter AI.
Although I'll give credit to Nintendo, because at least they're trying to do new things with stuff like the Wii Remote, 3D screen on their handheld, and the screen in the controller with the WiiU.
Although at this point we don't really need more advanced hardware to do these things, just the input controller to be created by somebody. I mean, the 3DS can run a 3D screen and it's not exactly a powerhouse of a machine. All that putting it on a PC would do is better graphics.
Which is why I said that in order to get something as revolutionary as 2D -> 3D we'll need something revolutionary to happen within technology in general most likely =P
3D is a gimmick. At least, as far as I can tell. I'm sure it's supposed to be something more than a blurry double image but that's all the 3DS's 3D does for my sight. Good thing I didn't buy it for that. I give credit to Nintendo for the Wiimote and their Wii U controller though.
I guess the next big leap would be a virtual reality type of deal in some form or another. I'm not really looking for that next leap, honestly. This would just as soon be the last generation of gaming tech I actually care about. I'm at the point now where if developers can't design the games they want with what's available that's not the hardware's fault.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
I don't care about graphics. My point was that the design of games doesn't seem to justify the distinction anymore. So is it really just graphical changes that determine if something is next gen? I actually find it hilariously sad that people will hold graphics in such high regard when determining if something is next gen so maybe it's something I don't "get". Probably because this one component of a game as criteria is stupidly narrow.
Good point. I want to make a related statement, but I can't make it without sounding like a raging elitist so I won't.
But to me, I think next-gen is, or should, be a whole new level of intuitiveness in games, immersion if you want to call it that--things that separate the abstraction between games and the player. When DA Inquisition had that first Crestwood demo, there was a point where the Inquisitor burned some Red Templar boats. This wasn't part of a quest or anything, it was just something you could do on your own that would have an effect on the game world.
That never wound up going anywhere, but I think things like that, things even in that broad vein, are the next step in "generations." A game like Assassin's Creed or Mirror's Edge that introduces new gameplay elements that make a game utterly unique (parkour in their case) and change the way you view the game world.
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
Are you trying to summon "Him"?
Shhhh, we don't talk about "Him".
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
I'm at the point now where if developers can't design the games they want with what's available that's not the hardware's fault.
While you have a point, there are definitely still huge limitations. Graphical ones can be ignored, since they don't change gameplay all that much, but stuff like physics, or really in-depth AI (or lots of moderate-depth AI at once) are still difficult to do with our hardware. Though, to be fair, games that DO push those bounds, technical bounds, don't seem to be that successful.
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
Good point. I want to make a related statement, but I can't make it without sounding like a raging elitist so I won't.
But to me, I think next-gen is, or should, be a whole new level of intuitiveness in games, immersion if you want to call it that--things that separate the abstraction between games and the player. When DA Inquisition had that first Crestwood demo, there was a point where the Inquisitor burned some Red Templar boats. This wasn't part of a quest or anything, it was just something you could do on your own that would have an effect on the game world.
That never wound up going anywhere, but I think things like that, things even in that broad vein, are the next step in "generations." A game like Assassin's Creed or Mirror's Edge that introduces new gameplay elements that make a game utterly unique (parkour in their case) and change the way you view the game world.
I can get behind that. More reactive design in games would be an evolution, regardless of whether they stay the same graphically.
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
While you have a point, there are definitely still huge limitations. Graphical ones can be ignored, since they don't change gameplay all that much, but stuff like physics, or really in-depth AI (or lots of moderate-depth AI at once) are still difficult to do with our hardware. Though, to be fair, games that DO push those bounds, technical bounds, don't seem to be that successful.
A.I. is kind of a big draw for me. I guess that would be an important distinction in hardware or other programs taking that next step, if it becomes easier to input more complex algorithms so that things in the game world react and behave like never before.
A.I. is kind of a big draw for me. I guess that would be an important distinction in hardware or other programs taking that next step, if it becomes easier to input more complex algorithms so that things in the game world react and behave like never before.
But that's much more difficult to market to a casual audience. Graphics are the first thing people see because it's what every AAA developer focuses on when showing off their games for the first, second, and even third time.
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
But that's much more difficult to market to a casual audience. Graphics are the first thing people see because it's what every AAA developer focuses on when showing off their games for the first, second, and even third time.
That's a good point. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate a beautiful looking game and can get swept up in the hype of it. It's just that wears off quickly and then I'm wondering, "Is this a good game though?"
Guest_TrillClinton_*
That's a good point. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate a beautiful looking game and can get swept up in the hype of it. It's just that wears off quickly and then I'm wondering, "Is this a good game though?"
Are you like anti-sevial or nah?
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
We're missing someone to explain that to us.
Shhh Ruggles. Don't say his name.
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
Are you like anti-sevial or nah?
Bruh... he's coming back now. We will rue this day.
Retour en haut