The console versions of Battlefield 3 will push Xbox 360 and PS3 to their technical limits, according to DICE - and the studio isn't scared by the prospect of Microsoft or Sony unveiling a new home system tomorrow.
The stunning trio of trailers for BF3 released by EA to date have wowed viewers, but many have questioned whether the gorgeous visuals can be replicated on non-PC hardware.
Bach then told us that the game was pushing both 360 and PS3 to the "absolute limit", so we asked if DICE had a watchful eye on the next generation from Sony and Microsoft - and if the lauded Frostbite 2.0 engine could cope with a new generation.
A confident Bach replied: "I don't know what the big corporations are thinking but definitely we are desperate to move on into the next generation. I think Battlefield 3 will look like a next-generation game and all the technology we're building, the whole Frostbite 2 system - the animations, audio, everything - is trying to aim for a couple of years in the future, rather than looking at what we have today.
"We are already there. If [Microsoft or Sony] were to release a new console tomorrow, the engine would scale onto that platform, because we have been looking at not only the PC technology today but also speculating what will happen tomorrow when it comes to these things. So everything from our streaming technologies [to] rendering technologies is scalable onto future platforms."
Look out for our full interview with Patrick Bach soon. Battlefield 3 is due to launch in the autumn.
Battlefield 3
182:49 GDC Gameplay Trailer
- Now playing
- More videos
- Share this
Comments
55 comments so far...
justforkicks101 on 13 Apr '11 said:
ding ding
DAEDALUS79 on 13 Apr '11 said:
This game looks b*****k shatteringly good!
Gambini on 13 Apr '11 said:
The game is looking effing sweet... on a damn high end PC that is...
Show us the console footage DICE!!
aawells07 on 13 Apr '11 said:
i simply cannot wait for next-gen consoles i think its time to move on at least by holiday 2012 id say thats when the next xbox will come out
chamony on 13 Apr '11 said:
"The console versions of Battlefield 3 will push Xbox 360 and PS3 to their technical limits"
this gets quoted for quite a few games every year
anyone care to guess what the next game to have this quote will be??
nologo on 13 Apr '11 said:
more of this please! force sony and microsoft to release new hardware
StonecoldMC on 13 Apr '11 said:
What he said.
ingy on 13 Apr '11 said:
Totally agree, it's time to move on, it's what this industry is all about, everything has gotten stale and the promise of a new console gets me all a quiver.
Nick33 on 13 Apr '11 said:
They must think people are stupid or something. Sony are not about to ditch the PS3 just because Dice think they have a COD beater on their hands. I've heard it a thousand times how they are pushing the console to the limits, then 3 months later out comes a better looking game. All you consolites are going to get a shock when you see how ordinary this game looks on consoles.
I am happy with my PS3 and 360 , I don't have 1k to blow on new machnes just so they can keep up with the latest PC tech. Go make PC exclusives if you are so upset about the PS3 and 360 Ubisoft and Dice. Tired of these people demanding new machines when they can't even make games that are 90%+ on metacritic.
plodalong28 on 13 Apr '11 said:
sony and microsoft are holding back PC gaming atm, PC hardware is capable of performing 5x of what games are now, but no company wants to bring them out if they can't bring them out on the consoles. So hurry up and bring out the nxt gen consoles!!
murph_77 on 13 Apr '11 said:
Microsoft will rush out another console soon while Sony will hold off for another few years. When all is said and done we are only on about year 5 of a 10 year life cycle of the PS3. I am not bothered as I am happy with the PS3 and in no rush whatsoever to spend £300 - £500 on a new piece of kit. I am also not bothered that the PC has better graphics as it should be the gameplay that matters.
TheLastDodo on 13 Apr '11 said:
@ murph_77: AMEN
At least they learnt from Crytek and didn't mention a particular game BF3 is going to beat so they don't look like idiots later. Smart move DICE.
I'm sure BF3 will push the 360 to its limits but more than likely it'll be same old same old for the PS3 version. Not as good as it could've been, though it should probably blow 95% of other games out of the water.
MutilateTheDead on 13 Apr '11 said:
It'll be at least 2013 before we see the next gen of consoles, if it was to be 2012 there would of been a lot more mentioned/rumoured by now.... it'll be e3 2012 reveal then 2013-2014 release at least!
Bright-Light on 13 Apr '11 said:
I played BFBC 2. I enjoyed the singler player. But the mutliplayer, i totally suck at it. So i went back to COD so i dint get so depressed at dying all the time. Im quite good at cod, so why wont my skills transfer????
I want to leave COD, but i cant take the beatings i got on BF.
Will somebeody please take me under their wing and nurture me into the world of BF? You will not get paid for your time, but i can promise nothing but gratitude. I want to hoen my skills in time for BF3 any takers?
adam-ell on 13 Apr '11 said:
I done a s**t last night that pushed my toilet to the its maximum limits... You won't see me proclaiming it to the internet however.
ukdruid on 13 Apr '11 said:
You do realise its the whole game that suffers not just graphics, because of the limits on the consoles they had to scale back alot in terms of game size and quality, and unfortunately that will keep happening as long as PC tech keeps growing and growing.
Its kind of stupid to put an exact timeframe on a console, anything can happen with their 5-10 year plan, tech could grow so fast that it makes the current consoles completely obsolete within 5 years, or it could go the other way and the consoles last even longer, either way its daft to put an expiration date on a console.
tmten on 13 Apr '11 said:
DICE states obvious, world bickers.
Moorpheus on 13 Apr '11 said:
Generic comment gets ignored DICE - just fyi.
Until you show console footage, I'm not interested, despite the clear promise of the PC version.
TOKEN on 13 Apr '11 said:
Battlefield 4 Lybian wars.
KesMonkey on 13 Apr '11 said:
Just because they are 'desperate' and 'prepared' for the next generation, does not for one moment imply that they think that Sony will ditch the PS3 for BF3. What gave you the impression that DICE are 'upset' about the 360 and PS3? Where is it mentioned that they are 'demanding' new machines? The key words were "desperate" and "prepared"
"they can't even make games that are 90%+ on metacritic".
This is a big problem that the modern games industry faces. Developers are laying off staff and closing their doors because of idiots like you that demand (see what I did there? No, you probably don't) a metacritic rating of 90% or higher. IMHO, people like you are, potentially, doing as much damage (if not more so) to this industry as pirates.
Spudfella on 13 Apr '11 said:
PC technology is moving forward all the time as consoles become quickly outdated. This has always happened but I don't think a new engine will force Sony or Microsoft to panic into rushing a new console onto the market just for the purpose of running a game at the same quality as the pc version.
I do think it's time for new consoles but don't want to see another console riddled with problems like the RROD due to being rushed to market, they need to take their time and make sure it's to the highest quality possible.
deanoz2 on 13 Apr '11 said:
Well colour me pink!!!!
That looks fecking ace!
Like a lot of people though im very interested in seeing the console versions as i do not play games on a pc so i need to see those vesions before im fully commited, upon saying that i have pre-ordered from play.com already now!!!!
Barca Azul on 13 Apr '11 said:
I'm bored of this already, do they know something already?
How do they know they are ready for the next machines otherwise.
aawells07 on 13 Apr '11 said:
@MutilateTheDead Your proly right man it was just wishful thinking but after reading your comment and thinking about it more it makes sense
Gambini on 13 Apr '11 said:
HeHe
I'll bite...
I gave up on Cod after the debacle that was MW2... now I'm a total BC2 junkie, still play it every night (time permitting).
The biggest thing you have to adjust is your pacing. In Cod it's a constant twitch-fest where gameplay is fast and the slightest wrong move will result in a death. In BC2, you have to pace yourself and really think about your plan of attack (I tend to only play Rush btw).
Also, you HAVE to play as a team. The lone wolf mentality just doesn't work (Unless you are a very, very proficient BC2 player, but that's a different topic entirely). COD is all about your KD ratio, whilst in BC2 it's about your squad points. Support your squad and team (for example, when a teammate arms an MCOM in Rush, don't just look to "hunt down" the enemy, get yourself a strategic spot to defend the MCOM - not only are you supporting your team but the kills will come to you!)
There's nothing better than playing with a good, competent squad in BC2 - it changes the game dramatically!
Closing comment cliche incoming... Good luck, Soldier!
REBEL8 on 13 Apr '11 said:
A FPS with amazing graphics will not make it a great game. I've seen the trailers, and graphically they are amazing, but will the gameplay match its visuals?
MutilateTheDead on 13 Apr '11 said:
I hope i'm not right though! I want new consoles nowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!
alan666 on 13 Apr '11 said:
the PS4 is a long way off yet, MS is more likely to release the Xbox 3 before Sony announce anything of the PS4 the only reason Sony would release the PS4 early is because of the hacking etc, but ditching the PS3 would upset a lot of users
BenThomasFoster on 13 Apr '11 said:
It really isn't can you f**k off with this bulls**t deal with your engine. if you want to test you s**tty consoles to the limit lets see how it would fair with 20,000 people on screen with Shogun 2 total war or lets see how it would fair with Crysis with everything bumped up to max and playing around in the editor
sonic_uk on 13 Apr '11 said:
Well, I thought Crysis 2 was one hell of an achievement getting it to look and run that georgeous on the consoles so if they can get Battlefield 3 running and looking anything like those videos on console hardware we'll be in for a treat. Even if that level of graphical prowess is the very most we will see from this generation of hardware, Id be happy with games that look like that for the next few years until the next generation of console hardware is here (if I buy the next gen consoles at all - depends heavily if they still use good ol' physical media or not).
Paradaz - UK on 13 Apr '11 said:
Spot on there KesMonkey, no need to add anything to that. I can never understand why/how people use metacritic as some sort of quality benchmark based on a few flawed opinions, most of which are only there to either pump a score up or completely bottom it out.
If you'd played BF1942 or BF2 you would know that Dice have the gameplay nailed to perfection, these two games (and BF2142) all had great gameplay but never had the lead in the graphical stakes, all the praise always came from the balancing and brilliant multiplayer objective team-based gameplay - and there is a big difference in those games and the BFBC series which most certainly were changed (for the worse) in order to cater to console gamers. Now it looks like BF3 will have the graphical edge of this generation so as long as the gameplay isn't dumbed down for console gamers then there shouldn't be any need to worry anything. It's certainly looking promising.
kmcroc on 13 Apr '11 said:
Yes get on the console manufacturer case & tell them we need new consoles w/ greater graphic capabilities.but lets not call the next Xbox 720 cause that's a lame name .
TheLastDodo on 13 Apr '11 said:
Gameplay>Graphics. It really is that simple.
shogunreaper on 13 Apr '11 said:
Good job, you're prepped for something that won't even come for at least 2 years.
Won't be any console announcements at this e3, and if there was even a remote chance of one next year we would have heard something about it by now.
SpandexArmstrong on 14 Apr '11 said:
What really sucks ass is that I was totally over these boring army men shooters by the end of the xbox 1's cycle.
But you guys really took it to the next level of tedium this gen, thanks heaps!
Now what do I have to look forward to next gen? Even more 'realistic' swollen balls shooters! Oh f**k.....cant wait lol
Paradaz - UK on 14 Apr '11 said:
If you're not interested in 'realistic' swollen balls shooters, why would you be looking forward to any of the games in this genre? Saying that, is there a single 'realistic' shooter on any of the consoles?....I can't think of one.
If 'Ratchet and Clank' or 'Flower' is more your thing there are a few topics in the PS3 forum that would probably suit you.....or better still there's 'Portal 2'.
sonic_uk on 14 Apr '11 said:
I can think of many realistic War themed shooters on console (R6 Vegas, Moh, Soldier Of Fortune, Bfbc to name but a few). If you prefer PC Gaming that's cool, but let's not pretend there isn't anything a)decent or b)realistic available on console.
TheLastDodo on 14 Apr '11 said:
Is that a nice way of saying Xbox 360 only does shooters Paradaz?
Also Operation Flashpoint games are meant to be 'realistic'.
Paradaz - UK on 14 Apr '11 said:
R6 Vegas - Not realistic in the slightest
MOH - not realistic in the slightest (is this any different to CoD?)
Soldier of Fortune - don't make me laugh
BFBC - no, it's arcade driven
As 'TheLastDodo' said, you'll have to go as far back as Op Flashpoint on console for a realistic shooter....and the reason that I didn't mention it is because it hasn't appeared this generation (BIS developed). You could argue that Op Flashpoint by EA is a contender but that was so flawed that it barely registers as a game on any system.
(for those that aren't aware, the original Op Flashpoint is not even related to the latest Op Flashpoint with exception to the name due to a licensing copyright held by publishers)
By the same token, BF2 and BF3 aren't 'realistic' shooters but the one thing they do have (or in the case of BF3, is that we hope to have) is acres of classic polished gameplay that shows just what the latest generation of multiplayer gaming is all about.
djm99 on 14 Apr '11 said:
Battlefield 3 pushing current consoles to 'absolute limit'
How many times have we heard this. Polyphony Digital said the same thing with GT5 lol. That comment is utter rubbish. Going by previous titles PS3 version nearly always slightly behind XBOX quality. If the comment was true then PS3 version would be far superior due to being supposedly the more powerful of the two? Whatever, the game looks great, and shall have to wait to decide whether to get it on XBOX or PS3.
sonic_uk on 14 Apr '11 said:
Sorry dude, I wasn't having a go but how is R6 Vegas not realistic? How is Moh not realistic? How are Bfbc and Soldier Of Fortune not realistic? If we're talking story here then thats a mixed bag across those games with some scenarios plausible and some obviously taken to the extreme for the sake of storytelling, but on a pure gameplay level these games are very realistic in the way you aim and shoot and the enemy response to your presence. Maybe they're not as precise as say Arma 2 or Dragon Rising, but they are different styles of games. Just because they aren't Sandbox style games doesn't mean they can't feel realistic. Thats like saying Gran Turismo is not realistic because you don't have to drive to the track first before you race on it or its not a PC sim . Its still got very realistic handling regardless, and its the same with the aim and shoot mechanics in the games I mentioned not to mention plenty more on console.
kbekl on 14 Apr '11 said:
i didnt think auto aim was realistic
sonic_uk on 14 Apr '11 said:
Yes, I agree, but you can always turn it off
kbekl on 14 Apr '11 said:
i personally dont do fps as it wont allow cross platform to the pc which is a bit daft in some places but understand y they dont
still i prefer to get the most out of my cash and the console dont provide that at the mo and i doubt it ever will
wasted-again on 14 Apr '11 said:
Why should they launch new consoles just because of this one game? It's not like it's going to sell more copies on PC just because it's got better graphics than the console versions.
Very_Silver_Ownz on 14 Apr '11 said:
I think if DICE or any other developer thinks consoles are limiting I'd rather they make their games exclusive to PC.
I really don't know one good thing that will come out from 720 or PS4 other then better graphics.
Seriously reading what developers say is like they are working on a PS1 or N64.
sonic_uk on 14 Apr '11 said:
If that were true (which it isn't) that argument would also apply to PCs as well. You're forgetting new hardware is capable of much more than just improved graphics. Games would also benefit from improved AI, potentially larger play areas (depending on the design chosen by the devs for their game), more realistic physics, more enemies, objects, opponents on screen at once, the list goes on.
Paradaz - UK on 15 Apr '11 said:
So has the fact that current consoles that can't push true HD and beyond, 60fps and 3D passed you by?
The crappy amount of RAM in current consoles, the streaming from BR/DVD that can't keep up with the games? These aren't problems that you wish would go away?
sonic_uk on 15 Apr '11 said:
Not sure what you mean by "True Hd" Paradaz. Anything above 640x480 is considered Hd technically, although personally I'm looking at 1280x720 and above to be considered true Hd.. Sure, console resolutions will be lower than a top of the range Pc but the images they produce still look great. The Ram has become somewhat of an issue, but deveopers have so far managed to skirt around that with clever programming techniques. As for the Dvd/Blu Ray Storage, its exactly the same medium used on the PC, and you can always get around the issue of limited Dvd storage by installing games and using multiple disks like they've been doing since the days of the Amiga back in the 90's. As for streaming issues I have yet to play a PC game that doesn't have issues in this department either. Pop in is something I only tend to notice if I look for it, I'd rather just enjoy a game then look out for all tis technical faults. 3d is also a mute point as most people who play games have only a 2d Tv and some havn't even upgraded to HDtvs yet. Im sure in a few years time it will be more of an issue as technology progresses and gets cheaper but by then the new generation of consoles will be out to counter that. 60fps is also a mute point. Personally unless a game is running at 12 fps or below I find its perfectly playable and most modern games are at least 30 if not 60.
You are right in that we do need a new generation of consoles for sure, as the hardware is definitely reaching its maximum limit with games like Killzone, and Crysis pushing the limits of what is possible, and I have no doubt Sony and MS are working on them as we speak, but until they come along there is still plenty of life left in our current machines and if the maximum we can hope for now on our current machines are games that look and run as well as Killzone 3and Crysis 2 then I'd be more than happy with that level of quality until the next generation arrives.
Paradaz - UK on 15 Apr '11 said:
OK, this is an easy one....not starting any flamebait by any means but your questions are easily answered.....
True HD has always been labelled as 1080(p), that is 1920 x 1080 as a minimum. It is true that 'HD' is interpreted as 'high resolution display' but the current consoles that are consistently outputting 720p (or less) and upscaling simply does not show the detail that a native 1080 display can output.....what you think are great graphics are usually a much lower resolution magnified to fill your screen. When console games can output 1980 x 1080p and push a 32" + screen without maginfication will be the day that you curse PC gamers that had it available 10 years ago.
RAM in current consoles isn't just an issue.....it is a problem that is hindering games in general. GPU's need RAM, CPU's need RAM......it is effectively a buffer that is used to manage the instruction set used for the heartbeat in every system. There are arguments in the PC world with regards to whether 4, 6, 8 or 12GB is 'enough' but the simple answer is that the more you have available the easier your gaming world/development laboratory will cope....quite simply, the more you can have the better. The PS3 with 512MB shared and 360 with 512Mb dynamic is nowhere near enough.....it wasn't enough 5 years ago, it isn't enough now. With the cost of RAM being at an all-time low, there really isn't an argument that favours the next batch of consoles having literally GB's of RAM on tap.......it doesn't matter whether RAM is 'slow' as it measured in milliseconds.....as opposed to not having enough RAM and the automatic alternative being paging to a hard disk, the speed difference (and slowdown onscreen) makes a huge difference.
DVD/Bluray Storage isn't the same as PC at all, all PC game are 'installed' to disk (HDD). No PC games ship on BR, no PC games stream off a BR disc. PC games use a DVD (or CD) and are extracted from compressed files to the hard disk. This means that a single or multiple discs with a limit of 9GB are extracted to the hard disk to a much larger size in most cases.....a 5GB game on a physical disc may become 12GB when extracted, and the same goes for a 360 game which is 'installed' to hard-drive....(there really isn't an argument anymore for BR being 'better' than 'DVD).....it really doesn't matter especially when the PS3 has such slow read speeds compared to the read speed of a hard disk or a DVD. The PS3 could easily have a DVD drive and the ability to 'install' games if the HDD was big enough...but that would mean BR is pointless and Sony's excuse for a new media wouldn't have a primary driver. (for anyone that thinks M$ is missing out, they take in money for every BR disc sold because their codecs are being used for VC-1 etc)....some PC games such as MS Flight Simulator ship on 2 x DVD's and prompt for a disk change so theoretically have a maximum of 18GB yet my installation sits at well over 40GB...the terrain is pre-loaded into RAM as you fly so the more RAM you have the better.....(see first point).
As for current gen games needed shed loads of storage, that's laughable.....the PC version of BF2 (Battlefield 2) used 3.5GB of storage space on a hard disk when installed and shipped on 1 x DVD. It was released in 2005 and consists of approximately 20 x maps, 3 x expansion packs, multiple patches with the biggest being just under 1GB and is a game that is played by 1000's of people daily.....can that be said for any console game released 6 years ago? It has resolutions and frame rates only dreamed of by console gamers even today and was available in 3D on the day of release.
Personally, I think that the next generation of consoles isn't an urgent requirement. Whilst the points I have brought up are an issue, it will be the same old story in that a new console will be instantly dated by PC technology on the day of it's release. In case anyone hasn't realised, consoles get closer to the make-up of a PC in every release, from controllers to hard disks, to internet portals, upgradeable components, GPU's, cloud computing, multimedia functionality and digital distribution.........anyone who has read my previous posts will know that I detest the thought of 'exclusive' games, it's simply an inconvenience I (and probably many developers) can do without. If a common operating system could be agreed upon then a single 'gaming' format could be achievable and the competition between brand names such as Sony and Microsoft would be replaced by the competition of developers attempting to create the best game on a single system. That's not to say a single gaming format couldn't appear on different hardware....much like a DVD is a common format that appears on hardware priced from £10 to £500 and is dependent on the quality of components and the functionality available.
meh2allfanboys on 15 Apr '11 said:
“They must think people are stupid or something. Sony are not about to ditch the PS3 just because Dice think they have a COD beater on their hands. I've heard it a thousand times how they are pushing the console to the limits, then 3 months later out comes a better looking game. All you consolites are going to get a shock when you see how ordinary this game looks on consoles”. FAIL. Nick33 at which point in the interview did dice say they think sony/microsoft would ditch the ps3/360 your attitude of if it aint cod it sucks is so boring please read an article properly before posting your mindless drivel and before you ask what i mean iv seen you post a ridiculous comment on uncharted , uncharted 2 and uncharted 3 being the same game and i also saw your mw3 post saying how u hate cod haters and that's fair enough BUT cod 3 , cod 4 mw . cod waw , cod mw2 and cod bo aint so different from each other are they while uncharted 2 is 10 times the game that drakes fortune is , and it has better graphics , different game play and also multi player how is uncharted 2 the same game as drakes fortune?
sonic_uk on 15 Apr '11 said:
Ok, your first point about the resolution I already knew as pointed out in my original post. However, there is no defining limit on what can be considered Hd. Anything above standard resolution is Hd. Ultra settings like 2560 for example are just that, ultra high resolutions and what is an acceptable level of graphical resolution varies from person to person. As I said before, anything near or above 1280x768 looks fine to me (I sit about 2.5 meters away from my 37" screen anyway so its not like I'm going to notice a decrease in quality or AA at those kinds of resolutions). As I also said before a high spec rig could play those games at 1920 or 2560 native, but for the money I am happy (as I'm sure pretty much every other console owner is) with my consoles HD output.
Again as with the ram I agree that it is rather limited these days (although I disagree that 5 years ago 512mb was a limiting factor (the recommended specs for most PC games at the time of the 360 and Ps3's launches were usually 1gb max). I also disagree in that the speed of ram plays as much a part as the amount of it. If you have 2gb of ddr1 main system ram and 512mb of ddr3 system ram the ddr3 ram will run through its memory a lot quicker therefore maximizing throughput while the ddr1 would struggle and still be on its first cycle by the time the the dd3 is finishing its third. Caching would obviously play a factor, as no amount of speed transfer would make up totally for the lack of space, however it would go some way to making up the difference. As I said before, devs up until now have managed to skirt around the issue with clever programming tricks but it is obvious we are reaching the upper limits of what the hardware is capable of.
Dvd/Blu Ray storage space again is the same format regardless of whether its a movie, game or data disc on any machine. Blu Ray PC games don't exist right now as you said, but I'm sure over time they will start to appear in the coming years. Yes, you install a game to your Pc's Hdd and unpacked or unzipped the file will be much bigger than the room it occupied on the disc due to compression, but the physical storage medium used to get it there is the one and the same. As I stated in the case of Dvd's if space really does become a premium then I would be happy to have games come on two discs or have a mandatory install if it was required to get the game to run off the Hdd with only the Dvd drive required for disc checks like in the case of PC games. Blu Ray storage isn't a problem but obviously the read speed is much lower due to the high natural compression in the layers on a Blu Ray disc, hence most Ps3 games come with a mandatory install which again solves the issue for now. I'm sure in the future a better, more improved Blu Ray or even a new storage medium will become mainstream. Personally, I'd like to see all games come on a Flash card, as the transfer speed would be so fast there would be no need for installs and hardly any need for caching, therefore speeding up the game loading times considerably.
As a side note I do also agree with you about the myth that current games needs loads of storage. Its entirely false, and the only reason I can see for this claim is for people like Kojima (responsible for the Mgs games to those that don't know) who fill the disc up with so many cut scenes it would rival a three hour long HD film. There is no need for this. Especially with modern engines, most games now use the in game engine for rendering cutscenes, a memory saving technique as the graphics are certainly good enough these days to make a convincing video, not to mention the only room this technique would take up on the disc is a few lines of code and maybe some small audio clips - hardly Blu Ray needing material. Although the bit about resolutions and frame rates is entirely dependent on your hardware and isn't related to storage mediums at all.
I don't think we need a new generation of machines right now this minute, but I think in maybe two or three years time they will look quite out of date as technology moves on so fast and as you rightly said when a console is first launched it can normally compare quite well to a good gaming PC at the time. However, as time moves on and PC technology improves (as new hardware becomes available to anyone that owns a compatible rig for less than the price of a new console) the consoles again start to struggle technically. However, by that time the programmers have got to grips with the hardware and can still make great looking and playing games with the (by then) limited resources available until the cycle repeats. To that end newer console releases actually surpass older ones in terms of graphical quality, although most gamers are unaware there is actually far more going on under the hood than in older releases.
As I said before, if Killzone 3 and Crysis 2 are the best console games will look like this gen then I'm happy with that level of performance until the next generation of consoles arrives in the future. If in the meantime a game comes out that is far superior looking but due to the consoles resources is only available on PC (or looks truly terrible on console compared to PC - something which I have yet to see) then I will just get it on my PC. For now though, I'm still amazed at how far we've come this gen, especially when I see the likes of Crysis 2 and Killzone 3 running on a current console.
kbekl on 16 Apr '11 said:
@sonic_uk
i cant see BR comming to the pc imo it would be pointless with places like steam at an all time high it would be a back ward step, agree about the flash cards altho i cant see the future being an actual hard copy of anything, streaming is starting to be come really mainstream with the likes of most tv broadcasters offering a free program stream, and the speed of bb connections starting to show markable increases.
i think if onlive sorted it price structure and we had better net connection it would really push the consoles
their is always talk about what is hold back what and that people are happy with the current gen or not, but the thing is have all the people who are happy with the gen got up to date technology in their pc have they even played a dx 10 or dx 11 game on their tv, maybe people are only happy as they havnt seen what is available today
i would like to see what a pc would do with the ps3 or xbox360 os's it would be interesting to see where it would lie in the min spec's department,
i dont know it seems as their is a massive market for consoles but where does that fall into place are the console held by kids under 18 and i wonder how well the consoles would perform if the age ratings were to be enforced and would games that most seem to have had enough of likecod and moh would sell if they had to enforce the age ratings.
i have children with pc's and a wii the kids love the wii and have no time for the pc any more in some respects i am glad as i can control what they have access to, but i doubt i would buy them a xbox or playstation
do we need a new gen now? yes and no, but we do need a change in the way it is all dealt with what is the point of an exclusive game any more what is the point of excluding one platform or even 2
lets take the ps3 exclusives we hear about how much more power the ps3 has over everything else yet the games that are produced cross platform look the worst on it but their exclusives are so much better yet they are scared to push their games onto a different platform as it is a console seller, but is it really a console seller yes people may have purchased an ps3 just for GT5 but were they pre-owned or new, i cant see many people forking out for a new console just for one game so sony wouldn't have seen that money for their console or would it have been more of a money spinner to open it out to all platforms
do we need the next gen consoles tho? imo no we need a a next gen console for adults and one for kids
sonic_uk on 17 Apr '11 said:
Hello Kbeki. I agree with you about having two consoles, one for kids and one for adults. However, that is effectively what we had with the 360 and Ps3 being for more mature players and the Wii being for the younger generation. All was fine until MS and Sony got over ambitious and screwed everything up by introducing motion control to a mostly hardcore audience who bought their consoles in the first place because they were targeted at adults more than children. Since motion control has been introduced on both the 360 and Ps3 we've seen a massive flood of shovelware titles on the 360, (the latest offender being the previously Wii and Ds game - Carnival Games), although I am relived so far that Sony are not ramming Move down our throats like MS are doing with Kinnect, and there aren't half as many shovelware Move titles out there as on Ms platform.
I'm really angry about this personally, as I feel Ms have (like Nintendo) turned their backs on the very people who made their machine such a success in the first place (the hardcore gamers) and seem to be putting every resource they have into a product that from what I can see the majority of people who bought their console do not want (including myself). There are only two first party Ms games coming out this year I'm remotely interested in - Forza 4 (which will be exactly the same as 3, but I'll buy anyway as I'm a Forza fan) and Gears Of War 3. Everything else else that has been revealed so far is a Kinnect title and since its launch last year I haven't seen a single Xbox 360 video advert on Tv or the internet that isn't a Kinnect title. Sony on the other hand at least appear to be marketing Move as an accessory which although I'm not interested in the slightest in it is at least acceptable as I don't feel as if I'm being bombarded with it.
Getting back to the original point you raised about two consoles from each manufacturer, I think Nintendo have obviously chosen their strategy and if that works for them they should continue. Let the kids and casual buy the Wii and enjoy it for what its for, and the rest of us once MS and Sony realise motion controls are an unresponsive gimmick can stick with our more mature consoles/PC's.
kbekl on 17 Apr '11 said:
i dont think the current situation is the correct way to go with the 2 core consoles and the 1 toy
the toy is fine for a casual gamer and young kids and also the adults that want a bit of fun active play, but the 2 core consoles were always aimed at a mixed market even before kinect and move.
i dont know many children over 5 that dont want a ps3 or an xbox, even before the add on adapters were introduced
i was thinking more of a console for the +18 market and a console for the under 18's, this could be enforced by parents or even the companies that sell them, at least this way you would get the similar based games but your console would determine what it would play so it would have a 18 restriction built in as well as the updated graphics and game play so their would be no reason for the parents to buy the other console for their kids.
i dont know if you have played the wii vs the kinect unit yet but i can tell you that the kinect is a better unit over the motion controls on the wii which can be frustrating some times,