Are consoles holding video games back?

Are consoles holding video games back?

Attached: 1511460026066.png (1643x1812, 3.34M)

Other urls found in this thread:

web.archive.org/web/20130116093859/http://www.computerandvideogames.com/324517/battlefield-3-lead-platform-switched-to-consoles-mid-development/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

jokes aside I remember some developer describing the current console hardware (PS4, Xbox One) as 2013 laptop hardware

B grateful to us console chads that we are going to give you SSD performance in games

The problem is that the graphics barely improve but we have to keep buying more powerful hardware for some lighting effects.

Attached: file.png (549x275, 100.26K)

AAA is unsustainable and will eventually collapse

Pretty shitty illustration of the concept. They just subdivided a 6000 triangle mesh into a 60000 triangle one. You would see a massive improvement if an artist actually took advantage of the 10x increase.

OPs image is pointing out the terrible water quality compared to a game from 2004, has nothing to do with diminishing returns

based

>implying graphical computing power goes into a higher quality mesh
This picture has been spread by retards for literally two decades now. It's like they haven't played a game since 2001. Lighting, particle effects, physics, screen effects, etc..all this shit keeps getting better. Battlefront 2 didn't look real because of the model meshes.

based

Attached: 1584548850028.gif (250x250, 221.61K)

There is more to graphics than simple triangle count. Raytracing and lighting effects are the future.

no but that shitty quake 3 engine is. you can only slap so much layers of makeup before it all starts crumbling off.

Look, it's this thread again. How trite.

polygon count is important, but efficient texture rendering and lighting are definitely where it's at now

they are not holding games back as much as they are a cheaper alternative.

>hmm. Yeees. how triiiiite hmmmmmmm?
holy fucking retard

Attached: 112.png (112x112, 24.96K)

nice strawman

Attached: faggot.png (1006x1007, 474.74K)

Cloth simulation has a long way to go as well. There are nearly zero games with guns that have slings used convincingly, they just hang off the weapon awkwardly.

Only because of lazy devs and stupidly short development deadlines. I doubt there are that many games where the devs couldn't on a technical level just downscale aspects of the game compared to the PC version rather than gimp the PC version for a more one-size-fits-all solution. The thing is that this approach probably takes some more dev time compared to the one-size-fits-all approach, which means very few devs are going to bother taking even the slightest bit of risk to achieve it.

Battlefield 3 is a good example of what devs are capable of doing if they don't just throw their hands up and actually bother utilizing the PC platform for all it's worth, and then downscaling whatever they need to to make the game work on weaker console hardware.

The average pc player just plays cs go and the like on a potato. Look at the steam hardware statistics there's fuck all people with proper powerful rigs. And graphics have stagnated in general.

Attached: 1585612229629.jpg (1332x1689, 228.38K)

If consoles didn't exist, the production values of big games would go down

You really think publishers would actually risk making games like RDR2,Witcher 3,Final Fantasy XIII/XV,GTAV,newer BF games,etc without consoles being around?

Attached: 1584811137068.jpg (579x818, 413K)

Still waiting a game with realistic refraction with glass/water.

>2013 laptop hardware
Sure if that laptop cost $2000

When consoles come out, for a very short period of time, they are competitive with mid-tier PCs. This quickly changes in roughly a year's time.

I would argue the focus on graphics is more damaging to videogames.

Yes. If consoles were to be removed tomorrow, everyone and their mother would magically acquire a 2k usd computer so companies could start producing for them and make a profit.

>If consoles didn't exist, the production values of big games would go down

this would be demonstrably a good thing. The slow death of ambitious double A titles has killed creativity and stifled innovation. These games are so expensive and take so long to make it would take only 1 huge flop for the studio to go bankrupt. Bioware for example is permanently ruined.

console games usually push the hardware while pc which is mainly assfaggot f2p games these days is the opposite. they want to games to be able to run on russians and mexican toasters so more money from skins

The cpu was probably worse than that. Gpu no that's an unfair characterization .

This

>Money and marketing all focus on the engine to attract the mainstream
>Ends up being mediocre most of the time
>Money down the drain
>Repeat maybe

The graphics are simply to catch the eye of the masses.Everything else comes second. Sad but it's how money flows

Yes I do agree. I like some big games and also smaller games but the production values hurt some smaller games. The mainstream will say they are shit and not even try them out. The games have become too expensive to keep going.

Eventually the companies either will have to scale back or go bankrupt.

Attached: 1586046307755.jpg (787x1200, 146.15K)

Bioware took multiple big flops, though. TOR, DA3, ME3.

>Witcher 3
Did CDP get outside investors to help with development costs? Far as I know the development cycle was self-funded, and thus both development and publishing was independent.

Because they have EA's money. EA has billions.

Those games Still sold because of the names. They might still be selling on Steam right now even years later.

Attached: 1584698110165.jpg (636x900, 135.29K)

The ram, motherboard, hdd, etc. Yes. GPU and cpu were a tiny bit better than the then current cpu/gpu of laptops.

Bioware as we know it today is an EA shell company. TOR tanked the company, EA restructured everything and used the name band recognition to sell ME3 and DA:I.

ME3 sold well despite the minority backlash and had some really big DLC content patches sold after the release, I wouldn't consider it a flop. It was also in development since before tortanic and the rushed quality of the final release really shows that the studio was having alot of problems with their brain drain.

No. PC users are holding games back because they play games on potato toasters worse than even the shitty current gen consoles and play mostly garbage indie survival shit, MOBAs, or shit like fortnite.
Combine that with mobile shit and your realize console ports are the only thing actually giving PCs high end games to play cause they can run the best versions.

Hasn't HL2 had significant changes since its original release?

There was a lighting update but that was like 13 years ago.

A lot, the release was a mess, and the OP pic is modded too.

But whatever gets a console war going.

>Battlefield 3 is a good example
web.archive.org/web/20130116093859/http://www.computerandvideogames.com/324517/battlefield-3-lead-platform-switched-to-consoles-mid-development/

>PC users are holding games back because they play games on potato toasters
>cause they can run the best versions
The whole point behind the large amount of settings is so people with many different setups can play modern games, yet why would developers bother keeping very demanding settings and graphics that require stupidly expensive hardware to run properly if potato rigs are holding "games" back? I could make the same exact argument to argue that consoles are holding back the evolution of AI or the RTS and simulator genres.

Also, this isn't taking into account the fact that higher detail means you can get closer before it starts to look shit which is becoming more important with 4k desktop gaming and especially so for VR. Nevermind the fact that it means that we'll be able to start having higher detail in the actual mesh instead of relying on normal maps.

You really couldn't because RTS PC developers largely ignored consoles and MOBAs killed the entire genre outside the hyper niche community. And simulator devs don't give a shit about consoles at all.

Your first link doesn't work, and your second link is about some random "leak" from before the game even released, detailing 40-man multiplayer, when the final game had 64-man. Was this supposed to prove anything?

>we are going to give you SSD performance
>SSD performance
so easy to spot the console retards who have absolutely no idea what SSD performance actually is

Why lie? No mods

Attached: 220_20200406063711_1.png (1920x1080, 2.8M)

The hell are you talking about, two links
It's a Wayback Machine link, a single one
Are you perhaps retarded, user?

Attached: 1557416798274.png (1581x994, 455.46K)

My argument makes about as much sense as claiming people with shitty PCs are holding back PC gaming, considering the amount of games that outright refuse to run if your hardware is too weak or outdated.

Mad that your PC games never gave you SSD performance?

nigga did you really start up half life 2, get to this exact point in the game, and take a screenshot to prove a point to an anonymous poster on a lithuanian belly dancing chat room?

>thanks to consoles most games are stagnant shit
>but I don't have to upgrade every year and I run every game above 75 fps on max graphics
I'm indifferent.

Attached: 1584456711798.jpg (828x954, 86.69K)

Attached: aaf.png (680x709, 243.33K)

Consoles run limited hardware, but limited hardware promotes innovation. It's not the hurdle, it's the effort.

My bad, I saw the exact same fucking picture for a mod demonstration.

Attached: 0rehpz9h9ac21.png (1920x1080, 2.21M)

There are the people that got a laptop and decided to get games on steam only to find out that laptops are shit for games, then there's the actual people that got a computer for gaming, so given all the millions and millions of laptops of course the "average" looks weak.
But there are millions of people who have computers way better than the consoles specifically made for gaming and are being underutilized because devs don't want to make multiple versions of a game so the people with good pcs never get to benefit because they have to work with the outdated consoles.

No because HL2 was also on classic Xbox and it looks perfectly fine. Your bottom pic is from COD Ghosts which didn't have nearly the same amount of development time and was hamfisted between being ported to like 5 different consoles.
Consoles aren't holding games back, it's retarded developers who spaghetti code and don't optimize their textures/models.

It also promotes making myopic compromises to appease deadlines. Like capping a fast-paced third-person action game to an unstable 30 FPS for the sake of graphics.

why this guy spent so much time on making this pic, he can just say zooming in photo won't make it clearer

fucking based

The OG xbox hl2 ran like ass

Yes. In every aspect from Game size to graphics. It’s even worse in cases like MGSV where the executives demand the game to be released on 2 console generations. I really hope that this generation kills consoles, or at least the PlayStation.

>HL2 Xbox looks perfectly fine
It does not and plays horribly

Attached: 1583053389484.png (633x478, 638.97K)

Remember when games like Thief 3 were literally worse entirely because they had to develop it for shitty consoles too?
Of course consoles have held video games back and always will, why wouldn't they?
>complicated mechanics need to be dumbed down for controllers
>dumb shit to slow down the game has to be done to make up for the fact players have analog sticks instead of mice
>devs have to develop for two platforms minimum which is already a huge chunk of time, but usually have to develop for 3-4
>only solution is to develop only for PC, which doesn't get all the shitty console drone's money, or have consoles be at the same level as PCs which still doesn't fix all the problems inherent to consoles while also making having a console fucking redundant to anyone who isn't a literal consumer cultist

It'd be far better if it was all unified onto one platform but that wouldn't enforce brand loyalty and identity as much.

Attached: 1572400216990.jpg (750x606, 42.49K)

I mean, computers in 2004 typically ran like ass too

never ever white boy we still here ;)

Buying 2 PS5s but no PC

Attached: 6546536789643.jpg (1300x1316, 464.21K)

God jesus the water in HL looks incredible

Attached: 1585437475429.jpg (3440x1440, 3.12M)

Name one PC exclusive game of the last 10 years that doesn't look like mobile shit and is not a walking simulator

Name one AAA PC exclusive developer who has released a PC exclusive game in the past 10 years.

> reddit r/gaming post
Fuck you op

>Be young, dumb and full of cum.
>Oblivion is one of my all time favs.
>Skyrim is out.
>Boot it up, access my inventory.
>Witness the new UI in all it's glory.
>mfw.
Playing that PoS without SkyUI is like trying to eat soup with a fork.

Attached: 1348606128451.jpg (2500x2478, 444.46K)

Bannerlord, Alyx, XCOM 2

I can't believe I'm still seeing this image and still getting baited into replying.

>Playing that PoS without SkyUI is like trying to eat soup with a fork.
God damn, that's exactly how it feels... Damn.