id Software's John Carmack predicts a performance increase with next-gen consoles, but warns of a lackluster graphical advancement.
The graphical leap wouldn't be that much at first I'm sure but I can imagine that it would increase greatly as the gen goes on, as this one has.
it's hard to imagine games actually looking better, but I remember thinking that same thing when the Dreamcast introduced the "shiny" football helmets reflecting the lights of the stadium. I can't wait to see what the future holds.
True. I mean just 10 years ago graphics look like...well crap. Who knew that in 10 years we'd have mobile devices capable of running the same horse power withing the depths of our pockets? I can't wait to see what's going to happen in 10 years time or more!
@lifesanrpg Go ahead play a game like BF3 on the PC and you will get a glimpse of what consoles might have next gen. BF3 is a genere defining game specially as long as multiplayer is concerned, nothing comes close to it this gen, Except maybe Arma 2 but thats a simulator. Hell about every multiplat out today looks about a gen ahead on the PC, you dont have to limit yourself by waiting, whats more every game out can be had cheaper. Making PC the cheapest platform to game on. I personally got a game like BF3 for 38usd at launch day, already have Assassinscreed relevations preordered for 35usd try finding deals like that on console, you wont get em.
Depends how much performance the manufacturers go for. If one of them chooses to do a wii then there will be no leap.
If one or more of them goes for a new technology machine then there will be a significant leap. GTX580 is nearly 10 times faster than present consoles. It will be replaced by a part much faster within 4 months.
Unless you make a major hash of building a game from scratch for said hardware then you will get a leap.
At the very least to native 1080p and mandatory AA.
I'll be happy the it staying the way it is but with more memory.
@lifesanrpg I have BF3 on both PC and PS3. I really enjoy both versions, but if you're talking purely about graphics, there's quite a difference in raw power. Personally, I think the consoles could hang around for another couple of years, but it's going to be a problem to improve much further with such limited RAM. Developers have used some terrific techniques/ "tricks" to hide limitations in the recent top AAA games, but I would imagine that they'd really like some more power and especially more memory to work with relatively soon, especially if they are also doing a PC version of the game.
@T900: Your post is full of B.S. and fail it's really sad. You want to know what PC gaming is? It's paying twice as much as a console just so you can have better graphics and that's pretty much it. Don't bother including mods because it's been proven that mods can happen on consoles so that's not an "exclusive feature that entices people to PC gaming." It's also ridiculous tweaking so that a game works on your PC. It's a non-universal format meaning that one person can have a perfect experience and another can have a sh*tty one and possibly end up paying more money to have it fixed. Which really doesn't happen on consoles. PC gaming requires constant expenditures, with console gaming the only spending you need to do is on the console and on the game. You say that PC games are cheaper but negate the fact that console games have just as many deals and sales as PC gaming does for people willing to look for them. I'm not denying that PC gaming has superior technical advantages, but don't sugar coat the massive problems and costs and potential obstacles involved that just aren't a hindrance to console gaming. Maybe people don't want to go through the hassle of making sure they have an appropriate rig to play one G.D. game and instead just want to be able to, to borrow a PC term, "plug and play." Consoles have graphical leaps that may not last forever, but come with far less hassle and tweaking involved from people whom are either disinclined or unqualified to make said tweaks and just want to game. PC elitism (which I'm not accusing you of) FTL.
"You want to know what PC gaming is? It's paying twice as much as a console just so you can have better graphics and that's pretty much it"
If this isn't trolling then what is. PC sure has better visuals than console, but it also has a bunch of unique games too very much worth playing. Arrogance and major ignorance is someone saying PC is only console games with better visuals.
Even if you only play multis, then PC is usually the definitive place to play them not just for graphics, because controls or online can play a large part too. Dismissing mods is also a mistake. How many console games do mods? They have been 'proven' to do them, sure, on very very very rare occasions. Whereas countless PC games support them. Its not the same thing. Name me 5 console games on say 360 that support them. I can name several dozen on PC in an instant out of hundreds. Major titles with impressive mods. Console being closed platform makes it more user friendly, and at the same time less flexible. Trade offs.
I play lots of PC games that don't require 'tweaking'. This suggests to me you are not a modern PC gamer. Sure sometimes stuff doesn't work perfect- you ever had RROD, YLOD? You ever have your online service go down for 3 weeks solid? You ever found a console game to have a nasty bug? Selective memory i suspect.
Well PC hardware can fail, but not on such a scale. Parts usually have long warranties. Plus in instances of bugs, i have even managed to 'tweak' as you put it to avoid them many times on Fallout 3 PC for example. Stuck in the scenery, corrupted/overwritten save, broken quest goals? Many fixed. Simply not possible on console to do this. Keep waiting for that patch! PC never claims to be as easy to sort as console. Having the knowledge and expertise to do it is an asset to me though. Not a downside.
"PC gaming requires constant expenditures, with console gaming the only spending you need to do is on the console and on the game"
Rubbish. Constant how? Upgrades? Rubbish. Not that old lie. I have a 4 years old PC that hammers consoles. Hasn't been touched in that time. Paid for Xbox live recently? Paid for a new hard drive for PS3/360 like loads have? Bought a new console if your other broke down out of warranty or paid for repair? I have, for all of these and more.
Nobody says you have to buy a PC to enjoy games, T900 didn't. He just said a good few points that were reasonable and got you all riled up so you spewed out a bunch of crap that is used constantly against PC and is simply ignorant, blinkered, biased and uninformed.
Consoles are good because they are more plug and play than PC for games. Saying that they are more complex than they ever have been.
PC requires more experience to sort out, but also saying that, its never been easier to game on one and the platform gets ever stabler.
If you like consoles then fine, so do I. But don't spread nonsense about PC please.....
I hate PC gamers. You're all deluded. PS4 games will sh*t on BF3 graphics. Get it in your thick skulls, just like PS3 graphics sh*t on BF2 graphics. PS3 = £200 Gaming PC = minimum £400 and you won't be able to play the games at max. I love the way PC gamers say 'its a myth' that PC gaming is more expensive... it is! I actually can't wait for the PS4 to come out just to shut you guys up about graphics. Thankfully some of you have already shut up after all the hype you gave BF3 just to see uncharted 3 go and get a 10 on IGN and blow BF3 sky out of the water. take all console games and on the whole they are better than PC games, graphics or no graphics. And for the console gamers who are feeling a bit jealous of the PC gamers MAX BF3: http://www.youtube.com/watc... triple the price of a PS3 if you want a tiny graphical improvement and a worse library of games. PC gamers... thanks but no thanks. goodnight. cheers
@Computersaysno: -Unique games argument. And consoles don't? Guess you've never heard of games like Flower, Echochrome and the like right? Ever heard of the indie platforms that consoles offer? Unique games aren't PC exclusive. -Arrogance and Ignorance argument. Or fact. It's established that consoles can do anything PC's can do, with the exception of modern visuals from ever evolving tech. -Controls and online argument. Controls are irrelevant as they're about a preference, not a feature. If you're talking about having solid controls in a game, that's up to the developer not the platform. PC's don't have this magical ability to make controls better on their own. A game with bad controls is universal if it's the fault of the developer. HOWEVER, PC's can have software and hardware flaws that interfere with controls that consoles DON'T have. Incorrect drivers, program conflicts, etc.. And again, online has nothing to do with the platform. A PC doesn't make it's own online. Servers supported by dedicated developers or individuals willing to fund them is what makes online. You can have the best PC in the world and still have sh*tty online. -Mods The issue of how many is irrelevant. Mods are being used as a feature exclusive or advantageous to PC's as though they cannot occur on consoles. That statement is wrong. Whether or not they happen on a game to game basis has to do with the closed platform nature, and not a fault of the hardware. -Console errors argument. Ever had a crashed harddrive? Ever had a virus? Ever had your connection drop? Every had adware and spyware? Ever had program conflicts? Installation problems? Driver problems? Selective memory I suspect. I've never had YLOD, and PSN going down is not a fault of consoles. You think that PC's are infallible and unassailable? Please. -Game issues/fixes You're right, because consoles almost NEVER have those kinds of problems. And I say almost because corrupted saves is the most common issue in your list. Consoles don't have to worry about all the vast potential problems that PC's have. -Generic "I have a ____ year old PC that works better than consoles" argument. Old lie? You have a 4 year old PC that apparently beats consoles. I guarantee you paid more than all the consoles for that PC. I also guarantee that you have to play some games on less than their best settings because your GPU can't keep up. When the current gen of consoles came out 5 to 6 years ago, they surpassed the then current PC graphics tech. You waited a year and expect me to believe that your PC will outlast consoles for say another 3 years and that you paid a cheaper price? B.S. I also guarantee that you will have to upgrade, paying nearly as much as a console to do so, to play one game in the future you really want to play at the visual fidelity you are satisfied with unless you like low settings and framerate. Not a problem with consoles now is it? Everybody says you need a PC to enjoy gaming. That's all you frickin' hear on this site. Apparently owning or preferring a console makes you a "casual" gamer beneath the PC master race. I'm not accusing T900 of saying that, I'm saying don't try to play off PC's as the Messiah of gaming and say you need a PC for "definitive versions" and other B.S.
@dragonknight I personally built a PC around the time PS3 came out, I equipped with a dual core cpu and a 8800gtx, Guess what it played most of its games in 1080p. Till date it still plays most of its game in 1080p, till date the same games on console are mostly limited to 720p or below, that pisses all over your upgrade myth. Sure if you need new features like DX11 you are going to need to upgrade the GPU. However overall due to cheaper prices of games PC gaming infact is much cheaper then console. You may disgree with it as you like, however paying more on every game bought adds up real quick, PC games on average are 10-20usd cheaper then console versions. If you take the average as 15usd multiplay that 20 games bought a year, you already saved 300usd a year, now times that by 3-4 and thats literally enough to buy a new rig every 3-4 years. Which to be honest isnt even needed. Like Computersayno said if you dont like PC gaming play on your console, however stop spreading BS about a platform, you clearly are unaware how PC gaming works.
^ so your saying you built a PC in 2006. for how much? If you haven't touched it you won't be getting graphics that much better than PS3. No DX10 or DX11. You say that if you want a taste of next-gen then play BF3 max settings... You won't be with those specs... end. Your argument is rendered useless. You might be playing games at 1080p, but at low settings. And if you are playing games on higher than low now then you must have paid £1000 + for that PC. PC gamers are loses. They have no friends apart from the ones they made on WoW. I look forward to getting banned for trolling.
Seriously? Just look at PC games, you dont have to imagine them looking better, you can already play them looking better.
There is a lot of time that goes into creating "photo-realistic" graphics, so the advancement will most likely not be in terms of poly count, but instead an increase in physics, particle simulation, crowd ai, etc. We'll also likely see an increase in interactivity in open world games. To be honest, I'm bummed that we're seeing GTA:V this gen. I'd rather wait until next gen.
@stu888 Aaand you continue to prove you have no idea what you're talking about, lol.
@STU888 The PC i built in 2006 with a 8800GTX cost me about 1000usd, PS3 at that time cost 600usd. hence the difference is 400usd. Not much considering the PC does alot more then the PS3 can. Of course a PC equipped with a 8800GTX will handily beat both the consoles even today. 8800GTX did support DX10, this just shows you arent aware about PC gaming as you dont have a clue about the hardware. Now consider every game bougt on that PC is cheaper then the console version by a good 10-20usd. Avg that to 15 multiply it by about 20 games bought a year and PC becomes 300usd cheaper every year. By the Second year you are already cheaper then the PS3, by 3rd year the PC you purchased has already paid for itself because of cheaper games, it literally becomes free. 4 years later since you are saving so much, to extend the life of the above PC you could easily upgrade the CPU to a quad core(200usd there) on the same motherboard and overclock it to about 4 ghz, add in a new GPU for about 200usd and your system is good to go for another few years. Note 4 years into its life the console you bought is probably dead too and needs a replacement its not like the console will keep running. Thats the way PC gaming works, even if you didnt choose to upgrade 4 years later, you still are ahead of the consoles. Not to mention when the next gen arrives, whatever you bought on console (thousands of usd worth of games) might not run on the next box, no such thing on the PC, hence your investment is even safe on the PC. For anyone that does a little bit of research before buying a PC, the PC can be the cheapest platform of the bunch to own its as simple as that.
Give me Uncharted 3 graphics with a slight bump up, in an open world, 1080p, 60fps, realistic A.I., without the loss of details, and I'm good.
@T900 stu is right, my boy. BF3 graphics is nothing special, just a bunch of PC gamers hyped it to the heaven. i played it, graphics nothing special, full of bugs etc. let's be honest DICE trashtalking us is there any reason to get a PC for 1000 USD? Witcher 2 going multiplatform BF3 going multiplatform Crysis 2 going multiplatform STALKER going multiplatform Diablo 3 going multiplatform........... improved Crysis going multiplatform all good PC games going multi Uncharted 3 = best graphics and GOTY 2011, look at IGN perfect review. best graphic games are exclusives. hell i can't wait for Uncharted for PS4
@stu888 I'm a self comfessed ps3 fanboy buying a gaming pc for 600 that will actually play anything amd phenomII X4 955 £100 (oc to 3.8ghz) Motherboard £80 Nvidia gtx 570 £275 (over clock to 900mhz+) 8gb ddr3 1600mhz ram £45 1tb hdd £100 dvd drive £20 power supply 600w £65 case £30 comes to £715 inc vat. take away 40 for Archem City free with the GPU. take away 40 for deus EX free with the CPU. so £635. So Every game I play: I will be playing in actual 1080p (only a few ps3/xbox games do that) at over way over 30fps (only a few ps3/xbox games do that too) I will be able to go up to 2560x1440 with a new screen. Better support for the games I get. Mods for most games (all games I'll be playing). I still get to use my ps3 /xbox controller. anything I left out? I will have spent less on the pc than on the ps3 as I'm goiing onto my 3rd ps3 now. (£400 for my 1st + £400 for my 2nd and £100 for my third (2nd hand) + 50 for 500gb hdd) I'm not even going to count the games as I dont have 14 pc games yet (but I do have gta 1,2,3,4,VC,SA, EFLC for £5 on steam a few weeks ago) I wont need to change anything in the PC for quite some time (maby 250 for another gtx570 to get the next gen but by the time that comes the gtx 570 will be under 200), But if PS4 comes out in 2 years thats another 400-600 for next gen graphics. The jump from ps3 graphics to what this PC can play is better than the jump from GT4 to GT5 ingame. http://www.youtube.com/watc... (gt4vgt5) http://www.gamepur.com/news... (PC vs PS3) I think I rambled a bit there but your probably blind to any reasioning from pc gamers anyway.
I love reading opinions on PC gaming that are do far off base. You guys are funny.
"it's hard to imagine games actually looking better" UHM WHAT? It's easy: think about a movie, and imagine you are controlling that character. Have we achieved photo realistic games? Not at all, we still have a lot of work to do! Battlefield 3 will look crap compared to games arriving 5 to 10 years from now.
You do realise you are talking crap DragonKnight don't you?
Unique games? I never said consoles don't have unique games. I just pointed out you as much as claimed PC didn't, by saying PC gaming is just console gaming with better graphics. This is of course, utter BS.
'Its a fact that consoles can do everything a PC can do.' Paraphrased, but what you said.
This is well......a staggering claim. Delusional much? A console can do everything a PC can do. REALLY? Thats a fact is it? That is quite possibly the dumbest thing i have ever read on here. No honestly, even Napoleon and JFK in my local mental asylum would think this was pushing it!
Controls are not irrelevant. Online is not irrelevant. The whole point of PC is choice and, the whole basis of your argument is rooted in preference for ease of use. Dismissing somebody else's points that also have preference is hilarious when your entire statements are based on preference or your own invented 'facts'.
Mods the issue of how many is irelevant???
This is crazy. Absolutely beserk. The fact that consoles have a teeny amount of games proves that yes, it is sometimes possible to do mods, but the POINT is that they hardly ever do while PC does a LOT.
If you want to use mods then you can do it for loads of games on PC and virtually none on console and this is IRRELEVANT to you just because like 3 games on console do mods? Wow. Another absolutely incredibly retarded comment.
Thats like boasting so what Messi can dribble amazingly and play fantastic nearly all the time and score 50 goals a season? Big deal. I can score 2 goals, i can do 2 good dribbles and have 2 good games. That means Messi isn't doing anything special at all! Thats your godawful logic at work.
PC is not perfect and has problems with stability, everyone knows this. This is minimised by having knowledge and knowing what you are doing. Gaining knowledge is good....It has never been easier to game on PC.
However YOU claiming consoles NEVER have issues, or console games NEVER have bugs is a MASSIVE LIE and total fabrication. As i illustrated in my earlier post. Skyrim doesn't have a texture streaming bug then on console? It doesn't have a bunch of other bugs? Console games never get patches then?
Consoles get loads of patches. Developers have gotten lazier. Endless console games have problems and bugs just the same as PC titles and thus have lots of patches. Denying this outright is shocking, Holocaust denier much? Oh no console games never suffer problems. FFS do you live in the real world?
Its a LIE and IGNORANT attitude that assumes PC MUST be upgraded all the time. I guarantee for the past 4 years every game you ever bought cost at least 10 pounds more. I also guarantee you that every game played on this 4 year old machine was played on settings that easily outstripped the consoles. Maxed all the time? Maybe not. Still far better than console? No sweat whatsoever.
I guarantee that you know NOTHING about PC gaming and with these comments, you have well demonstrated it with all these lies, false 'facts', misinformation, sheer ignorance, and blatant propaganda.
Nobody says you MUST have a PC to enjoy gaming. All i see is you moaning and making stuff up.
All i see is that you have 3 bubbles and it is definitely for a reason. I guarantee you one more thing, you'll have a lot less bubbles very soon if you carry on this nonsense.
@Computersaysno: -Your lame assumption that I was saying PC gaming doesn't have unique games. I as much as claimed that or you read into what I said what you wanted to read and made a lame argument against it? Strictly talking from a games standpoint, the PC is just console gaming with better graphics. It's undisputed. You can't include unique games on one side without including it on the other. All things being equal, PC is console gaming with better graphics. -Your lame attempt at an insult. Let's do a comparison shall we? PC's and consoles play games. PC's and consoles (at least the PS3) can browse the internet. PC's and consoles are multimedia platforms playing music and videos, viewing pics etc.. Oh I get it, you're holding on to programs like photoshop right? Lame. Trying to make it seem like PC's have a vast amount of abilities that consoles don't ignores the fact that, this gen, consoles are more like PC's than ever. But I'm not surprised by your attitude. -Your 3 paragraph whining about mods. Fact. PC's do mods. Fact. Consoles do mods. End of discussion. You PC gamers love to talk about what PC's can do over consoles, not how much more they do it (that is until you're backed into a corner and forced to resort to a different argument), and you haven't proven that consoles don't do mods. Care to try again? -Your next 3 paragraph whine fest about stability B.S. For one, I never said consoles never have problems. I said comparatively they are immensely fewer than PC and far easier to fix. Second, console games have far stricter deadlines to deal with and don't require that hobbyists continue to fix the game years after release to handle with the immense probable issues that you tried to understate by saying "oh, some stability issues." When you want to game, you want to game and shouldn't have to jump through hoops to make everything perform just right. -Your sugar coating about PC upgrades and console game prices. So basically what you're saying is that, when you can brag over console gamers about your settings, you're willing to settle for medium settings just for that right? But yet ignore the fact that you do have to continuously upgrade in order to get the absolute best experience possible, as you PC gaming elitists so love to hold over console gamers, which makes you pay a hell of a lot more than what console gamers ever have to pay for a fun experience. Hypocrite. And as I told T900 and by using an example you PC gamers love to throw out all the damn time, if you're unwilling to find the deals and cheaper prices on console games, don't try to state it as an absolute that PC games are always inherently cheaper. PC gaming pricing has to do with those selling the damn game, and not the platform itself. I can find deals on brand new console games anywhere if I look, so don't try to feed me that "my games are cheaper" B.S. -Your last 3 irrelevant paragraphs. I don't give a damn about N4G's incredibly broken bubble system. I speak my damn mind all the time, I never do it "for teh lulz" (which is what REAL trolling is) and I don't care if you try to take bubbles away from me. Go ahead, you'll just be proving my point. You can't handle the truth about PC's.
Of course, computersaysno is getting a bit heated, but everything he says is entirely correct. Notice now, in case you didn't, that never did he really insult or diminish console gaming whatsoever in either of his posts. Rather, he debunked a little of the consistent bullshit which is leveled at PC gaming. And notice, in spite of his angry-sounding posts, he doesn't display any elitism or jackassery at all. Any of that read into it is, you guessed it, pure projection. One point which hasn't been detailed is the price. I can't count the number of games I've gotten for 5 dollars or less via platforms like Steam. Good games, too, only requiring a bit of patience to save a helluva lot of money. I'll feed you that line all day long. Games on PC are cheaper, and the devs actually increase profit while making the consumer pay less. Holy crap, awesome.
@t900 "The PC i built in 2006 with a 8800GTX cost me about 1000usd" That in and of itself destroys PC gaming for me. I have no effing idea how to build up rigs like that. If I want a great PC the shopkeeper will suck my blood out through my wallet for sure. Is everyone supposed to be a PC freak and be able to build their own rigs just to be on your good side? That's so cocky and arrogant elitist view I'm getting from you that a PC-gamer as sure as hell is not someone I want myself to be labeled as. I'll keep my PS3 and my dozens of exclusive games in a heart beat thank you. I'm playing Infamous 2 right now and it cost me 15 euros. I bought 4 games actualluy just now and they cost me 72€ (one normally priced game costs 45 euros minimum here). I got LBP2, Infamous2, Deus ex and Mass Effect 2 and they cost me 72 euros. I don't even care how much games cost on PC if they are this dirt cheap on PS3 a while AFTER they have launched. Now back to Infamous 2 which btw is EXCLUSIVE and no power PC can play that. It's all about the games really.
PC is NOT just console gaming with better graphics. That statement was just a piss poor attempt at taking a pop at PC. You are now oversimplifying this and saying its all the same. What you mean to say then is PC gaming is.....gaming like console gaming is gaming? We know this. So if you didn't mean PC only has console type games (as you now claim, and thus you are not missing anything different on PC) then you are just being captain obvious....duuhhh. Why don't you just go ahead and use that super intelligence to tell us racing cars on a track is exactly the same as driving on the road. Well basically yes it is. But then technically no it isn't. Go figure.
So you are sticking by this claim that consoles can do everything Pc can do, and do everything as well as it too.
This is still utterly ridiculous. This is still the stupidest thing i have ever read. Why do i need to point out how PC is a massively flexible platform and despite consoles being more capable than ever, don't remotely touch the functions of a PC.
ANYONE with an ounce of common sense knows this.
Your Mod statements are still preposterously ludicrous. Example- fact, i scored a goal playing football. Fact Messi scored a goal playing football. Thus in your logic, this is the end of the discussion and i am equal to Messi.
ORRRRRR mods are in FACT done faaaaar better and faaaar more frequently on PC.
The point wasn't that consoles COULDN'T do mods, it was that they PRACTICALLY NEVER DO AND YOU CAN'T DO THEM ON 1/10TH THE NUMBER OF GAMES PC CAN. Is this hard to figure? Are you this stupid for real?
When you want to game on PC there is a lot less hoops than you imagine and pretend there to be these days. It is clear you just don't know what you are babbling on about, and minimising known problems that exist on console and exaggerated PC problems. I never deny PC problems once, but you have already denied they exist on console. Silly silly silly.
You still arguing that every game you ever play on PC MUST be on maximum settings to get a good experience. To get a significantly better one than console visually? This is a crap argument used by ignorant people like you. So i'll just claim consoles MUST be played on a 5000 pound HDTV and sound system to maximise your enjoyment. That make sense? No? Didn't think so....
PC games are cheaper. Claiming console games are just as cheap by finding 'deals' is just another pure LIE. Not once in all the time have i seen brand new console and PC versions out together have the console versions been cheaper. Using only the initial cost of the platform is a classic fanboy way of pretending that you don't buy games for your console, or you don't buy peripherals or online subscriptions. Spreading lies and misinformation.
You can only LIE about Pc, you have zero genuine insight onto the platform, you have no idea about the costs, you literally know NOTHING about PC.
Why should someone listen to YOU? You clearly do not have a gaming PC and do not use one. whereas not only do i own MULTIPLE examples and use them all the time and build them, i own consoles too. Does anyone wanting to learn the truth about a platform go to someone like you who has no experience of it, or someone like me, who can actually speak the truth? Who is most likely to provide genuine info?
My viewpoint is a balanced one, coming from long experience with both consoles and PC. I know what i am talking about. You know nothing but lies.
I'm seeing quite a few myths about PC gaming circulated. You do not need to play everything at max/ Ultra settings to enjoy a game. Why I continuously see that is unclear to me. Some settings aren't even worth using for most people, such as ubersampling in The Witcher 2, which cuts my frame rate from 60 fps to a fluctuating 30-50 fps and looks fairly similar. No thanks on that one. I'm lucky enough to have a setup that can use max on everything else, but I turned it down to High and it still looks fantastic. BF3 also still looks terrific on High. Another sweeping generalization I keep seeing is how outrageously expensive PC gaming is. An enthusiast rig (mine is in this range for the most part) does cost significantly more, but I also have turned a $699 multimedia Gateway PC from Best Buy into a gaming computer that could play just about every game on the market on High with about $250 worth of upgrades. I swapped out the power supply unit and upgraded the graphics card, both of which were on nice sales on newegg. The quad core CPU that was already in there was fine for most games. If you have a halfway decent multimedia PC, you can upgrade it rather cheaply if you shop around online. Also, the vast majority of the cost of gaming is from SOFTWARE, not hardware, which tends to be consistently lower for PC. I bought Deus Ex: HR at launch for around $35 to $40. I preordered Arkham City on PC for $40 on Steam. I bought The Witcher 2 on Steam for $33 within a couple of months after release. Well after release, I picked up Bad Company 2 for around $6. And forget about it when you factor in the Steam sales, especially the bundles of hundreds of dollars worth of games for maybe $50 or so. I spend far less per game for PC games, and those savings add up quickly.
I can't see graphics getting to much better than uncharted 3, the jungle, the Market, the desert, beautiful!
Sure it can, most games aren't running at 1080p yet, I expect that to be the minimum next gen. I expect they will be capable of 1080p [email protected] And then a few years later we'll have the Quad HD roll out and it will look antiquated again. And so the cycle continues :)
You are kidding me right? Read my comment right above you. We are still far away of photo realism. E.g. bugs flying around in Uncharted. It are the little details that we haven't focused on yet. Because hardware from now is limited.
wasnt carmack the dude who blamed the ps3 to be holding back this gen and why RAGE sucked ?
@Pl4sm4 Aren't you one of those guys who likes to read singular quotations from developers, take them far out of context, assume some kind of idiotic favoritism, and incorrectly requote or summarize it later?
Wth does the author mean "just look at Skyrim"? Look,I have Uncharted 3 and I play Skyrim on high-Ultra high on my PC. Skyrim looks great, but still when i play Uncharted3 in only 720p (Skyrim in 1080p on my PC), Uncharted3 looks incredibly sharp and detailed! And Yes, BF3 on PC has a lot better graphics than Skyrim (Skyrim has DX9-cards as "recommended" specs..!). http://www.bethblog.com/ind... I disagree when Carmack says we're past the curve. BS. He/devs always say that. With strong enough hardware I guess they COULD make a game that looks like AVATAR and runs at 4K resolution, but that's probably a long way into the future... :P At least for next-gen CONSOLES; I actually EXPECT at least 1080p native resolution and 60FPS for games (would love to see 1080p 60FPS in 3D also), even better textures although they are really good now, better hair/fur/trees/clothes/skin/wa ter/physics.... a lot of improvement CAN be made, come on Carmack.
After Rage, I'm wondering why anyone cares what Carmack has to say anymore. He and his team have been far surpassed by many others. Carmack is equivalent to that old guy who still thinks he's got it.
Indeed, there is SIGNIFICANT room for graphical improvement still. I don't know what Carmack is smoking. Remember, though, he's a programmer, NOT a CG guy. He also isn't really been the god-like figure he was in the 1990s. I don't put his opinion above anyone else's in the industry.
I'm sick of Carmack cause the guy is just lame. He was once at the forefront of gaming but now he is just an idiot.
each Gen brings about a nice leap in console graphics. Hell i'm amazed at how much the PC has improved in a few short years.
If the next Gen consoles can produce games with the graphical quality of The Witcher 2 PC on Ultra then that's a HUGE leap in graphics for the consoles.
"Don't expect anybody to buy id games anymore" title fixed!
No, he's NOT an idiot. A lot of stupid N4G people shitting all over Rage for dumb and ignorant reasons, without ever even playing it, isn't going to make your clueless nonsense about a subject you know nothing about right and it won't make his FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE wrong. Stop embarrassing yourself. Stop embarrassing Naughty Dog. Stop embarrassing gamers and graphics professionals with your odd ball fanboy delusions.
well that depends i like what patcher said a few months back, everyone wants the next gen and everyone wants better graphics but when the price tag is 500 most will complain about it. so yet a lot of you want next gen most of you dont want to pay 400 for it. i still see sony pushing the most tech next time around since they will again be last to come out with a new one in 2014 at the earliest cliffy b said he wants avatar graphics so do i Cliffy but thing is most games don't want to pay the price tag for what they want, like they say you get what you pay for MS is rushing into next gen if all these rumors are true, they should wait for wii-u to launch than improve upon that tech but its MS so they want to be out in the market sooner rather than later
Easy of use.
If you don't know how to operate a computer in 2011, I feel bad for you.
I know perfectly how to operate a computer. But my mom doesn't. However, she knows how to turn PS3 on, start a game for my little sister and use Move. Stop looking through the eyes of the hardcore. 'If I know how to do it, everybody knows too.' Not everybody. If you need more indication where the market is going for the last couple of years, look at sale numbers of any multiplatform game.
increased RAM would solve a lot of today's graphical problems.
More RAM and/or faster RAM.
Here's your answer below...
Also further hints at rambus's future involvement with sce in video below...
im hoping graphics would at the very, very least look as good, and run as good as crysis warhead on the best pc in the world.
I hope they surpass them. Would hate to see the next gen consoles barely match up to PC...just think of how fast PC would blow by those graphics and then we're stuck right back to where we are now.
Who the hell cares anyway? I'm happy with the current state of graphics as long as the game they come with is good. Graphics are nothing but a tool for fanboys to use to prove that a certain game or system is better than another.
"as long as the game they come with is good" Sense is being made! But yeah. The current gen consoles do have creative limitations in terms of large scale AI and Physics because of their limited RAM. Also, it is extremely hard to program an engine capable of producing the current standard of graphics on consoles, so many developers are totally locked out of the market - even if the games they make are incredible in every way apart from graphically. I am of the opinion that the best games ever made were all in the ps2/xbox/gc and ps1/n64 generations. There have been very few games this gen that are truely on-par with the best from those older console generations. The reason? Development costs are absolutely massive because of the increase in technical possibilities. The risks riding on one game's success are massive, if the game sells badly the developer has no choice but to close; so they can't afford take any risks with game ideas unless they have a huge publisher backing them. Then they use marketing muscle power to make sure a game sells well even if it is bad - which in turn means the consumers are "voting" for more bad games like that. And then when they want to make something fresh, the publisher refuses to fund them - and gaming stagnates. Basically, games these days only exist to make money. Developers want to make people happy and make money on the side - but publsihers just want money and they are at the wheel of the developers. Next gen, that will only be worse. But at least the graphics standard at the start of the generation will not be difficult to achieve (they don't have to learn all the tricks and techniques to make the best use of the hardware - unless a competitor has already raised the bar). So there might be some great games from studios we havn't heard of, or studios that currently only make PC and arcade console titles; though to get them shipped they need to sell their soul to an evil publisher, there is no chance that small developer games will be allowed to sit at retail beside games from giant companies (scared Activision? People might realise you publish junk). Even if the next gen is digital only, it won't be like Steam where you see small developer games on (or near) the main page because the retail channels would be proprietary to the system manufacturer. I hope they make the next gen platforms more open, it will make a lot more people interested in small-time development. (XNA is not particularly open by the way, from a software development standpoint).
I imagine next gen will be about smoothing wrinkles, like frames rates and true HD.
I think so too.
And more RAM.
And more RAM/Video RAM.
1080p today is surpassed on PC monitors and cards s oif you use only a maximum 1080p output for consoles, they'll perform great because there's less rendering to do, and can put more resources to lighting and such. I think the leap will be the last leap for a LONG, LONG time, so I don't care. Honestly though for the next gen, 1080p BF3-like at 60FPS on just high settings day 1 is all I want. As they fine-tune the hardware they'll pull 2x-4x the power out of it by the end of the generation in 12-15 years after release and it'll be good enough to be just as good as todays best PC graphics which is perfect with me.
well it'll most likely be the last leap until companies like Samsung and such start pushing for a higher resolution. which I'm actually looking forward to! which hopefully would be 2560 x1600 because we wouldn't need any type of AA similar to how i use maximum 2xAA for games on PC with my monitor
Haha, 1080p will be the output for consoles for this generation like it or not. Considering 1/2 of TV's are still CRT's it'd be stupid to even consider more than 1080p.
Well... 1080p is enough. Once a screen fills enough of your FoV and you can't see individual pixels, the resolution is plenty. If you want to game on a screen designed for TV and film then good luck expecting resolutions higher than 1080p (and decent input delays...). 1080p will not go out of date for 20-30 years because people are never going to have >100" TVs as standard lol. For TV and Film, 1080p will always be enough (unless we suddenly start having MASSIVE living rooms). And infact, it is enough for games too. The main reason PC monitors go so high in resolution is for information: text, multitasking, development etc. You can fit more in a small space and still keep it legible. Imagine a 1080p PC monitor sized 52" - it would be dire for desktop usage but still great for gaming. Well, if you sat back it would be fine for desktop usage but what would be the point when you could pay less for a smaller one and sit closer? The only reason to run a PC game higher than 1080p is so you can run it at your native resolution (upscaled image = blurry and horrid), or just because you want to test your rig out. Like jivah said it does decrease the need for AA, but there probably comes a point where the performance loss due to res is greater than the performance gain due to lower AA :P For overall game visuals though, 1920x1080 = 3840x2160. Unless you are sitting close enough to see individual pixels at 1080p :P A monitor at that res would be insane lol, you could probably have 6 web pages open nicely on screen :D If it was 24" or something though then your eyes would become the "bottleneck". We will get to the point with computing power where upping resolutions above 1080 becomes a "meh, why not?" decision. But it's not something to be anxiously waiting for :P
Well for me I'm not really looking for a ..lets say 2560 x1600 res display the size of an elephant. Its more of a pixel density thing.. I just bought the latest Samsung. which cost me an arm and a leg. and as beautiful as it is I still tend to see individual pixels..which is an annoyance to me.. I believe the pixel density limit for the human eye is 300ppi (not sure) but its around there.. so if there was a 1080p tv condensed with the pixel density of around 300ppi it would be frikken small as hell. Its not about size. I want at least a super high res 40 inch display with without any noticeable pixels. that may take another couple decades though :(
I just hope next gen we get more stable frame-rates and less screen-tearing, higher native resolutions wouldn't hurt either. Besides we are getting to the point to where art style is more important.
Another thing is that, unlike previous generations, a large graphical leap just won't affect gameplay design potential/opportunities nearly as much. We would just end up with prettier versions of the exact same games, instead of upgrades like improved ai and frame rate, to name a few, that would enhance the overall design further.
I'd be happy with no more jaggies, blocky shadows, sub-HD, excessive bloom, screen tearing, texture loading, limited draw distances and bad frame-rates. I know PC alread yhas most of this but it lacks a lot of games that are only on consoles. Current console games look amazing sometimes and sometimes all you see is flaws (generally in brighter/more colourful scenes). Also, next-gen better have HD audio.
I remeber Bill Gates saying Xbox 1 would be the end of jaggies! Hes so full of shit!
after playing dc universe for like hours on in I realize modern gaming is becoming a big online gaming fest. also, Im expecting more linearity in more traditional games, if not a open world gta or superhuman game.
Do you mean less linearity?
well after looking over my statement it actually depend on the developers and development cost. new console new tech new price