DICE producer Alexander Gröndal explains that it "doesn't make sense to change right now", when talking about the current-gen consoles vs a new console.
Very surprising coming from DICE. I wonder what they'd have done with an extra six months on BF3
If developers can still turn out games that look absolutely stunning like BF3 and Rage (sans the bugs, of course), I say manufacturers shouldn't rush out the next generation of platforms "just because."
Er weren't DICE the ones saying we need new consoles just a couple months ago?
I remember them talking about it and said they would be surprised if if there were something they couldn’t do with the next-generation of consoles, but I don't remember them actually saying they needed one.
@fluffy, 1 person getting quoted =/= the sentiments of an entire corporation.
OMG. DICE, really?. BF3 on PS3 looks simply average and your saying you can do better? believe it when I see it.
I was pretty impressed with how the game looked on consoles. Granted it wasn't AS nice as PC, it blew the competition out of the water.
Nah. I wasn't impressed either on the PS3. Not saying there bad but they aren't Eye Candy either.
Lol you guys have high standards.
It's not that I have High Standards. It's just that they hyped it out like nothing you've ever seen on consoles and stuff. And in the end result I wasn't impressed by the beta graphics. Then people were saying a lot of detail was left out and the install will make it better. Bought the game and installed and there wasn't any noticeable difference. Not complaining but I wasn't impressed especially since they were hyping the graphics.
ya i'm going to disagree. All they have to look at is the console bf3 mp.... If they make a bfbc3, please bring back total destruction....
Are you saying there is NO more potential and further advancements CAN'T be made on current gen consoles? Each and every year, games look better and get more and more technically advanced. I don't really see much to disagree about. Do you?
Yes, we have hit the point that devs, in order to make advancements in one area, have to make sacrifices in another. For instance, BF3 does not run at 1280x720p. Or you want to take a game like Uncharted 3? Sure it looks alright, but it's just a corridor shooter, so I wouldn't use that as an indicator that that games are looking better and need more advancements. Gears of War 3? Same as uncharted 3. Open world games like Skyrim/Saints Row the Third. Don't you want no pop in? Don't you want AA? Better draw distance? Don't you find it at all odd that these guys were saying the exact opposite just 2 months ago prior to Bf3's release?
And I don't remember DICE saying we need new consoles. New advancements and new optimization techniques in console tech keep on spewing forth. When that ceases to happen, that's when I'll be ready. But if it's any consolation to you, Nintendo's Wii U will be coming in 1 year. Other than that, the industry seems to side with my sentiment, so you'll be waiting for at least a couple years.
I've played Uncharted 3, it's a corridor shooter with a little bit of platforming, just like UC1 and UC2. There is only so much you can optimize when the hardware you are working with is 6 years old. Doesn't matter how much you optimize, eventually you hit the point where you have to make sacrifices and that is exactly the point developers have hit. Whether they sacrifice resolution, textures, AA, draw distances, it doesn't matter, what matters is the fact that they do have to make sacrifices to see their vision of a game actually work on a console. The industry? What part of the industry? Developers? The ones that will continually say they have maxed out the hardware one month and want new hardware and come back a month after their game releases and state they can do more? That industry? Or the analyst side like Michael Pachter who is an idiot when it comes to hardware and only knows the business side in order to make his predictions? I won't be waiting long for new hardware. Will get the Wii-U and new Xbox next year and the ps4 the year after.
to plan, develop, fabricate, mass produce, TEST, market and launch a whole brand new console all in the span of 1 year. It takes years to launch a successful STATE OF THE ART console.....not months. It's taking Nintendo longer 18 - 24 months, and their hardware isn't even state of the art. Again, no offense, but your enthusiasm should be tempered with the reality of what's doable and what isn't. Years, not months bro. Edit in....You can claim consoles don't have much and whatnot, but like I said, new innovations keep coming...such as FXAA which was invented and implemented this year, and is an offshoot of MLAA which was put forth the year before. Those are just 2 examples. But the bottom line, Most developers are saying they have more they can do with consoles.....I see no reason to doubt that.
What? so what's with the 30fps? far off inferior graphics compared to PC? limited 24 players? smaller maps than PC? Another BS I should say.
"When it comes to technical stuff, there's tons of stuff to do on the existing consoles. Tons of stuff we want to do, but didn't have time to do. I still think there's room for a lot of improvements on these consoles. I'm not worried about their performance right now." _____________________________ _______________________ Consoles can certainly do more than 24 players online. Just sayin.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.