Consoles have a thing against 60 FPS on consoles. They still lack the CPU horsepower to allow AI and systems-heavy games to run at a higher tilt than 30 FPS.
Naughty Dog have the advantage of being a boutique studio. They basically have a blank cheque from Sony and have amassed some of the most talented people in the industry. Without a doubt, they make the best character-driven third person action games period.
You're not even old enough to buy it.
Current gen consoles still don't have the horsepower for that unfortunately.
Will consoles ever get decent CPUs?
The story in the first game was pretty worthless tbh. Every Far Cry game since 2 has had waaaaay better narrative than the first.
Because directing games is nothing like directing movies in most cases.
It would certainly allow dev testers to help with more important stuff than doing hours and hours of menial checks and validations every single day.
"it would ruin the surprise of meeting them later down the line in the story" Fair enough.
I meant that gating co-op missions behind beating the single player content is a bad idea. Everyone loves co-op.
That's a great way to spend millions of dollars on something that 2% of your player base will actually get to.
Being open world has a lot to do with it actually. Everything has to be streamed in all the time. There's tons of global systems that have to run all the time too because its a very systemic game. The CPU is the main factor when talking about frame rate. All the GPU power in the world can't help a CPU feed it data faster.
Not with those measly laptop CPUs. You could maybe get into the mid 40s in some games, but a locked 60 on an open world the size of Far Cry 3's is a tall order.
60 FPS open world games is still a pipe dream for current gen consoles.
Because it's ridiculously fun with friends. Being one of the final 10 alive makes for some of the most heart-pounding moments of tension I've ever experienced in a game.
This is not a gaming card. The Titan cards are for high-end computing and are usually employed by engineering and data science firms and are obviously not marketed at consumers.
The difference between my examples and yours are that you're pointing out instances of shitty design and applying it universally to all service-based games.
I'd argue that any game that exists in a live state post launch is qualifies as a service. GTA5 is a live that gets continuous updates, thus making it a service provided by the developer. All GAAS means as a developer is factoring in things a live plan to continue growing the game after it is released. Whether it's piece-wise DLC drops like in GTA or expansion on the single player story, or patching and completely evolving the game over time like ...
The boxed 'product' business model of gaming has change significantly in recent years and isn't sustainable for an entertainment industry as broad as gaming. GAAS is pretty much going to be the standard for multiplayer and some genres of single player games going forward.
Why would we want to stop GAAS? Are you arguing that developers should just ship a game and abandon it like a orphaned child like they did 15 years ago? There's nothing inherently wrong with service based games, and from a publishers' point of view a game is a product they want to drive continued investment in it to try reap maximum rewards. Yeah, that usually means post-launch monetization, and yeah, that means trying to hold players' attention for a longer amount of time. As lon...
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.