At what point will console graphics be outdated?

[Spewn]

Yes i definitely buy it, heres why: (note that this isn’t to scale by any means just a comparison)

I understand the argument, I know how eyes work. My point is that just because you don't care about graphics quality doesn't mean the quality difference isn't there anymore. You sit far away so you can't see as much, so you don't notice there isn't as much to see. That doesn't change the fact that there isn't as much to see.



Get it?

Edit: Also, there's more to image quality than resolution, but that's a different argument altogether.

 

[deweatherly]

I understand the argument, I know how eyes work. My point is that just because you don't care about graphics quality doesn't mean the quality difference isn't there anymore. You sit far away so you can't see as much, so you don't notice there isn't as much to see. That doesn't change the fact that there isn't as much to see.



Get it?

yes, i understand it, and yes consoles graphics when compared straight up, they simply dont compare... its always like that and always will be like that. but the point is, if console players in general sat right up to screen like PC players they would have been updated some time ago, hell it would be a different industry. but consoles graphics arent outdated for this reason, for the consoles palyers, the graphics are still really good.

Console players dont sit further away because they want to trick their eyes into not seeing the difference in the graphics, thats the way consoles are played.

 

[Spewn]

yes, i understand it, and yes consoles graphics when compared straight up, they simply dont compare... its always like that and always will be like that. but the point is, if console players in general sat right up to screen like PC players they would have been updated some time ago, hell it would be a different industry. but consoles graphics arent outdated for this reason, for the consoles palyers, the graphics are still really good.

Console players dont sit further away because they want to trick their eyes into not seeing the difference in the graphics, thats the way consoles are played.

Your perception of how good the graphics are doesn't change their objective "goodness". That's all I'm saying.

 

[deweatherly]

Your perception of how good the graphics are doesn't change their objective "goodness". That's all I'm saying.

yes, well thier precieved 'goodness" is what keeps them from having stay on par with PC.
-and its not like im saying the difference in perception and actual is that drastic, i think the console graphics are good just not comparable to top PC models. but that doesnt mean they are out dated.

 

[Spewn]

but that doesnt mean they are out dated.

Let's turn the discussion around a bit; What *would* mean they're outdated? Would it take a new generation of consoles?

The problem with this discussion is that everyone's personal interpretation gets involved and nothing is really any more valid than anything else. I say SNES graphics aren't yet outdated; Prove me wrong. You can't, because I've defined for myself exactly what "outdated" would mean in this case.

From the perspective of a PC gamer, console graphics have been outdated for a couple years at least. From the perspective of a console gamer, they'll be outdated the day the PS4 or Xbox720 or whatever launches.

 

[-Sn1PeR-]

Obviously the new xbox 360 slim will make all current console graphics outdated.... jk

I think the advent of 3d tv's and 3d gaming might make the push for a next gen console happen sooner due to the fact that they will need to render 30fps for each eye. Either that or we'll get used to 15fps *barf*

 

[deweatherly]

From the perspective of a PC gamer, console graphics have been outdated for a couple years at least. From the perspective of a console gamer, they'll be outdated the day the PS4 or Xbox720 or whatever launches.

i agree with this, i see your point and i would agree that consoles players in general wontsay their graphics aren't outdated until the next generation of consoles.
-but, that the next generation will definitly have to make a big jump in the scheme of the things, but i dont see them not doing that.

 

[Netrat33]

This is a reason why video games wont ever be considered art: because when it becomes old it becomes obsolete. Not cherished.

When movies are old, they are still respected and appreciated.
Games - These graphics suck! (Gameplay is still fu..) Fuck gameplay! Soo horrible looking (But the story) Horrible looking game! Can't get past it.

 

[dr.stevil]

This is a reason why video games wont ever be considered art: because when it becomes old it becomes obsolete. Not cherished.

When movies are old, they are still respected and appreciated.
Games - These graphics suck! (Gameplay is still fu..) Fuck gameplay! Soo horrible looking (But the story) Horrible looking game! Can't get past it.

I disagree I love going back and playing old school hits from NES, PSX and N64

gameplay > *

punchout is still the greatest all time boxing game IMO hell, even my nephew (who's only 11) appreciates ice hockey and excite bike

 

[Spewn]

When movies are old, they are still respected and appreciated.

Yeah, I bet in 30 years we'll all consider Transformers 2 a classic.

Games - These graphics suck! (Gameplay is still fu..) Fuck gameplay! Soo horrible looking (But the story) Horrible looking game! Can't get past it.

Maybe for some games, but I still play NES/SNES games on my Wii, I still play PS1/PS2 games, I ran through Planescape: Torment recently as well.

If you design your game to look as *real* as possible, then most likely at some point in the future it will look like crap. If you design your game around a visual style, it can live on as looking good for a very long time. Super Mario World still looks great.

 

[Netrat33]

I disagree I love going back and playing old school hits from NES, PSX and N64

gameplay > *

punchout is still the greatest all time boxing game IMO hell, even my nephew (who's only 11) appreciates ice hockey and excite bike

I love old games too I'm saying people who keep ragging on old PC games and consoles in general (Graphics are the suck eyes...bleeeeeding!) is just such a sad state of mind for gamers and medium.

Yeah, I bet in 30 years we'll all consider Transformers 2 a classic.
Maybe for some games, but I still play NES/SNES games on my Wii, I still play PS1/PS2 games, I ran through Planescape: Torment recently as well.

If you design your game to look as *real* as possible, then most likely at some point in the future it will look like crap. If you design your game around a visual style, it can live on as looking good for a very long time. Super Mario World still looks great.

Of all the F'ing movies you picked ...heh. Of course there are shit movies such as shit games, but you do help with a point. All the CG and glam of Transformers 2 didnt' save it from being a piece of shit. All the high resolutions, realistic textures doesn't make it a good game either. And then people bring up "Why can't I have both?" Well yes, but then it becomes "Out dated and no longer good" It's a lose lose for gaming being more respected.

I mean designing a game visually only takes you so far. I Love going back and playing old DOS games, their resolutions often didn't go higher than 320x240. 640x480 was AMAZING back then. But the games are still really well made. But as gamers we are sooooo focused on graphics.

 

[Parmenides]

I like Mount & Blade a lot despite the outdated graphics. But then again I guess that means I'm getting old. Kiddies would probably say that it sux. Graphics are just a piece in the pie of what makes a game enjoyable.


oh wait...


I want a mass exodus away from consoles back to PC gaming so that developers can stop making games for consoles which might port to PC when they get around to it. Yes, precious, console games can't be enjoyable because their graphics suck.

Ooops, I showed my cards.

 

[deweatherly]

I want a mass exodus away from consoles back to PC gaming so that developers can stop making games for consoles which might port to PC when they get around to it. Yes, precious, console games can't be enjoyable because their graphics suck.

Ooops, I showed my cards.

Wheter you like it or not, Consoles own the gaming industry and it will continue to be that way. so go ahead and enjoy your pretty graphics while ill enjoy a much higher gameplay, not some ported rip off that, that doesnt work as well.

 

[noobman]

Graphics aren't really outdated until there's something new to use as a frame of reference.

It's partially subjective, too.... would you consider the graphics from an Xbox360 release title (Gun, for example) to be outdated in comparison to Gears of War? Probably.

Would you consider Modern Warfare 2's graphics on the console to be outdated in comparison to the PC? I'd say no. The technology is the same and the game, for the most part, looks the same. The only thing the PC offers (and it's a big thing in my books) is a higher resolution, AA support, higher resolution textures, and possibly more detailed shaders.

I think Uncharted 2 is the best looking game I've seen... and from early screenshots it looks like Rage may bump it out of place. Crysis is probably 2nd. In comparison to these three games, almost everything looks outdated.

 

[Serpico]

noobman - Have you gotten a look at God Of War 3? A lot of it is staging and careful camera placement but holy crap, Uncharted 2 has competition. It looks absolutely spectacular.

 

[Tbird87]

Wheter you like it or not, Consoles own the gaming industry and it will continue to be that way. so go ahead and enjoy your pretty graphics while ill enjoy a much higher gameplay, not some ported rip off that, that doesnt work as well.

Gameplay is the main reason I play on my PC more than my consoles.

 

[deweatherly]

Gameplay is the main reason I play on my PC more than my consoles.

well, thats your opinion, i like the gameplay on the consoles better. but many times PC players are bitching about how they are mad that games are designed for consoles and then ported to PC and it just doesnt work a lot of times,

 

[Stereophile]

noobman - Have you gotten a look at God Of War 3? A lot of it is staging and careful camera placement but holy crap, Uncharted 2 has competition. It looks absolutely spectacular.

I own both UC2 and GoW3 and GoW3 impresses me more. Uncharted 2 looks beautiful. The texture work is fantastic. But Gow3's sense of scale and smooth IQ is something else. It comes together like nothing I"ve seen before. Painting come to life indeed.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

but many times PC players are bitching about how they are mad that games are designed for consoles and then ported to PC and it just doesnt work a lot of times,

Mostly due to menus unoptimized for PC, FOV for 4:3, lack of dedicated servers and dumbed down graphics. Not gameplay.

 

[Shalafi]

I think consoles are inherently outdated, technology-wise as soon as they are introduced, however, I do think over time, that developers get better at utilizing the technology of consoles and they can make games that take pretty good advantage of the hardware that is there.

You usually don't see that difference right away, it usually takes 3 or 4 years of a system's life to see a system being pushed to it's ceiling. Right around then, historically, the best games on a system tend to come out and the system is cheaper which helps push sales.

Honestly, I'm a PC gamer 90-95 percent of the time, I own a Wii and PS3, I feel that lately games on PS3 have been more fun than what I play on PC, I'm slowly but surely driving more of my time, percentage wise onto the console.

I mean, with all these great console games coming out lately, and the PC market has been stagnating lately, there's just not much on the horizon that's interesting to me. I think PC gaming needs more innovation in it to help push interest.

One thing PC can and does much better than consoles, the online experience. PC is the best platform for online gaming, IMO. Keyboard and mouse, can't beat it. Console online, everyone's on the same level from a hardware standpoint, that provides a more even field, but in exchange you have to deal with the console kiddies, which is a huge turn off.

Ah, well, you gotta admit, at introduction, consoles aren't all that, but a few years into their lifespan, they start to really shine, and you will find yourself playing console games for a while untill that luster runs it's course and you find yourself PC gaming.

I guess some of us might even do what I said, in cycles. That's no different than the gaming industry as a whole.

 

[deweatherly]

You usually don't see that difference right away, it usually takes 3 or 4 years of a system's life to see a system being pushed to it's ceiling. Right around then, historically, the best games on a system tend to come out and the system is cheaper which helps push sales.

Agreed

One thing PC can and does much better than consoles, the online experience. PC is the best platform for online gaming, IMO. Keyboard and mouse, can't beat it. Console online, everyone's on the same level from a hardware standpoint, that provides a more even field, but in exchange you have to deal with the console kiddies, which is a huge turn off.

Very true, except i disagree about KB/M, but thats just my opinion. Those console kiddies is the thing i hate the most about consoles, but i do like your statement about "the even palying field" never thought of that.

 

[Parmenides]

Wheter you like it or not, Consoles own the gaming industry and it will continue to be that way. so go ahead and enjoy your pretty graphics while ill enjoy a much higher gameplay, not some ported rip off that, that doesnt work as well.

Console gaming isn't "higher gameplay." The only thing special about consoles is "higher quantity of games to choose from."
When people complain about PC ports, 90% of the time the PC version is still better. It's just that the game is severely limited to the boundary's of a console. When a game is made only for the console gamepad with no mouse and keyboard in mind, the game takes on design limitations. And the console has many other limitations, such as graphics. If a game was made for PC, then ported to console, then various features and options have to be cut in order to fit into the console. A console by nature limits the scope of gameplay.

I'll tell you what "higher gameplay" is: PC games + mods.

 

[bL33d]

I have all three game consoles and never play any of them IMO the graphics are outdated and online is much better in PC. My ps3 gets a lot of use for media content.

 

[rUmX]

I didn't mean to make this a peripheral post, but since some of you are already talking about gamepad vs keyboard+mouse I just had to chime in. Oh and I'm only going to talk about FPS games.

If console gamers have even witnessed the competitiveness of PC FPS gamers in action (like CAL), they'd piss in their pants. Even though they already have auto-aim, they'd wish they'd have super auto-aim. A dual analog gamepad doesn't even come close to the quickness and accuracy of a keyboard+mouse combo.

 

[DrDoU]

Wheter you like it or not, Consoles own the gaming industry and it will continue to be that way. so go ahead and enjoy your pretty graphics while ill enjoy a much higher gameplay, not some ported rip off that, that doesnt work as well.

Fail post fail.

 

[jonneymendoza]

I am just posting this to get a feel of what other gamers think of the console graphics right now?

Do you think they are fine for a while, or will be outdated this year or sometime in the future?

Do you think that consoles are beneficial to the gaming market or lagging the technology progression down?

I like to hear what other gamers think, as for me I have been an avid PC gamer for over 15 years (so I am biased to the PC). There are some things the console does very well, and that have improved the gaming market. However I feel that this console generation has just driven the gaming market to stagnation, due to the graphics and processing power restrictions of consoles.

I could not help but notice this after playing MW2 on the console then playing it on the computer. MW2 on the computer or console cant hold a candle to the eye candy of Crysis on full settings. I now wonder if new FPS multi-platform games like Crysis 2 etc. will have any drastic improvements in the graphics and physics department.

Lets try to keep this thread positive and stay away from a flame war on Consoles vs PCs.

They are already outdated. i played heavy rain and everyone praised how great it looked yet to me it looked average.

 

[guitarguy6]

I just beat God of War 3 and those graphics were simply amazing. I can't recall a game that stunned me as much as GoW 3 did and I game on an eyefinity setup with a 5850

 

[JCDenton]

They're already horribly outdated. I do still get the occasional console game that impresses me, like Heavy Rain, GOW3, and FF13, but it comes down to pure art design. I can sit back at a distance and think those games look nice, but if I sit closer to the TV or look at the graphics in depth for their technical elements, they are crap. It's easy to pick out the low poly counts, poor textures, extremely low resolution hidden somewhat by the natural pixel smoothing TVs provide, and a host of other deficiencies.

 

[Mokkat]

Consoles are dated, but the game developers work hard to do a good job of hiding it. Its a damn shame that they do, because since the PC gaming market is the smallest we will get stuck with the same crappy compromises on our superior rigs - like terrible FOV

 

[malleus_male]

Can someone explain to me why they feel AA is so important? 99% of the time I do not even notice jaggies with no AA. Sure, if I sit and stare at my screen and spend time actually looking for it, then I will see it, but playing a game in real time I don't. I play in a more modest 1680x1050 resolution which is still considered high res as it blows the doors off most home TV's that are not 1080P.

I just do not for the life of me understand why most here are so obsessed with AA. It is like some will not play a game if they can't jack up the AA. WTF? AA has always been gimick. It dosen't make the game look any different with it on or off. All it does it suck down your performance the more you use. It is like buying a sports car then tossing on square tires....

 

[Tudz]

Can someone explain to me why they feel AA is so important? 99% of the time I do not even notice jaggies with no AA. Sure, if I sit and stare at my screen and spend time actually looking for it, then I will see it, but playing a game in real time I don't. I play in a more modest 1680x1050 resolution which is still considered high res as it blows the doors off most home TV's that are not 1080P.

I just do not for the life of me understand why most here are so obsessed with AA. It is like some will not play a game if they can't jack up the AA. WTF? AA has always been gimick. It dosen't make the game look any different with it on or off. All it does it suck down your performance the more you use. It is like buying a sports car then tossing on square tires....

It depends on the game, some really benefit from AA, some dont. Most games I dont even bother turning AA on, but some games rely on very fine edges for their graphics and look horrible without lots of AA. One of the medal of honor games, I think it was airborne, looked horrible without AA... the game's lighting was very fine lines off the edges of objects which just highlighted jaggied badly. In COD4 some maps really benefitted from AA, others didn't bother me with or without.

 

[Spewn]

Can someone explain to me why they feel AA is so important?

Because without AA I notice jagged edges on just about every edge that doesn't run parallel to one of the edges of my monitor. You may not, good for you, but I absolutely do. What's more, foliage; Any kind of trees or fencing or anything like that looks like absolute garbage without AA. Hell, even WITH AA sometimes it still looks like crap(unless I've got the spare power to crank AA all the way up to 24x).

Some games are worse than others. Borderlands was pretty bad, but there wasn't much you could do about it; Even forcing AA on, the edges of the character models still were jagged, it was because of the shader they used to do the black outlines. Dawn of War II? The camera is typically so far from the battlefield that I don't notice much of a difference with or without AA. But if I'm playing an FPS it's way too noticeable to not have AA on.

If you don't notice a difference, don't use it, but seeing the edges of objects dance around on my screen is way too distracting for me.

 

[tvdang7]

no idea how an xbox 360 with a x1900 runs bc2 great and we need like a card 2-3x the performance of that to run the game decently.

 

[necrophile]

Can someone explain to me why they feel AA is so important? 99% of the time I do not even notice jaggies with no AA. Sure, if I sit and stare at my screen and spend time actually looking for it, then I will see it, but playing a game in real time I don't. I play in a more modest 1680x1050 resolution which is still considered high res as it blows the doors off most home TV's that are not 1080P.

I just do not for the life of me understand why most here are so obsessed with AA. It is like some will not play a game if they can't jack up the AA. WTF? AA has always been gimick. It dosen't make the game look any different with it on or off. All it does it suck down your performance the more you use. It is like buying a sports car then tossing on square tires....

Tested, your eyes need.

 

[dario03]

no idea how an xbox 360 with a x1900 runs bc2 great and we need like a card 2-3x the performance of that to run the game decently.

Optimization. All 360's are basically the same but computers are not.

 

[Stereophile]

It depends on the game, some really benefit from AA, some dont. Most games I dont even bother turning AA on, but some games rely on very fine edges for their graphics and look horrible without lots of AA.

My computer is outdated so I don't even think of applying AA anymore, but when it was current, and with past systems, x2 or x4 is plenty for me. As long as it's not horrible and at a decent resolution, aliasing is something I don't dwell on.

Although I really noticed how good the IQ is in God of War 3. I did see jagginess in some backgrounds, but all of the action on the screen looks so smooth and fluid. I believe it's using a novel AA algorithm with the SPEs.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

no idea how an xbox 360 with a x1900 runs bc2 great and we need like a card 2-3x the performance of that to run the game decently.

It doesnt take much video card muscle to run that game at medium details, 1024x720. 2-3x performing parts would allow you to run at a much higher resolution with much higher details than an xbox could possibly handle.

 

[Staples]

Can someone explain to me why they feel AA is so important? 99% of the time I do not even notice jaggies with no AA. Sure, if I sit and stare at my screen and spend time actually looking for it, then I will see it, but playing a game in real time I don't. I play in a more modest 1680x1050 resolution which is still considered high res as it blows the doors off most home TV's that are not 1080P.

I just do not for the life of me understand why most here are so obsessed with AA. It is like some will not play a game if they can't jack up the AA. WTF? AA has always been gimick. It dosen't make the game look any different with it on or off. All it does it suck down your performance the more you use. It is like buying a sports car then tossing on square tires....

I never user nor have I ever played with AA because it takes too much of a hit on games. I think most here glorify it because consoles do not have the option of it to the extent PC games have but something I have noticed recently is that real gamers actually spend time playing the game and NOT hours and hours tweaking their systems. I used to do that and since it was a per game basis, I'd spend more time tweaking them then I'd spend playing the game. As of now, I just use whatever the default setting is and change the resolution to my native. I never spend time screwing in the options than the 30s I spend adjusting the resolution.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

no idea how an xbox 360 with a x1900 runs bc2 great and we need like a card 2-3x the performance of that to run the game decently.

haha, yeah but at what settings, i bet it's 720p or less, with medium to low texture settings and crippled effects. Console games are always gimped like crazy in the graphics department, with practically no decent AA, TRAA or decent texture filtering.

 

[Spewn]

I never user nor have I ever played with AA because it takes too much of a hit on games. I think most here glorify it because consoles do not have the option of it to the extent PC games have but something I have noticed recently is that real gamers actually spend time playing the game and NOT hours and hours tweaking their systems. I used to do that and since it was a per game basis, I'd spend more time tweaking them then I'd spend playing the game. As of now, I just use whatever the default setting is and change the resolution to my native. I never spend time screwing in the options than the 30s I spend adjusting the resolution.

Took me 30s to adjust *every* option in BC2, including fiddling with AA to get the best visual quality I could. If you've never used nor played with AA, how do you even *know* how much of a hit games take with it on? Especially considering not all games treat AA the same way, some games practically don't change in performance where others(like say, Crysis) fall to their knees once you bump it up even a little.

Either way, it's your loss. I didn't spend hundreds of dollars on video hardware to look at dancing jagged edges.