Xbox One

[Hot Heart]

I think newer hardware enables more beyond better graphics.

 

Not sure how accurate it is, but I have seen people pointing to Crysis 2's reduction of player count and map size and less complex AI (all enemies are bipeds or something?) as a result in the console's processing power limiting what can be done. Could all be bullshit though. I'm not trying to be a console-bashing PC elitist.

 

And I'm not dying for a new console but I can live in hope that if newer hardware were to reach the console market, we'd see some great advances in game design as well. I'm an optimist like that.

[TheMightyEthan]

Its odd to see so many people wanting a new console. Yeah the 360 is showing its age, but i cant see what the next gen is going to do so differently. Its just going to be more power. The nes to the snes to the ps1 and so on were graphical leaps in realism that game creators used to portray different worlds and genres impossible on the old 8 bit system, but now? Its all just better textures, less jaggies, and bigger worlds, which only rockstar and bethesda will utilize.

im no graphic whore so maybe im not the person this is all targeted for.

this next gen isnt going to do anything different. That to me is kind of boring. Graphically, these graphics we have now on consoles are good for me.

 

Plus, the longer it takes to throw 400 or whatever dollars to play new games the better.

I agree with the gist of this, though jaggies bug the shit out of me, and a little texture filtering would be nice to get rid of that line of high-res/low-res that's always running along the ground in front of you, but otherwise yeah, graphics improvements aren't that important to me.

 

Of course I already get every game I can on PC anyway.

[Saturnine Tenshi]

Greater processing capability enables advances in game-oriented AI, shorter loading times, less pop-in, and as you mentioned, scale — with lends to much more than world size. Sure, this may mean nothing to you, but that doesn't mean it isn't a functional justification for advancement. How many games couldn't have existed on consoles in their capacity if we'd kept to the previous generation? How many games still can't exist on consoles because we're in the current generation?

 

(Aside from graphics, which are admittedly peripheral from my perspective. Though I do sometimes find myself bleching at particularly unsightly textures or low-poly models with high-poly lighting... simply because it has to be.)

 

Microsoft could gain plenty by simply giving its users and devs more freedom.

 

Though I'd hardly recommend picking up a launch... anything.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Saturnine Tenshi

[Yantelope]

The biggest bottleneck on the systems right now is memory. You're literally stuck with 256MB of RAM on the PS3 which is crazy to think about. It's impossible to load up the more complex PC games on today's consoles because of memory.

 

The PS3 has 256MB of video memory and 256 MB of system memory. The Xbox 360 has 512MB of unified memory so it is more flexible. On my PC I've got 6GB of memory and 2GB of video memory. It's no contest.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Yantelope

[Strangelove]

I dont know. Im sure rdr could be on the ps2. Easily. Bioware games havent changed much since the kotor days, so mass effect could easily be on the original xbox.

 

But what games arent possible right now because of the low power of the current consoles?

id like an answer to that, a realistic one.

maybe people dont know or ignore it, but as consoles get more powerful, games find a way to balance themselves and to stay in their rut. Final fantasy 7 was huge, final fantasy X was pretty big, but not nearly as big as 7, and ff13 was even smaller. Making games takes more work as technology gets better, work people wont do because charging the same price of a game isnt worth the work. Its the reason there isnt a ff7 remake on the ps3. Its not that they wont, its that they cant.

even if the next fallout game comes out on a new console, its not going to look as good as crysis. And its all because of its scope. Its too much work.

That bothers me.

[Hot Heart]

It's impossible to load up the more complex PC games on today's consoles because of memory.

 

That and the discs being incompatible.

[Saturnine Tenshi]

That's hardly the case, considering assets are generally made first in high poly, looking all nice and flashy, then rendered in low poly afterward to be able to run effectively in an engine. Actually, it'd give them less(by a tiny amount) work to do.

 

For an example, I'll use one that's incredibly popular on PC: Minecraft. You have games like Fortress Craft, but you simply cannot replicate the scale. And Minecraft isn't exactly a warren of graphical achievement. Another example? Civilization V. Probably even IV. Again, not taking into account visual integrity. Then you have the fragmented environments of games like Crysis 2 and Thief 3.

 

And I don't even want to think about the multi-platform games that could have been better.

 

I don't want you to think I'm displeased with the state of consoles. I've gleaned much satisfaction from the PS3 role-playing library. It's just that they place boundaries on development, and those boundaries need to be pushed up less technology becomes stagnant.

[Gyaruson]

Yeah, I really couldn't give a shit about "improving the graphics" for the next generation. In fact, my friend asked me yesterday what we should expect graphically from Nintendo's next console, since it's supposed to be "more powerful" (I hate that term) than an Xbox 360 or PS3. He specifically asked because of how good games like Battlefield 3 look, and they are still on this generation of systems.

 

I told him that Nintendo's new console will be able to make games look about as good as modern PC-destroying games (Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, etc), for reasons like anti-aliasing, better AI due to more processing power/RAM, etc. So yes, while the graphics may take a jump, I agree with Hotty when he says that it will be less of a visual jump and more of an under-the-hood improvement.

 

Like Naughty Dog's most recent game. Visually average, but the sheer amount of shit happening at once is staggering. I hope to see more of that.

[deanb]

It starts to hit the law of diminishing returns though. (assuming I have the meaning behind the phrase correct) The amount of raw power the devs can use increases. But the staff and funding that the developers have stays about the same.

Of course the tools improve with time too. For example this gen has seen adoption of Zbrush in the pipeline to allow use of million poly models, and it does speed things up in that dept. I'd imagine next gen will see things like Massive becoming a middleware solution for gaming too. (ninja edit: turns out it is used in games, Lost Oddyssey). Mixed with Euphoria or similar would make great things.

 

That's the kind of thing next gen allows. Graphics will most likely improve. One of the Mass Effect videos someone posted the other week Bioware guy mentioned their original models were done in zbrush n way too high for what 7th gen could run. But I don't think graphics will be the main area where 8th gen will matter. It's the physics n AI that'll be the main parts improved. You'll be able to have much more in a scene too. 8th gen might even have grass (in more than games where it's a major element)

 

edit: So it seems I missed a page somewhere

 

But what games arent possible right now because of the low power of the current consoles?

id like an answer to that, a realistic one.[/quote]

 

Well we'll tell you when next gen comes around. As the PC guys have been pointing out, this gen has dragged down PC games so it's not too much of an indicator of the future as it once was.Looking at an example from this gen:

Dead Rising on the 360:

And on the last-gen hardware of the Wii:

FF7 was built using 2D pre-rendered backplates for most of the game compared to the full 3D of FFX onwards. And the pixelated sprites of the pre-SNES days.

And despite what recent media may suggest didin't look like this:

but this:

FFX was also fully voiced and had more polygons in a fingertip than the entire cast of FFVII combined. And FFVII on the current tech is perfectly feasible. Even the workload is manageable. The problem is the people working on it. Getting all the old guys in the same room would be a mighty task.

And FO3 could have looked like Crysis(2) this gen. That was a matter of engine. As shown with Skyrim.

 

This gen is entirely in a rut because it's a stepping stone. It's proto-HD gen (despite what the marketing would have you believe, this is not the HD gen by a long shot). Next gen they should be able to start leveraging the tools used by the film industry which would make the graphics stuff pretty much a non issue.

[staySICK]

Next gen would be nice to see more AA / AF in consoles, but also more games running native 1080p instead of 720p

 

also; like others, I'm expecting under the hood stuff. The aforementioned improvements (AA AF)and stuff like smarter AI, etc, because with more processing and memory, more stuff can go on at once; more calculations can be made per second.

 

also:

 

 

While there is a bit of a graphical improvement, a lot of the focus there is on lighting and environmental effects

[RockyRan]

I dont know. Im sure rdr could be on the ps2. Easily. Bioware games havent changed much since the kotor days, so mass effect could easily be on the original xbox.

 

But what games arent possible right now because of the low power of the current consoles?

id like an answer to that, a realistic one.

maybe people dont know or ignore it, but as consoles get more powerful, games find a way to balance themselves and to stay in their rut. Final fantasy 7 was huge, final fantasy X was pretty big, but not nearly as big as 7, and ff13 was even smaller. Making games takes more work as technology gets better, work people wont do because charging the same price of a game isnt worth the work. Its the reason there isnt a ff7 remake on the ps3. Its not that they wont, its that they cant.

even if the next fallout game comes out on a new console, its not going to look as good as crysis. And its all because of its scope. Its too much work.

That bothers me.

 

This:

 

 

 

I can't imagine anything of this scale being possible on the 360/PS3 with their current limitations.

 

But this is just one example. One thing you have to realize is that you want an answer to a question that hasn't been asked. People can't off the top of their head come up with realistic ideas of what can be done on far more powerful hardware simply because barely anyone has actually tried to do things beyond the current generation. Even PC games are largely just console ports, apart from your odd game here and there.

 

It's like academic research. Ask a researcher "why are you doing this? What are the real life applications of it?" and they'll tell you "who cares? I'm doing this because it can be done. The applications will come later". This is similar. Once developers have the power they'll find ways to use it. They don't waste their time wishing that they had better hardware because that's just a waste of effort. They can only do with what they have immediately. Once devs can get their hands on significantly more powerful hardware they can find better applications for their games beyond just prettier graphics (the good devs, at least), but until that day you're not going to find an answer to "what are real life applications of better hardware" because it doesn't exist. Once better hardware comes along you'll find a concrete answer to that and not a minute sooner, but that doesn't mean it's not worth upgrading the hardware because you don't have an answer to that question immediately. I highly doubt any developer thinks "I want to do this but I can't because current hardware doesn't let me do it" at ANY new generation. I don't ever recall devs saying that when they were working on the NES just before the SNES arrived, or when they were working on the SNES before the N64 arrived. Or on the N64 when the GC arrived. The hardware companies are the ones to supply the hardware first, the developers figure out effective uses AFTER, not before.

[Yantelope]

I dont know. Im sure rdr could be on the ps2. Easily. Bioware games havent changed much since the kotor days, so mass effect could easily be on the original xbox.

 

There are differences though. Just look at the difference between GTA 3 and RDR. You could not do COD4 on the xbox (the xbox CODs sucked). You couldn't do Batman AA on the Xbox. You couldn't do Assassin's Creed on the Xbox. There are tons of games that would be impossible on an Xbox or PS2.

[TheMightyEthan]

You could not do COD4 on the xbox (the xbox CODs sucked).

Activision begs to differ:

 

[Yantelope]

You could not do COD4 on the xbox (the xbox CODs sucked).

Activision begs to differ:

 

 

COD4 wasn't a prime example but the Wii is also not a GC. It's got twice as much RAM and is reportedly 2x as powerful as a GC.

[staySICK]

two gamecubes duct taped together.

[Gyaruson]

You could not do COD4 on the xbox (the xbox CODs sucked).

Activision begs to differ:

 

 

COD4 wasn't a prime example but the Wii is also not a GC. It's got twice as much RAM and is reportedly 2x as powerful as a GC.

 

I think he may have been facetious...

[deanb]

http://www.develop-online.net/news/37622/So-who-DOES-have-next-gen-Xbox

 

Oh god this is pretty lame.

[Yantelope]

Indeed. I don't doubt that there is some prototyping going on at MS but I really doubt that it's anything that could be considered a successor to the xbox.

[TheFlyingGerbil]

From that article it sounds more like a redesign of the current console, not a new console. More likely (and I'd laugh pretty hard if true) is that they've made a new, cheaper/better dev kit for the current console. That's something I believe Wii did so indie devs could afford one.

 

edit: not to say they aren't working on a new console.

Edited May 9, 2011 by TheFlyingGerbil

[Thursday Next]

There are new cheaper dev/test kits. Not sure if that's what these are...

[deanb]

Oh I was saying it was lame how Develop ran a story on "EA have the next xbox" then MS, EA n a few other sites all called it out as false, now develop are like "well..someone does...look see this job posting proves it"

[TheFlyingGerbil]

I thought they only recently advertised for a graphics hardware architect, so it seems too soon to have a dev kit for games developers to me.

Edited May 9, 2011 by TheFlyingGerbil

[staySICK]

BUT GAAAAAIISSS... Our TOP MAN INSIDE says there is one so there is! I'm super serial!

[Thursday Next]

Oh I was saying it was lame how Develop ran a story on "EA have the next xbox" then MS, EA n a few other sites all called it out as false, now develop are like "well..someone does...look see this job posting proves it"

 

Must be our shiny new devkits then. MS aren't doing "Dev kits" and "Test kits" any more, they're just doing a "Dev/Test kit" which is cheaper than the existing test kit (which itself was the cheaper of the two).

[deanb]

Does it come inside a PC tower?