@StormyJoe: The PS4 has twice the ROPS Units (32 vs 16 XB1's GPU), and 50 percent the texturing and shader processing capability. That isn't nothing, it's enough to make what would be 720p games on Xbox One run at 1080p on the PS4 with no changes to the rest of the graphics.
I think this generation has had alot of 8/10 games but the games of yesteryear were absolutely ground breaking. While they may play the same or even worse than some games today, by virtue of their date of release and what they were back then they were a higher representative zenith of the what games were at their time. Half-Life 2, Far Cry, NOLF, Age of Empires II, Half-Life, Starcraft, Diablo, etc, etc, the years before 2006 were pretty awesome because budgets hadn't swelled to such insane levels as they have now to compete graphically and cinematically (or should I say "cynicematically"?). There has been a trend towards narcissism too thanks to the pervasive nature of console online play that has trickled into the PC space thanks to multiplatforming. Remember in Battlefield when teamwork truly meant actual teamwork? Now it's just insta-spawn on any squad mate or spawn beacon and there is no proper VOIP implementation in game, and you even get points for the smallest of actions. It's a points fest, just like the CoD games did.
On the upside, many of the over-budget games we have now are in general really good. The average game these days isn't as bad as the average game back then. I'm hoping for a resurgence of some of the simplicity and focus of games from back then, like we had with Hard Reset. I'm tired of the FPS+ "plus" games like Bioshock and Mass Effect. They don't do any one part excellently choosing to focus on bringing a bunch of "ok" elements together instead of getting any one of them down to an art.
First Experience I Remember:
Playing Reader Rabbit and Retaliator F-29 on my family's old Tandy in the early 90s.
Playing the past generation's best multiplayer FPSs in 2006, 2007 and 2008, like Battlefield 2, BF2142, CoD2, CoD4, etc. It's sad to see BF go purely CoD with a real lack of framework for proper teamwork with no real VOIP and a botched squad system. I still go back to BF2 and 2142 every now and then. Taking down a Titan is one of the best multiplayer experiences ever.
This generation is full of memorable games and while many PC gamers loath the whole multiplatforming trend, it doesn't bother me too much because I got some great games out of it. FEAR for example I bought and beat on 360 first, but when I built my first PC in early 2007, I made sure to fire up the PC version as well as Extraction Point to enjoy the superior versions. GTAIV, while a sloppy port is still better on PC, as well as just about ever multiplatform game. I have little reason to complain, too many great titles. FEAR2 is the only real "victim" of multiplatforming I can think of. BF3 is still a good game, even with it's console-centric flaws.
I've been playing the first Rainbow Six: Vegas on PC. I originally played it on 360, but I don't have one anymore. The game is still fantastic, and while I miss the sprint and extra capabilities of the second game, I prefer the first one's levels and casino settings.
However, my main muse of late has been War Thunder. It may be F2P, but it's arcade combat and realistic historical battles are incredibly fun and tactic dependent. The progression system is still pretty good even if you don't pay anything, nor are those who do instant winners. Easily the best F2P I've ever partaken in. It doesn't help that I'm an aerophile and all the planes are interesting in their own right in terms of history and performance. Recently I acquired my first jet, an He-162 Salamander. Using a jet versus prop planes isn't as easy as it sounds and interestingly enough, from a tactics and weaponry point of view, you can better understand the changes that came about when pilots switched from props to jets. For example, jet on jet combat is much more difficult as your shot opportunities tend to be fewer and shorter. It became quite clear why the US developed gatling cannons with their 4000+ rounds per minute fire rate, to make sure that each chance to hose down an adversary received as much lead in such short periods as possible but without having 4 cannons + separate ammo magazines that in total weigh more than a single Vulcan Gun system.
The He-162 is smaller than most late-WW2 prop fighters and being even faster means it's a very difficult target to hit. Using an He-162 versus another is still difficult due to the relatively slow fire rate of it's two 20mm cannons and very low ammo count. It doesn't help I don't use a mouse for arcade (because I prefer a joystick for flying a plane) which makes getting some of those critical shots extremely difficult. It does not detract from the fun however. Often enough, the chase is better than the catch :D
@Xtasy26 said:@PC_Otter said:
Is anyone else just as impressed with the fact that to this day the 8800GTX is a completely viable graphics card for anyone still with one? Damned impressive I say, and a testament to longevity in PC hardware!
The 8800 series was awesome. It could still run 2013 games.
Look at 8800 GTS running Bioshock Infinite at 1440x900P at Ultra settings:
^^It looks simply stunning! That means that a 8800 GTX will run it even better and at higher resolutions!
If only I hadn't made the mistake of getting the 320 MB 8800GTS. Once Crysis came out, that amount of VRAM was made obsolete lol, but it ran CoD4 with 4x MSAA at 1440 x 900 at a buttery smooth 60 FPS. Damn I loved that card, and it was the first videocard I ever bought.
@pelvist: I didn't say devs left the PC behind, I said they went where the money was at the time (mid last gen) which was the console market. And PC games still require a hype train of sorts for bigger budget action titles to be monetarily successful like Crysis, The Witcher 2, or Total War. Sure they are not on the same level of hype as say Uncharted 3 or the next Call of Duty, but you can bet that their devs made sure to market and appeal to the gamers through various means like the graphics, immersion, etc, etc. Where I think much of the difference lies is in how PC games are marketed, where so much of a title's success comes from word of mouth, a decent amount of advertising, and creating a relationship between the devs and gamers. Mods are the same way.
Simply enough, the bigger your budget goes, the more advertising dollars and press time is needed to garner the gazes and affection of gamers and you need a bigger base of gamers to sell to. This is where multiplatforming came in.
@The_Stand_In: They went where the money was and obviously they benefited. In fact even the PC benefited because they could continue to exist and still provide their games to the PC, even if they were not as PC centric or not up to the same graphics and IQ potential they could've been had they been PC-only.
I would expect the last gen all over again, but with more PC exclusive F2Ps and PC gamers in general. We'll get the obligatory resolution and AF customization with perhaps some texture and shadow res bump ups.
There were plenty of "upgradeable" consoles in the past. The ability to do this usually ends up underutilized, adds further cost to the building the base console, the peripheral is typically expensive and under supported, and available products to make use of the expansion ports can fragment player markets.
LOL Stick to PC if you want upgradeable hardware.
The PS2 ethernet modem expansion is one of the very few examples of a successful expansion peripheral and it's success was due to the rise in online gaming and the fact that the PS2 was hugely successful by the time it was available. It didn't help that there were a decent slew of games that supported it.
@Joedgabe: I would agree in general, but there are plenty of hardcore Japanese PC gamers. I remember for a while the top Battlefield 2 player was a Japanese guy.
FPSs are obviously picking up traction in the Japanese market, especially with certain shooter attributes being put into games like MGS and Lost Planet. Even if the Japanese don't take to the Xbox One, they can always get Titanfall on PC.
I'm in total support of this, though I completely understand the hate the Vegas games get for being consolized compared to the originals, especially those on PC. I find Vegas 1 and 2 very enjoyable games and currently I'm making a run through the first game on PC. Unfortunately unless you're PC savvy I would avoid trying to make it work with Windows 7 because it won't run with a dedicated sound card and it requires an executable work-around with the Steam version of the game. Vegas 2 works perfectly fine though.
As for Patriots, it looked like a good concept, but likely it would've abandoned the Vegas style games for something much easier and more casual. I was highly turned off by the concept video from two years ago with it's many quick time button events.
Vegas 1 on 360 was my first experience with Xbox Live and pretty much the only game on the system I played hardcore on Live. I have some very fond memories of it. The PC version unfortunately lacks the persistent character and XP system the 360 version has which was disappointing when I played it. Vegas 2 I've only played on PC, and it's MP, while a bit weak in online player population but still has some people playing both co-op and competitive. It's certainly a much better looking and playing game compared to Vegas 1.
$499 for the iBuyPower Steam Machine is ****ing excellent. Even with an added Windows install tacked on to the price bringing it up closer to $600, it's still a damn good value for a console sized box that is more powerful than a PS4, and not to mention an entirely capable general PC too.
Steam Machines and SteamOS are just expanding the notion of what we expect and see as gaming PCs.
@psymon100: Yes I want 60 FPS standard too. Especially with FPSs in multiplayer. SP games like those going specifically for a cinematic feel are perfectly fine at 30 FPS as long as the framerate doesn't dip below that.
pc occupies a funny space.
hard to be next² gen if all the artwork assets etc run on consoles.
i kind of think of it as gen+. You can get better visuals, but they won't be amazing. You can also get 60fps continuously.
That's a good way of looking at it, but there are actual PC games that when ran on PC versus their console cousins, are well beyond just a "plus" moniker like BF3 with more players in MP and bigger maps. It's also important to remember that many games were built on PC first and the assets themselves were reduced to a manageable level that the consoles could handle without over saturating their memory and graphics processing arrays.
What continues to be pervasive is the notion of pushing visuals too hard sometimes resulting in sub-30 FPS and sub HD resolutions. I truly hope that this time around that 30 FPS minimum is actually met more often while still going for 1080p on the PS4.
LOL I don't care for Gamespot's new look but more so it's just now starting to run as efficiently now that bugs have been worked out so I've only just recently started posting regularly again.
And Ronvalencia is pretty damn smart, he's just not always coherent with the way he writes his messages.
Tormentos is just Tormentos.....lol
I'm just trying to approach this generation as practically as possible. At the beginning of last gen, I had just began my tenure as a PC gamer (mid 2005), but still did not completely understand the differences between the consoles and PC architectures, nor did I have a good gaming PC until early 2007. My current PC is old, but ironically enough the CPU is on par with either the PS4 or Xbone's CPU and in some ways my GPU (Radeon 5850) is just as capable, but practically it lacks the kind of tessellation that either console has thanks to more modern GCN graphics architecture implementation as well as decent GPGPU.
What still kind of blows my mind is how AMD hasn't made any plans to release server versions of the PS4 APU. For a general desktop solution, it's CPU cores are too slow both in clock and too slow per clock, but for a server focused GPGPU, it would be good all in one solution not requiring separate control CPUs and GPUs, much like Cell but with a practical basic CPU capability.
Kaveri certainly isn't looking bad but it should've been around a year ago and the highest end desktop version should've been quad channel or AMD should've made a "super Kaveri" variant with 768 SPs with quad channel support. It would be good for cheap multimedia desktops, servers, and most importantly a great entry level Steam Box APU which could sell millions.
What I'm saying we don't know how GPGPU + Mantle will do on PC until
especially when we consider how efficiently it's implemented. Assuming we actually get to experience it, I'm going to guess that the best way to experience "real" (and not just effects physics) GPGPU will be with a Kaveri APU handling GPGPU with the benefit of HSA and hUMA so there is no extra saturation of the PCI-E bus with the likely associated communication latency between the CPU and GPU when doing GPGPU. It would leave the dedicated graphics card left to do graphics only. Kaveri with 800+ GFLOPS on the CUs is quite a bit of processing power yeah? I think it would be more efficient to keep it all handled on the same piece of silicon and let the graphics card do it's thing without being distracted. It could mean actual gameplay GPGPU physics that we hardly saw with PhysX.
It's really the GFLOPS in a CPU that a console needs more than anything to run animations, physics, sound, etc Jaguar cores offered good TDP/performance/mm² with a very comprehensive feature and easily adaptable to various APU solutions. However their thermals and power needs go up quick like any CPU core would as you increase the clock speed. Modern Intel Core architecture offers twice as many GFLOPS per clock (256 bits wide) than a Jaguar core (128 bits wide) and on desktop PCs, they'll easily run upwards of 3.2 GHz, so even dual core Intel i3's have as much GFLOPS as the 8 Jaguar cores in the PS4's APU. Scalar performance matters too and the advantages in scalar performance and GFLOPS that an i5, i7 or octo core AMD FX CPU offer can get PC gamers the 60 FPS or smoother framerate they may be craving while the two consoles may be limited to 30 FPS in CPU heavy scenes and/or experience even less if the scene is incredibly taxing.
The Xenon CPU in the 360 was a fine example of a a reasonably sized processor with heavy focus on high GFLOPS output and good for it's time general CPU performance which was necessary for advancing the amount of physics and quality of animation in games while still having the grunt to handle good AI and do background tasks.
The Cell in the PS3 was an example of focusing way too much on GFLOPS while having barely enough general scalar performance. Luckily for the PS3, the excess GFLOPS capability on the Cell could be used to augment the PS3's weaker graphics processing unit.