Who is just tired of this gen?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by BossPerson (9139 posts) -

Seriously. I don;t know how long Microsoft and Sony want to drag out this generation, but am I the only one whose had enough?

Look at far cry 3. This game is f*ckn beatiful on PC (understandably so) but it looks like ass running at 26fps on console.

I was in grade 7 when 360 came out. Its been 8 years.

So who else just wants next gen to arrive already?

#2 Posted by chilly-chill (8902 posts) -

The graphical leap isn't going to be as amazing as this gen was to last.

Great creative games are still coming out and I'm not in any hurry. Maybe it's because I bought the 360 a couple years after launch..

In any case, I still love my 360.

#3 Posted by Amster_G (4295 posts) -

Well, if you're a graphics whore you might be getting tired of it, but I personally don't mind. I'm still waiting for a couple of titles that aren't coming out until next year... in the same generation!

#4 Posted by Justforvisit (2660 posts) -

I'm absolutely fine with this generation, no need to hurry. Better Graphics and more power don't automatically mean better games, ya know?

#5 Posted by crimsonman1245 (4253 posts) -

More powerful hardware is always exciting, however the publishers have been absurdly stupid with budgets this gen and i fear it will get worse next gen.

#6 Posted by Namgis (3592 posts) -

For me this gen will continue for another 5-7 years, so no, I'm far from tired of it. We need next gen games, if we don't see those with new hardware, then what's the point?

#7 Posted by BossPerson (9139 posts) -

Its not really about the graphics to be honest. It's about the frame rate. I still havent bought AC3 because of how sh*tty it runs on ps3.

#8 Posted by BossPerson (9139 posts) -

Well, if you're a graphics whore you might be getting tired of it, but I personally don't mind. I'm still waiting for a couple of titles that aren't coming out until next year... in the same generation!

Amster_G
you obviously must care about graphics to a large degree if you have a 670
#9 Posted by Ballroompirate (23866 posts) -

I'm still loving it since I'm not a graphics whore.

#10 Posted by Amster_G (4295 posts) -

you obviously must care about graphics to a large degree if you have a 670BossPerson

That's because I'm just a PC gamer. I don't own any consoles at the moment. All PC gamers with a decent rig are automatically graphics whores?

#11 Posted by chilly-chill (8902 posts) -

Its not really about the graphics to be honest. It's about the frame rate. I still havent bought AC3 because of how sh*tty it runs on ps3.

BossPerson

I've never really had any issues with frame rate this gen, at least to the point where it's noticeable.

#12 Posted by Justforvisit (2660 posts) -

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

Its not really about the graphics to be honest. It's about the frame rate. I still havent bought AC3 because of how sh*tty it runs on ps3.

chilly-chill

I've never really had any issues with frame rate this gen, at least to the point where it's noticeable.



Same here, I'm playing AC3 right now on PS3 and it just looks amazing

#13 Posted by Amster_G (4295 posts) -

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

Its not really about the graphics to be honest. It's about the frame rate. I still havent bought AC3 because of how sh*tty it runs on ps3.

chilly-chill

I've never really had any issues with frame rate this gen, at least to the point where it's noticeable.

Technically every console game is perfectly playable. 30 frames is fine. If a certain game runs way better on one console compared to the other, it's not necessarily the hardware's fault. It could just be badly coded for the other console.

#14 Posted by BossPerson (9139 posts) -

[QUOTE="chilly-chill"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

Its not really about the graphics to be honest. It's about the frame rate. I still havent bought AC3 because of how sh*tty it runs on ps3.

Justforvisit

I've never really had any issues with frame rate this gen, at least to the point where it's noticeable.



Same here, I'm playing AC3 right now on PS3 and it just looks amazing

I hear it goes down to like 22 fps in boston
#15 Posted by BossPerson (9139 posts) -

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

you obviously must care about graphics to a large degree if you have a 670Amster_G

That's because I'm just a PC gamer. I don't own any consoles at the moment. All PC gamers with a decent rig are automatically graphics whores?

of course not, just saying it sounds funny for someone who plays his games at 1080p@60fps to call out console gamers whining about graphics.
#16 Posted by 23Jarek23 (2618 posts) -

Seriously. I don;t know how long Microsoft and Sony want to drag out this generation, but am I the only one whose had enough?

Look at far cry 3. This game is f*ckn beatiful on PC (understandably so) but it looks like ass running at 26fps on console.

I was in grade 7 when 360 came out. Its been 8 years.

So who else just wants next gen to arrive already?

BossPerson

If you were in grade 7 when this gen started then it's understandable that you think as you do, but for those of us who started gaming in the 80s I think most would agree that this gen is beyond fine in terms of graphics and performance.

But even so, a great game is a great game regardless of graphics or some techincal issues, no?

#17 Posted by crimsonman1245 (4253 posts) -

Its not really about the graphics to be honest. It's about the frame rate. I still havent bought AC3 because of how sh*tty it runs on ps3.

BossPerson

More powerful hardware will not fix framerates, they will just use that power to make the game look better, we will still get sub 30 FPS games next gen.

#18 Posted by Archangel3371 (16457 posts) -
I wouldn't say that I'm tired of this gen as I am still enjoying the games being released but I'm definitely eager for the 720 and PS4 to arrive. I'm 99.9% positive the at least the 720 will be out by this time next year with the PS4 either being released around the same time but no longer then a year afterwards.
#19 Posted by Amster_G (4295 posts) -

of course not, just saying it sounds funny for someone who plays his games at 1080p@60fps to call out console gamers whining about graphics. BossPerson

Technically I said ifyou care a ton about graphics, this gen might be getting old. I wouldn't call out on console gamers being whiners as I used to grow up with them myself all the way up to this generation. I simply chose PC only for now because of how, for example, the PlayStation 3 got Cinavia, meaning I couldn't enjoy movies anymore - and I was only interested in like one or two exclusive franchises, while all multi-platform titles got purchased for PC anyway. That's why I decided to just get some easy cash and continue on gaming on a different machine.

I'd totally buy a console again just for Grand Theft Auto V if Rockstar hasn't announced anything regarding the PC version by that time :P

*Crosses fingers!*

#20 Posted by Ballroompirate (23866 posts) -

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

Its not really about the graphics to be honest. It's about the frame rate. I still havent bought AC3 because of how sh*tty it runs on ps3.

chilly-chill

I've never really had any issues with frame rate this gen, at least to the point where it's noticeable.

The thing is the human eye can't really register above 30 fps, so watching/playing something that's above 30 fps is just over kill. Also AC3 plays pretty well on the PS3 outside of shadows that look weird but having shadows in video games is always tough in games since it takes so much to process good shadows in games.

#21 Posted by Lucky_Krystal (1390 posts) -

I'm not. There are still a plethora of games that are coming out that I want, not to mention the older ones that I haven't bought yet.

I don't care too much about graphics. And I have yet to play a game where the frame rate bugged me either. Most of the games I play run just fine.

#22 Posted by BossPerson (9139 posts) -

[QUOTE="chilly-chill"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

Its not really about the graphics to be honest. It's about the frame rate. I still havent bought AC3 because of how sh*tty it runs on ps3.

Ballroompirate

I've never really had any issues with frame rate this gen, at least to the point where it's noticeable.

The thing is the human eye can't really register above 30 fps, so watching/playing something that's above 30 fps is just over kill. Also AC3 plays pretty well on the PS3 outside of shadows that look weird but having shadows in video games is always tough in games since it takes so much to process good shadows in games.

This is just false. The vast majority of gamers can distinguish between Call of Duty's 60 fps and Battlefield's 30 fps. I don't know why I keep hearing this. Its when fps gets above 80 fps that the difference becomes irrelevant.
#23 Posted by Amster_G (4295 posts) -

The thing is the human eye can't really register above 30 fps, so watching/playing something that's above 30 fps is just over kill. Ballroompirate

Incorrect. At least a mass majority of people, including myself, can easily distinguish the difference between 30fps and 60fps.

30fps to me looks pretty normal. It's a very playable rate. 24fps/24p mode gives it that cinematic look. 60fps is what I personally consider 'buttery smooth' (it satisfies me the most). Anything at that rate and up really shows that fluid smoothness.

#24 Posted by Ballroompirate (23866 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ballroompirate"]The thing is the human eye can't really register above 30 fps, so watching/playing something that's above 30 fps is just over kill. Amster_G

Incorrect. At least a mass majority of people, including myself, can easily distinguish the difference between 30fps and 60fps.

30fps to me looks pretty normal. It's a very playable rate. 24fps/24p mode gives it that cinematic look. 60fps is what I personally consider 'buttery smooth' (it satisfies me the most). Anything at that rate and up really shows that fluid smoothness.

The only way a human eye can see around 60 fps constantly is if your brain starts to go into a "panic" mode and your brain starts to "overclock" your senses. It's plain BS and a farce if you can claim a constant 50-60 fps as a human when there's only a few creatures on the planet that can possibly do that, so unless you're a cat, seeing a constant 60 fps as a human is just not gonna happen. There has been a theory going around though that jet pilots can train themselves to 100+ fps since they require a lot of coordination with eye sight and reflexes.

Or

If you've done a huge amount of gaming on a 120HZ monitor, then you could see the difference between 120HZ and 60HZ setting, like if there is stuttering,screen tearing ect ect (they can be pretty noticeable depending on the game) which isn't really an accurate way of testing to see how much a human eye can see. Basically to put it simple if a human eye could see the center of a light bulb as it flashes then they could easily see 120+ fps.

#25 Posted by TrainerCeleste (1633 posts) -
Yes I want to regress so I'll be playing my N64 :P
#26 Posted by Amster_G (4295 posts) -

The only way a human eye can see around 60 fps constantly is if your brain starts to go into a "panic" mode and your brain starts to "overclock" your senses. It's plain BS and a farce if you can claim a constant 50-60 fps as a human when there's only a few creatures on the planet that can possibly do that, so unless you're a cat, seeing a constant 60 fps as a human is just not gonna happen. There has been a theory going around though that jet pilots can train themselves to 100+ fps since they require a lot of coordination with eye sight and reflexes.

Or

If you've done a huge amount of gaming on a 120HZ monitor, then you could see the difference between 120HZ and 60HZ setting, like if there is stuttering,screen tearing ect ect (they can be pretty noticeable depending on the game) which isn't really an accurate way of testing to see how much a human eye can see. Basically to put it simple if a human eye could see the center of a light bulb as it flashes then they could easily see 120+ fps.

Ballroompirate

If you were to play two of the exact same videos back-to-back, one at 30, the other 60, it's very easy to tell which is which. I can tell the difference between Killzone's frame rate and Crysis 2 on PC. It seriously isn't spectacular for a human to see these differences.

#27 Posted by sukraj (24202 posts) -

I'm not tired of this gen i'm still waiting for a few games coming out next year on this gen and i'm no graphics whore.

#28 Posted by lloveLamp (2891 posts) -
yes. for the love of god new consoles plx. and you people arent too poor to buy a 350 dollar console every 5 years
#29 Posted by Venom_Raptor (6958 posts) -

This gen is good for now.

#30 Posted by whiskeystrike (12096 posts) -

Gens are irrelevant to me as I'm constantly switching what games I'm playing. I'll play Final Fantasy 2 and then go play Bioshock. But yes new consoles would offer new games and more options

#31 Posted by taiwwa (301 posts) -

Yeah, I am.

I'm afraid that the next gen will be like this gen except hd squared.

#32 Posted by lensflare15 (6197 posts) -

I still enjoy this gen, and new consoles probably aren't going to offer anything major that you can't get on PC. I could play the PS3 for years more, as well as older systems.

#33 Posted by Shame-usBlackley (18266 posts) -

I'm not a frame counter or anything, but it's become obvious that these systems are well past the point of being capable of delivering the visions developers are coming up with. It was time for this generation end a few years ago. It's absolutely stupid that it hasn't.

#34 Posted by Vari3ty (11111 posts) -

[QUOTE="chilly-chill"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

Its not really about the graphics to be honest. It's about the frame rate. I still havent bought AC3 because of how sh*tty it runs on ps3.

Ballroompirate

I've never really had any issues with frame rate this gen, at least to the point where it's noticeable.

The thing is the human eye can't really register above 30 fps, so watching/playing something that's above 30 fps is just over kill. Also AC3 plays pretty well on the PS3 outside of shadows that look weird but having shadows in video games is always tough in games since it takes so much to process good shadows in games.

I don't know, I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps.

#35 Posted by SoNin360 (5729 posts) -
I think it's still going strong with plenty of big releases coming out within the next year. Even if a new console comes out at the end of next year, I think there will still be plenty of life left in these aging consoles. I think there needs to be a better reason than "improve the graphics" for new consoles to be pushed out. The PS3 and 360 were huge leaps forward from their predecessors, and I don't think that leap is going to be that great this time around.
#36 Posted by Shame-usBlackley (18266 posts) -

The PS3 and 360 were huge leaps forward from their predecessors, and I don't think that leap is going to be that great this time around.SoNin360

You could build a PC out of existing parts for under $300 that is a big difference from what these machines are capable of. Have you seen Far Cry 3 PC versus the consoles? It's a completely different looking game, both in appearance and framerate.

I don't understand why people are set on deluding themselves into the fallacy that the next generation will somehow not be a substantial improvement over the current one. Every single time a new generation has launched, it has been a substantial leap forward from the last. The prediction otherwise holds just as much likelihood of being true as catching a spaceship hiding behind a comet after drinking killer kool-aid.

I predict that if you are thinking the next machines from Sony and Microsoft are going to be lacking in power, you are going to be one surprised individual. Sure, it's just my own prediction -- but I have three decades of history on my side backing me up.

#37 Posted by SoNin360 (5729 posts) -

[QUOTE="SoNin360"]The PS3 and 360 were huge leaps forward from their predecessors, and I don't think that leap is going to be that great this time around.Shame-usBlackley

You could build a PC out of existing parts for under $300 that is a big difference from what these machines are capable of. Have you seen Far Cry 3 PC versus the consoles? It's a completely different looking game, both in appearance and framerate.

No, I don't really obsess over that sort of thing. I'm sure the difference will be noticeable once the new consoles come around, but again I don't think graphical improvements are enough of a reason to rush a new console. I'm not a PC gamer so my perspective is completely different. I've gotten a lot out of my PS3 in the past 4 years and can definitely see myself getting quite a bit more out of it for at least a few more years.
#38 Posted by Shame-usBlackley (18266 posts) -

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

[QUOTE="SoNin360"]The PS3 and 360 were huge leaps forward from their predecessors, and I don't think that leap is going to be that great this time around.SoNin360

You could build a PC out of existing parts for under $300 that is a big difference from what these machines are capable of. Have you seen Far Cry 3 PC versus the consoles? It's a completely different looking game, both in appearance and framerate.

No, I don't really obsess over that sort of thing. I'm sure the difference will be noticeable once the new consoles come around, but again I don't think graphical improvements are enough of a reason to rush a new console. I'm not a PC gamer so my perspective is completely different. I've gotten a lot out of my PS3 in the past 4 years and can definitely see myself getting quite a bit more out of it for at least a few more years.

See, that's the funny thing -- I'm not a PC gamer either. But I have eyes that work, and I see gameplay experiences being hampered by framerate issues, space constraints, lack of RAM, and just sheer muscle. Truth be told, I hate the PC market -- I think they upgrade just for the sake of upgrading, before there are games out that justify doing so. But this idea of foisting 10 year-old console hardware on people is just as bullshlt, only in the other direction. Historical trends are established because they work. Consoles have historically had a five -- MAYBE a six year lifespan -- before a new generation is introduced. All of a sudden, history means nothing and hardware makers thought they could change the rules, but now they're down 30 percent year over year, and their bottom lines are getting fvcked with, and there's nothing on the horizon to save them because they bought into their own lie.

Also, no one is going to hold a gun to anyone's head when the new hardware comes out. If people want to play on the old stuff, that's fine. It's not like there has to be mutual exclusivity.

#39 Posted by yellosnolvr (19302 posts) -
nope.
#40 Posted by bowserjr123 (1624 posts) -

I just got a PS3 recently so I'll be satisfied for a while. So many games to play at great prices now.

#41 Posted by ReviewerDrake (805 posts) -

Are you Kidding.... I stil have so much left this gen Games left to play and games awaiting release. I might not start next gen till about 2 or 3 years in.

#42 Posted by Vickman178 (866 posts) -

[QUOTE="Justforvisit"]

[QUOTE="chilly-chill"] I've never really had any issues with frame rate this gen, at least to the point where it's noticeable.

BossPerson



Same here, I'm playing AC3 right now on PS3 and it just looks amazing

I hear it goes down to like 22 fps in boston

Back in the day when we use to play Ocarina of Time on Nintendo 64 that game was running at a constant 20fps. Nobody ever complained back then. Hell I think if you mentioned frames per second to someone back then they probably wouldn't know what your talking about. ITS WAS ALL ABOUT THE BITS! Now people argue over framerate and resolution which I guess is a little more understandable.

#43 Posted by Grieverr (2771 posts) -

But this idea of foisting 10 year-old console hardware on people is just as bullshlt, only in the other direction. Historical trends are established because they work. Consoles have historically had a five -- MAYBE a six year lifespan -- before a new generation is introduced. All of a sudden, history means nothing and hardware makers thought they could change the rules, but now they're down 30 percent year over year, and their bottom lines are getting fvcked with, and there's nothing on the horizon to save them because they bought into their own lie.

Shame-usBlackley

I don't think its the hardware's fault that they are 30% down, as you put it. Hardware sales are down, of course, because most people already have it. The problem is, always, games. Maybe if there was something more to play besides COD, Halo, and Madden, the market would be more lively. Maybe if the industry standard did not become games with billion dollar budgets, other developers could compete and offer more variety. We're bombarded with GOTY editions and pre-order bonuses. You never feel like you bought a full game. That's turning people away from gaming.

I'm afraid next gen is actually going to give us less games. More DLC. More microtransactions. More DRM. More online passes.

Yes, I'd love to see FarCry running at 60fps, with every freaking effect you can think of. But how much will the console that runs it cost? how much of the game will be DLC? What content will I have that my friend won't? What new way am I not going to be able to take it to a friend's house? or let someone borrow it?

At this point, I just want to play a decent game, man. I don't want all the extra BS that's bcoming the norm. And I'm afraid next gen will bring more of that BS.

#44 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

Far Cry 3 looks just fine on consoles, PC elitists are something else.... :roll:

I am happy with this gen still, can't wait for Grand Theft Auto 5, The Last of Us, God of War Acension....these games look amazing and are still coming out. Next gen can wait for all I care, plus I'm already having fun with Black Ops 2 and PlayStation All-Stars.

Though you are in luck TC, the next Xbox is coming out next year.

#45 Posted by HipHopBeats (2778 posts) -

Not me. Most people I know with money to burn aren't jumping at the chance to spend another $400 - $500 on a next gen console, including the Wii U which I don't even consider next gen. More like a gen.5 console.

Truthfully Sony and Microsoft could squeeze another 2 - 3 years and make a 10 yr stretch out of this gen. I'm still catching up on this gen and honestly, better graphics doesn't neccessarily mean better games. GTA 4 is a testimony to that.

#46 Posted by Solori (462 posts) -

I'm perfectly happy with the current gen -- I don't think we need to change just for the sake of changing. Plus, I totally agree with this:

I'm afraid next gen is actually going to give us less games. More DLC. More microtransactions. More DRM. More online passes.

Yes, I'd love to see FarCry running at 60fps, with every freaking effect you can think of. But how much will the console that runs it cost? how much of the game will be DLC? What content will I have that my friend won't? What new way am I not going to be able to take it to a friend's house? or let someone borrow it?

At this point, I just want to play a decent game, man. I don't want all the extra BS that's bcoming the norm. And I'm afraid next gen will bring more of that BS.

Grieverr

I actually think that if next gen goes into full-on drm mode they will drive a lot of people right back into the pc market -- me, for instance, The only reason I got into console gaming was because I like plug and play and I didn't appreciate the pc making me jump through all kinds of drm hoops to play my games. Looks like both the consoles and the pc are going to be equally annoying in the coming gen, so I'm not sure if I will have a reason to own a console anymore.

On a final note, I don't understand why so many people seem to think that only "graphics whores" would be excited for a new gen to start. Better tech means so much more than simply a graphics upgrade - better AI for example. Play some of the older games and you will notice that the game designers' vision was often held back by the fact that they could only have so many interactive characters/objects on a screen at one time. Atmospheric games could only have so much depth due to limitations on their ability to make realistic weather systems, etc. Seriously, I think that "graphics whore" is one of the dumbest terms around these parts. I actually thought it was just used by Wii fanboys to make themselves feel better about having an underpowered console, but I see it has become a simple short-hand way to insult obnoxious pc-elitists also. I guess its an OK insult, but it is just not accurate at all. Better tech is not just about pretty pictures and it never was.

#47 Posted by HipHopBeats (2778 posts) -

Seriously, I think that "graphics whore" is one of the dumbest terms around these parts. I actually thought it was just used by Wii fanboys to make themselves feel better about having an underpowered console

Solori

tumblr_m7ka241TTW1rbukleo2_400.gif

#48 Posted by Farsendor1 (431 posts) -

my gen never ends pc is forever.

#49 Posted by BPoole96 (22814 posts) -
I've been done with consoles for the past year. PC is where it's at
#50 Posted by mrsniper83 (1552 posts) -
While I know that graphics are gonna get better and better.I really dont know how it will make things better for next gen.Not everyone has a giant flat screen or a bigger tv at that so I think with the current gen we are just fine.I get tired of the same ol crap fps games they keep making, its far in between that I get excited for a game.