The point of Next Gen

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

Titanfall is a fine game but it didn't require a new console to be created, its really COD 2 which is fine but not 'next gen'

The POINT of 'next gen' is that it can play games that technically are not possible on the previous generation, otherwise from a technical standpoint why bother with a new console?

#2 Edited by uninspiredcup (4717 posts) -

My friend, deep respect, admiration and love for your opinions. However at this point, I must disagree.

I feel, the real point of next generation, is simply a reset button much like movies, such as the pointless Robocop remake. The people in suits "cunts" see a next generation launch as a way to inflate prices. General game prices, dlc and add in freemuimz on top.

Titanfall is a paradigm. The Call of Duty "burger in a box" style of gaming with mass appeal and monthly is something the men in suits "cunts" want to continue. So, with fake media hype around it (see gamespot/ign) they are attempting to turn it into an event very much like Jesus returning to earth. We will see inflated scores, frivolous media that basically amount to advertisement (see gamespot/IGN) and other shite all basically driving to the same point, create another Call Duty.

Pc is the way, it's really that simple. .

#3 Edited by k2theswiss (16216 posts) -

no game requires new console to be made... You just lose special effects, more nps in the world, better graphics, ect ect ect

Either way it wii be at least a year till you start seeing stuff that old system couldn't even handle and thats when third party start to begin dropping support for 360/ps3

#4 Posted by Shewgenja (6825 posts) -

My personal belief is that Oculus Rift is the true next-gen.

#5 Posted by Heil68 (40487 posts) -

no game requires new console to be made... You just lose special effects, more nps in the world, better graphics, ect ect ect

Either way it wii be at least a year till you start seeing stuff that old system couldn't even handle and thats when third party start to begin dropping support for 360/ps3

I disagree. The things you listed make the games not possible on PS3/360. Any game can be stripped down enough to play on a system.

#6 Posted by V3rciS (2206 posts) -

Yes but we need next gen, hardware can get outdated. It's not only about better graphics as people tend to think, technology also helps you with gameplay and other things.

The simpliest example for this would be A.I. Imagine creating an advanced A.I system for your game back in during the '90s or even '00s. You were limited, now devs have more tools and resources to create decent A.I but still we are so much restricted, it will only get better in the future.

Besides it's not only about A.I, the more powerful hardware you have the easier is for you to create bigger worlds, more NPCs, more details, more realisticaly and physically possible things and stuff.

I don't know, most people just think that jumping from one gen to another is just for improved graphics which is wrong. Yes okay graphic improvements sure matter, but that's not the only reason to swtich gens. Unless you only wish to play retro games, you should truly embrace each new gen and technological advancement in general.

#7 Edited by blue_hazy_basic (26705 posts) -

Its not about graphics for me, although they are nice. Console gamers seem to get too caught up in amazing graphics = great games. Whats important (at least IMO) for the increased hardware is the scope that's possible within a game rather than just the number of pixels.

#8 Posted by blue_hazy_basic (26705 posts) -

@V3rciS said:

Yes but we need next gen, hardware can get outdated. It's not only about better graphics as people tend to think, technology also helps you with gameplay and other things.

The simpliest example for this would be A.I. Imagine creating an advanced A.I system for your game back in during the '90s or even '00s. You were limited, now devs have more tools and resources to create decent A.I but still we are so much restricted, it will only get better in the future.

Besides it's not only about A.I, the more powerful hardware you have the easier is for you to create bigger worlds, more NPCs, more details, more realisticaly and physically possible things and stuff.

I don't know, most people just think that jumping from one gen to another is just for improved graphics which is wrong. Yes okay graphic improvements sure matter, but that's not the only reason to swtich gens. Unless you only wish to play retro games, you should truly embrace each new gen and technological advancement in general.

Couldn't agree more and honestly that's what disappointed me with what we saw with the Order gameplay. Corridor, linear, staged encounters, QTE's, etc that's something that we should be moving away from, not just talking about the Order here (To add context I pretty much HATED the gears games so not a fan of that style of game in general).

I want to see more open levels, more enemies on screen, realistic AI, no spawning of enemies from thin air, etc. I don't care so much about the textures on someone's belt that I won't notice in game, except in stills that people post.

#9 Posted by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

My personal belief is that Oculus Rift is the true next-gen.

this..

this is how it used to be. Next gen (in both console and PC) was a radical technical move forward.

This is not to lighten the importance of game but rather rather ask the question 'why do I need a new machine other than the fact the developer has explictly put in code block to prevent me from playing it on something else'

texting cell phone to smart phones is an example of 'next gen'

#10 Posted by LJS9502_basic (148552 posts) -

The reason....money...profit....etc for the company in the long run...not necessarily the short term though that is good as well.

#11 Posted by Northernboxer (1664 posts) -

@V3rciS said:

Yes but we need next gen, hardware can get outdated. It's not only about better graphics as people tend to think, technology also helps you with gameplay and other things.

The simpliest example for this would be A.I. Imagine creating an advanced A.I system for your game back in during the '90s or even '00s. You were limited, now devs have more tools and resources to create decent A.I but still we are so much restricted, it will only get better in the future.

Besides it's not only about A.I, the more powerful hardware you have the easier is for you to create bigger worlds, more NPCs, more details, more realisticaly and physically possible things and stuff.

I don't know, most people just think that jumping from one gen to another is just for improved graphics which is wrong. Yes okay graphic improvements sure matter, but that's not the only reason to swtich gens. Unless you only wish to play retro games, you should truly embrace each new gen and technological advancement in general.

Couldn't agree more and honestly that's what disappointed me with what we saw with the Order gameplay. Corridor, linear, staged encounters, QTE's, etc that's something that we should be moving away from, not just talking about the Order here (To add context I pretty much HATED the gears games so not a fan of that style of game in general).

I want to see more open levels, more enemies on screen, realistic AI, no spawning of enemies from thin air, etc. I don't care so much about the textures on someone's belt that I won't notice in game, except in stills that people post.

Consoles will always have these kinds of games. With limited hardware, and developers knowing their games need to meet a new standard of graphics--and impress mainstream audiences during sporting event commercials--their games will always be small and linear, or graphically unimpressive. It's really sad how the whole industry is just following this formula, and as long as consolites seemingly only care about graphics, nothing will change.

Pc, on the other hand, has people trying to innovate, combine genres, and not limiting themselves to this mainstream formula that has become completely predictable, and tired, on consoles.

#13 Posted by Puggy301 (146 posts) -

Titanfall is a fine game but it didn't require a new console to be created

Theoretically, you could probably make that argument with just about any game. Thank heavens the gaming industry as a whole doesn't posses that mentality. We'd still be playing the Atari 2600, and just imagine how crappy TitanFall would've looked on that system.

#14 Posted by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@Puggy301 said:

Titanfall is a fine game but it didn't require a new console to be created

Theoretically, you could probably make that argument with just about any game. Thank heavens the gaming industry as a whole doesn't posses that mentality. We'd still be playing the Atari 2600, and just imagine how crappy TitanFall would've looked on that system.

incorrect.

'next gen' used to mean things like 'oh I cant play an 8bit game on this 16bit console'. It was LITERALLY a technical barrier.

That is no longer the case.

#15 Edited by sSubZerOo (42710 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

Titanfall is a fine game but it didn't require a new console to be created, its really COD 2 which is fine but not 'next gen'

The POINT of 'next gen' is that it can play games that technically are not possible on the previous generation, otherwise from a technical standpoint why bother with a new console?

.. Who gives a sh!t about a technical standpoint when they are rarely using that for anything greatly affecting gameplay.. Killzone Shadowfall could have been put on last gen consoles with less bells and whistles visually and it wouldn't have impacted the game what so ever..

#16 Posted by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

Titanfall is a fine game but it didn't require a new console to be created, its really COD 2 which is fine but not 'next gen'

The POINT of 'next gen' is that it can play games that technically are not possible on the previous generation, otherwise from a technical standpoint why bother with a new console?

.. Who gives a sh!t about a technical standpoint when they are rarely using that for anything greatly affecting gameplay.. Killzone Shadowfall could have been put on last gen consoles with less bells and whistles visually and it wouldn't have impacted the game what so ever..

again...read very carefully please.

If a game is possible on last generation hardware WHY SHOULD I BUY NEW HARDWARE?

the quesiton here is WHY BUY NEW HARDWARE....if the amazing and creative features are possible on existing hardware.

please answer

#17 Edited by V3rciS (2206 posts) -

@blue_hazy_basic said:

@V3rciS said:

Yes but we need next gen, hardware can get outdated. It's not only about better graphics as people tend to think, technology also helps you with gameplay and other things.

The simpliest example for this would be A.I. Imagine creating an advanced A.I system for your game back in during the '90s or even '00s. You were limited, now devs have more tools and resources to create decent A.I but still we are so much restricted, it will only get better in the future.

Besides it's not only about A.I, the more powerful hardware you have the easier is for you to create bigger worlds, more NPCs, more details, more realisticaly and physically possible things and stuff.

I don't know, most people just think that jumping from one gen to another is just for improved graphics which is wrong. Yes okay graphic improvements sure matter, but that's not the only reason to swtich gens. Unless you only wish to play retro games, you should truly embrace each new gen and technological advancement in general.

Couldn't agree more and honestly that's what disappointed me with what we saw with the Order gameplay. Corridor, linear, staged encounters, QTE's, etc that's something that we should be moving away from, not just talking about the Order here (To add context I pretty much HATED the gears games so not a fan of that style of game in general).

I want to see more open levels, more enemies on screen, realistic AI, no spawning of enemies from thin air, etc. I don't care so much about the textures on someone's belt that I won't notice in game, except in stills that people post.

Consoles will always have these kinds of games. With limited hardware, and developers knowing their games need to meet a new standard of graphics--and impress mainstream audiences during sporting event commercials--their games will always be small and linear, or graphically unimpressive. It's really sad how the whole industry is just following this formula, and as long as consolites seemingly only care about graphics, nothing will change.

Pc, on the other hand, has people trying to innovate, combine genres, and not limiting themselves to this mainstream formula that has become completely predictable, and tired, on consoles.

alright show me one game on PC where all the buzz is not about 10 extra FPS and is all about this innovation you're talking?
I do actually support this "gameplay innovation" and hardware advancement but in my OP I was talking about hardware in general be it consoles or PCs, yet you as a true hardcore hermit come in and start mumbling about superiority of PCs, dafuq is wrong with you people? Give me an example where PCs innovated more than consoles in gameplay mechanics (keep in mind I'm not talking about graphics and the extra frames you get on your super duper PC).

#18 Posted by V3rciS (2206 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

@Puggy301 said:

Titanfall is a fine game but it didn't require a new console to be created

Theoretically, you could probably make that argument with just about any game. Thank heavens the gaming industry as a whole doesn't posses that mentality. We'd still be playing the Atari 2600, and just imagine how crappy TitanFall would've looked on that system.

incorrect.

'next gen' used to mean things like 'oh I cant play an 8bit game on this 16bit console'. It was LITERALLY a technical barrier.

That is no longer the case.

What are you talking about? You really think that we've reached the technological pinnacle? This is so absurd that I'm facepalming myself at the moment. Trust me, technology still limits the developers so much that you won't even believe. You'll understand that in time, just remember my words and see what kind of games exist in 10, 20, 30 years from now... you'll be amazed.

I repeat technology improvement does not only mean better graphics.

#19 Posted by WG_McFartypants (185 posts) -

*sigh*, I'm so tired of hearing complaints about lack of innovation from gamers who won't pay for anything and crap their pants every time someone tries to introduce something new into the toolkit.

First, lets get one thing out of the way. Prettier, isn't innovation. It's a required checkbox item that must be ticked off before you guys will get excited about a new device, but it has nothing to do with the enjoyability of a game.

At this point what drives (or holds back) innovation is the input mechanism... The controller.

With modern game controllers your options for gameplay are aim and click or simon says (tap buttons in order). That's really all a game can be built around precision pointing, precision timing, or some combination of the two.

Everyone hates the Kinect for being imperfect, but at least it's an attempt to add something new to the toolset developers can use.

#20 Edited by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@V3rciS said:

@SEANMCAD said:

@Puggy301 said:

Titanfall is a fine game but it didn't require a new console to be created

Theoretically, you could probably make that argument with just about any game. Thank heavens the gaming industry as a whole doesn't posses that mentality. We'd still be playing the Atari 2600, and just imagine how crappy TitanFall would've looked on that system.

incorrect.

'next gen' used to mean things like 'oh I cant play an 8bit game on this 16bit console'. It was LITERALLY a technical barrier.

That is no longer the case.

What are you talking about? You really think that we've reached the technological pinnacle? This is so absurd that I'm facepalming myself at the moment. Trust me, technology still limits the developers so much that you won't even believe. You'll understand that in time, just remember my words and see what kind of games exist in 10, 20, 30 years from now... you'll be amazed.

I repeat technology improvement does not only mean better graphics.

of course we have not.

Which is why consoles are a problem.

Consoles for this 'generation' havent brought anything to the table that didnt already exist or was not already possible in the previous generation.

This is really not a hard concept to grasp.

next generation of phones is not equal new apps..it equals game changing hardware.

#21 Posted by Northernboxer (1664 posts) -

@V3rciS said:

@Northernboxer said:

@blue_hazy_basic said:

@V3rciS said:

Yes but we need next gen, hardware can get outdated. It's not only about better graphics as people tend to think, technology also helps you with gameplay and other things.

The simpliest example for this would be A.I. Imagine creating an advanced A.I system for your game back in during the '90s or even '00s. You were limited, now devs have more tools and resources to create decent A.I but still we are so much restricted, it will only get better in the future.

Besides it's not only about A.I, the more powerful hardware you have the easier is for you to create bigger worlds, more NPCs, more details, more realisticaly and physically possible things and stuff.

I don't know, most people just think that jumping from one gen to another is just for improved graphics which is wrong. Yes okay graphic improvements sure matter, but that's not the only reason to swtich gens. Unless you only wish to play retro games, you should truly embrace each new gen and technological advancement in general.

Couldn't agree more and honestly that's what disappointed me with what we saw with the Order gameplay. Corridor, linear, staged encounters, QTE's, etc that's something that we should be moving away from, not just talking about the Order here (To add context I pretty much HATED the gears games so not a fan of that style of game in general).

I want to see more open levels, more enemies on screen, realistic AI, no spawning of enemies from thin air, etc. I don't care so much about the textures on someone's belt that I won't notice in game, except in stills that people post.

Consoles will always have these kinds of games. With limited hardware, and developers knowing their games need to meet a new standard of graphics--and impress mainstream audiences during sporting event commercials--their games will always be small and linear, or graphically unimpressive. It's really sad how the whole industry is just following this formula, and as long as consolites seemingly only care about graphics, nothing will change.

Pc, on the other hand, has people trying to innovate, combine genres, and not limiting themselves to this mainstream formula that has become completely predictable, and tired, on consoles.

alright show me one game on PC where all the buzz is not about 10 extra FPS and is all about this innovation you're talking?

I do actually support this "gameplay innovation" and hardware advancement but in my OP I was talking about hardware in general be it consoles or PCs, yet you as a true hardcore hermit come in and start mumbling about superiority of PCs, dafuq is wrong with you people? Give me an example where PCs innovated more than consoles in gameplay mechanics (keep in mind I'm not talking about graphics and the extra frames you get on your super duper PC).

10 extra fps? Have you seen the best selling pc games on steam for the last few months? There isn't a single game like Dayz, Rust, and now Banished on consoles. Those games are for the graphic whore hermits? Instead of using hardware to stuff amazing graphics in tiny spaces, devs and modders make fun games like open world, online rpg's, with concepts from other genres as well.

Also, I didn't say pc is superior. I was saying, since consoles have limited hardware, the developers have a hard time impressing gamers, unless they make their games more linear, or take shortcuts in other areas.

New games come out just about every week on pc, and there's always something different to play. Not Uncharted 25, or whatever game plays just like it. I understand some people like it. I'm just saying there is something different being offered.

#22 Edited by PAL360 (26310 posts) -

Better graphics and performance are reasons enough for me :)

#23 Posted by Pikminmaniac (8273 posts) -

My personal belief is that Oculus Rift is the true next-gen.

I still fail to see how that thing is going to be much bigger than the 3D fad. It's far more of a gimmick than motion controls IMHO.

on topic: If anything is going to show what next gen is about it's probably going to be an open world game. Those always have room for improvement. However, I feel that there are a lot of genres which have reached their limit in terms of what new tech can do for them (platformers, fighters, etc)

#24 Posted by seanmcloughlin (37515 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

Titanfall is a fine game but it didn't require a new console to be created, its really COD 2 which is fine but not 'next gen'

Titanfall isn't the reason new consoles were created though. Also it IS on previous gen with the 360 version

#25 Posted by seanmcloughlin (37515 posts) -

I still fail to see how that thing is going to be much bigger than the 3D fad. It's far more of a gimmick than motion controls IMHO.

Have you tried it? There are quite a great number of applications for the thing and not just with games. Oculus Rift is gonna be a BIG thing this gen

#26 Posted by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

Titanfall is a fine game but it didn't require a new console to be created, its really COD 2 which is fine but not 'next gen'

Titanfall isn't the reason new consoles were created though. Also it IS on previous gen with the 360 version

this is what I am trying to say.

Next Gen implies that the hardware has gotten to a point that its a game changer. But not this generation.

#27 Edited by Pikminmaniac (8273 posts) -

@Pikminmaniac said:

I still fail to see how that thing is going to be much bigger than the 3D fad. It's far more of a gimmick than motion controls IMHO.

Have you tried it? There are quite a great number of applications for the thing and not just with games. Oculus Rift is gonna be a BIG thing this gen

It was available to try at a fighting game tournament event, but that was when it was still in its early stages. I still don't know what it will bring to the table. I guess its the concept in general that I don't see the appeal of. I can only see it as a minor novelty. It's cool for a little while, but it seems more cumbersome than a step forward.

#28 Posted by Couth_ (9679 posts) -

@seanmcloughlin said:

@Pikminmaniac said:

I still fail to see how that thing is going to be much bigger than the 3D fad. It's far more of a gimmick than motion controls IMHO.

Have you tried it? There are quite a great number of applications for the thing and not just with games. Oculus Rift is gonna be a BIG thing this gen

It was available to try at a fighting game tournament event, but that was when it was still in its early stages. I still don't know what it will bring to the table. I guess its the concept in general that I don't see the appeal of. I can only see it as a minor novelty. It's cool for a little while, but it seems more cumbersome than a step forward.

Why would you want to play a fighting game with the rift? Biggest issue I see with it is that in gaming it only seems useful for first person games. And I don't see it becoming a BIG thing because it's a novelty piece of tech. Expensive peripheral you need an expensive PC to take advantage of

I don't see it catching on any more than say racing wheels and fight sticks..

#29 Posted by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@seanmcloughlin said:

@Pikminmaniac said:

I still fail to see how that thing is going to be much bigger than the 3D fad. It's far more of a gimmick than motion controls IMHO.

Have you tried it? There are quite a great number of applications for the thing and not just with games. Oculus Rift is gonna be a BIG thing this gen

It was available to try at a fighting game tournament event, but that was when it was still in its early stages. I still don't know what it will bring to the table. I guess its the concept in general that I don't see the appeal of. I can only see it as a minor novelty. It's cool for a little while, but it seems more cumbersome than a step forward.

I have one and its great.

Additionally what I have is only the first generation dev kit which only tracks your head not your torso.

There are already several companies designing different solutions for full body tracking.

Its going to be funny to watch all the naysayers in 2015.

#30 Posted by Pikminmaniac (8273 posts) -

@Couth_ said:

@Pikminmaniac said:

@seanmcloughlin said:

@Pikminmaniac said:

I still fail to see how that thing is going to be much bigger than the 3D fad. It's far more of a gimmick than motion controls IMHO.

Have you tried it? There are quite a great number of applications for the thing and not just with games. Oculus Rift is gonna be a BIG thing this gen

It was available to try at a fighting game tournament event, but that was when it was still in its early stages. I still don't know what it will bring to the table. I guess its the concept in general that I don't see the appeal of. I can only see it as a minor novelty. It's cool for a little while, but it seems more cumbersome than a step forward.

Why would you want to play a fighting game with the rift? Biggest issue I see with it is that in gaming it only seems useful for first person games. And I don't see it becoming a BIG thing because it's a novelty piece of tech. Expensive peripheral you need an expensive PC to take advantage of

I don't see it catching on any more than say racing wheels and fight sticks..

I didn't play it with a fighting game. It was just on the side at that tournament and it let you play a few demos or through the games on your steam account.

I agree with your other statements. I liken it to 3D tvs. It's really expensive to get the equipment for minimal results.

#31 Posted by lundy86_4 (41641 posts) -

Not really. With the onset of new consoles, it's more than playing games at a higher visual fidelity. Markets become stagnant, thus companies release new consoles in order to spur sales. Furthermore, newer features can be utilized, such as better multimedia features.

Technology progresses, as do sales.

#32 Posted by Maddie_Larkin (6040 posts) -

A slight point so far.

We have not seen alot that is NOT cross gen yet. So we do not know what the consoles can do.

Yah each gen so far have donw Things that could not be done before, this gen I will put some eggs in the "ai" basket. both in enemies and npcs in games (and more complex Worlds, such as open Worlds).

What I will think we see that WILL be doable on no other console sofar, is ai influenced procedual generated content. Something like a skyrim, which is not just random on & chance, but create Things as a reaction to player choices and actions.

I also expect a resurgence of SP games with heavier anemy ai. I think the first steps to what I speak of might be attempted to be made with Alien Isolation, just more then a single being.

It is atleast my hope, I am quite tired of the best ai driven game Ive seen still is the STALKER games to this day.

#33 Edited by ldustin (48 posts) -

There is no point other than graphics with any of these three consoles. The WiiU's interface is a gimmick that does nothing new. The Kinect is a Trojan NSA bedroom surveillance box. And PS4 still doesn't have a new motion controller (but when it does-- you're looking at paying an extra $150 for the new camera and wand, on top of the $400 you already spent).

None of these three consoles will catch fire the way the Wii did.

All three have failed to put forth a console built around a great new interface.

#34 Posted by Gaming-Planet (13445 posts) -

We just need to hit the uncanny valley.

#35 Posted by edwardecl (1309 posts) -

If you want to know the answer look at the previous generations of consoles. It's not all about graphics, it's not all about game play and it's not all about story telling. But these three things make up a great game, the hardware just allows for these things to happen.

I mean by the logic of some people you may as well have stopped at the PS2, it did 3d gaming, it had online capabilities (with an upgrade), and it had some of the best games ever made on it. Why buy a newer console...

The things that people want before they will buy a new game are better graphics, better game play and better story/multiplayer(interchangeable), if none of the things are better nobody will want to buy a new game, eventually you hit a brick wall of what the hardware lets to create and it's time to move on.

But yes ports do come in the category of being unnecessary, but they still are a nice addition if you happen to already have the hardware to run it on.

#36 Edited by foxhound_fox (85272 posts) -

To make lots of money off of technophiles.

#37 Edited by Sushiglutton (5097 posts) -

Don't worry it will come :). Just like when you fought on Gaia's back in GOW3, navigated the train in Uncharted 2, or boarded a Man Of War in AC4. A couple of years from now there will be gameplay expereince that were not possible last gen. But to expect it right off the bat isn't reasonable.

#38 Edited by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

Don't worry it will come :). Just like when you fought on Gaia's back in GOW3, navigated the train in Uncharted 2, or boarded a Man Of War in AC4. A couple of years from now there will be gameplay expereince that were not possible last gen. But to expect it right off the bat isn't reasonable.

Most game play has been technically possible for decades.

Take Titanfall for example, that is just innovative idea on a programming possibility that has been there for decades. its not lik e'we need more ram to increase the polycount' or something.

kids these dayz

#39 Edited by Sushiglutton (5097 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

@Sushiglutton said:

Don't worry it will come :). Just like when you fought on Gaia's back in GOW3, navigated the train in Uncharted 2, or boarded a Man Of War in AC4. A couple of years from now there will be gameplay expereince that were not possible last gen. But to expect it right off the bat isn't reasonable.

Most game play has been technically possible for decades.

Take Titanfall for example, that is just innovative idea on a programming possibility that has been there for decades. its not lik e'we need more ram to increase the polycount' or something.

kids these dayz

You couldn't do the AC4 boarding on Ps2 without drastcically changing the gameplay experience. The full wave simulation, two big 3d entities moving relative eachother that you can freely platform on, a large number of friendly and enemy AIs. And all of this happening at once. Please show a PS2 game that does anything even close to that.

#40 Edited by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@Sushiglutton said:

@SEANMCAD said:

@Sushiglutton said:

Don't worry it will come :). Just like when you fought on Gaia's back in GOW3, navigated the train in Uncharted 2, or boarded a Man Of War in AC4. A couple of years from now there will be gameplay expereince that were not possible last gen. But to expect it right off the bat isn't reasonable.

Most game play has been technically possible for decades.

Take Titanfall for example, that is just innovative idea on a programming possibility that has been there for decades. its not lik e'we need more ram to increase the polycount' or something.

kids these dayz

You couldn't do the AC4 boarding on Ps2 without drastcically changing the gameplay experience. The full wave simulation, two big 3d entities moving relative eachother that you can freely platform on, a large number of friendly and enemy AIs. And all of this happening at once. Please show a PS2 game that does anything even close to that.

I have no idea what games you are talking about because I am PC only.

but an example of 'next gen' might be voice control that works or things like leap motion etc.

#41 Edited by Sushiglutton (5097 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

@Sushiglutton said:

@SEANMCAD said:

@Sushiglutton said:

Don't worry it will come :). Just like when you fought on Gaia's back in GOW3, navigated the train in Uncharted 2, or boarded a Man Of War in AC4. A couple of years from now there will be gameplay expereince that were not possible last gen. But to expect it right off the bat isn't reasonable.

Most game play has been technically possible for decades.

Take Titanfall for example, that is just innovative idea on a programming possibility that has been there for decades. its not lik e'we need more ram to increase the polycount' or something.

kids these dayz

You couldn't do the AC4 boarding on Ps2 without drastcically changing the gameplay experience. The full wave simulation, two big 3d entities moving relative eachother that you can freely platform on, a large number of friendly and enemy AIs. And all of this happening at once. Please show a PS2 game that does anything even close to that.

I have no idea what games you are talking about because I am PC only.

but an example of 'next gen' might be voice control that works or things like leap motion etc.

Assassin's Creed 4 is on PC :). What I'm saying is that this could not have been done on Ps2 without making changes that would have affected gameplay.

#42 Posted by seanmcloughlin (37515 posts) -

@Couth_ said:

Why would you want to play a fighting game with the rift? Biggest issue I see with it is that in gaming it only seems useful for first person games. And I don't see it becoming a BIG thing because it's a novelty piece of tech. Expensive peripheral you need an expensive PC to take advantage of

I don't see it catching on any more than say racing wheels and fight sticks..

Playing horror games alone on the Rift is a great example of what the tech can do. It's far more immersive than any other type of gaming. You can't look away from it and having your head movements be the movements in the game becomes a very natural thing to do after a while ratcheting up the tension

Like I said before it's not just games or gamers that will ensure this type of tech takes off.

#43 Edited by j2zon2591 (2169 posts) -

Graphics

Paywalls

Datamining

#44 Edited by ldustin (48 posts) -

@Sushiglutton said:

@SEANMCAD said:

@Sushiglutton said:

Don't worry it will come :). Just like when you fought on Gaia's back in GOW3, navigated the train in Uncharted 2, or boarded a Man Of War in AC4. A couple of years from now there will be gameplay expereince that were not possible last gen. But to expect it right off the bat isn't reasonable.

Most game play has been technically possible for decades.

Take Titanfall for example, that is just innovative idea on a programming possibility that has been there for decades. its not lik e'we need more ram to increase the polycount' or something.

kids these dayz

You couldn't do the AC4 boarding on Ps2 without drastcically changing the gameplay experience. The full wave simulation, two big 3d entities moving relative eachother that you can freely platform on, a large number of friendly and enemy AIs. And all of this happening at once. Please show a PS2 game that does anything even close to that.

Sure you could-- it would just have to be a game with cartoon graphics and such. All that has been advanced with PS4 and X1 (and WiiU to a lesser extent) are graphical effects and the bandwidth to generate them.

The term "gameplay" needs to be put away in this thread. It is an abstraction. The two main issues that everyone should be looking at are game design and interfaces.

When I think of game design that couldn't be done before; I think of a game like GTA or Red Dead that procedurally generates rural landscapes on the fly and saves them to the player's hdd; allowing the player to ride in one direction for hours (for as much of their hdd as they want to fill up).

Another example of game design that hasn't been done before would be an MMO set on an ocean (like Wind Waker) which is populated by millions of islands created by users-- featuring towns and temples. It would be a continuous world that would almost entirely be user generated.