Do we really need a PS4?

To me, a game doesn't need ultra-realistic graphics or heavy processing for it to be excellent. I feel it's all about the art style they use in games. Games like Uncharted try to make a "realistic" impact so more horse power (in the PS4) would be needed for the next level of realistic detail.

But I think for most well-designed games with a certain art style that doesn't necessarily stress processing capabilities the PS3 is good enough. Most games (other than games like Uncharted and God of War) do not use the full potential of the machine. I personally don't like games with a realistic look to them, I prefer more artsy games like Tekken.

More powerful hardware = better/new gameplay.

More powerful hardware = better/new gameplay.

gameofthering

And when has that proved true this generation? The PS3 and Xbox 360 haven't had more complex and refined games, they've just had prettier graphics. If anything, the massive amounts of effort needed to satisfy the demand for photorealistic HD graphics take away time that could be spent making better games.

There hasn't been any game I can think of on the PS3/360 where the gameplay wouldn't have been possible to implement on the Wii.

More powerful hardware = better/new gameplay.

gameofthering

More powerful hardware = better/new gameplay.

gameofthering

[QUOTE="gameofthering"]

More powerful hardware = better/new gameplay.

aquaglow

And when has that proved true this generation? The PS3 and Xbox 360 haven't had more complex and refined games, they've just had prettier graphics. If anything, the massive amounts of effort needed to satisfy the demand for photorealistic HD graphics take away time that could be spent making better games.

There hasn't been any game I can think of on the PS3/360 where the gameplay wouldn't have been possible to implement on the Wii.

Have you played Uncharted in comparison to last gen shooters? But any way, I think he means "potentially better"Black_Knight_00

Are you joking? Uncharted is one of the best examples of graphics over gameplay. The game uses quick time events! There was nothing revolutionary or challenging to implement in the game, it was just very polished and cinematic.

[QUOTE="aquaglow"]

[QUOTE="gameofthering"]

More powerful hardware = better/new gameplay.

Black_Knight_00

And when has that proved true this generation? The PS3 and Xbox 360 haven't had more complex and refined games, they've just had prettier graphics. If anything, the massive amounts of effort needed to satisfy the demand for photorealistic HD graphics take away time that could be spent making better games.

There hasn't been any game I can think of on the PS3/360 where the gameplay wouldn't have been possible to implement on the Wii.

And when has that proved true this generation? The PS3 and Xbox 360 haven't had more complex and refined games, they've just had prettier graphics. If anything, the massive amounts of effort needed to satisfy the demand for photorealistic HD graphics take away time that could be spent making better games.

There hasn't been any game I can think of on the PS3/360 where the gameplay wouldn't have been possible to implement on the Wii.

aquaglow

Do you think a game like Red Dead Redemption could have been achieved on last generation hardware? Graphics are directly tied to gameplay. Not in every scenario, no, but in the cases of the developers that choose to use them they are. An increase in memory, and computational power means that we get more complex games by the very nature of what the developer can do with that increased hardware.

Also what do you mean by "complex". You would be hard pressed to support the argument that games have become less or are no more refined than they were in generations past. Further to this an increase in technology broadens the scope of what we can see. The idea of PSN/XBLA titles would not have been possible on previous generation hardware.

And while AI may not have advanced as far as we would have liked, it's only with increased computational power we can see this progress. Say what you will about Uncharted, but The Last of Us, is looking to really push what we can expect from AI in games and that simply would not be possible in generations past.

Also you dismiss immersion as a factor delivered through graphics that directly impacts gameplay. Any big open world game would not be possible on the Wii (take your pick) because the world is part of the gameplay. The sandbox is part of the gameplay and how it reacts and can react is based on the technology that supports it (Skyrim, Sleeping Dogs, Red Dead Redemption, Sains Row The Third).

More power allows for more option in game play. Just look at the FPS this gen and last gen and you can see level design have been innovative this gen.

More power allows for more option in game play. Just look at the FPS this gen and last gen and you can see level design have been innovative this gen.

wiouds

lol what?

http://i.imgur.com/BITmX.jpg

Even games like Doom and Quake still holds up very well.

Console hardware has to evolve at some point. If it didn't, we'd all still be playing on the Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis.1PMrFister

True, but each console generation, we get a more "definitive" experience (or closer to the "ideal" experience). For example, this generation (with the PS3 and 360) is much more definitive (closer to the ideal) than last generation because all games are now displayed in high definition and have a nice amount of graphical detail (textures, etc.) that are a significant leap over last generation.

Back in the Super Nintendo days, games did not have a level of detail and realism that would be considered a realistic experience. Back then it may have been cutting edge, but not "definitive" or "ideal" or "realistic enough".

I think we're at a point where we've arrived in the sense that the hardware now (PS3) has enough power to run games in high definition with detailed graphics, which is what I think of as a good gaming experience. Of course, next generation there will be even more realism and higher resolutions, but for the time being, I actually enjoy where we're at (all games in HD with a good amount of detail).

I'm not saying I don't want the PS4 or that innovation is not necessary, I'm just saying that at this time, I don't see a need for one considering the level games are at now. Also, depending on which kinds of games you're into, there may be no (or very little) benefit of a system with better graphics hardware. One major benefit of better graphics hardware would be true 1080p gaming.

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

More power allows for more option in game play. Just look at the FPS this gen and last gen and you can see level design have been innovative this gen.

Busy_Man123

lol what?

http://i.imgur.com/BITmX.jpg

Even games like Doom and Quake still holds up very well.

Old system can still be fun but that does not mean that what they did in the past can work at this times. My biggest problem with Rage is that the level disign is that it is old.

Current FPS still use those level desgin but thanks to more power system they can do some much more. I enjoy being amoung other troopers and charging down a street while hidding from tank's shoot so much more than walking down hallways and shooting the few enemies that come at me.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]Have you played Uncharted in comparison to last gen shooters? But any way, I think he means "potentially better"aquaglow

Are you joking? Uncharted is one of the best examples of graphics over gameplay. The game uses quick time events! There was nothing revolutionary or challenging to implement in the game, it was just very polished and cinematic.

[QUOTE="aquaglow"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]Have you played Uncharted in comparison to last gen shooters? But any way, I think he means "potentially better"Black_Knight_00

Are you joking? Uncharted is one of the best examples of graphics over gameplay. The game uses quick time events! There was nothing revolutionary or challenging to implement in the game, it was just very polished and cinematic.

[QUOTE="gameofthering"]

More powerful hardware = better/new gameplay.

aquaglow

And when has that proved true this generation? The PS3 and Xbox 360 haven't had more complex and refined games, they've just had prettier graphics. If anything, the massive amounts of effort needed to satisfy the demand for photorealistic HD graphics take away time that could be spent making better games.

There hasn't been any game I can think of on the PS3/360 where the gameplay wouldn't have been possible to implement on the Wii.

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

More power allows for more option in game play. Just look at the FPS this gen and last gen and you can see level design have been innovative this gen.

Busy_Man123

lol what?

http://i.imgur.com/BITmX.jpg

Even games like Doom and Quake still holds up very well.

Gameplay is more important than graphics, yes, but we do eventually need new hardware.

Buy a sh*tty Wii U if you want to stay in the past.

Let the rest of us move forward and use the latest technology.

And while you are at it, go back to dial up internet, stop using cellphones and use rotarary phones, and watch movies on a sh*tty CRT on VHS.

[QUOTE="1PMrFister"]Console hardware has to evolve at some point. If it didn't, we'd all still be playing on the Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis.HOD4

True, but each console generation, we get a more "definitive" experience (or closer to the "ideal" experience). For example, this generation (with the PS3 and 360) is much more definitive (closer to the ideal) than last generation because all games are now displayed in high definition and have a nice amount of graphical detail (textures, etc.) that are a significant leap over last generation.

Back in the Super Nintendo days, games did not have a level of detail and realism that would be considered a realistic experience. Back then it may have been cutting edge, but not "definitive" or "ideal" or "realistic enough".

I think we're at a point where we've arrived in the sense that the hardware now (PS3) has enough power to run games in high definition with detailed graphics, which is what I think of as a good gaming experience. Of course, next generation there will be even more realism and higher resolutions, but for the time being, I actually enjoy where we're at (all games in HD with a good amount of detail).

I'm not saying I don't want the PS4 or that innovation is not necessary, I'm just saying that at this time, I don't see a need for one considering the level games are at now. Also, depending on which kinds of games you're into, there may be no (or very little) benefit of a system with better graphics hardware. One major benefit of better graphics hardware would be true 1080p gaming.

Buy a sh*tty Wii U if you want to stay in the past.S0lidSnake

[QUOTE="aquaglow"]

[QUOTE="gameofthering"]

More powerful hardware = better/new gameplay.

Black_Knight_00

And when has that proved true this generation? The PS3 and Xbox 360 haven't had more complex and refined games, they've just had prettier graphics. If anything, the massive amounts of effort needed to satisfy the demand for photorealistic HD graphics take away time that could be spent making better games.

There hasn't been any game I can think of on the PS3/360 where the gameplay wouldn't have been possible to implement on the Wii.

Perhaps destructible environment's change the way in which some games are played.


E.g - Would Battlefield play any different on weaker hardware such as the original Playstation?

Maybe the gaming world would be better off with no PS4 and no 720, just Wii U + handhelds/smartphones + gaming PCs.

Maybe the gaming world would be better off with no PS4 and no 720, just Wii U + handhelds/smartphones + gaming PCs.

Bigboi500

I do not see how having only the high end game being PC would make they gaming world better while I can see it hurting the gaming world even more. Can you tell how it would?

i think a lot of people missed the point of this current gen.

someone mentioned that the definitive thing that this gen brought into gaming is graphical definition. i think all gen's do this so thats pretty pointless to say.

what it did though, is brought to us a generation with 2 things....standard for tight game controls and gaming mechanics (not game design) and a level of immersion not seen in games before. the first one is a blessing, the second one is what most people argue about....

1. while super nintendo mastered 2d platforming controls, the ps1 and ps2 were relatively clunky when it came to game controls and gaming mechanics. Wether it was the lack of horsepower on the hardware side, or the disc media just wouldn't allow for tighter controls and game mechanics that work. if you saw previous reviews, a lot of games shared this same problem. Nowadays, i'm surprised if i hear or play any game that had clunky controlls, or game mechanics that were broken (yes games like mass effect had their share of glitches in their vehicle section....but thats why i said that it brought a standard). i can appreciate that a lot.

2. immersion comes from the graphical output they are doing now. in the past, gaming consoles were limited in graphics...so gaming immersion had little to do with graphics or environments. off course there was resident evil and the like....but a lot of the immersion came from the gamers imagination, and fun factor of a game. a perfect example is fps. Doom was a great shooter, but i was caught up more with the intensity of the game but not immersed at all because of the really bad textures in the background. i mean i saw boxes lol. now everyone complaigns and b*tches about how mindless shooters are, but i think that cod4 did a lot to make me feel an ectual sense of war....it wasn't possible to get that from a ps2 games or even pc games like medal of honor:allied assault. now you can argue that this made the level of game design worse as in previous gen because most of the focus is on graphical immersion compared to game design....but thats subjective. Ive seen plenty of great games that were both pretty and fun. i thought games like uncharted, mass effect series, heavy rain (and don't try to say this is not a game but an interactive movie because past gen had dragons lair and adventure games like grim fandango and other point and click adventure) dragon age: origins (yea it wasnt pretty enough) and batman arkham series....

I honestly think the PS4 will only be slighlty more powerful than the PS3 (pretty sure Sony said it won't be as big of a jump as PS2 was to PS3) and the main focus of the PS4 will be that they will make it easier to develop for because that has been the number 1 complaint from developers, most say it is a nightmare to develop for.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

Maybe the gaming world would be better off with no PS4 and no 720, just Wii U + handhelds/smartphones + gaming PCs.

wiouds

I do not see how having only the high end game being PC would make they gaming world better while I can see it hurting the gaming world even more. Can you tell how it would?

The next Sony and Microsoft consoles now seem nothing but a distant and half real rumor and if they ever do come out they'll either try to be as powerful as possible to try to keep up with the PC and be too expensive to sell well, or come out with weaker systems to try to appeal to casuals and make money in the market. They've already shown that they can't keep up with Nintendo in that department, and all they do is copy them and see fleeting success.

With only Nintendo and gaming PCs in the market you'd have developers who could be happy and make high-end software that caters only to one platform, without having to dumb it down to fit on pseudo-pcs. You'd also have Nintendo who does their own thing and makes hardware and software to fit their games.

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

Maybe the gaming world would be better off with no PS4 and no 720, just Wii U + handhelds/smartphones + gaming PCs.

Bigboi500

I do not see how having only the high end game being PC would make they gaming world better while I can see it hurting the gaming world even more. Can you tell how it would?

The next Sony and Microsoft consoles now seem nothing but a distant and half real rumor and if they ever do come out they'll either try to be as powerful as possible to try to keep up with the PC and be too expensive to sell well, or come out with weaker systems to try to appeal to casuals and make money in the market. They've already shown that they can't keep up with Nintendo in that department, and all they do is copy them and see fleeting success.

With only Nintendo and gaming PCs in the market you'd have developers who could be happy and make high-end software that caters only to one platform, without having to dumb it down to fit on pseudo-pcs. You'd also have Nintendo who does their own thing and makes hardware and software to fit their games.

I just have too many problem with the PC only for the top of the line games that I just don't like it. First off I not a big fan of DD. It just not as safe. Not including sales, it seems that the prices for DD only do not go do as far or as fast as physical copies.

The second problem is that PC just can not guarantee that high of a performance. I have just take a game that my computer meet or pass all of the recommendation for that game, and when I try to play it, it is slow or there are error in the game. The consoles bring a stable system for the game devopler to work off of.

Does consoleshave problems? Yes. That is why I want a consoles and PC in the market for the higher end game.

[QUOTE="gameofthering"]

More powerful hardware = better/new gameplay.

Jacanuk

Yers. More processing power = better AI, more characters on screen and in general, more systems within the game, faster loading... etc...

There's much more than just shinier graphics that can come from a faster console.

Buy a sh*tty Wii U if you want to stay in the past.

Let the rest of us move forward and use the latest technology.

And while you are at it, go back to dial up internet, stop using cellphones and use rotarary phones, and watch movies on a sh*tty CRT on VHS.

S0lidSnake

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Buy a sh*tty Wii U if you want to stay in the past.

Let the rest of us move forward and use the latest technology.

And while you are at it, go back to dial up internet, stop using cellphones and use rotarary phones, and watch movies on a sh*tty CRT on VHS.

Heirren

[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Buy a sh*tty Wii U if you want to stay in the past.

Let the rest of us move forward and use the latest technology.

And while you are at it, go back to dial up internet, stop using cellphones and use rotarary phones, and watch movies on a sh*tty CRT on VHS.

Black_Knight_00

In truth this very question has Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo quite nervous. It's been proven among insiders that there really hasn't been a generation-resetting advancement since the PS2 days. It was the world's collective switch from CRT televisions to high definition (plasmas, LCDs, LEDs et al) that warranted the generation we're currently in. It's no big secret that this has been an abnormally long generation because of this fact.

It was rumored among developers a couple of years ago that 3D televisions would be the innovation to usher in the next generation of consoles but that plan hasn't proven valid either. Don't be surprised if this gen keeps on going until some "big thing" comes along that forces gamers to upgrade.

I agree no need for PS4 as the neXtBOX and PC will have you perfeclty covered. I know I won't be getting a PS4 after the debacle that was my ps3.

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

Maybe the gaming world would be better off with no PS4 and no 720, just Wii U + handhelds/smartphones + gaming PCs.

Bigboi500

I do not see how having only the high end game being PC would make they gaming world better while I can see it hurting the gaming world even more. Can you tell how it would?

The next Sony and Microsoft consoles now seem nothing but a distant and half real rumor and if they ever do come out they'll either try to be as powerful as possible to try to keep up with the PC and be too expensive to sell well, or come out with weaker systems to try to appeal to casuals and make money in the market. They've already shown that they can't keep up with Nintendo in that department, and all they do is copy them and see fleeting success.

With only Nintendo and gaming PCs in the market you'd have developers who could be happy and make high-end software that caters only to one platform, without having to dumb it down to fit on pseudo-pcs. You'd also have Nintendo who does their own thing and makes hardware and software to fit their games.

You're really let the fact that Nintendo won a single console generation (for the first time since Sony entered the market) go to your head. Your claims are especially curious given that the Wii has been outsold in various market by the X360 and the PS3 for the past year and a half or so. The Wii U looks to be following in the footsteps of the Wii, possibly minus the casual support (which given that it constituted 80% of Wii sales, is a big deal).

Contrary to your claim, Nintendo can and has misread the casual market before. Nintendo's Wiimote+ (and Sony's Move) revealed a misunderstanding of the casual market (both were made with the belief that casuals wanted more precision) but MS's Kinect read them correctly (it assumed they cared nothing about accuracy and wanted fewer buttons). Its not clear that the Wii U's tablet/controller mix (the most complicated controller yet release, one that goes against the design philosophy of the Wii) will capture the imaginatio of casuals.

Last but not least, due to the monomaniacal focus of many of the minority of the Wii's core gamers (most Wii owners are casuals) on Mario and Zelda, the market for games outside those franchises is miniscule. That coupled with the last gen hardware and simplified controller is why 3rd party developers with any amount of talent have either avoided or quickly abandoned the Wii and why Nintendo has offered up fewer new core franchises than ever before despite the fact that the Wii is their most successful console ever.

If third parties had no alternative but to deal with a publisher as actively hostile to third parties as Nintendo (who else openly talks smacks about indie developers, the sorts of people who make games like Journey, Minecraft and The Walking Dead?) then the console industry would die.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

I do not see how having only the high end game being PC would make they gaming world better while I can see it hurting the gaming world even more. Can you tell how it would?

CarnageHeart

The next Sony and Microsoft consoles now seem nothing but a distant and half real rumor and if they ever do come out they'll either try to be as powerful as possible to try to keep up with the PC and be too expensive to sell well, or come out with weaker systems to try to appeal to casuals and make money in the market. They've already shown that they can't keep up with Nintendo in that department, and all they do is copy them and see fleeting success.

With only Nintendo and gaming PCs in the market you'd have developers who could be happy and make high-end software that caters only to one platform, without having to dumb it down to fit on pseudo-pcs. You'd also have Nintendo who does their own thing and makes hardware and software to fit their games.

You're really let the fact that Nintendo won a single console generation (for the first time since Sony entered the market) go to your head. Your claims are especially curious given that the Wii has been outsold in various market by the X360 and the PS3 for the past year and a half or so. The Wii U looks to be following in the footsteps of the Wii, possibly minus the casual support (which given that it constituted 80% of Wii sales, is a big deal).

Contrary to your claim, Nintendo can and has misread the casual market before. Nintendo's Wiimote+ (and Sony's Move) revealed a misunderstanding of the casual market (both were made with the belief that casuals wanted more precision) but MS's Kinect read them correctly (it assumed they cared nothing about accuracy and wanted fewer buttons). Its not clear that the Wii U's tablet/controller mix (the most complicated controller yet release, one that goes against the design philosophy of the Wii) will capture the imaginatio of casuals.

Last but not least, due to the monomaniacal focus of many of the minority of the Wii's core gamers (most Wii owners are casuals) on Mario and Zelda, the market for games outside those franchises is miniscule. That coupled with the last gen hardware and simplified controller is why 3rd party developers with any amount of talent have either avoided or quickly abandoned the Wii and why Nintendo has offered up fewer new core franchises than ever before despite the fact that the Wii is their most successful console ever.

If third parties had no alternative but to deal with a publisher as actively hostile to third parties as Nintendo (who else openly talks smacks about indie developers, the sorts of people who make games like Journey, Minecraft and The Walking Dead?) then the console industry would die.