@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:
@evildead6789 said:
@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:
@IgGy621985 said:
@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:
I don't think comparing a modded game to a standard retail release is a fair argument. It's kind of sad how it's become the cool thing to hate Watch Dogs. People were freaking out over this title as little as three or four months ago.
Not fair? Well, perhaps, but one would expect that next-gen games would look better than this in the video :-/ Yeah, people were freaking out because Watch Dogs actually looked, um, "next-gen".
At the same time, people with far too much free time have been working on making this game look better for years, and it's all they've had to do. Alongside creating a gorgeous game world, the developers also have to program the rest of the game and missions.
I'm not going to be one to write the game off until I see the final version. All we've seen are these little tidbits of a much bigger game, without actually seeing it in its entirety for ourselves. Evidence in the trailers, Ubisoft's history of offering downgraded games only mean something when the game actually comes out.
Also, this mod for GTA 4 is kind of the exception of the rule when it comes to mods. Yes, there's been ridiculous graphics mods for games like Skyrim and Half Life 2, which somehow gets a new overhaul annually and will never look like a last-gen game, but GTA 4 truly stands above the rest in this regard, and by a large margin.
If developers got six years to work on making stunning graphics for every game, they probably would look like this, but we gamers are impatient and want things faster than that, so that leaves us fighting for a middle-ground.
To re-state my original point, I'm not judging Watch Dogs until it's in retail form, and we're still two months and some change from that.
This mod doesn't really do that much, just everything is high res textures. High res textures aren't that much extra work but are completely useless if there's no hardware to run them
That's why this gen is such a ripoff. The ps4 is the equivalent of a 5 year old high end pc. My 3 year old mid range cpu beats it by a mile (it's about the same as the tc's pc)
The fast gddr5 ram doesn't do much for a weak system, it's like putting ddr3 in a 10 year old machine, the bottleneck is not there, it's on the cpu and gpu. It's very good for multitasking though but who cares about that in a gaming machine. The multitasking in the x360 and ps3 was already fast enough for me.
As long as the gamers will contribute to their half ass work, we will keep on getting half ass work. I stopped buying games lately that don't make use of the latest hardware or that are not innovative in another way.
I'm sure there are others like me, people lose their jobs in the gaming industry right now because the devs make the wrong decisions. Devs should make games this gen on a platform that's innovative like the pc, steam machine or another strong platform (a new nintendo system maybe) Those will be the devs that have success this gen. Even console gamers have become very aware of the quality in games and the 8 core hoax is something console owners will realize pretty fast. Some of them realize it already, the next gen consoles aren't that much better than the x360/ps3.
The hoax can only last for so long, (look at the wii u), last gen will be known as a golden gen, and maybe there will be another golden gen, but it ain't going to happen this time in the same way. People want something new and the devs will see in their sales. The reason last gen was so successfull is because the x360/ps3 was so strong. Ms could really capitalize on it, playstation a lot less. Sony needed the ps4 to be successfull but this gen just started and for sony & ms this gen is going to end fast.
I don't think this is entirely accurate. We're only in the first year of this console generation, and we've already seen games advancing past what was offered on the previous generation. Granted we're only talking small advances, mainly in the realm of creating inter-connected worlds that don't shove online play down your throat, but none-the-less, we're seeing some advancements.
As far as graphics go, the new consoles are more than capable of delivering great graphics, and they will. Anything coming out in the first year won't accurately portray what these new consoles are capable of a few years down the road, just look at the graphical improvements in literally every generation of consoles. The last gen wasn't exactly as strong as you're saying. Both consoles had horridly small amounts of RAM and video cards that were only top of the line at release. Watch Dogs won't be an indicator of what we're going to see this console generation.
I don't know what you mean with interconnected worlds but multiplayer and co-op exists a lot longer than today, having apps like skype, prerecorded games are not really an advancement in gaming but in platform, and that's hardly a reason to release a new console.
As for games quality, previous gen we had fear ,king kong and condemned at release and 5 months later oblivion. All these crushed most pc system specs and fear and oblivion were revolutionary. Now we're 6 months in this gen and we have seen nothing but killzone, titanfall and multiplats that most pc's run in better quality and it brings nothing new to the table, most pc ports are better than what we're seeing on the new consoles, and these pc's have been around for some time.
When you say :'Both consoles had horridly small amounts of RAM and video cards that were only top of the line at release' then you must realize that they can't put any better hardware in it that exists at that point, they don't have time machines. The cpu's were top of the line too, ps3's were bought to make supercomputers. When you wanted to buy the same parts in a computer , you had pay 1500$. As for the ram, I don't think it would have made much difference besides decreased loading times. They wouldn't use such expensive hardware and then fall for an obvious bottleneck like not enough memory.
Because you got so much tech for your money the x360/ps3 sold extremely well, you could still do all your internet and other pc stuff on your old single core pc, which even today you still can. The consoles also released games pretty fast that made use of that power and that's why so many people jumped on the console wagon.
The tech race did go on though and in 2007 you already had a gpu that doubled the performance of the x360's & ps3 gpu, the 8800 gtx. Crysis was also released that year but by that time the consoles (especially the x360) already funded their base and it was much bigger than the pc market with less risks of piracy.
This 'coup' came at a price though. The hd twins sold their consoles with a loss (especially the ps3) and the ps3 didn't do all to well in the beginning. Because of the difficulty to develop for the ps3 it couldn't show the extra power it had, and it costed more, they didn't have that much experience as ms had with networks either and they had to invest a lot of money.
Microsoft capitalized on this (xbox live costs money) and this gen it went to their heads with the kinect but they do remember how hard it was for sony to sell a 600$ console, so because of the kinect they kept the hardware low. Sony rememberd the chokehold when last gen started and didn't make a super system like last time but they got lucky because of the megalomania of microsoft and their kinect, even with a system that matches a 5 year old pc, they still got the superior system.
And this is why we ended up with these so called next gen consoles who are vastly underpowered. They have the same architecture as pc's, and pc users do know the limitations of these systems, pc games already reached this limitations with games that were also released on consoles last gen. There will be an improvement of course but don't expect anything innovative, groundbreaking or revolutionary.
Log in to comment