The Next Generation - Do you want it?

[Team Andromeda]

No.

I have a backlog of around a dozen current gen games, a list of "to buy" which is just as long, not to mentions dozens of retro games I still want to play.

.

This replay me laugh. For one I had tons of Unfinished Saturn, Snes games that never stopped me moving on, and for another No One got a gun to your head, there's no self destruct button in your 360 or PS3 that go off as soon as the new consoles ship .
Yes you can still play those consoles and the unfinished games and just upgraded when you see fit

It doesn't feel like the PS3 has been anywhere nearly tapped out yet

It's got more Juice than 360 to be tapped, but after Drakes III and the likes of Killzone III I can't see the console giving out much more and the Tiny Ram must be a hold back by now

[Neon Ignition]

It's not that I'm saying I couldn't tell the games were better looking than the preceding gen, just that they weren't amazing. Too many of the initial games this gen looked little more than high res ports of the previous gen. PGR3 looked nice overall but I personally couldn't get over how disappointing an entry it was following PGR2. The Xbox 1 games never wowed me but then it's not the systems fault as it wasn't the first of its gen to market. What didn't help this gen is that whilst the PS3 was dropping shiney effects games like Motorstorm (which are nice enough), the PS2 was knocking it out of the park with hardware and art direction pushing games like MGS3, ZOE2 and SOTC.

In the end I guess it's a mindset thing. When the PS4 arrives I won't be playing it thinking 'this'd look amazing on PS5!', we see computer generated visuals in adverts and TV every day that stomp over those in games so the bar is harder to reach as we've all already seen superior images making it harder and harder for new systems to impress.

In the end it's the cost that I think puts people off the most. Sure we'd likely all go for the best looking COD if we had the option but when a ?300 to ?400 entry barrier is put up that improvement needs to be immense.

[Sketcz]

Drakes III will look amazing, I'm sure. Even if it's only slightly better than Drakes II. But will I even be able to notice anything better than Drakes III?

My argument is I think I'm reaching the point where I can't tell any more. These games are played in motion, they're not static paintings. Most of the detail is lost when things start moving, if only because the human eye can't register it all. I have total apathy towards promises of improved visuals.

[Team Andromeda]

It's not that I'm saying I couldn't tell the games were better looking than the preceding gen, just that they weren't amazing. Too many of the initial games this gen looked little more than high res ports of the previous gen. PGR3 looked nice overall but I personally couldn't get over how disappointing an entry it was following PGR2.

But you really were expecting a better game with much more content for a launch game ?. In terms of content PGR wasn't near that of MSR on the DC, in terms of extra 's Virtual Fighter 3 completely lacking to the likes of Last Bronx or Virtual Fighter 2 on the Saturn.

But will I even be able to notice anything better than Drakes III?

Some use to say the same after Shenmue, Ninja Gaiden, Half Life II ECT . Games and tech move on and will always look better and better. I'm sure if SONY were to make Drakes IV for the PS4 it would look better especially in terms of shaders and lighting effects.

Until the days when we're playing games that look as good as the High End CGI used in Fable III, Armored Core Motor Storm, Assassins Creed series at 60 fps In-Game I think there's plenty more to give and were generations away from that being able to be down in a tiny under the TV console

[Neon Ignition]

I wasn't expecting more content from PGR2 but I was certainly expecting a better game out of PGR3. It was their fourth title so the building blocks existed for them to do a solid sequel. A new engine isn't necessarily enough to warrant a sequel and as gamers we shouldn't necessarily settle for weaker titles simply due to how early in a systems life they're released. If it's not ready for release then it's not ready and if several of the slated games aren't ready then the system as a whole isn't ready. It's likely not Bizarre's fault as when it comes to the 360 specifically it was heavily over rushed in coming to the market, that's one plus point on MS's side this time as they're finally taking their time with their next system.

[Flabio]

Getting in realtime what the movies are current;y doing offline is still the upper goal for games consoles, and even the next round of hardware won't be able to do that.

I too would love to see more 'style' being explored, but to say that there isn't anyone doing that now when there are games like Limbo, Wakfu, Muramasa, Okami etc... knocking about is a little false.

It's not what the big titles from the big publishers are doing, but big budget mass market targetted films don't either.

[SUMIRE]

I want it!

Hmm, only things I can think of at the moment that I would want are:

No less than 60 FPS in all games
Better textures used /more detail in games that suit it.
No screen tear!

[Neon Ignition]

I reckon there'll be more detail and better textures but we'll still have tons of non-60fps games and screen tearing/visual faults. They're small matters that are too low on the development priority list for a lot of studios as hitting a solid 30fps is enough for most of the audience.

[Team Andromeda]

I wasn't expecting more content from PGR2 but I was certainly expecting a better game out of PGR3. It was their fourth title so the building blocks existed for them to do a solid sequel. A new engine isn't necessarily enough to warrant a sequel and as gamers we shouldn't necessarily settle for weaker titles simply due to how early in a systems life they're released. If it's not ready for release then it's not ready and if several of the slated games aren't ready then the system as a whole isn't ready. It's likely not Bizarre's fault as when it comes to the 360 specifically it was heavily over rushed in coming to the market, that's one plus point on MS's side this time as they're finally taking their time with their next system.

It wasn't just a new engine but new cities and car's too which all had to be modelled in,not much different from what PGR offered over MSR on the DC and the X-Box launch was far from rushed . VF 3 offered next to no extra modes on the DC, more so compared to what DOA, VF II, Fighter Mega Mix , Last Bronx Offered on the Saturn - Yet people seem to love the DC .

COD II wasn't that much of sept up over part 1 and it's multi player modes limited on the 360 (nothing to that of say HALO II ECT) but isn't that to be expected on launch software ?

I want it!

Hmm, only things I can think of at the moment that I would want are:

No less than 60 FPS in all games
Better textures used /more detail in games that suit it.
No screen tear!

Yeah, though I can live with tear, just want a end to 30 fps and much better textures and lighting

[Brad]

I'm in the 60fps camp. It makes a huge difference. Just thought about it and my games played in the last week are Deadstorm pirates, Wipeout HD and FIFA 10. All 60fps (I think?) strangely enough.

[dataDave]

?

The Game Cube and Wii Domestic launches were some of the worst ever (a marked come down from the Snes and N64) , not only in terms of average games , but games that did little to do something that previous consoles didn't do before (the irony was Cube was Saved by SEGA's Monkey Ball) SEGA never had a great track record either, but SEGA tented to go very early and so at least its games looked a step up above the rest

I did mention the Gamecube having a ****ty launch line-up in my original post. As for as the Wii, it had Zelda, and that was awesome, and more than transcended the hype for most people.

It's got nothing to do with the Golden Age at all, because even in the Golden age there wasn't a great deal of choice or AAA games shipped ready for day 1 . Imo the X-Box had the best domestic launch of any console to date and most people won't say that was the Golden age at all, but I don't expect or think it's realistic to expect a number of AAA games for day on a console domestic launch, all I'm looking for is 1 decent game and a game to show off the new console abilities over the previous gen.

I can count three for the SNES. SMW, F-Zero, and Super Tennis. Super R-Type was immense as well.

---

All this 60fps talk... The only time we ever see that is when developers sit down and discuss making an active effort to provide a smooth gaming experience. Most aren't interested in that at all and rely on back-of-box bullshots to wow in the muppets.

[Neon Ignition]

Maybe, but in PGR3's case I'd have rather it hadn't have been a launch game rather then it give me the impression the series was regressing. Thankfully PGR4 was sublime

I'd agree with any thought that the DC was awesome, though it's launch line up certainly wasn't.

If by Xbox you mean the original system then yes, that one wasn't rushed but the Xbox 360 launch was definately rushed. MS was practically tripping over itself to be first out the gate meaning we ended up with the premature death of the original Xbox, shoddy hardware build, a rush of ports and a handful of games that had been dragged by their arses through development and needed more work than they had.

In the past those long first 12 months have been covered by the novelty of the new hardware, personally though that sheen no longer has the same impact so the desire for expensive new systems with little reason to play for a year doesn't grab my attention.

[CMcK]

I'm hoping the next generation may benefit from the push on 3d TV compatible gaming. If a game is rendering 2 1080p frames 30 times per second for the 3d version I would hope the 2d version will maintain a steady 60 fps.
Personally I think developers should be aiming for 3d TV support at 60 fps and 120 fps for 2d displays.

Sony / Polyphony showed a demo of GT5 a few years back with 4 PS3s rendering the game 3840 x 2160 @ 60 fps. Then the demo was repeated using the four PS3s to render the game at 1920 x 1080 @ 240fps. People at the show were apparently overwhelmed by the later demo saying it looked incredibly realistic. I would guess that 240 fps would be a high enough rate to fool your eyes and eliminate any flicker and help to hide aliasing.

If you have a suitable monitor try your computer desktop at 120 Hz. It is so much smoother than 60 Hz.

[Flabio]

I think developers should be aiming for 3d TV support at 60 fps

Hope you like tech demo's, cause those are the only things getting close to that, this gen or the next.

Remember: the goal of the hardware in a console is to be cheap enough to keep the price point reasonable. Just cause a flash PC can do it doesn't make it economically viable for a home console.

[CMcK]

I know developers usually aim for 30 fps as it allows a greater scope of graphics processing but surely the next generation of systems will have the fillrate and memory to allow 60 fps for more games.
Personally I'm not convinced we will see a huge rise in the amount of geometry per frame in the next gen but shader power definitely needs to increase to give us better lighting and materials.

And for simpler games often found on download services or Cave shooters a super high framerate should be perfectly achievable.