Playstation 4

[Matt]

Mutant hands! I've always find the ps2/3 pad servicable at best. It's feebly light, and feels cheap and breakable. Yet, the design is so angular and uncomfortable, it gives my hands more cramp than a thousand wanks. The analogue sticks are too big and bulge out, lessening precision and grip. The trigger are terrible, abolutely ****e. I've never really thought about the symmetrical sticks, and never noticed a difference when playing 360/ps3 games, which tells me that it doesn't bother me. The 360 pad is better balanced, with superior triggers and a superb mould. The first second I picked it up, it was like it was made for my hands. So, so comfortable. It feels better quality.

Except the d-pad and the shoulder buttons. They're awful - the ps3 pad wipes the floor with them in that respect.

Well if you have mutant hands.....

I agree the PS3 analogues themselves could be better, and I do not like the triggers on bit. But then I find the loose analogue stick sbetter on platformers than the 360's pad; the opposite on FPS.

[wakka]

Here's something that's going to bake your noodle:
I still like games with Sega Saturn level 3D graphics. Man, I love Sega Saturn 3D so much. I also still like SD low-res sprites. I keep three SD TVs spare just so that I can enjoy my 16-bit retro fix the way they were meant to be viewed.

That doesn't surprise me at all, it's the kind of forum we're on. I'm a big retro game fan too, play a lot of PSX and Gameboy titles (although sadly don't have the space to own any CRTs), and I agree that the limitations of retro game technology results in a unique and sometimes brilliant style.

Once photo realism was achieved with the camera, painters started experimenting with all manner of non-realistic styles. Sadly it seems that the public and the industry are still bleating for greater photo-realism.

But we haven't achieved photo realism. We haven't even got close. We can't even get the games that we do have to run in 60fps at 1080p anyway, let alone have achieved some kind of perfect realism which is comparable to the camera. Before we can reach an 'impressionist' age of game design I think graphics would have to reach a point where they are a lot better than what is available now.

And anyway, the now-thriving indie game industry is experimenting with non-realistic styles, as you say. So those bases are covered and it's in fact a better situation than in the past for indie devs, with lots of low cost platforms to develop for like iDevices.

I don't even particularly consider myself a graphics whore, but the desire to retard the progress of technology is a totally bizarre one to me. It can only improve games, increase their possibilites, and even accelerate us towards the 'impressionist' era of videogame design that you envisage.

[Flabio]

Some low poly stuff is awesome to look at for sure, but have a look at stuff like Toshinden from the early ps1 days, it'll fair make your eyes bleed.

[Matt]

I don't even particularly consider myself a graphics whore, but the desire to retard the progress of technology is a totally bizarre one to me. It can only improve games, increase their possibilites, and even accelerate us towards the 'impressionist' era of videogame design that you envisage.

Spot on. All this "more powerful consoles makes games worse" bollocks needs to stop. It's idiotic. It's like people believe there are two people programming a game and if a new console comes out they need to go back to their "Learn How To Program In Basic" book.

Out of these statements, which makes more logical sense? More power at their disposal opens up new gameplay avenues for developers.... or.... banging their heads against a wall trying to eek out a 1% performance gain means the devs have more time for gameplay development.

[averybluemonkey]

Spot on. All this "more powerful consoles makes games worse" bollocks needs to stop. It's idiotic. It's like people believe there are two people programming a game and if a new console comes out they need to go back to their "Learn How To Program In Basic" book.

Out of these statements, which makes more logical sense? More power at their disposal opens up new gameplay avenues for developers.... or.... banging their heads against a wall trying to eek out a 1% performance gain means the devs have more time for gameplay development.

Development work has a fixed timetable. Moving to a new development environment takes time to learn the new SDKs, debugging procedures and hardware quirks that can have a big impact on performance, time which can be significant. This time has to come from somewhere, ask anyone who has had to move between different architectures and they'll tell you the same story.

[Matt]

The PS4 will be Cell based, I'm sure of it. All your SDK concerns will be swept aside, it'll all be the same

[nakamura]

Spot on. All this "more powerful consoles makes games worse" bollocks needs to stop. It's idiotic. It's like people believe there are two people programming a game and if a new console comes out they need to go back to their "Learn How To Program In Basic" book.

Out of these statements, which makes more logical sense? More power at their disposal opens up new gameplay avenues for developers.... or.... banging their heads against a wall trying to eek out a 1% performance gain means the devs have more time for gameplay development.

Of course more power means better looking games but that is not always the case. I have found this generation has a lot of poor looking titles with overly shiny visuals and low frame rates. Yes they may have more going on technically but they can certainly look worse that past titles. I find games with higher frame rates look far better anyway, maybe not in images but certainly when you are actually playing them, I would give up all the special effects for 60fps which is why I think the CoD games look so good.

To be fair though, the above statement can apply to all generations really, I just think a lot of devs use the same techniques over and over to make a lot of dull and samey looking titles.

Regarding gameplay though, I don't think the next generation will automatically bring new gameplay avenues. We are still riddled with crap AI, glitchy games and similar gameplay templates that we have had for 10 years. I think a lot of devs are so preoccupied with graphics now that everything else takes a back seat. I can see the next generation bringing stunning visuals and the same games.

[Flabio]

You have to understand that improvements in the graphics come because the graphics hardware isn't the same bit of silicon that everything else runs on.

AI budgets in games are still piddling really, and it's lack of main memory that holds that back rather than CPU grunt.

[sj33]

The PS4 will be Cell based, I'm sure of it. All your SDK concerns will be swept aside, it'll all be the same

I'd be very surprised if it's not Cell-based, given what Cell was designed for.

[averybluemonkey]

The PS4 will be Cell based, I'm sure of it. All your SDK concerns will be swept aside, it'll all be the same

That's just not how things work in the real world. There will be differences in behaviour, deprecated approaches and APIs, BC breaks, SDK bugs, issues with HAL code. People's engines that were rellying on previously undocumented aspects of the hardware will be broken and so on.

[importaku]

Erm what happened to Sonys "oh were going to keep the PS3 for 10 years" plan?

[FelixofMars]

I read somewhere that Sony where saying a few days ago that the next console they release will be much cheaper to produce. So I am guessing they are going down the Wii route of releasing more a gimmick than a powerful hardware console. Touchscreen?

[saturn-gamer]

Erm what happened to Sonys "oh were going to keep the PS3 for 10 years" plan?

That plan is still going on. I think that the Ps3 will still be on the shelves and receives games by 2016.

As for the Ps4, I doubt we'll see it before 2014.

[Matt]

That's just not how things work in the real world. There will be differences in behaviour, deprecated approaches and APIs, BC breaks, SDK bugs, issues with HAL code. People's engines that were rellying on previously undocumented aspects of the hardware will be broken and so on.

Fair enough, but the ramp up will be significantly less than with the PS3, and having very similar hardware will make the first generation of titles little more than smoother running versions of the PS3 iterations. But look, it has to happen, despite what some mad souls here think we wouldn't be better off if the Atari VCS had never been bettered, so all you devs will just have to suck it up

Ultimately you know you'll have loads of fun with the new power, coming up with all kinds of cool new ideas.

Until marketing enters the equation and says, "Just give us Call Of Duty but with more, you know, blood and explosions and controversy and ****."

[Matt]

Erm what happened to Sonys "oh were going to keep the PS3 for 10 years" plan?

The same as the PS2 and the PS1 - they both sold very well in the first couple of years of their next gen big brother. They each lasted 10 years in a roundabout manner.