Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

PC Gaming 'a Generation Ahead' of Consoles, Says Crytek Boss

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the dell's-picard-to-sony's-kirk dept.

PC Games (Games) 412

Crytek co-founder Cevat Yerli spoke recently about the growing gap between modern PCs and consoles like the PS3 and Xbox 360, saying that the desire to develop for multiple platforms is hampering creative expression. "PC is easily a generation ahead right now. With 360 and PS3, we believe the quality of the games beyond Crysis 2 and other CryEngine developments will be pretty much limited to what their creative expressions is, what the content is. You won't be able to squeeze more juice from these rocks." One reason this trend persists is because of the perception that PC game sales are not high enough for most developers to focus on that platform. Rock, Paper, Shotgun says this indicates a need for the disclosure of digital distribution sales numbers, which could dispel that myth. Yerli's comments come alongside news of Crytek's announcement of a new military-based shooter called Warface.

cancel ×

412 comments

Captain Obvious (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34345724)

Clearly there is room for a new competitor in the console market, and OnLive ain't it. One generation beyond the 360 or PS3 would have a BOM under $100.

Re:Captain Obvious (0, Interesting)

devbox (1919724) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345758)

Wii HD. Seriously, the only problem with Wii is the really old graphics. Say what you want about gameplay and graphics comparison, but it doesn't feel nice to play games with such old looking graphics. Old classics or games especially made towards that purpose, sure, but it looks really bad with 3D games.

Besides, having good looking graphics doesn't mean you can't have great gameplay too.

Re:Captain Obvious (4, Interesting)

Sancho (17056) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345904)

Most of the really good Wii titles don't even use the Wii motion controls for anything more than a gimmick, though. Frequently, shaking could have been replaced with a simple button press (and that would have been far more accurate--I'm looking at you, New Super Mario Bros. Wii) Pointing at the screen gets quite a bit of use, at least since it's got a fairly obvious application (aiming in a FPS.)

The accelerometers were a gimmick, and I think that Nintendo knows it. It worked out for them--they did a good amount of business while in competition with two other giants. What I think Nintendo has proven in this generation is that 2D side-scrollers (or 2.5D or whatever) aren't dead and are actually quite popular, as long as the controls and gameplay are good.

I don't see much of a need to go HD, other than to finally get rid of the last holdout for analog input on my TV.

Re:Captain Obvious (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34346172)

I was in japan a couple months ago, played a fucking awesome wii fps. Instead of the standard wii mote, there was gun with scope (and a pistol), trigger, and buttons on the side. It had a pretty decent weight to it, which helped (didn't feel like a toy). It also had a fairly substantial kickback/recoil -- didn't hurt your shoulder, but you had to re-aim afterwards, just like real-life. I've played arcade games with gun peripherals, but this seemed a lot more realistic and more fun. Probably helped that I was drunk and a cute girl was giving me a blowjob at the time (^_^)

Wii Boxing (1)

sanman2 (928866) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346350)

I felt that one of the best Wii titles at launch was Wii Boxing, and it was precisely because of the motion controls, rather than the graphics. I still love playing Wii Boxing to work up a quick sweat, and I find it really improves your hand-eye coordination.

I'd love to see another game making use of Wii Boxing's punching mechanic. Perhaps a game like God Hand or something.

I'm thinking that Nintendo will launch a new console in 2011 no matter how many denials they're issuing, simply because then otherwise they have nothing new to show in the face of Kinect and Sony Move. I'd imagine it'll have noticeably better graphics than 360 or PS3.

Re:Captain Obvious (4, Interesting)

Cinder6 (894572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345912)

I would say the main problem with the Wii is its library. And this comes from somebody who owns one. I really don't care about its graphics, but there just isn't much that interests me on the platform. I have 7 Wii games, while I have 42 or so PS3 games and 17 360 games. Granted, there are a few games that I'm interested in, but it's only 3 or so. So much of the library is dedicated to shovelware games and kid stuff.

I think the culprit behind this is that publishers want to make multiplatform games to maximize returns. It's easy to match the 360 and PS3 games, as they're of like performance. The Wii? Not so much (due to both the hardware limitations and the different default control scheme). Exclusives for it would be better, but exclusives aren't what make the most money these days. So developers make the big games for the 360 and PS3, but give the Wii spin-offs or other budget titles that just aren't as good. Case in point: the 360 and PS3 got Resident Evil 5. The Wii? Umbrella Chronicles and a re-release of RE4.

Of course, none of this matters to Nintendo, as the Wii is basically a license to print money. It's great for those who were never really into gaming before this generation, but the "traditional" gaming segment is more or less left out.

(Or maybe I need to look harder?)

Re:Captain Obvious (2, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345976)

There's another thing to blame for the Wii's library limitation: Nintendo's marketing. Like Disney, the company is very dependant upon protecting their image as wholesome and family-friendly now, and must do their best to protect it from the taint of being associated with anything sexual or violent. So they are quite strict about what they allow to be published for the Wii. It's not entirely devoid of violent games, but it has fewer of them proportionally than the other major consoles. If you like U-rated games, on the other hand, it's got loads.

Walt Disney's Kill Bill (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346090)

Like Disney, the company is very dependant upon protecting their image as wholesome and family-friendly now

Yet explain how a Disney subsidiary green-lit Kill Bill.

So they are quite strict about what they allow to be published for the Wii.

MadWorld anyone?

Re:Walt Disney's Kill Bill (2, Insightful)

el3mentary (1349033) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346168)

Like Disney, the company is very dependant upon protecting their image as wholesome and family-friendly now

Yet explain how a Disney subsidiary green-lit Kill Bill.

I would have thought that was obvious, Miramax was bought by Disney in 1993 in order to allow them to release more adult orientated films without hurting their brand. A disney subsidiary green lit Kill Bill precisely because it was a subsidiary and not the main brand.

Re:Walt Disney's Kill Bill (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346204)

Miramax was bought by Disney in 1993 in order to allow them to release more adult orientated films without hurting their brand.

So here comes the analogy: Why can't Nintendo likewise start a separate brand to release edgier games?

Re:Walt Disney's Kill Bill (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346202)

Wow you're dumb. It's called branding, and Disney is, like, the god of branding. That's why a Disney subsidiary released Kill Bill. The Disney name isn't on the movie.

I don't really know enough about the Wii to make a claim about Nintendo doing that same type of branding, but, fer christs sakes, Disney is a freaking god in that arena. I do know my Wii and the dozen crappy games I bought for it are going to be a Christmas present for my in-laws this year, and prolly a Christmas present for someone else the following year.

Re:Walt Disney's Kill Bill (1)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346306)

Yet explain how a Disney subsidiary green-lit Kill Bill.

I think the key word there is subsidiary. It's not like you saw the Disney logo on the Kill Bill poster.

So they are quite strict about what they allow to be published for the Wii.

MadWorld anyone?

Yep, GP was posting with old stereotype in mind. The Wii is a little more grown up these days, though I guess there's something of a confirmation bias given the volume of less realistic-violence games on the console. The only thing that could possibly shake that perception for some out there would be seeing a CoD on the Wii.

Re:Captain Obvious (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346108)

I wasn't aware that Nintendo was still strict on what could appear on their system(s). Last I knew, they'd relaxed quite a bit; BMX XXX had the topless stuff in it, while it was censored on the PS2. Granted, I'm unaware of anything like that on the Wii or DS...

As an aside, I really hate how you have to click through the "health and safety tips" every time you turn on the Wii or DS. Put in the light of being "family-friendly", it makes more sense that it's been included. That, or Nintendo is even more terrified of lawsuits than other corporations.

Re:Captain Obvious (1)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345992)

It's not just you. I haven't touched my Wii in months. I haven't purchased a new game for it in over a year. The Wii is drowning in shovelware and it's pushed the "traditional" market far, far away. That's ok though, because the casual market is proving more than enough hookers and blow for Nintendo's shareholders. I can only hope that, come next generation, this somehow bites Nintendo in the ass... and hard.

Re:Captain Obvious (1)

Again (1351325) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346232)

[snip]

(Or maybe I need to look harder?)

I agree with most of your points but there are some very good games for the Wii. Red Steel 2 is an incredibly fun game. I played that game shortly after finishing the campaign in Modern Warfare 2 and I have to admit that I had more fun with Red Steel 2. Monster Hunter for the Wii is another incredibly well made game and pretty much the only RPG on the Wii.

However, both of these games are outliers to the typical games released for the Wii. I recommend them if you own a Wii.

Re:Captain Obvious (2, Insightful)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346186)

I promise you it is not the graphics that stop me from playing games on the Wii.
It's the fucking awful games.
It's the controls.

Every Wii game I've played has come in one of two flavours:
  a) Trying to use the Wii-mote as advertised, the result being horribly awkward and ultimately impossible-to-enjoy inconsistent fumblings as the Wii really sucks at motion control.
  b) Games where the developers realized the limitations of the Wii, and compensated by making the controller a prop which doesn't actually do anything. "Let's pray pretend! Now you're a sorcerer! Here, hold this stick, it's a MAGIC WAND!" entertaining for five minutes, maybe, but once you realize that your moving the stick around doesn't actually have any more effect on game than sitting on the controller at the appropriate time, it loses its appeal fast. I can play pretend all by myself /without/ standing in front of a TV.

I have heard that WiiMotion+ improves greatly on what amounts to Nintendo saying it had a great idea for a console, then getting really hung over and writing its homework out in five minutes before class. I don't have a compelling reason to blow money on it, when apparently all it has going for it is "Makes Wii act like they said it would, on some new games designed for it." Especially when there's a new motion controller for another console which doesn't even need to make wild guesses about where your arms are.

Re:Captain Obvious (2, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345848)

Why can't, say, Dell or Gateway make a PC in a home-theater-PC case for 599 US dollars [youtube.com] and call it the new fourth console?

Re:Captain Obvious (1)

MasterEvilAce (792905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345952)

They would also have to ship with a well designed controller (and not an after-thought)... add onto that a fancy UI that is easy to navigate from the couch. The problem with PCs as a game center is that every game is different. When you have an xbox 360, you know how the interface works, you know what to expect. A always selects, B goes back a menu. It's not about the hardware. It's about the easy of use and the experience.

Re:Captain Obvious (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345978)

They would also have to ship with a well designed controller (and not an after-thought)

Xbox 360 controllers work with Windows 7, Windows Vista, and recent service packs of Windows XP.

add onto that a fancy UI that is easy to navigate from the couch.

If XBMC can solve the 10-foot UI problem, surely Dell or Gateway can.

The problem with PCs as a game center is that every game is different.

PC games that carry the "Games for Windows" certification and support a gamepad must recognize Xbox 360 controllers and automatically configure the buttons.

Re:Captain Obvious (1)

Narishma (822073) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346278)

They would need to do that in concert with all the other big manufacturers like Acer and Lenovo, as well as game developers. I would say Microsoft too but I doubt they would want to since it would be competition for their Xbox. They would basically agree on fixed specs for a cheap gaming PC that anyone could sell, and game devs would target it for their games. But I doubt anything like that could ever happen. There would be too much bickering about what brand of CPU or GPU to use, and with nobody big enough to impose stuff (like Microsoft) the thing would fail before it even started.

Re:Captain Obvious (3, Insightful)

MasterEvilAce (792905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345932)

A problem with this is... you have to be on Sony and Microsoft's time table.. and even then, that won't help you. For instance, let's say a new console came out next year. Two times as powerful as a PS3, with all the charm of a 360. It still lacks games. But once it gets some good to-die-for games, then what? The year after that PS4 and neXbox come out, with mostly backwards compatibility, and global branding. They would probably be another step above in performance on that new console, too. That new console is now dead in the water. But even if you wait for the next wave of consoles, and release along with Sony and Microsoft.. you have no reputation. It's just not going to happen unless you're a well known company, or have major publisher backing.

Don't blame the platform (2, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345750)

Before you start saying that these consoles are essentially tapped out, keep in mind that the PS3 isn't near its full potential yet.

PS3 still not maxed out - Andrew House (SCEE President)
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=248275 [computeran...ogames.com]

PS3 hard to develop for on purpose - Kazuo Hirai (SCEE Chairman)
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=248275 [computeran...ogames.com]

Now, when you've finally "tapped out this rock", then come back and complain. Until then, blame yourselves for your inability to develop good games that take full advantage of these platforms.

Re:Don't blame the platform (2, Interesting)

Jartan (219704) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345820)

The PS3 might not be "maxed out" in terms of software existing which uses it's good points. It's pretty clear though that it's maxed out in terms of what the gaming market is ever going to do with it. The reality is that Sony tried to go a new direction with hardware but they failed to get the market stranglehold they needed to force developers to take risks on new coding styles for a platform specific title.

Either way the original point that the PC has far surpassed the PS3 is still true. The PS3 has way too much power in certain area's that aren't necessary. In area's like GPU and memory though it's pathetic. It was in many ways far subpar to PC's the day it was released.

Re:Don't blame the platform (2, Interesting)

Movi (1005625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345946)

Actually it's not a new direction at all. If anything, the PS2 was the new direction. Stick very high speed vector processors next to the a standard CPU and GPU and some low latency ram on a high speed interconnect. The PS3 is just this idea extended to more vector units and current-generation CPU and GPU (at the time it was made).

What Microsoft did was smart - instead on banking on very specialized hardware, it made sure it's development kit could do the optimisation automatically, hence it's MUCH easier to push the xbox to it's limits than the PS3 (read about the ATi shader compiler for R600, and how cool Visual Studio for the Xbox is).

Re:Don't blame the platform (2, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346036)

I'm guessing that we should just take the president and chairman of Sony Computer Entertainment Europe, a couple of non-techie suits with a nontrivial stake in saying nice things about their product, at their word when they assure us that the PS3 will achieve photorealistic graphics and save the whales, if only those lazy developers would do it right? Isn't this the same Sony whose PS2 "Emotion engine" was supposed to have been delivering cinematic graphics, according to their marketdroids?

Re:Don't blame the platform (1)

edxwelch (600979) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346068)

Sure, the CPU potential of the PS3 hasn't been reached yet, however this is largely irrelevent since games are mainly bound by the GPU performance. The PS3 GPU is a generation behind the PC.

What a load of garbage. Games on PCs are crap. (1, Insightful)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345756)

Just look at the newest games and how badly they perform on supposedly "powerful" machines. These games are not more creative, just flashy and poorly coded.

Take the Rage game on iOS for instance, it rivals some console graphics but is not running on powerful hardware. It has to run on a machine with less than 512 Mb devoted to the game and no access to Virtual memory. PC games are written by people who could not code on embedded machines if their life depended on it. Sloppy code.

Re:What a load of garbage. Games on PCs are crap. (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345832)

PC games are written by people who could not code on embedded machines if their life depended on it.

You mean some PC games are written by sloppy coders. Some other PC games are written by people with experience coding for 8-bit microprocessors. Still others are written by people who specialize in PC only due to console makers' institutionalized discrimination against small businesses.

Re:What a load of garbage. Games on PCs are crap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34346088)

Subtle.

Re:What a load of garbage. Games on PCs are crap. (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345908)

That's at least partially an artificial problem with the games, not the PCs. For one thing, it seems like half the developers half-ass the PC version intentionally, since they have less control than on consoles. For another, the PC market is smaller and less of a concern.

Re:What a load of garbage. Games on PCs are crap. (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345938)

Also, where are those Kinect and Wiimote enabled games?

Generally - really, which one is it? "The games I play - PC games - are...deep, man" or "shiny!!!"?

Re:What a load of garbage. Games on PCs are crap. (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345950)

I've long thought the ability to issue patches is the reason PC games have a lot more issues than their counterparts. Unfortunately, this generation has added that capability to consoles, as well. In theory, it's a good thing; issues that come up can be fixed without going through ridiculous rigmarole (just look at the Metroid thing with Nintendo). In practice, it means developers get to release buggy products. Just look at Fallout: New Vegas. It was basically unplayable on the consoles and little better on the PC. The massive patch that came out (how big was it again? 500MB?) fixed a lot of things, but there's still lots of stupid bugs.

As games become more complex, there are more areas for problems to occur, but it's pretty tacky to release something when you know it has huge bugs in it, many of them game-breaking.

Re:What a load of garbage. Games on PCs are crap. (5, Insightful)

Renraku (518261) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345994)

To understand the poor coding, you must understand the game industry and the choices they make. I'll explain using analogies that everyone can understand.

Example 1: Your task is to build a house. You can make your own brick, cut your own lumber, pour your own concrete foundation using concrete that you mixed, do your own plumbing, etc. The quality of your house is based on however much time you feel like spending to do it yourself. Obviously this would take far far too long, so you opt to use materials already created. You buy all the ingredients. Obviously some may not be up to your standard, but the loss of quality is relatively low compared to the vast amount of time you will save. You've given up a little and gained a lot.

Example 2: Your task is to build a house. You have three days to do it. The previous house, using the components you purchased, took several weeks to build. Your only solution is to use modular components. AKA, bed room. Living room. Kitchen. Bathroom. Assemble with a crane, connect together on a foundation, voila. A house. The quality suffers quite a bit using this pre-built solution, but you got the job done on time. It was the only way you could do it. You gave up a lot to get the job done on time.

Example 3: Your employer now realizes you can build houses in three days, and that there's a high demand for your house building services because you did such a good job in example one. Still, your employer thinks you can build it a little faster. Two days to build the house now. They know people won't care about the quality because once they've bought it, they've paid for it. As long as it still meets the most basic definition of a house and doesn't endanger the lives of the people living in it, it's suitable for sale. Your only option is to make a house factory and simply air lift the house in once complete. You don't even have time to secure the thing to the damn foundation.

So we've gone from perfect house to shitty house that will slide off its foundation in a strong wind. This is how the game industry is. They HAVE to use shitty tools and shitty coding to slop things out the door as fast as they can, because the marketing team has promised Call of Duty Black Ops 2 and 3 to be out by February and won't even tell the developers this until January 25th. Guess what department the executives are in?

Re:What a load of garbage. Games on PCs are crap. (5, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346196)

Hasn't someone told you that here on slashdot we only understand car analogies? Get out of here, and take your damned houses with you!

Re:What a load of garbage. Games on PCs are crap. (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346374)

Fortunately for us, Nintendo, Blizzard and Valve don't play by those rules.

Re:What a load of garbage. Games on PCs are crap. (1)

caitsith01 (606117) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346216)

Just look at the newest games and how badly they perform on supposedly "powerful" machines. These games are not more creative, just flashy and poorly coded.

Have you actually played any new games on a semi-decent machine? Apart from Crysis itself this phenomenon hasn't really been around for about 5 years. It used to be the case that a game would claim to run on (say) a 386 DX but in truth needed a 486, but those games are largely gone. My games rig is about 2 years old, and still plays anything new I throw at it very nicely. For $200 you can get a graphics card that will happily play any new game on the market.

Of course, some games offer 'ultra' graphics settings that might cause a mid-level machine to labour. But this is icing - these games look fantastic even at medium detail settings, and far surpass consoles at that level.

Re:What a load of garbage. Games on PCs are crap. (1, Flamebait)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346314)

Just look at the newest games and how badly they perform on supposedly "powerful" machines. These games are not more creative, just flashy and poorly coded.

Have you actually played any new games on a semi-decent machine? Apart from Crysis itself this phenomenon hasn't really been around for about 5 years. It used to be the case that a game would claim to run on (say) a 386 DX but in truth needed a 486, but those games are largely gone. My games rig is about 2 years old, and still plays anything new I throw at it very nicely. For $200 you can get a graphics card that will happily play any new game on the market.

Of course, some games offer 'ultra' graphics settings that might cause a mid-level machine to labour. But this is icing - these games look fantastic even at medium detail settings, and far surpass consoles at that level.

Yes I have. Why should a game like like Star Craft II require a Quad-core and 2 GB of ram to play on anything higher than 1024X768 with Medium graphics setting.

The there is Civilization V. Why should there be large hardware requirements on a "turn based" game? What the heck?

Please stop calling your gaming machine a "rig". It is a gaming PC, not a truck or a professional workstation.

I am sick and tired of nerds calling their PCs rigs and referring to their IT workplaces as a windows "shop" or linux "shop". You guys are not blue collar workers and you would be laughed out of any bar that had real blue collar workers in it.

Re:What a load of garbage. Games on PCs are crap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34346300)

Complete and utter bullshit.

You REALIZE that most of what is called "PC gaming" today is just a fucking port from consoles? Yes, those are terrible.

Traditional PC gaming, before Microsoft deliberately drove a stake into it with the X-Box was quite well coded. The Quake engines were very tight and small. The Unreal Engine was one of the cleverest things ever...literally a virtual machine for gaming. It was only when the X-Box kicked off the devolution of gaming we got sidled with CRAPPY PORTS.

I really look forward to the eventual collapse of the consoles in the usual epicycle of technology. You smarmy console idiots are in for a shock when you have to actually admit PCs have leapfrogged far ahead, as they inevitably will.

If You Say So...(re: What a load of garbage...) (2, Interesting)

EXTomar (78739) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346310)

So lets look at some games:

- "World of Warcraft" just had The Shattering which revamped the graphics and game flow of the world adopting tech and design they learned from 6 years of successful gaming.
- Steam just told me that "Poker Night at the Inventory" is available for cheap. Although it is basically a poker game, the fun part is the conversations and jokes in the game.
- "Farmville" is still going strong
- "Minecraft" would be a hard sell if not impossible on consoles

So yeah, if you say so. I don't think flashy and poorly coded are a PC feature but something that comes from the developer regardless of their target platform.

Bullshit (4, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345764)

I haven't seen anything innovative done on a PC that couldn't have been done on a PS2. Crysis 2 is innovative? Oh please. Two extra bullet-points on the back of a box do not make a game "innovative". Portal: innovative. Tower of Goo: innovative. Minecraft: innovative. What do they have in common? They could run on hardware that is 10 years old.

I think the Mr. Crytek fails to see past his own problems: that the shiny that his company specializes in does very little to make a game special.

Re:Bullshit (0)

pookemon (909195) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345866)

Really? How does the PS2 go with HD/3D rendering? They're the most basic of functions offered by PC's (for 10+ years now - I had 3D and HD on my geforce256). So surely the PS2 could do that?

Sure, those things aren't "innovative", but you've claimed that Crysis 2 could run on a PS2 and I think the subject of your post is a description of what you have written.

Besides "Mr. Crytek" isn't talking about Innovation - he's talking about creative expression. The ability to have "more" in a game (better graphics, bigger worlds, more detail).

Re:Bullshit (1)

Peeteriz (821290) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345930)

HD/3D rendering has nothing to do with games. The gameplay of Crysis 2 could be run on PS1, let alone PS2.

Sure, the aliens do look really good in Crytek's games a high end PC, but the game would be the same game if the graphics were pixellated brown goo.

Re:Bullshit (1)

mikaelwbergene (1944966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345968)

You seem to misunderstand the point of Crysis as a statement of technology. In some cases "HD/3D" rendering has a lot to do. Just like how some action movies don't have much in terms of story, but can be enjoyable as brainless eye-candy.

It's got decent/average gameplay, but the tech involved in making it pretty is advanced.

Re:Bullshit (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346308)

but can be enjoyable as brainless eye-candy.

The point is he is claiming that is innovation, it just isn't.

Re:Bullshit (4, Informative)

Movi (1005625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345964)

I invite you to look at Shadow of the Colossus. HDR, fur shader, fairy shader, DoF, very nice looking motion blur, IK, and much more flashy effects, on a 200Mhz MIPS machine with 32MB of ram, complete with data streaming. That, and the game is considered to a goddam piece of art if there was ever a game that was worthy of calling art.

Re:Bullshit (2, Interesting)

ksd1337 (1029386) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346146)

Besides "Mr. Crytek" isn't talking about Innovation - he's talking about creative expression. The ability to have "more" in a game (better graphics, bigger worlds, more detail).

Creative expression? Give me a break. That's like saying that a photographer is more creative than a painter because photos have higher resolutions than paintings.

Re:Bullshit (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346302)

Really? How does the PS2 go with HD/3D rendering? They're the most basic of functions offered by PC's (for 10+ years now - I had 3D and HD on my geforce256). So surely the PS2 could do that?

The PS2 was 3D, unless you're talking of stereoscopic 3D, but the Geforce256 didn't have that.

Re:Bullshit (3, Interesting)

icegreentea (974342) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345954)

No, you stop this bullshit. It's pretty clear that they're talking about graphics capabilities here. The word innovative doesn't even appear anywhere in the summary or articles. Every fucking time we talk about games or movies, its the same shit. "Omg, it's shiny it sucks". Shiny and "creative" and "fun" and "innovative" are all largely orthogonal to each other. Their only real conflict is the budget. And this is goddamn Crysis. It's a game which is meant to be a tech demo. Like UT. Of fucking course their making it shiny.

And you know what? Crysis was shiny as fuck when it came out. It was slightly innovative within the FPS field (the multi power suit thing). And it was FUN. Maybe you didn't like it because you were clouded by your "only play games that can run on old hardware" snobbery, but I got to run around blowing shit up and throw chickens at people. And I look forward to doing it again. In New York.

Seriously I'm tired of this shit. It's not like these new shiny games are a torture to play or anything. You just refuse to enjoy them. Did you insist on Half Life being playable on 10 year old hardware when it came out too? Doom?

DNAS error -103 (0, Troll)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346022)

Did you insist on Half Life being playable on 10 year old hardware when it came out too? Doom?

No, but I insist on a community around the game still existing once I get around to becoming able to run the game. A lot of games get the plug pulled on their matchmaking servers before I even consider buying them.

Re:DNAS error -103 (1)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346362)

Yeah, and I'd like unicorns too when I get around to learning how to ride a horse.

Timeliness matters. You can't "insist" on a community around a game existing at some arbitary point in the future, if only because developers & publishers have no control over the activity in the community once a game is released.

Some games are the type that you pick up, play, master, and move on. Some games aren't, and have a longevity in the community. Just because you can't "get around to becoming able to run" or "even consider buying" a game doesn't give you the right to demand the company behind it is still running matchmaking servers - you want to play 5 years after a game is released and there isn't a significant community playing it any more? too bad chump, should have thought about that 5 years ago.

Re:DNAS error -103 (0, Offtopic)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346378)

why is this modded troll? It's completely right.

Re:Bullshit (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346016)

Portal: innovative.

Yes

Tower of Goo: innovative.

Haven't played it, so I'll take your word for it.

Minecraft: innovative.

There was a similar game before, but MC is quite different from it now.

What do they have in common? They could run on hardware that is 10 years old.

Portal is on Source engine. While it could run on 10 year old hardware, the graphics would suck. You need a better video card (at least) to make it have decent FPS at max graphic settings on 1600x1200 or higher resolution.

Minecraft requires less resources, but also has worse graphics. I have installed the HD texture pack, because while the game itself is good, I did not like the low quality graphics.

A long time ago I used to play Wolfenstein3D all the time. It was a fun game and I didn't care about the graphics. Now I can't really play it without any higher resolution mod because the graphics are too low quality for me (and my head starts to hurt after a few minutes of playing it, though I can play newer games for hours without problems).

High quality graphics are necessary to me, like good controls. A game cannot be good on those two factors alone, but if graphics or controls suck then I most likely won't play the game. There are exceptions, I played "The Longest Journey" (fixed resolution - 640x480) with AA and AF turned to max and endured the bad graphics (mainly due to low resolution - my monitor has visible black lines between the scanlines at such low resolution), but usually I have to be able to easily see and recognize things in a game for me to fully enjoy playing it (no, I don't play text based games).

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34346028)

"I haven't seen anything innovative done on a PC..."

The claim is not about gameplay innovation. The claim is about "creative expression". Gameplay innovation is not the only form of creative expression.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34346062)

Using a mouse and keyboard to play games is innovative enough for me.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34346120)

In what way is Minecraft innovative?

Minecraft really isn't doing anything new, although I'd agree it is has been made "well" and is arguably a great game.

The "build your own world in realtime" concept has been done in countless games, both 3d and 2d.

Just one example would be Cube: http://cubeengine.com

The author of minecraft himself said he based his ideas on another game that basically does the same things Minecraft does.

One Game: Achron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34346128)

If you want to see gameplay innovation that requires a lot of CPU, check Achron out: http://www.youtube.com/hazardoussoftware [youtube.com]

Re:Bullshit (2, Informative)

caitsith01 (606117) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346192)

I haven't seen anything innovative done on a PC that couldn't have been done on a PS2.

So you think graphics are completely irrelevant, good for you. I'm as much of a fan of gameplay innovation as anyone - I still play a lot of DOS games, in fact - but outstanding graphics DO add something, and there's no question that the PC has a lot more potential than current-gen consoles, let alone a PS2.

Re:Bullshit (4, Insightful)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346270)

"Crysis 2 is innovative? Oh please. Two extra bullet-points on the back of a box do not make a game "innovative"."

The great irony in you saying this is that the reverse is true, console game quality is hurting PC game quality. PC games have been dumbed down for consoles and consolized for multiplatform release.

Also console ports for the PC get sloppy seconds due to multiplatform release. We saw the awful game for windows live inserted into Gears of War for PC. We also saw how Badly Halo and Halo 2 were ported to PC. Halo was originally a PC game they had to fit into the first xbox because MS needed a game to sell the system.

Don't believe it console games have effected PC game quality? Check out supcom 2 and Civ 5's terrible reviews on amazon.

Civ 5
http://www.amazon.com/Sid-Meiers-Civilization-V-Pc/dp/B0038TT8QM/ [amazon.com]

Supcom 2

http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Commander-2-Pc/dp/B002BXN6GY/ [amazon.com]

Re:Bullshit (0)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346286)

Crysis 2 is innovative? Oh please.

And you can see that's entirely his point of view, i don't think he understands what innovation is, his problem is that the PC is more powerful than consoles and his company's games are basically the last iteration but with more polygons and better shaders. That is not innovation. Innovation is the Wii, innovation is Kinect, innovation is - as you said - world of goo and portal.

War-face? (4, Funny)

pookemon (909195) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345786)

a new military-based shooter called Warface

Sorry, facebook will insist that you change it's name.

Re:War-face? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34346112)

Hi, I'm from Apostrophe Book and I'm going to have to insist you master that most tricky, elusive, hard to understand scratch mark in the universe: the apostrophe. IT'S means IT IS. Did you know that?

Re:War-face? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34346116)

No, actually, it won't, because the trademark was quite clearly registered only for social media, not games.

Re:War-face? (0, Troll)

noddyxoi (1001532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346160)

WarFeces

Getting pre-emptive deja vu here... (3, Insightful)

mikaelwbergene (1944966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345794)

And it has happened again as it has happened every single generation of consoles and as it will in every future generation.

One platform is constantly shifting and upgrading, the other doesn't.

What do you think happens in the gap between console releases?

Unfortunately they're currently too busy trying to milk motion controls and using that as an excuse to not release new hardware. Hopefully Nintendo will just out of nowhere drop a magic console developed using their profits from their current gen console.

Either way some games are better on consoles (fighting, local multiplayer, driving games etc) , while other games I prefer my mouse and keyboard support (simulation, rts, fps, etc)

Re:Getting pre-emptive deja vu here... (1)

ninjacheeseburger (1330559) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345862)

Either way some games are better on consoles (fighting, local multiplayer, driving games etc) , while other games I prefer my mouse and keyboard support (simulation, rts, fps, etc)

/quote

console != controller

You can play pc games with almost any input device you want, including xbox 360 controllers.

Re:Getting pre-emptive deja vu here... (1)

mikaelwbergene (1944966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346026)

True, but how often have you gotten friends around the pc monitor for playing a fighting game together vs on the whatever inch tv?

Now granted you could also argue that console != display, but I have a desk set up for a single person for work and gaming and a tv with a sofa set up for multiple people.

PC + HDTV = MAME heaven (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346056)

how often have you gotten friends around the pc monitor for playing a fighting game together

One PC in my house is connected to the VGA input of a VX32L, is a 32" HDTV made by Vizio. Emulators run beautifully, but I'm tired of having to break the law just to play more than single player.

I have a desk set up for a single person for work and gaming and a tv with a sofa set up for multiple people.

Put a slim PC next to the TV. I saw a nice Gateway in Best Buy the other day when I was looking for an Archos 43 tablet.

Re:Getting pre-emptive deja vu here... (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346038)

You can play pc games with almost any input device you want, including xbox 360 controllers.

Say I've hooked up my PC to a TV [wikipedia.org] and connected four Xbox 360 controllers through a USB hub. How many controllers does a typical major-label game designed for the PC support? One. Instead of adding shared-screen play, publishers expect players to buy four PCs, four monitors, and (more importantly) four copies of the game.

Re:Getting pre-emptive deja vu here... (1)

ADRA (37398) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346290)

It may just be me, but how many people play 4 player split screens for games these days? I thought it was bad during the time when tube TV's were standard, but how many games these days support more than 1/2 players simultaneously? This is of course ignoring platformer type games that can actually get away with having a few players on screen at the same time without degrading usability. Racing games? Split /Squinty screen. FPS? Split /Squinty screen. RTS? Not on consoles. Puzzle games? Sure, because they generally don't need spacial relevance.

Gone is the need for yearly PC upgrades (4, Insightful)

Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345796)

as long as the developers target the consoles and PC then you only have to match the specs of that console generation.

I used to love PC gaming (0, Troll)

Freaky Spook (811861) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345816)

I used to spend all my spare time tweaking and upgrading my PC to be able to play games at the best possible frame rate, it was a hobby.

Then I got a job and with the money I was earning from that job, I got a life.

I'm now a console gamer because its convenient. Not having to worry about drivers, patches, different DRM systems and not dealing with retarded server admins who boot you as soon as someone you just spent 15 mins bitch slapping reports you for cheating.

PC's may be generations ahead in hardware, but they still don't offer the convenience and simplicity of a console, which is why they are popular.

Re:I used to love PC gaming (1)

Jartan (219704) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345916)

PC's may be generations ahead in hardware, but they still don't offer the convenience and simplicity of a console, which is why they are popular.

citation needed

PC's would be just as cheap and convenient if people would resist the urge to constantly upgrade. The reality is that when they get the ability to upgrade they chose to do so. I think the couch has far more to do with the success of the console frankly.

Re:I used to love PC gaming (1, Redundant)

WARM3CH (662028) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346012)

Well, I did that in 2007. I noticed that a top of the line graphics card is almost as expensive as a whole game console! I was tired of constantly upgrading my PC. There was always something to add, something to upgrade and some more time to spend fixing this or that than actually using my PC for anything. I switched to a Tablet PC as my main computer, got rid of my desktop and got an Xbox 360. I selected a Tablet PC since it was, well, cool and also I was sure I couldn't do much about upgrading it. For 3 years since then I was mostly happy. However old habits don't die easily. I got tired of my under powered, dual-core 2GHz + 4GB tablet. I wanted something more from my Xbox 360. I wanted customizability of Unreal Tournament 2004 and large scale of Supreme Commander back. So two months ago I got myself a new desktop: a 3.2 GHz i7 with 12GB of RAM, SSD boot drive, 2x2TB HDD, HD5870, ... a monster of machine! Now my Xbox is only used to play street fighter IV with friends that come over and all new games are on PC. I don't know where my Tablet PC is and I don't care that much anymore. I also could go back to my other hobby, developing chess engines and throwing lots of hardware at it...

Consoles lack the selection of a PC (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346066)

I'm now a console gamer because its convenient.

But is it convenient for you when the game all your friends are talking about is a PC exclusive because the console makers turned it down?

PC's may be generations ahead in hardware, but they still don't offer the convenience and simplicity of a console

Nor do consoles offer the selection of a PC.

Steam sales data (1)

ninjacheeseburger (1330559) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345822)

All major publishers have games on steam, so I'm sure they have a reasonable idea of how well their games are selling even if we don't, just looking at the steam stats [steampowered.com] can give a rough idea.

To be honest I like being able to play the latest games with the settings on full, "developments will be pretty much limited to what their creative expressions is, what the content is" is not necessarily a bad thing, its the game play vs graphics argument.

Simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34345824)

Have the console support mouse/keyboard input (hell, I'll take a numpad with WASD on it).

WASD: Try a Nunchuk sometime (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345900)

Have the console support mouse/keyboard input

A few PS3 games already do, and the other two still support text entry using a USB keyboard. The Wii Remote is like a mouse, and unlike WASD, the Nunchuk extension controller has proportional (aka "analog") response.

(plus one Informa7ive) (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34345870)

Enough with the emphasis on horsepower already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34345872)

Shinier graphics result in ballooning creativity costs, which have stifled creativity as companies start investing only in sure bets. These days, even a single big budget bomb can wipe out an entire company, like Haze did for Free Radical, Hellgate: London did for Flagship Studios, and Lair did for Factor 5. No matter how new and shiny a game is, gamers will always demand it be newer and shinier in the next iteration, which further increases risk aversion and stifles creativity. There's only so much more that can be done by making a newer and shinier Far Cry, Call of Duty, or Grand Theft Auto In fact, this emphasis on graphics above all has crippled the industry's long term health.

What developers really should do is take a step sideways into creative territory, rather than continuing their death march into Bigger and Better territory. Unfortunately, as their remarkable unwillingness to support the Wii has shown, Bigger and Better may be all that the gaming industry knows anymore. If this is true, then a second crash of the industry may not be far off.

Re:Enough with the emphasis on horsepower already (1)

Movi (1005625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345988)

In many ways gaming has gone the way of hollywood. More flash, bigger budgets and more streamlined.

Multiple independent "generations" (5, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34345914)

PC is easily a generation ahead right now.

Wii showed that graphical output isn't the only thing that defines a hardware generation. In the seventh generation, while Microsoft and Sony were moving their output forward by a generation, Nintendo moved its input forward by a generation by bundling a Bluetooth handheld pointing device with the console. It took the other guys years to come up with Kinect and Move to match the Wii Remote.

But the major consoles are still ahead of PCs in how many simultaneous players a game will usually support. This is in part because consoles are ahead in what monitor size their makers can encourage their users to connect. Sure, using a TV as a monitor has been easy since HDTV became common starting in 2006, but home theater PCs are still a rarity for some reason. Is it usability, or is it a plain old path-dependent Catch-22?

Re:Multiple independent "generations" (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34346380)

Ohhh thats how you rollllll. Very cool of you mister 30+ years old. I give a shit. Playing games on a PC plain sucks

Bah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34345920)

I'm not sure what planet Cevat Yerli lives on, but last time I checked the content of a game was paramount. If indie games (and the success of some indie game devs) prove anything, it's that brilliant content will always trump brilliant graphics. In any case, I'll *never* buy a game from a company run by someone as retarded as this guy. All real gamers know that content comes first, graphics come second. What a douche.

Seriously? (-1, Troll)

DogDude (805747) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346006)

Seriously? Ahead of consoles? You've got to be kidding me. I can slap a disc in a $300 box with no buttons, and play it. I don't care what PC games look like or play like, because the experience is ruined before the power cord is attached. Hundreds of dollars for video cards, extra memory, high-end CPU's? You gotta be kidding me. That's a horrible experience.

Unless the game isn't for your console (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346194)

I can slap a disc in a $300 box with no buttons, and play it.

Unless the game isn't for your $300 console. Imagine that your friend has recommended a PC game to you. You check the developer's web site to see if a version is available for your console, but you find that the developer has posted a rejection notice from the console maker. Various overheads associated with becoming an authorized console game developer are part of why indie games tend to be PC exclusive. Even among major-label games, many are exclusive to a console you don't have, and by the time you've bought all three consoles, you've spent more than a gaming PC costs.

Hundreds of dollars for video cards, extra memory, high-end CPU's? You gotta be kidding me.

Yeah, it is silly, especially when a $300 ION nettop with a GeForce 9400 GPU can run indie games, older games, and even some newer games at lower graphics settings.

It took 4 years (1)

Henriok (6762) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346030)

I'm not at all surprised that he believes that todays high end gaming rigs are one generation ahead of the consoles. They are four years old after all.. What a shocker. Pushing more pixels through a GPU doesn't constitute innovation though. What have Crytek done but yet another FPS? *yawn*

Re:It took 4 years (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346080)

It's also an issue of market. High-end game PCs make up only a small part of the whole PC market. If you indeed did make games that required the horsepower of a $2000 gaming machine, I doubt you would see much profit. Yes, technically consoles are a generation behind, but if you're looking at selling lots and lots of copies, you want stable hardware specs. Most PC games are probably sitting in the generation, or at least half-generation, behind the full throttle systems as well, simply because you want as large a market as possible, and so have to have at least some level of playability on mid-range PCs. The same rules apply.

I fail to see what hardware has to do with creativity anyways. Yes, better specs can certainly improve graphics, but that's only one piece of the puzzle.

Re:It took 4 years (1)

ADRA (37398) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346324)

I think you'll find that any PC being sold the last few years has higher system specs than any console today as long as the PC was sold with any sort of discrete video card. I've got a PC that plays modern PC games and it cost me around $700. Because I can do so, much of that cost won't be renewed because I can reuse several of the pieces for my next generation or even the one after that.

"I fail to see what hardware has to do with creativity anyways"
Hardware doesn't in itself encourage creativity, but it sure can stifle it. If I want to create an amazing live action CG rendering of something fantastic and beautiful, it would suck if my engine supported a max of 10 objects on the screen at once. Bad example, but the analogy still applies. Unlimited hardware allows artists and designers a wider canvas to express themselves and the potential restriction of said expression is frustrating. Imagine you were Square developer making final fantasy XIII and your boss tells you: "Oh, by the way Yoshi, this has to run on a Wii since we decided to do a 3 console release." The designer would be rolling over in frustration, or else you'd have 15 DVD's with all pre-rendered scenes for everything, and the game can only be played on rails, etc..

Its not multiple platforms thats hampering gaming (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346042)

its consoles. they are too locked in, and their companies do not put out new generations often. that is why the console market is dragging ALL gaming behind. developers are having to accommodate consoles that are a few years behind in technology.

not to mention the horrible, flat-out fascist attitude of the console producers towards any kind of free development, improvement, or modding on their devices.

really, it would be better if they are totally dropped.

Re:Its not multiple platforms thats hampering gami (1)

luther349 (645380) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346152)

you mean like 82 to 86 when the c64 was the domment gaming system and it was a pc. gotta rember consoles died in the early 80s. it wasn't until nintendo came alone with the nes that consoles got revived. and it wasn't no easy task for nintendo they tried for years before it got accepted by the usa people. gotta rember 30 million c64s where sold and that number still hasn't been beat for any single pc model to this day. so we have been there and done that with success. the problem now is we dont make soft where for each pc model anymore theirs to many different models out there. so they tend to try to taler to all of them for the last 3 years or so.

How about some evidence (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346048)

Yerli makes these sweeping statements... and then we have this:

Yerli's comments come alongside news of Crytek's announcement of a new military-based shooter called Warface.

Please tell me - how is all that extra PC horsepower being used in a way that's not possible on a console? I know all these "shoot people in the head" games are immensely popular... but come on! The same sorts of games exist on the XBox 360 and PS3 and look really, really good - so it's certainly not graphics performance or computations per second that's a limitation.

No, as others have pointed out: The limitation is the lack of creativity on the part of most developers. I can't blame them for going where the money is, but they need to at least put some thought into how their shoot 'em in the head game could set itself apart from the hundreds of other shoot 'em in the head titles already on the market. And, no - making the graphics slightly more realistic than the almost-lifelike games already out there is not a meaningful difference, nor is it innovative in the least.

Re:How about some evidence (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346094)

The limitation is the lack of creativity on the part of most developers.

But that's largely because most games these days are developed for consoles, which means lowest common denominator design and limited in scope to be able to run on antiquated hardware.

Re:How about some evidence (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346320)

Textures beyond 640p, world size, number of monsters, AI ect are all moving to the top end on a PC. You have to meet some min stats but the top end is open to the creativity and coders to really push the limits of what Windows and opengl can offer.
With a console all your doing is locking into 5 yr old tech and staying at a low level within that tech range.
A constant trade off rather than anything new to show off.
Your over hyped console cannot do "almost-lifelike games" without really dropping in many other areas.

talking hardware here, not current games (5, Insightful)

Nyder (754090) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346102)

Think a lot of people are missing the point here.

They are talking about hardware, not what the current PC games compare to their console counter parts.

See, this is the problem. PC are capable of so more, yet we get a dumbed down console port instead of a game tailored to the extra stuff modern PC's can bring you.

Most PS3 & 360 games are barely 720p, usually less. Crappy AA on them, etc.

Modern PC can do the 1080p, max AA and not break a sweet. And not break your bank. Get a Nvidia 460 1gb card for $200 and you got yourself a nice card that kicks ass.

And yes, I'm a gamer. Been so for 30+ years. I prefer my PC for gaming (even got me 3D Vision, which rocks), but I do have a Xbox 360 (jtag'd), a Wii (softmodded) and will have a PS3 whenever I get enough money for it (ya, and I'll hack it also, because that's how i roll).

It's funny, because I remember when arcade games were the better graphics systems, and computers & consoles tried to be that good. Then the computers surpassed both the consoles & arcade games. And we, the computer gamers have been paying for it ever since.

(sorry, when the PS3 & 360 game out, their graphics weren't really on par with computers, they were already behind, and it's a bigger gap now).

Re:talking hardware here, not current games (1)

ADRA (37398) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346332)

What really makes me sad these days aren't so much the graphical sacrifices that PC gamers have to suffer from, its the control limitations. Whenever I play Mass Effect, I feel like punching the developers, because its perfectly clear that whomever designed it was only targeting console game play mechanics.

Re:talking hardware here, not current games (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346342)

What really makes me sad these days aren't so much the graphical sacrifices that PC gamers have to suffer from, its the control limitations. Whenever I play Mass Effect, I feel like punching the developers, because its perfectly clear that whomever designed it was only targeting console game play mechanics.

I agree. I hate over the shoulder games. In fact, some of them make me sick to my stomach (Dead Space is one that does that).

I think they don't want to have people think the game is a first person shooter, when in reality, that is what the game is.

The way it should be (1)

drej (1663541) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346140)

"(...)we believe the quality of the games beyond Crysis 2 and other CryEngine developments will be pretty much limited to what their creative expressions is, what the content is."

The way it should be.

Generational Gaps Depend on Niche or Mass Market (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34346208)

I would agree that there is a generational gap between true gaming PCs and consoles. That's always going to be the case. The upgrade and refresh cycles of gaming PCs are going to be much shorter than consoles. However, the console market is much larger than the true gaming PC market. In order to expand the market beyond this niche, game developers have to target "standard" PCs, and that is where the variability is hardware capabilities is an issue. If I develop a game for a console, every user is going to have essentially the same hardware (storage and peripherals may differ, but the core product is the same). Microsoft has tried to address this with WinSAT scores and games for Windows certifications, etc. However, at some point game developers have to compromise on a common denominator for hardware specs. To match the size of the console market, my guess is that the PC specifications would be comparable to or possibly less powerful than the latest generation of consoles (XBox 360, PS3).

Interesting (2, Insightful)

vampirbg (1092525) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346220)

Maybe someone should tell him that it's the GAMEPLAY that matters, not flashy graphics. I never did like Crytek's games because they felt more like tech demos that real games. Also, consoles have one more advantage. If I want to play a game I just stick the disk in and that's it. No worries if my drivers are current, or if my combination of mb+graphics would cause a problem etc. Also it's much cheaper to be a gamer on the consoles. Sure, the games are more expensive but ask yourself how often do you have to upgrade you machine? I did it every 6-12 months and each time i spend around $500 on it (new mb, new graphics and usually a new cpu) just so I could play the latest games with details on max

Maybe it is time that PCs learned from Consoles (1)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34346272)

A PC beats a Console in almost every way. It can play games just like a console, there are online stores like Steam, plus it has other features like word processing, etc. But why do people buy Consoles? Because they turn on fast and they work in your lounge easily! So someone needs to make a Desktop OS that also works well for lounge gaming and has instant on. Huge opportunity right there.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...