4 years...:(

Jono8

Jono8

Jono8

Caporegime
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
41,028
Location
Surrey
So, i finally got round to getting Battlefield 3 and started playing the single player campaign. Now don't get me wrong, the graphics are fantastic but when I got to the bit where you are on the aircraft carrier (before getting into the jet) i just thought "where have i seen this before". My answer was ofcourse.. oh yes, 4 years ago in Crysis. I mean it looks almost exactly the same graphics wise.

"So what" i hear you say. Well, it just bugged me a bit that in 4 years, graphics don't seem to have moved on much, if at all. To be honest i think Battlefield 3 has Crysis beat in some areas of its tech/graphics but really, they are very similar in terms of graphics fidelity.

Now obviously this is very much down to the fact that in the console world, we still have consoles filled with 2005 technology.

Also, as a side note I read today that the longevity of this console generation is hurting retail stores as well:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15796585

"Analysts say High Street videogame retailers are struggling because of competition from stores on the internet and a lack of new hardware releases."

I guess i would really like to see some sort of effort from game developers to keep pushing graphics technology to the limit all the time rather than getting bogged down for 6-8 years or shorter gaps between new console hardware.

This is a bit of rambling thread with not a lot of point, but i hope some can relate :p

I think it's more about my shock at just how similar those two moments in both games looked!
 
Last edited:
There's only so much you can get out of rasterization based engines, before the time and money consumed making the engine (rather than a game, which is a much better money maker) becomes too much.

Its just a lot worse nowadays, due to the complexity.

Of course Nvidia certainly don't want anyone to move on to ray-tracing, so that slows that down.

I guess its better having a monopoly/duopoly that are stuck in their ways to having several companies go in so many directions, nobody could support them all and so on.

But that doesn't mean that we should just ignore the faults of the two slumbering giants.
 
Last edited:
as much as i would like to see some next gen consoles the economy just isnt ready for it. not many people could afford to slash out on a ~£300 console + all the other stuff needed for it right now
 
Unfortunately games driven by commercial factors, and console games make people a lot more money. Furthermore consoles are reaching a peak in tech at the moment, as the average user isn't going to notice the difference in a game with 4xAA or 16xAA for example, so for a casual gamer the price of upgrading for a little change noticed by the consumer is becoming less justified. There's way more money in gimmicks just as wii's, kinects, tablets, exercise etc. PC gamers will just hope for extra settings and mods on top of the console ports, that's about it really.
 
crysis 1 is still better looking than bf3
crysis 2 is but very similar
bfbc2 is in my op and also has the feel of a pc game unlike bf3 which to me feels console.

some may dissagree but go look at the little textures and finer details that bf3 lacks that are in crysis bfbc2 and so on.

for the performance you get of the game its very unoptimised .

the games fun but no brilliant . see how patches go and what they bring to the plate.
 
Crysis is a bad example. The game was well ahead of its time, so of course it would take a few years for other games to catch up.

4 years ago if you'd seen crysis, you wouldn't have been worried, would you? :D
 
crysis is given too much credit at this point, while the raw shader tech and texture detail was impressive, animation and effects have actually moved on a lot, the rag doll was laughable even then.
 
So 4 years ago out came a game which was more advanced than any other for it's time. 4 years down the line people are only just catching up? So if criysis was released lately and it looked like the best game you could buy (as it did when it firstcame out) then it would look amazingly real:eek:
 
the industry is past that point of diminishing returns now though, they don't need a bigger investment into graphics tech to make the games sell, look at activision or blizzard.
 
TheCenturion said:
Crysis is a bad example. The game was well ahead of its time, so of course it would take a few years for other games to catch up.

4 years ago if you'd seen crysis, you wouldn't have been worried, would you? :D
Click to expand...


Exactly

It took years for normal people to be able to afford Rigs that could max out crysis.

They produced a game that nobody could run properly. Utterly, utterly stupid.

That Dice have released a game that todays computers are actually capable of playing, we should be grateful.

Plus Gameplay > Graphics tbh.
 
Retail chains that base their entire business on video games, CDs, and DVDs alone are doomed to fail as this business is just far too competitive these days with estores and supermarkets taking up so many customers. Stores which focus in media alone will never be able to compete against Tesco / Asda / Amazon / Play / Steam / Digital downloads in the long run as they simply dont sell enough variety of products and dont even have as good customer service or support.
 
Reaper 392 said:
as much as i would like to see some next gen consoles the economy just isnt ready for it. not many people could afford to slash out on a ~£300 console + all the other stuff needed for it right now
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with that when I see in another thread people rushing out and spending £5-600 on the latest mobile phone, which personally I find crazy.

A new gen console would sell well, no matter about the recession.
 
Freakbro said:
Not sure I agree with that when I see in another thread people rushing out and spending £5-600 on the latest mobile phone, which personally I find crazy.

A new gen console would sell well, no matter about the recession.
Click to expand...

"well"

does not mean

"it would sell by the bucket load and make them a fortune"

Until that happens they won't bother. There is no point in releasing a console only a few million can afford. Not whilst they are making large profits still from the current consoles.

it doesnt make financial sense.
 
I think you are being a little pedantic on the interpretation of "well" :)

The development cycle of new products is broadly set anyway, the billions have already been spent on the R&D of the ps4, and development of the ps5 & 6 has already started.

So after spending all those billions on the latest hardware, they are unlikely to sit on it for 2,3,5,10 years while it becomes obsolete to wait for the west to come out of recession are they, that would not make financial sense either.

I was just querying the assertion that people wouldn't find the money for the ps4, I think they would, the games industry is still very healthy. Plus you have the booming economies in the BRIC countries, many millions of sales there :)
 
It has to make you wonder. In that time i have effectively upgraded every component in my PC 3 times. Also, all of the recent major PC releases are primarily made to run on 5 or 6 year old consoles without too much of a graphical disparity. Game play definitely hasn’t improved dramatically as i remember having months of fun in Battlefield 2 but find myself already growing tired of its dumbed down younger brother.

Philosophically i find myself wondering if i spend thousands of pounds for the privilege of playing with a keyboard and mouse.
 
McDan said:
Philosophically i find myself wondering if i spend thousands of pounds for the privilege of playing with a keyboard and mouse.
Click to expand...

The machine I do most of my gaming on hasn't had a penny spent on it for about three years. E8400, GTX260, 4GB, runs everything I throw at it at 1600x1200. Hang on, I tell a lie. I wore out its mouse last year because of Minecraft.

I do have a 2500k setup, but that's only used for three screen flight or racing sims. It's pure luxury and totally unnecessary... like most PC upgrades. A little self discipline goes a long way in this hobby. :-)
 
dmcg said:
are you kidding me , seriously?
Click to expand...

I'd agree with Vorhees comment. It was, at best, a very generic FPS with some pretty graphics thrown in. Then when it goes to the generic Alien assault (ala Farcry) it also does exactly what Farcry did and goes massively down hill.

I've been playing games for decades and I consider Crysis the very definition of average.

Back on topic I'd agree that graphics haven't really moved on much - looking in the past you do need a lull before next gen as then people have caught up on the hardware required to run them. Not many game companies are going to put out a game that 1% of the community can run.



M.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom