Random Gaming Thoughts

[RCBH928]

The PS4 came out six years ago. So this is the normal time for an announcement of a successor.

in historic time frame yes, but we are missing the point that historically the technology was at a much more basic level and it was developing in a hyper state, giving much more capability and power performance every few years. This can not be seen more evident than Wolfenstein 3D (1992) and Quake(1996). I just don't see any extra gain this time around... unless its something to do with VR or AR.

[MrPopo]

From the customer's end there is a diminishing return on the technological progress, but from a development end they do still need the hardware leaps regularly because the runtime performance of the code is more and more demanding. We're at a point where it takes much more processing power for a smaller apparent gain to the customer.

[marurun]

Power is still growing dramatically. We're just as the point right now that "generational" change in graphics and/or interaction requires exponentially more power at times. When you're in the early stages of a market there's always the appearance of more rapid development. Still, a lot of what devs are starting to do on PC they cannot do on the current generation of consoles. In order to do that kind of graphical and design work in the console space, they need a new generation of console hardware.

[pook99]

I agree that PS5 seems kind of too soon, I get the timeframe and all but I just have no desire for any new systems right now. In fairness I only bought my ps4 2 years ago so I am kind of behind the curve.

[dsnell99]

I agree it's too early for PS5 and Scarlett or whatever xbox is calling it. The main thing driving the upgrade is graphical ptocessing. But while games are looking incredible on these new systems, not once have i been like, omg, i have to get this new system for that game. So why come in ut with a new system to drive those graphics for nky incrementally. It's not like the jump from ps1 to ps2 or even ps3. But I'm (and i would say most people into retro gaming) not the target audience.

I don't think there have been as many console defining games this generation.
They're there, but gaming is changing. Games as a service is what makes the money right now. So while I hope they keep making Resident Evil VIIs and The Last of Us Part IIs, it aint gonna be like before. That's why my most recent system is the wii u (or new 3ds xl). I will eventually get a switch for some of those big N IPs, but that dont make the world go round no more.

[MrPopo]

It's not just graphics; it's overall game scale. Simulating large worlds is very computationally taxing, even if large amounts of that simulation is happening off screen (and thus doesn't hit the render pipeline).

[marurun]

Even early in the current generation devs were complaining about CPU power for physics and AI. The AMD Jaguar cores are not IPC monsters. Newer systems based on more recent AMD CPU tech, though? Definitely more headroom for fuller worlds.

[isiolia]

Even early in the current generation devs were complaining about CPU power for physics and AI. The AMD Jaguar cores are not IPC monsters. Newer systems based on more recent AMD CPU tech, though? Definitely more headroom for fuller worlds.

Yeah, definitely the case. New machines will be a lot more robust. There's also a lot of room for improvement with respect to taking advantage of current or upcoming tech - jumping to 4k and HDR now tends to be a pretty big performance impact on games that support it (usually as an option, like in Shadow of the Tomb Raider), and next year I think we'll start seeing variable refresh rate support become more common in the living room.

If, as it seems so far, the PS5 and next XBox have seamless support for PS4/Xbox One games, in a similar fashion to PS4/One X, then I think they'll be a pretty easy purchase. Especially for those that don't already have the upgraded consoles. It sucks to "reset" the library with a new generation, but upgrading your backlog? That's kind of a different thing.

[RCBH928]

It's not just graphics; it's overall game scale. Simulating large worlds is very computationally taxing, even if large amounts of that simulation is happening off screen (and thus doesn't hit the render pipeline).

I think we are at a point where we should think "not can we, but should we" ? Those large endless worlds and complex games are not really more fun than simple retro games. Bigger and badder is not more fun. Indeed, I find a lot of big games overwhelming because now I have to complete it in 30hrs+ and learn all the rules, controls, and tips to master it and the maps and the weapons etc etc. I won't lie though, there was a time when I wanted to play an open world living game where every building is a house that i can enter, and every shop is a place I can go in and interact with.

I am playing PS3 and the games are more than large enough, and the graphics are impressive to me...yes impressive. I may be getting old, but I feel whatever "Extra" the computational power is giving the newer generations is not sensed by the end consumer. They may exist, but so far all the games I heard on ps4/xboxone could have a ps3/360 version that are just as good.

Which brings me to another random realisation... Rockstar still have not released GTAVI for this generation.

If, as it seems so far, the PS5 and next XBox have seamless support for PS4/Xbox One games, in a similar fashion to PS4/One X, then I think they'll be a pretty easy purchase. Especially for those that don't already have the upgraded consoles. It sucks to "reset" the library with a new generation, but upgrading your backlog? That's kind of a different thing.

I am with you, I skipped on the current generation but if the next one is backward compatible its worth the purchase. Not only as a gaming console but its worth it as a media player, the controller that you can use on mobile devices, and I am going to bet they will be able to run all the beefy current gen. PC games easy like Cyberpunk.
If for some reason Xbox will be able to run PC games, and many of the older PC games will be playable or ported and it has keyboard mouse support, I am jumping head first.

But I don't think they will be backward compatible, my understanding is that consoles are specifically built in a way to maximize their custom hardware and hence are not backwards compatible. For the most part, no console could run the prior's games except ps1->ps2 and ps1->ps3 . I was told the only reason PS3 could run PS2 games, because there was a small PS2 inside it that they dropped in later iterations.

Well...There is the NGC->Wii, but the Wii was a beefed up NGC or am I wrong?

[pook99]

@RCBH: I completely agree, I don't know what it is but I find that more often than not newer games tend to just bore me. I still think I enjoy good modern action games, I just finished gears 5 and loved DMC 5 earlier in the year, but I find anything with even a hint of open world is just too boring and long to keep my attention, unfortunately many games are swaying in that direction and with bigger hardware means bigger worlds, bigger fetch quests, more npc's, more dialogue trees, and more of everything that just makes me want to play an old game.

I was off yesterday and bought valfaris, which is a hardcore heavy metal meets contra style of game. I played it for somewhere between 4-5 hours before I beat it and I never got bored and only stopped to do stuff like eat and use the bathroom. I booted up vampyr for the first time tonight, played it for like 30 minutes and was just thinking of mega man the whole time so I stopped playing and booted up the original mega man instead.

I'm out the point in my life where AAA games are one of 2 extremes, either I love them and get completely addicted or I get bored of them and just stop playing with very little middle ground. Anyone else feel this way or am I just an old man?