Support NeoGAF

[ACESHIGH]

While I can understand everyone being hyped for the next gen consoles and PC HW refreshes with mammoth specs, I can't help but notice the following:

Most of the next gen catalog will be comprised of games that could have been released on current generation consoles equivalent pc HW, or even worse.

Budgets and not specs have been the real constraints since the Xbox one and PS4 were released. 2d Metroidvanias, walking simulators and tired pixel art games will still flood PSN xbox live and steam.

We will be buying Ferraris to drive them on a crowded city environment vs an open road or a race track.

Just my 2 cents. Hopefully we can see more AA single player games this generation. Like we had until the ps2 era. You could tell those games had lower budgets but still looked like a current generation game. The indie boom started on the 7th gen was not enough to replace all the AA studios lost

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

In my opinion, the gap between what can be done technically and what each developer can actually do with the new consoles’ potential was already gigantic during last gen, and it’s only going to get wider.

More and more powerful tech being mostly used to push photorealism has done enormous damage in regard to people’s expectations and perception about video games. Remember how many people on GAF scoffed at indies during the 7th gen? It can only get worse.

Apart from Nintendo in less demanding games like Animal Crossing and some other devs with high-budget projects like Bloodstained, I’m not seeing many devs capable of even pushing competent PS2-level graphics. Of course stuff like Hollow Knight would have probably been impossible even a generation earlier, but it doesn’t look like it. No 2D game can make people guess the amount of work behind it when you have stuff like Horizon and TLOU2 around. And that kind of stuff can only be achieved by huge studios with humongous budgets through years and years of effort and crunch. But those games set the bar so high, there’s basically no chance for anyone else to achieve “AA” like we used to call it before 2005. Hell, Nintendo games are barely considered AA by some people these days based on resolution and framerate alone. AAA these days is more about production values than anything else; concept, design, execution and gameplay don’t amount to much if your game is 2D or, “worse”, pixel art. There’s no way the majority of devs can fill that gap - current gen lasted 7 years and we’re still getting a slate of 16-bit lookalikes and low-poly 3D stuff that looks at best 2 generations behind.

This is also the reason why so many AAA are either photorealistic simulations, or cinematic adventures with an emphasis on narrative, scripted events, spectacular views, and bloat, with very little gameplay innovation. Tech is the real showcase for these games because that’s what lures people into gaming, and when graphics and sound absorb so much of the budget, there’s little interest, time and money towards doing something radically new with gameplay. People never cared that early FIFA games played like shit so far as the graphics looked cutting edge and you could listen to real-life sports commentators while using players that looked and were named like their real counterparts. It’s still like that in most AAA games today.

 

[namekuseijin]

I'll tell you this: inFamous Second Son came a few months after PS4 release and was mighty impressive. In fact, Miles Morales looks much like it, without actually doing the same for much stronger hardware...

but tbh, countless generations later, I'm much less impressed with more pixels, more colors, more polygons etc. Specially as gameplay remains same old crap.

 

[yurinka]

All generations start with weaker games: some of them are crossgen, some of them were games planned for next gen and were delayed so ended in the next gen, or are launch window games developed during the majority of its production without even knowing the final specs of the consoles so aren't sure about what key points are they going to have, and for companies who make their own engines focus more in adapting the engine to the new console than in the games themselves. Obviously these 1st gen games don't take advantage of the new hardware.

But after 2 or 3 years or so you'll start seeing the first games designed for the new hardware knowing its specs since the start and maybe already published a game so learn from the experience. These are the 2nd gen games, and some of they start to look better than anything you have in your PC.

 

[gypsygib]

I don't know, Black Myth Wukong has been one of the most impressive next-gen games I've seen and that's technically indie. While it must be from a VERY talented dev, if that's what qualifies as Indie, I'm hopeful.

AA may have its heyday this gen. If people stop complaining about recycled assets/asset libraries, devs can focus on gameplay and use more existing resources to build beautiful worlds/graphics.

 

[Neff]

I expect PS5 to replicate the launch of PS4 in many ways.

I also expect to buy a PS5 a year after launch like I did with PS4.

 

[MiguelItUp]

I think a lot of people were expecting more out of this next-gen, and don't get me wrong, we're going to see some amazing stuff. But a lot of it is going to focus on better load times, sharper graphics/better resolutions, and RTX effects.

However, I think some folks are expecting even more than that. I can't help but imagine that we'll get to the point where those people may be expecting until the gen after the next one.

 

[Yoboman]

I've seen some stunning looking games from Indies due to middleware like Unreal Engine having gotten so good

The PS5 streams have already given a great amount of space for indie devs as well

 

[TKOFromTokyo]

You might see a change in things as this generation goes. The indie stuff that you’re complaining about is likely people inspired by nostalgia for games that they played and the market demand. However, as the PS2 young kids get older and have more income, the inspirations and demands are likely to shift.

 

[Rudius]

PS3 to PS4 had practically no jump in CPU and storage performance, so the games looked better, but played mostly the same.

This time we are getting a great jump in those areas (PS5's storage is basically 2 generations ahead of PS4), thus opening up the possibility of different types of games, not simply better graphics.

 

[Alebrije]

Think it works on both sides , indies and small developers have the chance to achieve nice looking and good performance games due to cheaper tools ; on the other side AAA game developers like Ubi, EA, Activision use less imagination on their games , they just improve graphics and some gameplay actions but nothing that surprises anymore.

So I guess Big developers need to improve creativity because the tools are there for all. The problem with them is that they need to generate tons of money so risk on new ideas or IP is most of time discarted.

 

[Dr.Morris79]

I just want my snazzy Minecraft..

 

[Velius]

Demon's Souls looks like it should be high end PS4/XB1 software. Fight me.

 

[molasar]

tired pixel art games will still flood PSN xbox live and steam.

Are you crazy? Good pixel art games are rare and take a long time to make e.g. Huntdown, Xeno Crisis.

 

[FunkMiller]

Demon's Souls looks like it should be high end PS4/XB1 software. Fight me.

Nah. The LOD and graphics fidelity are way beyond what either can do. Also ray tracing, higher grade volumetric lighting etc. etc. And alsomthe loading speeds. Seriously, compare Dark Souls 3 with the Demon’s Souls footage. The difference is clear.

 

[Vick]

Demon's Souls looks like it should be high end PS4/XB1 software. Fight me.

Sure, that’s why it’s graphics caused such reactions from PC gamers, lmao:










The face everyone made when gameplay started is downright hilarious. Mine included.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Asset generation is mighty expensive. I agree, it's the bottleneck and has been for awhile.

 

[Chiggs]

Demon's Souls looks so goddamn good that even snobby PC gamers like myself are all:

 

[Birdo]

Sony and MS are chasing power while Nintendo steamrolls them with Wii-U games.

 

[N30RYU]

The nextgen elephant in the room is if we are willingly transitioning to an all digital future being held hostage of what companies want us to pay.

 

[cryptoadam]

Next gen machines are not powerful enough to see a difference. We aren't there yet because graphics were so good last gen. Look at games like RDR2 or Avengers. These are already highly detailed games, so to get that next upgrade gonna need really powerful CPU/GPU where we are looking at photorealistic graphics. Also character models are key, and I am not seeing improvement so far. So if your charcater model looks like a PS4 game it makes it less impressive.

Next gen is all about RT and 4K, thats what all the power in GPUs is going to. Well if you don't have a 4K TV that doesn't make a difference. And even though RT is a great feature, the techniques they have today are still very good and its hard for even tech geeks to quickly call out RT vs SSAO. Its why on DF they are always having to look for little tricks to tell the difference, now imagine a layman just looking at the game.

 

[Chiggs]

Sony and MS are chasing power while Nintendo steamrolls them with Wii-U games.

Wii U was ahead of it's time, quite frankly. The Switch is basically just that in a better form factor. Nintendo had the right idea; the execution was just a bit flawed.

 

[Tschumi]

Diminishing returns. You're asking consoles to play a game they can't win. Do you really think that they can make a game that is to RDR2 what a PS3 game was to a PS2 game? No, the gaps aren't that big anymore.

Will it look better? Absolutely. Especially on PS5, everything will be more dense, more animated, more detailed and rendered more quickly. Levels will be bigger and more open. But will main character models, which have always been very minutely detailed, look like mgs2 vs mgs1? Don't be unfair.

 

[Trimesh]

Wii U was ahead of it's time, quite frankly. The Switch is basically just that in a better form factor. Nintendo had the right idea; the execution was just a bit flawed.

I never understood the level of hate the WiiU got - it had a bunch of interesting ideas and some excellent games. But still sold really poorly. I don't regret getting mine at all.

 

[Chiggs]

I never understood the level of hate the WiiU got - it had a bunch of interesting ideas and some excellent games. But still sold really poorly. I don't regret getting mine at all.

I have two of them. Love the Wii U.

 

[Neff]

Wii U was ahead of it's time, quite frankly. The Switch is basically just that in a better form factor. Nintendo had the right idea; the execution was just a bit flawed.

Wii U tried to be two platforms at the same time- a HD Wii and a prototype Switch, which were late and early to the market respectively.

I loved the thing. Miiverse was I think its true masterstroke and I'm sad they got rid of it.

Sony and MS are chasing power while Nintendo steamrolls them with Wii-U games.

It seems surreal saying it like that but you're not actually far off.

 

[Hunnybun]

Diminishing returns. You're asking consoles to play a game they can't win. Do you really think that they can make a game that is to RDR2 what a PS3 game was to a PS2 game? No, the gaps aren't that big anymore.

Will it look better? Absolutely. Especially on PS5, everything will be more dense, more animated, more detailed and rendered more quickly. Levels will be bigger and more open. But will main character models, which have always been very minutely detailed, look like mgs2 vs mgs1? Don't be unfair.

The counter to that argument is that PS2 games were extremely impressive compared to PS1 games, but still very ugly in an absolute sense.

With PS5 that situation is reversed. Which is the more important, the relative increase or the absolute standard? Hard to say.

But the drooling reactions to Demon's Souls, despite it only looking relatively similar to very beautiful current gen games like God of War or The Lost Legacy, suggests that the absolute standard is pretty damn important.

 

[Tschumi]

The counter to that argument is that PS2 games were extremely impressive compared to PS1 games, but still very ugly in an absolute sense.

With PS5 that situation is reversed. Which is the more important, the relative increase or the absolute standard? Hard to say.

But the drooling reactions to Demon's Souls, despite it only looking relatively similar to very beautiful current gen games like God of War or The Lost Legacy, suggests that the absolute standard is pretty damn important.

I think demon's souls, like many remasters, is somewhat held back by the aged graphics it's built upon in many ways.. i wouldn't hold it as an example for this kind of thing..

I think this ps2 games being ugly point is... Dripping with hindsight and consequently not very relevant here. Mgs2 looked in. credible. especially compared to mgs1 from a few years earlier. Graphics these days just doesn't have so much airspace to jump up into.

 

[Bernkastel]

 

[Hunnybun]

I think demon's souls, like many remasters, is somewhat held back by the aged graphics it's built upon in many ways.. i wouldn't hold it as an example for this kind of thing..

I think this ps2 games being ugly point is... Dripping with hindsight and consequently not very relevant here. Mgs2 looked in. credible. especially compared to mgs1 from a few years earlier. Graphics these days just doesn't have so much airspace to jump up into.

It's not hindsight. Graphics have always been a facsimile of the real world, or of cartoons, or pixar films etc. They've always chased an absolute standard.

PS2 games were just very bad attempts at that recreation. But they were also WAY better attempt than PS1 games.

So the sheer improvement of MGS2 over the original was sufficient to make it impressive enough that we overlooked the fact that the graphics were actually crap, as compared to CGI, or the real world or whatever.

 

[Three]

In my opinion, the gap between what can be done technically and what each developer can actually do with the new consoles’ potential was already gigantic during last gen, and it’s only going to get wider.

More and more powerful tech being mostly used to push photorealism has done enormous damage in regard to people’s expectations and perception about video games. Remember how many people on GAF scoffed at indies during the 7th gen? It can only get worse.

The good thing is more powerful consoles means less effort to achieve the same results from the previous gen, so small teams can achieve some impressive graphics/games. Indies will be putting out some games that rival last gens games that had big publisher funding.

With optimisation the devil is in the detail and that is where a lot of dev time can go in pushing hardware. When you have a higher ceiling smaller devs can be more careless with optimisation and still ship a perfectly working game.

 

[Desudzer10]

If you compare the end games of last generation to the first set of new generation games, it'll always be minimal or not that exciting of a jump.

 

[Velius]

Sure, that’s why it’s graphics caused such reactions from PC gamers, lmao:










The face everyone made when gameplay started is downright hilarious. Mine included.

So you found some twinks on Youtube who masturbate in the lower right corner for cash. Congratulations

 

[Vick]

So you found some twinks on Youtube who masturbate in the lower right corner for cash. Congratulations

Oh sure, i see..

What about your own reaction to the gameplay then?

This looks amazing. Can't wait to see the downgraded retail!

So what are we going to do when we realize Demon's Souls remaster gets downgraded?

 

[Tschumi]

It's not hindsight. Graphics have always been a facsimile of the real world, or of cartoons, or pixar films etc. They've always chased an absolute standard.

PS2 games were just very bad attempts at that recreation. But they were also WAY better attempt than PS1 games.

So the sheer improvement of MGS2 over the original was sufficient to make it impressive enough that we overlooked the fact that the graphics were actually crap, as compared to CGI, or the real world or whatever.

i'm not trying to make an enemy here or anything, I look at this forum once a day or something at the moment and you're the only quote that I can focus on... you seem to be blind to how distorted your evaluation of graphic fidelity was at the time... I have long since realized that old games look worse and worse as the years go, heck even games from just a short time ago are starting to look pretty poor to me now - I assume that any gamer would share that realization... I don't think you're really accounting for that drift with your position on ps2 graphics.

nobody at that time expected graphics to come near pixar et al, and nobody had ever seen anything better than mgs2 on a console. The intro video of him walking along a bridge, the entire tanker section with raindrops on waves and red light trails from the soldier's NV goggles... Raiden's floppy hair... Snake's incredibly clear, 3 dimensional and expressive face. Nobody was saying 'actually this is pretty crap really' like you're proposing... The game, and others of similar quality, were celebrated as milestones in computer game graphics. It was a quantum leap over ps1, and that's that. Looking back we can say 'lol look at this shit', but that is a purely hindsight-powered exercise and it reveals nothing about the true quality of those visuals when they came out.

The whole point of me bringing up this precedent of mgs 2 vs mgs 1 is to highlight that the scope for generational graphical jumps was much larger then than it is now. That statement has nothing to do with what you actually think of PS2 games today. If you were really sitting on your couch huffing at PS2 games on release then I'll eat my own back's switch... PS2 games were the sexiest games on the market until GCN and later xBox did things differently. There was a window there - however brief - when it was the best looking console ever and at that moment it was a lightyear ahead of the previous generation.

You can't expect Goldeneye > Metroid Prime to happen again in this generation. Expecting such a clear and obvious leap is disingenuous - like I said in my OP here, you're asking consoles to play a game that they can't possibly win. So, like my OP, what I'm saying here is you expecting a generational leap in graphical fidelity this time around that is of similar magnitude to ps1>ps2, ps2>ps3 or even ps3>ps4, you're contriving a way to rubbish stuff before it is even available for genuine appraisal.

The leap between MGS 4 and MGS 5 was drastically lower than the leap between MGS 1 and 2. There was a clear leap, but it was way less pronounced. RDR and RDR2. A big, big leap, but not mgs1 snake to mgs2 snake big. Is RDR3 going to look a lightyear better than RDR2? If it's a release title for this generation? No. (of course, if there ever is an RDR3 it'll be five or six years away and definitely a big ol' jump over RDR2 - but that's got to do with Rockstar's standards more than the progression of graphics)

EDIT: Watching Digital Foundry's reaction the gran turismo video, they say that it looks very close to the previous gen iteration, only they've put in ray tracing - among a few other tweaks. I think that's likely to be the way of early-generation games. It'll be some years yet before our brains are departing through our earholes, I deem.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Demon's Souls looks like it should be high end PS4/XB1 software. Fight me.

I'm a huge Demon's Souls critic. I think anyone who buys it should get their balls clipped, but even I was thinking "Those graphics are pretty freaking good" during that last event.

Granted, after about 2-3 minutes my brain stops caring about shiny and starts realizing we're stuck with stale mechanics for the next 20+ hours...

 

[Hunnybun]

i'm not trying to make an enemy here or anything, I look at this forum once a day or something at the moment and you're the only quote that I can focus on... you seem to be blind to how distorted your evaluation of graphic fidelity was at the time... I have long since realized that old games look worse and worse as the years go, heck even games from just a short time ago are starting to look pretty poor to me now - I assume that any gamer would share that realization... I don't think you're really accounting for that drift with your position on ps2 graphics.

nobody at that time expected graphics to come near pixar et al, and nobody had ever seen anything better than mgs2 on a console. The intro video of him walking along a bridge, the entire tanker section with raindrops on waves and red light trails from the soldier's NV goggles... Raiden's floppy hair... Snake's incredibly clear, 3 dimensional and expressive face. Nobody was saying 'actually this is pretty crap really' like you're proposing... The game, and others of similar quality, were celebrated as milestones in computer game graphics. It was a quantum leap over ps1, and that's that. Looking back we can say 'lol look at this shit', but that is a purely hindsight-powered exercise and it reveals nothing about the true quality of those visuals when they came out.

The whole point of me bringing up this precedent of mgs 2 vs mgs 1 is to highlight that the scope for generational graphical jumps was much larger then than it is now. That statement has nothing to do with what you actually think of PS2 games today. If you were really sitting on your couch huffing at PS2 games on release then I'll eat my own back's switch... PS2 games were the sexiest games on the market until GCN and later xBox did things differently. There was a window there - however brief - when it was the best looking console ever and at that moment it was a lightyear ahead of the previous generation.

You can't expect Goldeneye > Metroid Prime to happen again in this generation. Expecting such a clear and obvious leap is disingenuous - like I said in my OP here, you're asking consoles to play a game that they can't possibly win. So, like my OP, what I'm saying here is you expecting a generational leap in graphical fidelity this time around that is of similar magnitude to ps1>ps2, ps2>ps3 or even ps3>ps4, you're contriving a way to rubbish stuff before it is even available for genuine appraisal.

The leap between MGS 4 and MGS 5 was drastically lower than the leap between MGS 1 and 2. There was a clear leap, but it was way less pronounced. RDR and RDR2. A big, big leap, but not mgs1 snake to mgs2 snake big. Is RDR3 going to look a lightyear better than RDR2? If it's a release title for this generation? No. (of course, if there ever is an RDR3 it'll be five or six years away and definitely a big ol' jump over RDR2 - but that's got to do with Rockstar's standards more than the progression of graphics)

I don't really know how to respond other than to say you haven't listened to a word I wrote.

My point is simply that computer graphics can be judged along two dimensions: absolute quality, and their quality relative to the previous generation, or something along those lines.

That doesn't mean MGS 2 or Mario 64 weren't extremely impressive at the time, and I never said anything to the contrary.

 

[MarkMe2525]

While I can understand everyone being hyped for the next gen consoles and PC HW refreshes with mammoth specs, I can't help but notice the following:

Most of the next gen catalog will be comprised of games that could have been released on current generation consoles equivalent pc HW, or even worse.

Budgets and not specs have been the real constraints since the Xbox one and PS4 were released. 2d Metroidvanias, walking simulators and tired pixel art games will still flood PSN xbox live and steam.

We will be buying Ferraris to drive them on a crowded city environment vs an open road or a race track.

Just my 2 cents. Hopefully we can see more AA single player games this generation. Like we had until the ps2 era. You could tell those games had lower budgets but still looked like a current generation game. The indie boom started on the 7th gen was not enough to replace all the AA studios lost

I agree. I believe there will be only a few generation defining games in that sense. The ones that stand out will probably be heavy in physics simulation mechanics or really lean on and use the ssd in novel ways.

 

[Tschumi]

My point is simply that computer graphics can be judged along two dimensions: absolute quality, and their quality relative to the previous generation, or something along those lines.

I understood this perfectly. I'm telling you that if you're looking at their quality relative to the previous generation, you're going to see far less of a jump than previous generations, so you're setting the games up for a rubbishing. Again, GT for this generation only looks a slip more impressive than GT Sport from last gen. That's the reality we're dealing with here.

I'm talking about this popular picture ^^^ you saying that this generation has an elephant in the room in that it doesn't look much better than last generation is purely an exploitation of the last two images above.

 

[Velius]

Oh sure, i see..

What about your own reaction to the gameplay then?

Might take some deduction skills on your part but I'm not really all that impressed.

 

[Zannegan]

Wii U was ahead of it's time, quite frankly. The Switch is basically just that in a better form factor. Nintendo had the right idea; the execution was just a bit flawed.

More than a bit.

Better battery life, a better form factor for the controller (OG Nvidia Shield's design might have worked), a screen in every controller instead of just one, and the hardware to actually support that many wireless streams might have made the Wii U concept a success instead of a complete mess. Of course, screen-controllers could just be an inherently undesirable core feature/gimmick to sell a console based on--we'll never know for sure. Even if they had wanted to do all of that though, I don't think they could have delivered it affordably in 2010.

That's why I've gradually come around to the idea that Pachter was right (sigh) about a Wii HD. Imagine if, four years into the generation, they had launched a Wii U-level box with the Wii remote plus and a wireless nunchuck as the new standard controller. It would have played all the old favorites, only upscaled to fit your HD TV, and even had a few HD patches and exclusives to justify the jump for gamers.

Such a box would have let Nintendo ride out the generation with at least some of their Wii momentum and transition into HD development more gracefully. It also would have given them a chance to do a proper take on the Wii U concept or, better yet, skip directly to a Switch a couple of years after the launch of PS4/XB1. Pach' is dead wrong more often than he's right (on his show anyway), but he called that one correctly, IMO.

 

[njean777]

While I really don't care about graphics that much, I just want better load times, graphics can be stylized and whatever but just the load times is what bothers me now. Hopefully the SSD's in the new consoles will negate that. I still run on 1080p, but am still picking up a XSX at launch.

I think this gen will bring more particle effects and such that wow most people. More power gives better effects.

 

[Neo_game]

Once we are done with current gen, SS gets discontinued in couple of years time and PS5 and X target 1440P we are going to get very impressive games. Sadly that is unlikely to happen.

 

[Hunnybun]

I understood this perfectly. I'm telling you that if you're looking at their quality relative to the previous generation, you're going to see far less of a jump than previous generations, so you're setting the games up for a rubbishing. Again, GT for this generation only looks a slip more impressive than GT Sport from last gen. That's the reality we're dealing with here.

I'm talking about this popular picture ^^^ you saying that this generation has an elephant in the room in that it doesn't look much better than last generation is purely an exploitation of the last two images above.

I don't really know why you're taking issue with what I wrote.

I agree that this generation's relative jump is minor compared to previous ones, but I'm saying that because the absolute quality of the visuals is so good these days, people can still find them extremely impressive - note the huge praise given to Demon's Souls, which imo doesn't look that much better than something like God of War.

That's all I'm saying. I honestly don't understand what your complaint is with that point.

 

[Life]

Thankfully the future of gaming isn't in the hands of these AAA studios who are still milking the same franchises, using the same game design/ideas and just changing the colours around, overcharging each customer because their stupid marketing cost them a lot.

Increasingly, it's becoming easier for small studios to release high quality games - and this will continue to get easier and more popular. Look at today's most popular genre, battle royale - it's made by consumers/gamers.

 

[LordCBH]

I mean pretty much every launch title from this gen was doable on PS3 360 shit it you cut back the graphics. Of course the new gen would be the same.

 

[Soodanim]

The PS5 is the size of an elephant, is that what you mean?

 

[CrysisFreak]

No load times though, checkmate friendomundo!

 

[MrFunSocks]

Sure, that’s why it’s graphics caused such reactions from PC gamers, lmao:

The face everyone made when gameplay started is downright hilarious. Mine included.

Lol you’re actually trying to use people that literally act (and overact) to try and get views and therefor $$$$ to prove a point. Amazing.

 

[RaySoft]

I understood this perfectly. I'm telling you that if you're looking at their quality relative to the previous generation, you're going to see far less of a jump than previous generations, so you're setting the games up for a rubbishing. Again, GT for this generation only looks a slip more impressive than GT Sport from last gen. That's the reality we're dealing with here.

I'm talking about this popular picture ^^^ you saying that this generation has an elephant in the room in that it doesn't look much better than last generation is purely an exploitation of the last two images above.

Stop using that slide please, it's just dumb. Ofc you won't get any more detail when your starting model is the 6k tris one.