New Badass Game Engine

[DocWalt]

So you're saying they made a game engine that goes from scripted animation to unscripted animation more quickly than anything else out there but only showed scripted animation. I fail to see the point.

[IPD]

Who are you talking to? You've quoted me, but you don't seem to be talking to me. I didn't say one word about PC vs console gaming, and I didn't make any "argument", other than to point out what I think is the point of this demo.

If you have some beef with console gaming fine, but don't go putting words in my mouth.

reread what i posted. you were making a point about the transition between pre-rendered and fly-rendered being a difficult one for consoles. this isn't really a problem for PC's. thus this technology "demo" doesn't impress me. i expect that as technology progresses that less demanding games will be increasingly playable on low-end hardware--consoles included.

what this shows is that developers are only pushing the envelope insofar as much as it involves dressing up games to appear "improved" on underperforming hardware. true revolutionary breakthroughs (eg. each new iteration of the unreal engine) are dying out. each and every one of the texture and lighting effects used in this demo would be substantially more impressive if coupled with an unprecedented polygon count.

[Intropy]

So you're saying they made a game engine that goes from scripted animation to unscripted animation more quickly than anything else out there but only showed scripted animation. I fail to see the point.

Well they have to show something, otherwise it's not much of a press release. What would you want them to show?

reread what i posted. you were making a point about the transition between pre-rendered and fly-rendered being a difficult one for consoles. this isn't really a problem for PC's. thus this technology "demo" doesn't impress me. i expect that as technology progresses that less demanding games will be increasingly playable on low-end hardware--consoles included.

what this shows is that developers are only pushing the envelope insofar as much as it involves dressing up games to appear "improved" on underperforming hardware. true revolutionary breakthroughs (eg. each new iteration of the unreal engine) are dying out. each and every one of the texture and lighting effects used in this demo would be substantially more impressive if coupled with an unprecedented polygon count.

No, you have something against consoles and are reading this "console vs PC" schtick into everything. PCs are better so you're not impressed. I get it.

Clearly we have nothing to learn from console development; I guess these guys should just go home. It's not like these techniques could be later applied to a different platform.

[Intropy]

Also, I'm taking for granted that you've actually read or watched the developer interviews where they talk about how they made this. You have, haven't you?

[nodoze]

console development is if anything harder because they are trying to make things better with equipment that was put out in 2005, seven years later and they graphics and how they figured things out are better

[IPD]

console development is if anything harder because they are trying to make things better with equipment that was put out in 2005, seven years later and they graphics and how they figured things out are better

console development should be a trickle-down from high-end pc development. innovative car features rarely debut on a sub-compact pos; they usually first appear on high-end luxury cars--for the same reason.

by pushing development on the high-end first, innovation and progress move forward at a greater rate of speed. when the focus is put on trying to innovate with lackluster hardware--creativity will suffer. none of the technology available in the PS3 would be here or viable if pc's hadn't gone there first--3 years prior to its release.

[terrets]

That why BF3 is better?

[nodoze]

yes but on the same note alot of developers are backing off on pc development and instead porting the console version to the pc and spicing it up then. the console market far overshadows pc game market anymore . back in the late nineties early 2000's it was the opposite. also one of the worlds fastest super computers is a bunch of ps3's hooked together.

[IPD]

yes but on the same note alot of developers are backing off on pc development and instead porting the console version to the pc and spicing it up then. the console market far overshadows pc game market anymore . back in the late nineties early 2000's it was the opposite. also one of the worlds fastest super computers is a bunch of ps3's hooked together.

i'm well aware that we're getting watered-down shite that's the developer equivalent of a gilded-turd...just because the developers are chasing the almighty buck--rather than chasing innovation. my beef is with the central crop of gamers by whose purchases this practice has become sanctioned as acceptable. i absolutely REFUSE to purchase skyrim for PC--as i've already seen what bethesda does to PC games (read: no product debugging whatsoever).

furthermore, if you string together enough consoles of ANY type, you can make a supercomputer. i'm not impressed by that feat--not to mention that whatever is left of said supercomputer is slowly dying. only the original 60gb models are viable, and without linux support, there are no replacements available when old ones begin to fail. the same type of thing was done with PS2 previously. i expect it will be attempted with the next generation of consoles as well. nothing "earth shattering" here. console hardware is almost always sold for a substantial loss to the manufacturer. the fact that a supercomputer can be assembled for so cheap is not a "pro-console" argument--it's simply a symptom of the business model.

expect to see more and more gaming stagnation in the coming years. marginal improvements everywhere. the entire industry will begin to resemble the madden franchise. the less developers cater to PC gamers, the less people will spend $$$ on high-end PC hardware. this will in turn prolong the initial high costs involved with higher-end hardware--which only begin to dip as they become more widely adopted (as such is the case for any technology). as these costs stay higher, console costs will in turn go higher (or will stay the same while software rates are hiked--manufacturers have to make a buck somewhere). it will become virtually impossible for next-generation consoles to sport improved graphic capabilities unless they also increase the MSRP. hence my prediction is that future consoles will either have entirely stagnated hardware (at least relative to the historical improvements from past generations), or the cost will skyrocket to the point at which PC gaming begins to become an attractive option to a greater cross-section of the mainstream market.

ultimately, the very argument leveled against the wii as to it's most significant "drawback" will in time be a valid accusation against every console in the market--bar none. console gamers have only themselves to blame.

[nodoze]

youre right on almost all that the only thing that will keep the development goign though is the fact they are developign better and better graphics cars and hardware for other reasons than pc gaming. movie production, graphic design ect. ect. the pc gaming industry isnt the only reason hardware improvments are happening.