2013 Next Gen consoles

I actually prefer closer to 30 cuz it looks more cinematic (films are at 24 fps and the NTSC TV standard is ~30 fps as I'm sure you're aware), and I don't really ever play online multiplayer so the difference in response/reaction time doesn't bother me

You can't really compare it to tv/film because it's being processed in real time.

It's really more like a measure of responsiveness, as you say.
I don't believe anyone would actually choose a lower FPS if given the choice, with a direct comparison.

to LeSedna:

I personally value FPS, anti-aliasing and hi-res textures over fancy effects like depth of field and motion blur, with FPS being pretty much the most important in terms of games looking/feeling "right".
And actually I can see a very noticeable difference between 60 fps and say 180fps. Now, obviously there is only so much the brain can handle, but most people seem to be in agreement that it's way higher that 60fps with a lot saying it's roughly 120.
I just find it really difficult to go back to consoles after playing PC games on a decent rig, they just look and feel so shit, quite frankly.

Aliasing really, really, really pisses me off.
These artists spend ages creating beautifully modeled and textured environments and characters, then the bosses decide that flashy effects are more important, and to accommodate that in their limited hardware they just turn AA off completely.
It's really analogous to the loudness war IMO. It's like a beautifully recorded and mixed record gets smashed in mastering just to keep up with everything else on the assumption that it's "better" loud. But the end product actually just becomes quite fatiguing due to the presence of huge artifacts.
 
I really hope PS4 steps up to Xbox 720 in terms of performance, so far it seems that PS3 versions of cross-platform games are always the flawed ones :(. I'll stick with Sony though, their games are the ones that interest me the most, they have the best excusive games and devs and I would like to see what they can do with the PS4.

yeah, the great exclusive games, alongside the free online play, have pretty much been the reason i've ever considered a PS3. i still need to play Heavy Rain some day.

i'll probably go with the 720. from what you guys say, Sony is going to fuck this up. big time.
 
FWIW, the PS3 is a stronger system than the 360. Its just harded to dev and port for so some software devs sort of bitch out and fuck up the ports. PS3 exclusives dont have porting issues, obviously, and they run pretty well.

That said, Ill take my one time purchase PS4. Already got a "friend base" to play online with, like the free online gaming, the blu ray was fuckin sweet back when and the ability to exchange hard discs with friends. Plus the userbase isnt as young and douchey as the 360s so thats a plus, lol
 
Well yeah what I did say was wrong, what I really wanted to express is that for the price of a console, you have more than what you will get in a PC. I just paid my PS3 250e with a game, and you can barely run a game as smooth on a 250e PC, and that's considering today's standard, while in 2006, that was just impossible. I agree though than the further we go, the lesser the difference. I still don't think for the price of a PS4 you'll be able to run the next gen games so well. Hope I'm clearer

With a decent PC ( without a videocard ) you can buy a 250e videocard and totally destroy the PS3 for graphics, even back in 2006 those cards at that price range were at the same level as consoles, and most games don't really need an i3 or better cpu PC + Updated graphics = WIN. BUT the main problem of PC gaming is that many games are done for 360/ps3 and terribly ported to the computer. And there are some interesting games only for 360 or ps3. Also, you need higher resolutions in your computer for good monitors.

Honestly though, anything above 60hz is total pimp-my-PC wankery, the brain is not fast enough to make those extra fps any useful. I agree 60hz feels smoother but not a deal changer for me, I have never bought hardware good enough to play at a high fps value because I don't see it so useful. It is totally true though that the only way to enjoy a game in more than 1080 with extra high settings and custom textures is PC

I can tell the difference bewteen 60 and 100 fps, though I don't mind having only 60, it's very good as long as it's a stable framerate.

I'm sure that many people like that 'film' effect games do with 30 fps + effects over 60+, it's a matter of choice. I know that most of my friends prefer it that way. I hate it, playing in 30 fps after playing with 60+ fps feels so awkward.
 
With a decent PC ( without a videocard ) you can buy a 250e videocard and totally destroy the PS3 for graphics, even back in 2006 those cards at that price range were at the same level as consoles, and most games don't really need an i3 or better cpu PC + Updated graphics = WIN. BUT the main problem of PC gaming is that many games are done for 360/ps3 and terribly ported to the computer. And there are some interesting games only for 360 or ps3. Also, you need higher resolutions in your computer for good monitors.

Yeah but the PC you had in the first place was not free either ! I don't think for what will cost the PS4 you will be able to run a PS4-generation game at 30fps + 1080p with a PC setup that is the same price as the PS4. I think it will be nearly possible indeed, but still. Apparently they are aiming at 350-400e (some argue it's nearly impossible), because the PS3 might have had relatively bad sales because of its 500e release pricetag. Of course you can argue that you'll have a PC in any case, so it does 2 in 1, and that playing on a console implies having a TV as well etc (and some people, like me, have a TV almost exclusively for that). Still I think a console is more bang for buck, unless you're after extra candy resolutions and triple antialiasing. I don't say the PS4 will destroy everything available specs wise (I think that time is finished) but Xbox/PS are a good deal to people who don't care about building a PC and maintaining it throughout the years, installing/uninstalling games, savefiles etc

Apparently PS"4" will not be its name cause "4" is pronounced like "death" in japanese :lol: I have also read it will be 1080p with 60fps, I don't know if this is true or not, nor if all consoles will be the same. They are talking about a 4k resolution, at least hard-coded for the future, nothing sure though

XBox 720 internal OS would be Windows 8 !
 
I will most likely stay with Sony next gen. All the stuff about not being able to play used games is speculation. As long as they keep rolling out the deals via Playstation Plus, I'm in.
 
Personally, I don't quite give a fuck how powerful a console is, if all they're doing with that power is churning out endless variations on a Call Of Duty theme. Fuck that. What happened to um... actually good storyline based games!?!
 
I'm always about a console generation behind anyways so it'll probably be forever before I decide to get one of these new consoles wiiU/ps4/xbox720. Ni No Kuni is close to being released here in the states so I guess I'm finally buying a ps3. :lol: Also checking out all the exclusive games the system has to offer and playstation plus/PSN should be pretty cool.
 
Personally, I don't quite give a fuck how powerful a console is, if all they're doing with that power is churning out endless variations on a Call Of Duty theme. Fuck that. What happened to um... actually good storyline based games!?!

Same here, I grew up with the end 90s/ early 00s titles. Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Tomb Raider, Abe's Oddworld series, Tenchu, stuff like that. I went to the gamestore recently check what is up these days, only FPS (I do play some, but they have never given me chills or tears of joy like every Final Fantasy has), adaptations of marvel comics, racing games. in the 80s and 90s, there were a shitload of games based on a story, especially coming from Japan.

EDIT : thanks for the Ni No Kuni mention, I was not aware of that ! I'm gonna buy this one as soon as I see it released in EU !
 
Same here, I grew up with the end 90s/ early 00s titles. Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Tomb Raider, Abe's Oddworld series, Tenchu, stuff like that. I went to the gamestore recently check what is up these days, only FPS (I do play some, but they have never given me chills or tears of joy like every Final Fantasy has), adaptations of marvel comics, racing games. in the 80s and 90s, there were a shitload of games based on a story, especially coming from Japan.

Yeah, pretty much mirrors my shit too. Tenchu was a fucking awesome game.

CoD and Battlefield can eat a dick.
 
Yeah but the PC you had in the first place was not free either ! I don't think for what will cost the PS4 you will be able to run a PS4-generation game at 30fps + 1080p with a PC setup that is the same price as the PS4. I think it will be nearly possible indeed, but still. Apparently they are aiming at 350-400e (some argue it's nearly impossible), because the PS3 might have had relatively bad sales because of its 500e release pricetag. Of course you can argue that you'll have a PC in any case, so it does 2 in 1, and that playing on a console implies having a TV as well etc (and some people, like me, have a TV almost exclusively for that). Still I think a console is more bang for buck, unless you're after extra candy resolutions and triple antialiasing. I don't say the PS4 will destroy everything available specs wise (I think that time is finished) but Xbox/PS are a good deal to people who don't care about building a PC and maintaining it throughout the years, installing/uninstalling games, savefiles etc

Apparently PS"4" will not be its name cause "4" is pronounced like "death" in japanese :lol: I have also read it will be 1080p with 60fps, I don't know if this is true or not, nor if all consoles will be the same. They are talking about a 4k resolution, at least hard-coded for the future, nothing sure though

XBox 720 internal OS would be Windows 8 !

The graphical processors of the consoles have always been based in computer graphics cards.
PS3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_'Reality_Synthesizer'

"RSX shares a lot of inner workings with NVIDIA 7800 which is based on G70 architecture."

360 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos_(graphics_chip)

"(xenos) it is in many ways related to the R520 architecture and therefore very similar to an ATI Radeon X1800"

I had those cards hehe and they got outdated pretty quickly, the ati x1800 was 400-500 USD and the nvidia 7800 was even cheaper than the ati, when they came out. Not very expensive if you already had a decent PC and if you wanted to play new games you had two options: get a modern videocard or get a new console , xbox 360 was arround 400 USD with 20gb (it's pretty important to have a nice amount of memory for you saved games, the cheaper 'core' version was pointless without memory cards or a hard disk); and the ps3 even more expensive.

However!!!, most games are better optimized for consoles. Videocards don't actually use their max potential because there are so many products and different architectures and developers program their games focusing the max potential in some cards and not in rest.

I don't have any idea on what kind of power the new generation will have, I don't think it's going to be like the square tech demo and considering the lack of real HD the actual consoles have, big resolutions and anti-aliasing are something we should have for a console and it eats a lot of performance . I believe that it's going to be a huge step from the 360/ps3, hopefully better looking than Battlefield 3 in PC, Metro 2033, etc.



Personally, I don't quite give a fuck how powerful a console is, if all they're doing with that power is churning out endless variations on a Call Of Duty theme. Fuck that. What happened to um... actually good storyline based games!?!

Same here, I grew up with the end 90s/ early 00s titles. Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Tomb Raider, Abe's Oddworld series, Tenchu, stuff like that. I went to the gamestore recently check what is up these days, only FPS (I do play some, but they have never given me chills or tears of joy like every Final Fantasy has), adaptations of marvel comics, racing games. in the 80s and 90s, there were a shitload of games based on a story, especially coming from Japan.

EDIT : thanks for the Ni No Kuni mention, I was not aware of that ! I'm gonna buy this one as soon as I see it released in EU !

I couldn't agree more. There are so many old games I still have not played, but so little time!

BTW I Rated 7/10 Battlefield 3 in the rate the last videogame you played, I was probably too sleepy or something hahaha it's worse, like a 5.
 
It would be nice to have better looking games, but I rather play a game with an interesting story, good gameplay, etc. Chrono Trigger <333333333
 
There are tons more games out there than FPS'. Quit bitchin and look around for two seconds first and you'd know that much.

Just off the top of my head I can think of Skyrim, Sleeping Dogs, Uncharted, LA Noire, Grand Theft Auto, Saints Row, Infamous, God of War, XCOM, Dark Souls, Mass Effect, ICO, Tekken, and all the driving games, sports games, etc etc etc.
 
There are tons more games out there than FPS'. Quit bitchin and look around for two seconds first and you'd know that much.

Just off the top of my head I can think of Skyrim, Sleeping Dogs, Uncharted, LA Noire, Grand Theft Auto, Saints Row, Infamous, God of War, XCOM, Dark Souls, Mass Effect, ICO, Tekken, and all the driving games, sports games, etc etc etc.

played all of them
:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

HAHAAHAHAHAHA

I like Tekken tough.

Sports and driving games are all the same to me, but I like to play them ocasionally, especially against my friends or cousins.

Just my opinion.
 
Yes, now it's easier to run a new game on PC with a modest setup, that has been the case since 3 or 4 years ago. Still I prefer having a console : for the price of a netbook, you get something that runs a videogame at somewhat max settings, max frames per second, with a controller, etc, and this for all its lifetime.

That doesn't happen though. If you regularly check out A/B comparisons of games running on modern PCs vs PS3 and Xbox 360 you'll see that the console versions often don't even get close to 'max FPS' (assuming we're shooting for a frame-cap of 60) and the graphical details are hugely compromised.

I nearly laughed when I saw how terribly Skyrim ran on my friend's PS3 compared to my PC. It was like watching a slide-show with all the details turned off.

The thing is that the hardware in these consoles will be underutilized at first, and by the time developers catch up PC hardware will have shot ahead again. These devices shoot for lifetimes in the realm of half a decade, if not more, and that means the ever-evolving PC hardware world will leave them in the dust again before long.

That being said, most console users are about convenience and that's one thing they still provide regardless of any technical shortfalls down the track.
 
There are tons more games out there than FPS'. Quit bitchin and look around for two seconds first and you'd know that much.

Just off the top of my head I can think of Skyrim, Sleeping Dogs, Uncharted, LA Noire, Grand Theft Auto, Saints Row, Infamous, God of War, XCOM, Dark Souls, Mass Effect, ICO, Tekken, and all the driving games, sports games, etc etc etc.
You must be trolling !

Most of them go in this category (GTA never did it for me for example not to mention it's originally from the 90s), ICO is an old game already and is wonderful but it just makes my point even more, Tekken is from the 90s originally etc. There are very few recent games that caught my attention. Driving games, sports games, always the same IMO, just like COD. It's nice to play a recent one, but I have never had chills out of them. Our point is that back in the days, every other month you'd have a breakthrough by a game that would almost get legendary (Chrono Trigger / Chrono Cross just got mentionned as well, THIS was an awesome game). I remember alternating between Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, Medievil, Resident Evil...

@blue_fang : yes I'm totally aware what is in the box of a console. Obviously these are PCs with customized chipsets and CPUs and integration, and they cannot be better than what is available at the time of their release. But that's what you said, they offer a single model with virtually no fragmentation, so that developers can have the comfort of working on a single set of specs, and be 100% sure when their game works that it will work in any case. That's why Android struggles offering the same quality of content than the Apple Store and are working on it (and ironically removing the liberties that were the flagship of android)

This generation will supposedly host 6-8 cores @2.9Ghz more or less, AMD for Playstation (a customized CPU based on a current model I don't remember), with 8 to 16Go ram, and a 1 or 2Go videocard. If I got it right, the PS4 is going the SSD route with relatively little space, while the 720 will have 620Go or a 1To harddisk

@Ermz : yes I totally agree with that, PCs will always go better... But then again, with investment. You'll never have the same quality investing the same money. You're comparing your current setup which is a killer beast circa 2010/11 IIRC to a PS3 created in 2006 and which costs at the time of your skyrim comparison half the price it cost at its release. Obviously you'll get further with a PC, I think no one is denying that. They could release an update of all console every year and the new PS3 could be 8 cores, 16go Ram and 2Go vram, but it would defeat the purpose, and developers would get headaches figuring out how to optimize the game on all versions. What they do is create bigger steps every 4/5 years where they can step up their game again. Calculate the money you have invested since 2006 in your computers (although in your case it's hard to tell since your computer is also your job tool) to the cost of a console, that's an important parameter in the comparison. Also, as you said, console is all about convenience. No maintenance, virtually so optimized it doesn't have problem, compact box, integrated wireless system for the controllers, OS that updates itself and rarely bugs, etc. I don't see why people compare so much PCs and consoles, it's just not the same philosophy.

For the record, the bethesda games are just horrid on console in any case ! I wouldn't even bother

@drew_drummer : I don't really get yet the Steambox philosophy, from what I got, valve is creating its own steambox too, and says it would appreciate more companies would, so that users would have different qualities and power. it would run windows 8, so in the end, what is the difference with a simple PC which would run Steam as its unique app ? The price ? I'm considering building a PC just for gaming as well, so I would be interested in the steambox if it's good enough to run current games at decent high settings in a compact volume
 
Yup... for me nothing can compare the early 90's for gaming:

Fallout 1 + 2
Populous
Civilization
the Monkey Island Series
... in fact all of the Lucas Arts point and click adventure games...
The Valhalla series (Amiga 500; those were the days!)

There *are* some really great games around today. But it is much harder to find them I think. Remember... gaming never used to be a multi-billion dollar industry. It used to be just geeks in bedrooms churning out games... then it was small development companies like Interplay and Sierra.