By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Thoughts on this new generation, which is off to a great start.

rik said:


Gears of war, oblivion, codemned. And destiny is on last gen? So can be handled right now on old systems which means destiny fun as is, is built on old technology. I couldnt imagine gears or oblivion on an end of life ps2 or gc


I can imagine. They would look like crap (well, Oblivion already did) but they are possible. Gears is linear and even if Oblivion is open world, GTA: San Andreas showed us that the PS2 can handle it easily. GTA IV map was pathetic compared to SA.

Of course Destiny is old tech. It's cross gen. Gears and Oblivions weren't. Killzone SF on PS3 would be downgraded to the point it would look like KZ3.



Around the Network

I haven't liked this gen very much.

Which is good for me, because it makes one less distraction from my college studies. :P



TheLastStarFighter said:
bugrimmar said:
TheLastStarFighter said:
I completely disagree. The gen is off to a very weak start, and the three new IPs you mentioned are all available (and as such very possible) on the old hardware. PS360 was a massive jump, this is much more modest.

I do like the look of FFXV though.

Give me three new IPs made within the first year of the last generation that match the size and quality of Titanfall, Watch Dogs, and Destiny.

Also, please remember that the beginning of a generation =/= the end of a generation. The beginning of the PS360 gen was marred by hardware unfamiliarity. As devs got better with the hardware, the games got better too. So now, as the devs have become so familiar with the PS360, they can more easily port games from current gen to last gen. Titanfall, Watch Dogs, and Destiny are made possible on PS360 because of this familiarity. This would not have been possible at the beginning of last gen.

Compare the FPS at the launch of the PS3 (Resistance: Fall of Man) as well as the first Call of Duty to Destiny. While Resistance is admittedly a better game in terms of story and gameplay, Destiny is just so much more MASSIVE. That's the point I'm trying to make here.

Bolded = ???  Your post is about the start of the gen, so that's what we're talking about.  I'm sure some fine games are going to come later, but upon release there has been very little that has been remarkable, and that isn't already available on older hardware.

You then mention Titanfall, which supports what I'm saying.  It's available on XB360.

So far the new systems have given us pretty much nothing that isn't already availble on last gen.  This gen is off to a brutal start, content-wise.

Last gen at this time we were about to get this:

Which was a massive jump from this:

This year we get comparissons like this:

 

The lack of mind-blowing software is almost laughable.   Don't kid yourself.  Almost all big games are still on last-gen, and the jump isn't near as massive as going to HD from SD.  This gen is off to a very tepid start.

I can't fight with this logic. I feel the same way, everyone is fighting over the difference between PS4 and xbox one and I'm saying, what difference? Hopefully this gen brings something new but I doubt it. Now maybe next gen we can jump to 4K... that would be something to see.



torok said:


You are nitpicking things. Gears is a X360 exclusive, Destiny is a cross gen game. One was one of the best looking console games when released, while the other isn't even close. Try these:

Black (PS2)

 

Call of Duty 2 (360)

 

Killzone: Shadow Fall (PS4)

 

See, everything depends on the game. Try Gear And before anyone comes saying the SF shot is a bullshot, I've captured the screen myself. Just in this shot we see tesselation, global ilummination and material based rendering. None of these techs were available on PS360 (at least in a significant degree).


But don't you see what you've done?  You've taken a pic from one of the absolute best looking PS2 games (and an FPS at that--those always look good) at the end of its life and you compare it to one of the worst looking Xbox 360 games at the beginning of the launch.  Then you toss in one of the best looking PS4 games released so far.  Why not compare something like Killzone 3 to Killzone Shadowfall?  And not just any pic.  Try to find one of the best looking Killzone 3 pics that you can find.  THEN you'll see why people are a little disappointed in the jump.  And even COD2 came in with seemless online play which prompted a spectacular reception across the board.  That's a pretty good leap that justifies a new generation, isn't it?



torok said:
rik said:
 


Gears of war, oblivion, codemned. And destiny is on last gen? So can be handled right nowin on old systems which means destiny fun as is, is built on old technology. I couldnt imagine gears or oblivion on an end of life ps2 or gc


I can imagine. They would look like crap (well, Oblivion already did) but they are possible. Gears is linear and even if Oblivion is open world, GTA: San Andreas showed us that the PS2 can handle it easily. GTA IV map was pathetic compared to SA.

Of course Destiny is old tech. It's cross gen. Gears and Oblivions weren't. Killzone SF on PS3 would be downgraded to the point it would look like KZ3.

Yeah GTA IV was smaller but alot lot better looking and had online play. Oblivion graphics were pretty good back In 2006. 



Around the Network

Im in the this gen hasent shown much. The games dont look much better(I notice draw distance and lighting effects) and on top of that there isnt much to play that you cant do on last gen. The only game that has me interested thus far is The Division and that is a UBI title so they probably will downgrade the game quite a bit by the time it hits consoles.

I dont think things are going to get drastically better either. This gens machines are not nearly as big of a power jump as the PS2-3 gens jump. These machines will get tapped quicker due to the familiar arcitecture as well.



Getting an XBOX One for me is like being in a bad relationship but staying together because we have kids. XBone we have 20000+ achievement points, 2+ years of XBL Gold and 20000+ MS points. I think its best we stay together if only for the MS points.

Nintendo Treehouse is what happens when a publisher is confident and proud of its games and doesn't need to show CGI lies for five minutes.

-Jim Sterling

I genuinely don't see how anyone could possibly say that this generation is off to a good start with a straight face. I legitimately came here thinking it was a joke thread.



d21lewis said:
8th gen sucks balls. I'm still waiting for that "Holy shit! This is why I bought a new console!!" feeling that I got almost at launch when I purchased a SNES, N64, PS2, Xbox 360, Wii, etc. This new trend of launching a new console and then coming up with the software to justify it is unacceptable in my honest opinion. The good games are coming but so far, I'm let down.


I totally agree with you, well maybe not sucks ball, but nothing this generation has made me go WOW. It is more like Oh this is better looking I guess.



 

I'm indifferent. When it comes to the games released so far, the current gen fails to impress mostly. The reason why is that most of the games are built for last gen hardware, upscaled to a higher resolution and playable on current gen hardware.

Graphically though there are some games this gen that give a similar jump to what we see at the beginning of every other gen. Infamous Second Son as an open world game blows away even the best looking game of last gen, as does Witcher 3, and Dead Rising 3.

Like what was compared earlier. Compare Black to an early exclusive FPS on the 360. Now compare Killzone Shadow Fall to any late released 360 exclusive. The difference in quality will be just as noticeable as last gen to current gen. Every game being 4:3 going to 16:9 is one reason the jump in quality is so similar, because going from SD to HD last gen had to actually work a bit harder than this gen because all games have to use that extra power to display in widescreen as well. The current gen also has the problem that the better the graphics, the less quality increase you'll notice, and even then the jump in quality is still noticeable.

Another set of games you could compare is the Elder Scrolls games and Witcher 3. Morrowind and Oblivion launched less than a year after the launch of Xbox and Xbox 360. The Witcher 3 is launching in a year and a couple months. The graphical jump between Witcher 3 and Oblivion is much larger than the graphical jump between Morrowind and Oblivion.

Despite what some people like to say.  The graphical jump is just as noticeable this gen as it was last gen.  You can't expect new consoles to push out graphics like they've been on the market for eight years when they just launched.  Developers figure out new ways to implement graphics techniques and new tech is rolled out every year.  At the end of  this gen, gamers will look back on games like Infamous Second Son and Witcher 3 and make comments about how they look like crap compared to what came out later, just like we did with games last gen.

It's not off to a good start, but atleast the jump for some games have been similar to what we see ever other gen.



This gen? Off to a great start you say? Yeah.... no... :/



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---