Quantcast
What if Sony and Microsoft had waited until Nov '15 to release their 8th gen consoles?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What if Sony and Microsoft had waited until Nov '15 to release their 8th gen consoles?

JazzB1987 said:

There you go lol.

To the trained eye Crysis 2 etc looks like this:


Everything is blocky. Battlefield 3 is blocky Metro 2033 is blocky etc.

I mentioned "not talking about shaders" which are little tricks that make ugly things appear less ugly and yet you say those games look better. Next thing you tell me is that Resident Evil Revelations on 3DS looks better too :)


First, it's Metro Last Light, not 2033. And BF3 isn't even on the same league. I've already talked with you in other thread about your idea of replacing PC OSs with a light OS to play games. That already convinced me that you don't know a lot about the technical aspect. But let's do it. That really showed me your "trained eye".

Crysis 3 is way more complex than Crysis 1. Of course, it isn't open world, but as we are talking about visuals, open world game usually will never be number 1. That's why C2 and C3 become more linear, because Crytek wanted to showdown their visual prowness and that demanded some concessions. You definition of shaders show that you don't know how a graphics pipeline work. Sorry.

Breaking it down, shaders are small bunches of code that will paint a pixel. That means combining the color of the texture that is over that pixel with a calculated lightning. So yes, they are directly related to the final graphics quality. You can't count them out, because a better lightning algorithm will usually improve the visuals way more than increasing the poly count. Even with poly count in mind, the sequels far exceed the original game. We could go even further, because Crysis 3 has some heavy tesselation at characters and vegetation and that increases substantially the geometry complexity.

About my list, I missed one game. Ryse also does look better than Crysis 1, and it is also better than Crysis 2 and 3 in a visual standpoint. I missed The Order also. This one is harder to compare since it is heavily postprocessed, but it could be the best looking of them all.



Around the Network
torok said:
curl-6 said:

That and I also noticed to the fine eye that the assumption that 2 multiplatform games from the sam franchise were somehow much better than the exclusive original, that's not how multiplatforms even work, even then like you pointed out the 2nd and 3rd games didn't look all that grand like 1 did and they also didn't sell as much in the end.


Crysis 1 was ported, so we can assume PS360 could handle the game.

Crysis had to be downgraded to run on last gen systems. It ran in sub-HD, with aggressive LOD, and a chugging framerate that often hit the low 20s and even the teens during action.

And that's even with a newer and better engine to help; CE3 vs CE2 in the original.



haxxiy said:
torok said:
 

A lot of games look better than Crysis 1. Just to start, Crysis 2 and 3 and Metro Last Light. Killzone SF is way, way ahead of Crysis 1. Crysis 2 is substantialy ahead of C1 and C3 is a bit better than C3, that's on a similar level to Metro LL and SF.

May I disagree with that assumption? Crysis did a splendid job, specially for an open world game that was limited to DirectX 9 shaders. Crysis 2 managed to improve performance mostly on the grounds it rendered fairly small areas limited by blocky architecture and object physics was mostly static and pre-set.

As to which looks better, well, they don't even take place on the same enviroments, do they.


The reduction in the world of the game was probably intended at making possible to do a big jump in visual quality. Crysis 2 looks way better than the first game, while the third game isn't much better than C2. So, even if it's unfair to the first game, the sequels look much better.

Of course, the enviroments are different, but this kind of discussion will always compare different games. Crysis 1 and 3 are way more similar than other top-visual contenders, like Shadow Fall, The Order, Ryse, Driveclub, Shadow of Mordor, etc.



curl-6 said:

Crysis had to be downgraded to run on last gen systems. It ran in sub-HD, with aggressive LOD, and a chugging framerate that often hit the low 20s and even the teens during action.

And that's even with a newer and better engine to help; CE3 vs CE2 in the original.


Both Crysis 2 and 3 were downgraded to. Low res, aggressive LOD, chugging framerate that often hit the low 20s. What's you point? If the second and thirdy games were made to fit PS360 they will surelly perform way better than they actually do. I have Crysis 1/2/3 on my PC and Crysis 3 on my PS3. I can atest that C3 runs badly on PS3, as expected. You can just get the first level of C3 (the one on the platform with a lot of rain) as an example: the game just starts at the 15-20s and just stabilizes after you get in close ambients so there is no more rain to tax excessively the hardware.

What I'm saying is that you argument is the same old tired "it was dumbed down for consoles". If the first game was impossible to do on PS360, your argument would be true. But it isn't, they ported it. It probably isn't even as optimized as it could be since it was a late port. It just performs in a similar level than C2/C3. Why would they "dumb down" a game if it already run as it was on PS360? They cut the open world because they wanted to make the game look better. They used 40M to make Crysis 3. It wasn't feasible to apply that same quality of artwork in a huge world. They were already over the budget. And it wouldn't look as good. So they made a concession.



Arkaign said:
curl-6 said:
They could have put out consoles in 2013 that were significantly more powerful than PS4/Xbone.
They chose not to because of how much money 360 and PS3 lost early on for being high end juggernauts. Their limitations are more the result of financial prudence than technological barriers.

I think the same financial prudence would have yielded massively more powerful consoles CPU wise by later this year or into next year. Jaguar is terrible.

Well, Zen won't be available on time for products in November 2015. If Microsoft and Sony had gambled on former promises of AMD, there would be a bad awakening.

The Zen-APUs are now promised for 2016 (and that could change again if problems should occur):

Home consoles are usually launched in the 4th quarter to have a good start (christmas spendings + highest output of AAA-titles), so Microsoft & Sony would have waited 36 months instead of 24 months with their 8th gen consoles... perhaps even 48 months if the Zen-APUs go in mass production at the end of 2016 instead of summer 2016.



Around the Network
torok said:
JazzB1987 said:

There you go lol.

To the trained eye Crysis 2 etc looks like this:


Everything is blocky. Battlefield 3 is blocky Metro 2033 is blocky etc.

I mentioned "not talking about shaders" which are little tricks that make ugly things appear less ugly and yet you say those games look better. Next thing you tell me is that Resident Evil Revelations on 3DS looks better too :)


First, it's Metro Last Light, not 2033. And BF3 isn't even on the same league. I've already talked with you in other thread about your idea of replacing PC OSs with a light OS to play games. That already convinced me that you don't know a lot about the technical aspect. But let's do it. That really showed me your "trained eye".

Crysis 3 is way more complex than Crysis 1. Of course, it isn't open world, but as we are talking about visuals, open world game usually will never be number 1. That's why C2 and C3 become more linear, because Crytek wanted to showdown their visual prowness and that demanded some concessions. You definition of shaders show that you don't know how a graphics pipeline work. Sorry.

Breaking it down, shaders are small bunches of code that will paint a pixel. That means combining the color of the texture that is over that pixel with a calculated lightning. So yes, they are directly related to the final graphics quality. You can't count them out, because a better lightning algorithm will usually improve the visuals way more than increasing the poly count. Even with poly count in mind, the sequels far exceed the original game. We could go even further, because Crysis 3 has some heavy tesselation at characters and vegetation and that increases substantially the geometry complexity.

About my list, I missed one game. Ryse also does look better than Crysis 1, and it is also better than Crysis 2 and 3 in a visual standpoint. I missed The Order also. This one is harder to compare since it is heavily postprocessed, but it could be the best looking of them all.

Guess why I stopped replying to you in the other thread? Becaue you clearly lack the ability to read and understand text at least when it comes to what I write. (never care much about your reply to others so I dont know if that phenomenom is exclusive to me or not)

You disgreed with something I never said. So actually wasted both  your and my time.

And you do it again now lol and use my "super obvious oversimplification" of shaders as an argument against me wow. Want some kind of Nobel Prize for that now?
Seriously replying with something like "You definition of shaders show that you don't know how a graphics pipeline work." to a sentence like " which are little tricks that make ugly things appear less ugly" shows me that you always nitpick some nonsense and write a f*ing 10000 page essay on that subject but the main points I say you dont even disagree with lol. Like shaders make things look better than they are.  They can add the illusion of more detail by making things appear more detailed even tho the detail is just on the "texture"(please dont write another 100000 word essay on what a texture is for gods sake) and non-existant in form of polygons.

I never mentioned Ryse nor The Order so why even mention them? (I also never said that YOU talked about Metro 2033 I just used it as example of how blocky the game is. Yet you AGAIN twist it so that it looks I made a mistake lol)
You said "ITS METRO LAST LIGHT NOT METRO 2033". 
So you have some "point" that helps your argument? Actually reading what people say would help you much more especially because you would not waste our time so much.
And NO its NOT about Metro Last Light because I want to talk about Metro 2033. I dont care if you mention Last Light.
I also talked about Crysis and then you mentioned Metro Last Light. How would you like it if I now say "No its not about Metro Last Light its about Crysis"? Stop cherrypicking already.

Do us a favor and stop replying to what I say as long as you dont even want to read the text or try to understand.  Thank you



Conina said:
Arkaign said:
curl-6 said:
They could have put out consoles in 2013 that were significantly more powerful than PS4/Xbone.
They chose not to because of how much money 360 and PS3 lost early on for being high end juggernauts. Their limitations are more the result of financial prudence than technological barriers.

I think the same financial prudence would have yielded massively more powerful consoles CPU wise by later this year or into next year. Jaguar is terrible.

Well, Zen won't be available on time for products in November 2015. If Microsoft and Sony had gambled on former promises of AMD, there would be a bad awakening.

The Zen-APUs are now promised for 2016 (and that could change again if problems should occur):

Home consoles are usually launched in the 4th quarter to have a good start (christmas spendings + highest output of AAA-titles), so Microsoft & Sony would have waited 36 months instead of 24 months with their 8th gen consoles... perhaps even 48 months if the Zen-APUs go in mass production at the end of 2016 instead of summer 2016.


we will see an zen playstation, fall 2018 the ps5...they need a short life for the ps4 they timed it realy badly, right into a stagnation phase.

thats why old cpus. a bigger first gen i5 is still enough to easyly beat the ps4 when combined with a modern gpu.



If Sony and MS had waited until this year to relese their systems, this would have happened:

-PS3 and 360 would have sold 90m each already.
-WiiU would have sold a couple million more and have a couple more multiplats, but nothing spectacular.
-Vita would have sold a couple thousand units less, sales related to the remote play.
-We would have a ton of remasters as launch titles.
-Both PS4 and the XBone would be more powerfull, but still far from PC standards. The gen could have lasted one or two years more.
-People would be impatient, lots of flamewars over the overdue systems.
-The OUYA would have dominated the market by 200:1, and it would have gotten the title of 8th wonder of the world, ended all war and created a cure for cancer using puppy love.



You know it deserves the GOTY.

Come join The 2018 Obscure Game Monthly Review Thread.

JazzB1987 said:

Guess why I stopped replying to you in the other thread? Becaue you clearly lack the ability to read and understand text at least when it comes to what I write. (never care much about your reply to others so I dont know if that phenomenom is exclusive to me or not)

You disgreed with something I never said. So actually wasted both  your and my time.

And you do it again now lol and use my "super obvious oversimplification" of shaders as an argument against me wow. Want some kind of Nobel Prize for that now?
Seriously replying with something like "You definition of shaders show that you don't know how a graphics pipeline work." to a sentence like " which are little tricks that make ugly things appear less ugly" shows me that you always nitpick some nonsense and write a f*ing 10000 page essay on that subject but the main points I say you dont even disagree with lol. Like shaders make things look better than they are.  They can add the illusion of more detail by making things appear more detailed even tho the detail is just on the "texture"(please dont write another 100000 word essay on what a texture is for gods sake) and non-existant in form of polygons.

I never mentioned Ryse nor The Order so why even mention them? (I also never said that YOU talked about Metro 2033 I just used it as example of how blocky the game is. Yet you AGAIN twist it so that it looks I made a mistake lol)
You said "ITS METRO LAST LIGHT NOT METRO 2033". 
So you have some "point" that helps your argument? Actually reading what people say would help you much more especially because you would not waste our time so much.
And NO its NOT about Metro Last Light because I want to talk about Metro 2033. I dont care if you mention Last Light.
I also talked about Crysis and then you mentioned Metro Last Light. How would you like it if I now say "No its not about Metro Last Light its about Crysis"? Stop cherrypicking already.

Do us a favor and stop replying to what I say as long as you dont even want to read the text or try to understand.  Thank you


It's amazing that you actually wrote a reply to my post with this size and basically didn't had a counter argument to anything I wrote and just claimed that your entire post "didn't mean what was wrote on it". It doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? Just this:

"Like shaders make things look better than they are.  They can add the illusion of more detail by making things appear more detailed even tho the detail is just on the "texture"

Show that you don't have a clue about how a game works. Modern GPUs are based on shaders. Remove shaders and you will end up with polygons with textures slapped on it. No light, no shadows, nothing. They aren't a "detail", they are pretty much one of the main actors here.

What your posts show to me and everyone is that you love do discuss technical matters that you don't understand, trying to fit things to your agenda and just gets mad when anyone points you lack of basic knowledge about the topic. Despite that, I didn't disagreed with something you didn't said. You claimed that Crysis 1 looks better than Crysis 3 because it is "more complex in geometry" and that Crysis 2/3 have only some "illusory" shaders. I said that Crysis 3 looks better than 2 that looks better than 1, and posted a reasonable argument for that. You don't have anything to counter so you just get mad. Keep you arguments limited to topics that you actually have the knowledge to discuss.



torok said:
curl-6 said:

Crysis had to be downgraded to run on last gen systems. It ran in sub-HD, with aggressive LOD, and a chugging framerate that often hit the low 20s and even the teens during action.

And that's even with a newer and better engine to help; CE3 vs CE2 in the original.

Both Crysis 2 and 3 were downgraded to. Low res, aggressive LOD, chugging framerate that often hit the low 20s. What's you point? If the second and thirdy games were made to fit PS360 they will surelly perform way better than they actually do. I have Crysis 1/2/3 on my PC and Crysis 3 on my PS3. I can atest that C3 runs badly on PS3, as expected. You can just get the first level of C3 (the one on the platform with a lot of rain) as an example: the game just starts at the 15-20s and just stabilizes after you get in close ambients so there is no more rain to tax excessively the hardware.

What I'm saying is that you argument is the same old tired "it was dumbed down for consoles". If the first game was impossible to do on PS360, your argument would be true. But it isn't, they ported it. It probably isn't even as optimized as it could be since it was a late port. It just performs in a similar level than C2/C3. Why would they "dumb down" a game if it already run as it was on PS360? They cut the open world because they wanted to make the game look better. They used 40M to make Crysis 3. It wasn't feasible to apply that same quality of artwork in a huge world. They were already over the budget. And it wouldn't look as good. So they made a concession.

Crysis 1 was made with only PCs in mind, hence its enormous scope.

Crysis 2 and 3 were made to run on consoles with 512MB of RAM, hence the simpler, smaller environments.

Almost any game can run on almost any console if you downgrade it enough. With Crysis 2 and 3, they designed with console specs in mind to make the process easier, that's all.