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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Does more power really mean a better game?

 

Does a more powerful console mean better games?

Yes 61 25.74%
 
No 129 54.43%
 
I am undecided... 7 2.95%
 
MOAR POWER!!!!! 17 7.17%
 
I still play on my last gen machine 15 6.33%
 
The NES classic is the way to go 8 3.38%
 
Total:237

Not necessarily in general and in this day and age, no, not anymore.

There was a day, long time ago when we was fab, that all this power dick-measuring did mean something for game quality, when the gameplay possibilities opened up by the added juice were substantial, at times massive and game-changing.

Nowadays, no. There's so little in terms of systems that is beyond current tech. Shoot, most of the games today could have been done last gen without too many compromises.

And even back in the day, more power opened up new options but didn't necessarily mean established game types WOULD be superseded. Chrono Trigger is better than many games today, Super Mario World remains one of the best 2D platformers ever crafted.



Around the Network
Pemalite said:

I remember when Unreal Tournament 2003 was first released on PC... That game was such a big step up visually of what came before... Yet it didn't technically play any different from the game it was succeeding... Which was Unreal Tournament 99'.


However, Unreal Tournament 2003's visuals was such a big leap from the orginal title with tons of geometry, particle effects, lighting and shadowing... It wasn't unusual to see people jump and shoot at their own shadow. (It's a twitch shooter remember.)

The improved graphics actually made you play differently and be more cautious... It also helped significantly with immersion, you got more invested in the game as it was more believable.

I am always under the belief that graphics doesn't replace gameplay, they both lend credence to each other, you can also have both.

Could be, I continued playing UT99, less resource heavy. In Uni we would take the computer room, download the demo and have an instagib lan party :)

You can also look at the strategy genre, the jump to 3D made the games harder to enjoy for me. I didn't see the benefit from C&C or AoE, you saw less had to deal with the camera, when the isometric view was quick and easy. There are more 2D to 3D failed attempts...

Still this a case by case situation. There are obviously games that the main selling point is the presentation while others aim for interaction, and as you mention some complement each other. Like someone said before, with a given hardware (which always improves), "good game design makes good games".



@Twitter | Switch | Steam

You say tomato, I say tomato 

"¡Viva la Ñ!"

TomaTito said:
Pemalite said:

I remember when Unreal Tournament 2003 was first released on PC... That game was such a big step up visually of what came before... Yet it didn't technically play any different from the game it was succeeding... Which was Unreal Tournament 99'.


However, Unreal Tournament 2003's visuals was such a big leap from the orginal title with tons of geometry, particle effects, lighting and shadowing... It wasn't unusual to see people jump and shoot at their own shadow. (It's a twitch shooter remember.)

The improved graphics actually made you play differently and be more cautious... It also helped significantly with immersion, you got more invested in the game as it was more believable.

I am always under the belief that graphics doesn't replace gameplay, they both lend credence to each other, you can also have both.

Could be, I continued playing UT99, less resource heavy. In Uni we would take the computer room, download the demo and have an instagib lan party :)

You can also look at the strategy genre, the jump to 3D made the games harder to enjoy for me. I didn't see the benefit from C&C or AoE, you saw less had to deal with the camera, when the isometric view was quick and easy. There are more 2D to 3D failed attempts...

Still this a case by case situation. There are obviously games that the main selling point is the presentation while others aim for interaction, and as you mention some complement each other. Like someone said before, with a given hardware (which always improves), "good game design makes good games".

Good points.

StarCraft 2 managed to transition into 3D rather well... By ironically, making itself look like it's 2D isometric.

Other games wen't into a different direction completely, Sanctum for instance took advantage of the fact it is rendered in 3D so threw you into a First-person perspective for it's turret defense concept.

Battlezone 2 and Sacrifice also pushed you into the First/3rd person view point for it's Real-time strategy... And yet attempts like Dark Reign 2 didn't translate as successfully.

With Age of Empires 3, I found I didn't have any issues with the image quality, so much as the games fundamental design choices... Age of Empires 2 HD has proven that it was the wrong direction to take the franchise and sadly, Ensemble Studio's is no longer around to bring us a 4th entry that fixes those shortcomings in the 3rd game.

Command and Conquer failed due to allot of intereference from Electronic Arts, it was one of the largest franchises in PC gaming at one point... But I have to admit I thoroughly played the crap out of Red Alert 3 and Commanders Challenge.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Good graphics are welcome, but GPU cost must not be so high to make producers cut corners on CPU power and RAM below what's necessary to have good AI and large numbers of NPCs and items and load and manage large levels or worlds without needing to divide them in small parts as it happened in Thief III, or, less bad for immersion, but still bad, separate inside and outside as it happened in Morrowind.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


For multiformat games, more power and resources definitely normally means the best version but sometimes making for a fixed platform like ps4 can beat pc in feel and handling.

For Switch titles we are seeing some games hugely downgraded visually and with a worse controller over ps4 for example and higher cost too.

As ever a fantastic exclusive game is a fantastic game and you are forced to buy the hardware however dire or overpriced.



Around the Network
Pemalite said:

With Age of Empires 3, I found I didn't have any issues with the image quality, so much as the games fundamental design choices... Age of Empires 2 HD has proven that it was the wrong direction to take the franchise and sadly, Ensemble Studio's is no longer around to bring us a 4th entry that fixes those shortcomings in the 3rd game.

Command and Conquer failed due to allot of intereference from Electronic Arts, it was one of the largest franchises in PC gaming at one point... But I have to admit I thoroughly played the crap out of Red Alert 3 and Commanders Challenge.

AoEIII had those problems you mention: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-02-14-age-of-empires-iii-a-huge-mistake

And yeah, many awesome simulation and strategy devs are gone :(



@Twitter | Switch | Steam

You say tomato, I say tomato 

"¡Viva la Ñ!"

Hynad said:

With more power, Breath of the Wild may not get better gameplay, but it could run in full 1080p at a locked 60fps.

Which would indeed make the game even better than it [reportedly] is.

I think it's open world could also benefit from it. With the push to open world games, more power is a necessity.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Strange question.

Great devs don't lose their creativity once more power becomes available to them. Bad devs will continue making bad games.

I want games to look prettier and to run at the resolution of my Full HD tv.



TomaTito said:
Pemalite said:

With Age of Empires 3, I found I didn't have any issues with the image quality, so much as the games fundamental design choices... Age of Empires 2 HD has proven that it was the wrong direction to take the franchise and sadly, Ensemble Studio's is no longer around to bring us a 4th entry that fixes those shortcomings in the 3rd game.

Command and Conquer failed due to allot of intereference from Electronic Arts, it was one of the largest franchises in PC gaming at one point... But I have to admit I thoroughly played the crap out of Red Alert 3 and Commanders Challenge.

AoEIII had those problems you mention: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-02-14-age-of-empires-iii-a-huge-mistake

And yeah, many awesome simulation and strategy devs are gone :(

I feel like Eurogamer are my long lost brother sometimes. Ha. We typically resonate the same on everything.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

no, more power isn't needed to make a good game. but it can make an already good game even better.