MTZehvor said:
Calm yourself down, good sir. You are arguing over the internet. If you're not debating for the fun of it, then you're doing it wrong. Your definition is problematic because, as I've mentioned repeatedly and you still have never addressed, you never classify how MANY of these supposed next gen engines a console must support to be classified as next gen. If you have a number in mind, by all means, list it. Considering how you've ignored this point for so long, I'm going to assume you don't have anything specific unless you say otherwise here. I also might add that your definition only stands for this particular generation. Volumetric lighting hasn't been in video games for that long. Considering aboslutely no games from, say, then 1990s use volumetric lighting, how would your definition apply there? Has there only been one jump between console generations ever? We need a definition that concretely stands for all time, not something that you make up on the fly because it excludes what you're trying to exclude. Cant remember more than a post at a time or something because thats how your acting. I'm assuming this is meant to be a question, and it's meant to say "Can you not remember more than a post at a time or something? Because that's how you're acting." Setting aside your stunning aptitude for grammatical skills, yes, I can. You continually redefine your own terms, though. First you said a next gen engine was one that has volumetric lighting, then it was one that shows "big improvements," and now it's back to volumetric lighting." If you dont consider unreal 4 a big improvement over unreal 3 then your probably have no idea of the differences. Your argument is like getting a caveman and asking him the difference between a pile of steaming cow shit and the mona lisa, and when you get a bewildered look back you just jump in, flailing your arms declaring the argument defeated. Let me quote your own argument back to you. "If you don't consider my opinion to be the right opinion, then you're just stupid and you can't argue." Once again, what we are searching for here is a CONCRETE definition. A definition that is NOT left up to someone's opinion. A definition should be something that, regardless of how crazy an opinion there is, it will still fit. Definitions are objective, not subjective. You're trying to claim that there's an objective truth behind whether graphics look good or not, and that's simply silly. if it can run unreal 4, it can probably also run cryengine 3 and the rest. With that link you didnt read the best part "Unreal Engine 4 will still be used to power games on both platforms, but developers won’t easily reach the quality levels promised by the original Unreal 4 demo two years ago." See the important word "easily". As we all know, the PS4 only revealed itself to have 8gb of ram on that very same day so we know that epic didnt factor that into the demo. One more thing about definitions. "Probably" shouldn't be in them. I read the entire article, but that's playing into my entire point, and I'm a little surprised you're making my argument for me. Let's run with your horribly subjective definition for a moment, and say that there's some quantifiable term for "good graphical improvement." Let's say also, that games running below that quality level promised don't mean this term, but games in the future when the quality level is reached will. Does the console become next gen at that particular point? Is it always next gen if there's just some unrealized potential? Again, there's another level of subjectivity here. Your saying a next gen console doesnt have to be able to play next gen games. A game is next gen if it is designed for a next gen console, yes? How would a next gen console possibly NOT play next gen games? That scenario doesn't even exist. Even going by your incredibly shallow standards of graphical comparison, that doesn't make sense. Stop talking about generation with regard to biology and being the next one. I know this is going to be a huge shock to you, but guess where the term "generation" in regards to technology originated from. Here's a hint. It starts with bio. The idea of a generation, regardless of humans, animals, plants, cars, houses, or even action figures, is the NEXT group of things. It's not "so long as such and such meets certain standards." It's the NEXT one in line. If thats the case then holy shit whats the xbox as that just appeared out of the red, white and blue smoke of the usa and wasnt following dick. Now I'm going to have to question whether you're reading posts or not, as I explained this several posts ago. I'll try and do it more simply this time. The term "generation" is not in reference to when a certain variety of something began. It's when the whole classification started. For example, if the original Ford T-Model counts as the "first generation" of car, that is the car's first generation. When Hyundai joins the market in 1967, they aren't making first "generation" cars. They enter into whatever generation is currently ongoing. It's the same with the X-Box. The X-Box enters into the 6th generation of consoles. A company doesn't need to have 5 generations of their own variety preceding them in order to join the 6th generation. |
Im the calm one, your the one so flustered you cant remember a few posts back. Either that or you cant actually debate so dont go trying to lecture anyone on how to debate as thats hypocritical.
It has to support the ones that reasonably reach that criteria. As ive already said - see a trend appearing here, something called circular logic as you arent reading what im typing - engines tend to follow roughly the same specs as one another as they are based on what they see as the market power for that gen, so for the 8th generation were talking about 8gb ram, 8 cores. There aint going to be an engine that comes out that does what ive said and wants 16 cores and 32 gb ram with a super computer graphics card. Cutting to the point, this is a non-point and goes to show how you just dont understand game engines. Use wiki and do some reading.
No shit games from the 90's didnt use volumetric lighting as thats something only now seen in 8th gen engines - what a freaking stupid comment. For all time just go and see how engines have evolved and how different tech has come in. This aint rocket science but im guessing you couldnt tell me the difference between unreal 2 + 3. Volumetric lighting IS a big improvement omfg. Just stop dude, just freaking stop as you dont seem to have the first clue as to graphics, engines or anything related to game framework.
Dont be a turd, if it can run unreal 4 it can run cryengine 3 as the freaking requirements are already out - your thorough research is letting you down right about here.
"A game is next gen if it is designed for a next gen console, yes?"
Is flower on the ps4 8th gen or metal gear solid on the ps3? These games were designed for the consoles they are on...See man if you dont understand how games are made, youll just make this stupid mistakes time and time again.
Heres somthing to pop your stupid biology bubble. Why aint the raspberry pi a 7th gen console? Snap. AND YOUR ARGUMENT COMES CRASHING DOWN.
