- Status
I will ignore Lord Crash due to the moderator's comments. I will however say I disagree with what you said.
I will continue to speak with prince unless the moderators deem this unacceptable.
That may be the case but as off now 20nm is not available so this statement does not hold any factual validity.
I said the 'notion', the way you were coming across seemed that way, here is exactly what made me think that is what you meant:
"There will come a point where the static nature of the consoles will begin to hold back the evolution of games because while tech industry evolves at a furious pace, consoles don't..."
Now you have to acknowledge the fact that in the past few years (despite the PS3 being as you mentioned 'holding back the evolution of games') what you said simply is not the case. In terms of sheer global sales and critical appeal (media / gamers alike) the console games dominated all of last year with Last of Us winning 200 game of the year awards, GTA V selling 32.5 million copies, what did the PC achieve (gaming wise) that comes close to either of those games, what has PC gaming released in the passed 10 - 20 years that comes close to what those two games achieved? This is just in the passed year also, never mind the MGS4 before it, the Little Big Planets, Skyward Swords (GoTY), Mario Galaxies (GoTY), The Journey (GoTY).(too name a few) etc all of which were exclusive games that (too my knowledge) achieved far greater awards / commercial press) than any other PC game equivalent in the same corresponding year.
So essentially my question is how can you make the claim "There will come a point where the static nature of the consoles will begin to hold back the evolution of games"?
From a technical and graphical standpoint I understand.... Kinda, it still is not as bad as you make it out. The graphics of console games only began to witness a 'slight' pause (in terms of graphical quality) 1-2 years before the PS4 was released, so it still lasted a ridiculous amount of time. Killzone 2 - 3 still look gorgeous to this day as does Uncharted 2-3 (heck even 1 looks amazing). MGSV still managed to run at a 30fps on PS3 despite the 8 year old hardware and the gorgeous visuals of the game, so essentially what I am saying is your claim holds some validity but not as much as you think, and trust me, console gamers think console games look gorgeous, because they do. From a game-play and pure gamer standpoint I 100% disagree. It is simply illogical to believe $350 machines will continue to push the boundries of gaming when you have PC gaming rigs (that cost anyway from $700-1000+) out there. It is just illogical and in my opinion unfair. Throw in the fact Last of Us exists and you find despite the unfair / 'odds against it' nature of consoles they are still holding up (some might argue, doing better) with PC's in todays world of gaming.
You see, I really don't get this. Nintendo games that have obliterated every PC and console game in terms of sales. Console gamers have not been spoiled to the same expectancy that PC gamers have, due to us not forking anywhere near the amount of money PC gamers have forked out. For us to expect 1000+p Resolutions at 1k fps (obvious over-exaggeration used to get my point across) is frankly an irrational expectancy that console gamers know they will not get and neither do they really care for it.
Innovative in what sense? What games are considered innovative to you? A game does not have to be innovative or revolutionary to be hailed as the best (critically). Just look at GTA V. Just look at Half Life 2. Just look at Bioshock 1. Frankly I never understood the whole 'innovative' argument gamers constantly bring up against games like TLoU but then go on to class an FPS with ragdolls as the best game ever. Don't get me wrong, Half Life 2 is my pick for the best game ever. Do I class at as innovative? Depends in what sense, in terms of immersion in an FPS? Definitely. Same goes for Bioshock 1 and The last of us is innovative in it's narrative and immersion. Frankly I have yet to play a game that gripped me the same way TLoU did. This can only be experienced by playing it, and 95 metacritic and 200+ game of the year awards say I am not in the minority with this train of thought.
That is where I disagree. Essentially you are saying PC games win on the graphics end as well as..... Well everything else, gameplay, story etc but this simply is not apparent in terms of successful PC games constantly being dominated / trumped by their console counterparts. Due to the nature of what you are saying being entirely subjective I have too look at the awards etc and console games have been dominating the passed few years. Last of Us this year, Zelda Skyward Sword last, MGS4 at a time, it has all been consoles (in terms of game of the year awards), so I really think the evidence is against you on this one unless you care to prove me wrong.
Truthful question, is the game out yet? Like the full game? If so what has it achieved in terms of gaming praise and commercial success? Trust me it might not be possible on consoles, but console gamer's that genuinely care are nowhere near the amount of PC gamers that cared about RDR being console exclusive or TLoU and MGSV (even GTA V for a year) to name a few. That is the thing, certain games are not possible on consoles, I agree. The games that are not available to PC gamers however far outweigh the former, in terms of consumer appeal (what gamers want) and in terms of critical success.
Also, have you seen the PS4 'No Mans Sky'? Looks similar to me. (It is also on PC)
No man's sky also features customisable space ships and the ability to travel to any planet in the games huge galaxy.
Not going to lie though, the game you showed looks sick.
Also dude, have you seen Uncharted 4 running of in-game footage (like all Naughty dog cutscenes)? ND are aiming for 60 fps at 1080p. You have to admit if they achieve that (on the below video) then Uncharted 4 is set to be one of the best looking games in recent years.
[video=youtube;y1Rx-Bbht5E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1Rx-Bbht5E[/video]
You got to admit it looks gorgeous (It's bloody Naughty Dog) and anybody that has played an Uncharted game is pumped. As. FUCK!
Last edited:
You're basically espousing my argument here.. Remember I said that a good game is a good game regardless of technical limitations. A game's primary objective first and foremost is to be entertaining, and a game doesn't need to be cutting edge for that to occur. Those console games that you applaud, could have been on PC as well. There was nothing stopping that other than corporate politics. And GTA V is due to be on PC at some point either this year or early next year..
Because there comes a point where a developer's vision for a game can be held back by technology. For example, Chris Roberts, the mind behind Star Citizen says that only today is he finally able to make the kind of game that he has always wanted to, because the software and hardware has finally progressed to the point where it's now possible. 10 years ago, a massive space simulator game like Star Citizen would not have been possible on any system, not even PC...
Similarly, the Witcher 3's seamless and completely open ended game design would not have been possible on the last gen consoles due to their memory limitations..
It's not illogical, but it IS unfair to compare a 400 dollar console to a 1,000 dollar PC.. But, that's just technology for you.. The PC platform just inherently provides more freedom and less limitations than consoles.. That doesn't mean the PC is necessarily better than a console though. Consoles have their place, just like PCs do..
But you're kidding yourself if you think that game innovation doesn't occur at a faster pace on PC than it does on consoles..
I don't know. There are lots of console gamers out there who fall head over heels for the hype and begin to believe that the PS4 is the greatest gaming machine ever and can pump out a gajillion pixels and polygons per second yada yada yada..
There are many ways for a game to be innovative. It could be innovative in terms of it's story, or voice acting, gameplay...or even user interface.. And many of these aspects are intertwined with technology..
For example, look at the Witcher 3. It's a massive open ended seamless RPG that will have no chapters or artificial breaks in the story.. That's innovative in my opinion.. And this innovation relies on technology to carry it out. As I mentioned before, the last gen consoles don't have the memory capacity to prosecute the seamless and open ended gameplay design of the Witcher 3.
And the PS4 and Xbox One lack the memory capacity and computational power to fully prosecute Star Citizen's vision as being the biggest and most realistic space sim ever made by game developers..
You're conflating separate arguments. You're talking about game quality and financial success and equating that with what I've been discussing, which are innovative and revolutionary game design brought about by the PC's superior technology..
No, and it likely won't be for a while. But this game is going to be revolutionary. It's not just a space sim, but it will have other things like first person combat, planetary exploration etcetera all set in the largest scale possible by modern computers.. A single warship can be several kilometers in length for example and there will be various densely populated cities on different worlds where you can trade and do various missions..
The vast majority of AAA games are multiplatform. Exclusive titles are basically the result of corporate politics and the console business model which relies on exclusives to sell the platforms.
Yeah I've seen that, but that's completely different. No Man's Sky uses procedural generation to create content, whereas the content in Star Citizen is hand crafted and designed by actual people..
You don't believe the actual game is going to look like that do you? E3 presentations need to be looked at with a healthy dose of skepticism as their primary purpose is to build hype. They often give you a tiny slice of a game with amazing visuals, but when the final product is shipped, the downgrade is obvious.. I'm not saying UC4 won't look amazing, as Naughty Dog is a very talented studio..
But they're not wizards.. And especially given that they are targeting 60 FPS, I would be very skeptical that their presentation will be representative of the final game..
Yes they could have been but they weren't? So what point are you trying to make here? My initial point was that console exclusives are held in higher regard not whether or not PC could handle them (which it obviously can). So where are you going with this?
Doesn't matter. The fact is the PC games as of late (despite all the power they are capable of, despite everything you mention) simply do not make games that are held as highly as console games. Period. So if developers have yet to make a PC game that rivals (critically and commercially) their console counterparts, which was my initial point, then how can you say that console games eventually 'dry out' towards the end of it's life cycle (or whatever you meant) when that simply is not the case?. We are getting side tracked on my initial statements here.
I repeat, is the game out? Have you seen No man's sky? Neither of those games are out yet so how can you make such a claim based on a developers statement (which is clearly hype)? Kojima stated MGS4 would not have been possible on the 360 due to how 'big the game was' which is clear BS due to GTA V and even MGSV (all MUCH bigger games than MGS4) being released on the 360. So what does that exactly prove? Wasn't Crysis 1 deemed impossible on last gen consoles only for it's superior (visually) sequels to release on the consoles? People underestimate the power of consoles and I just refer them to last gen Crysis 3. If that was possible on 8 year old hardware then what the hell is possible on the PS4's hardware?
See I agree with your first paragraph, but innovation in terms of what? You could easily say the WII was the most innovative platform at the era due to its motion control but that does not = good games / superior platform. I fail to see where you are going with this? My initial 3 pro's of consoles had nothing to do with innovation so what exactly are you talking about?
Refer to my MGS4 PR hype statement and go research No Man's Sky. There is no factual evidence the PS4 cannot run the 'most realistic space sim' ever. I repeat is the game out yet?
Refer to my initial "I never talked about innovation in my 3 console pro" list and refer to my 'innovation does not equal a good game". No man's sky looks innovative. MGSV looks innovative, Little big planet was innovative, Super Mario Galaxy and Zelda Skyward Sword were all innovative and they achieved great critical acclaim. So essentially what are you trying to say? That PC games are more innovative? Does that make the PC games better? I really fail to see how this has any relevance to my original discussion as well as the fact that 'innovation' does not always mean 'a great game'.
If it is not out then how can you make such a statement? How do you know it will be revolutionary? If it is not even out yet I am amazed at how you are deeming it the holy grail of what gaming should be and making statements like "This proves PC games are more innovative etc etc". It proves nothing, that is a fact. Until the game comes out your statements regarding it's quality hold not validity whatsoever.
Serious question, you have witnessed all of this? Remember the Fable 1 days of how apparently you could plant an acorn and watch it grow? How can you be so sure this will not be the same case and have any factual support to backup your claim?
Exactly, which I deemed this as a console gaming pro. What are you getting at here?
Naughty Dog have yet to lie during E3. Compare The Last of Us (visuals) with the final product, compare Uncharted 1-3 with the final product. That company has not let us down, while I will not remain ignorant and hypocritical to the fact that it could happen, I am just saying that I have more of a basis to form my assumptions around given Naughty Dog have yet to lie about the visuals of their games. Unless you can prove me wrong.
As would I.... If they had ever lied about the visuals of their games in the past.
Here is a good analysis video attempting to find out if it actually is in game footage, the guy knows his shit.
A good quote I came across on the internet summing up how console games constantly keep up visually despite how badly the console hardware dates.
"with pc's developers don't really need to figure out shortcuts because they can just use the raw power and by the time they try out more demanding features, the tech has increased. Great creativity always comes when there are limits to what you can do because you need to be creative to make them work. it's how consoles are able to seem to get better as they get older even though their tech is the exact same. So yeah. pc tech is very much wasted. I'd actually love to see Naughty Dog create a fully high end pc game, but obviously that's not going to happen aha."
Last edited:
Last edited:
Really?
This is just false. Even PCs have limitations (sure it's nowhere close to the state the consoles are in), devs still work within constraints regardless of platform, if the "PC raw power" argument would be true, then there would be no need for optimization.
Not really imo. I would've preferred a new IP instead of milking the last juice out of a rather mediocre TPS series.
Making fun of someone else isn't joking imo...
But as I said before: back to topic.
I somehow doubt CDPR presented M/K controls at SDCC. My last hope is Gamescom...
Due to the moderator's warning I will PM you an Uncharted 3 comparison video showing the E3 version and the Current version (The current version looks MUCH better). I will also send you a TLoU version. But for the sake of the moderator I will not add fuel to the fire.Really?
This is just false. Even PCs have limitations (sure it's nowhere close to the state the consoles are in), devs still work within constraints regardless of platform, if the "PC raw power" argument would be true, then there would be no need for optimization.
On topic: The only way I see a downgrade of the final build will possibly be with Witcher 3's UI
What point I'm trying to make? That's pretty obvious.. The question is, what point are you trying to make.. You keep shifting goal posts. We're supposed to be talking about the console's and the PC's technical capabilities and how it relates to game technology, and you're basically telling me how much better console games are (or you think they are) which is a completely unrelated topic..
Here you go again bringing up a completely unrelated topic, which is by the way, just your opinion. And the PC is a single platform, and yet you are comparing it to consoles which doesn't constitute one platform.. That said, the overall revenue for the PC gaming market is much higher than it is for consoles..
I didn't bring up No Man's Sky, you did. And you also brought up UC4, another game that isn't out. Don't be hypocritical..
Star Citizen cannot be downgraded because it is running on the PC platform only and is targeted towards high end machines. No Man's Sky is an indie game by comparison..
You can get any game to run on any system theoretically if you're willing to make compromises. Star Citizen can indeed run on the PS4 and Xbox One, but the developer's vision would have to be compromised.. The Witcher 3 can run on the Xbox 360 and the PS3, but again, the compromises would be too great and it would ruin CDPR's intent..
And since you bring up Crysis, that's the perfect example. The console version of Crysis is scaled back severely in both graphics and physics compared to the PC version.
PC was the first to bring gamers 3D technology, MMOs, HD resolution, UHD resolution, Surround gaming, Digital Distribution, hardware accelerated physics and Virtual Reality..
Virtual Reality in particular is highly revolutionary to gaming. It's a game changer, and since it requires a lot of horsepower due to the need for constant 60 FPS, the PC is a natural fit..
Already addressed above..
If the PC is a more capable platform, and it is, then why wouldn't games be better and more innovative due to the developer not being as limited as with consoles?
The same naturally goes to UC4. But unlike UC4, Star Citizen has playable content available for backers right now, so we have some indication at least of what the game will be like..
There is playable content available to backers for Star Citizen.. With Star Citizen, there is only one way to go and that is up, since the game is targeted towards high end systems..
What I'm getting at is that exclusive titles are an artificial limitation.. Technical limitations however are REAL..
I don't have to prove you wrong. All anyone needs to do is google Uncharted 3 E3 vs Final and they can see for themselves and make up their own minds..
Lying and misrepresenting are two different things..
Like I've been saying, if you're willing to compromise, you can get any game running on any system..
But so far I have yet to see or someone explain how Witcher 3 is getting downgraded . All i`ve seen in this thread so far are fears and speculations by being compared to other games . I do think that CDPR deserves better than that . After all the devs said that they would not release Witcher 3 on any of the old gen consoles simply because the old gen consoles could not handle with what they wanted to achieve .
1. If auto-update is your only point, I'd rather have a system NOT update automatically, and instead allow me to choose when I want (especially because newer drivers can be more problematic than they are superior). But a Windows system can easily be setup to automatically update drivers as well without the user's consent, so this is ultimately a non-point.
You keep saying "Plug and play" without actually knowing where that phrase comes from. PnP originates with PC hardware in which it can be added to a system and automatically discovered by the OS and utilized without requiring user intervention. The fact a console can be plugged in, turned on, and you can play games, has nothing to do with PnP. Plugging in a controller, and having the OS be able to use it without user intervention IS an act of PnP.
Your point is little more than "I like the system to do everything for me so that I don't have to understand what is going on in the background." Automation, to a point, is fine, it expedites a process. But that same mentality is dangerous, and I've seen it personally be responsible for people who turn in computers riddled with viruses because they just wanted to get from point A to B as quickly as possible, and in between, performed a myriad of unsafe actions to get there. This is actually one of the reasons why I personally am very concerned about the public's wanton nature to consume technological services without even understanding the most basic of safe use practices. In other words, their complacency and ignorance fuels their grief down the line.
Your problem with the "Build me a PC for $360" argument is 2-fold. First, the price these consoles came out at was $500, even though the price point of the consoles today has dropped. And often, due to the modular nature of PCs, you didn't have to upgrade every component in order to get the same power. Often, it was little more than a CPU and or new GPU that was needed in order to match the performance capabilities of the console. Also, you're not getting an apples to apples comparison. A PC is always more capable than a console. Because a console was designed from the ground up to do 1 thing: gaming. Sure, it has expanded into other areas, and the respective owners are trying to give it more functionality, but a PC will always be more capable because, well, it's a PC. The scope of a PC is not finite. That's the very nature of a modular, extendable infrastructure; something consoles currently do not offer. People do not buy PC to be JUST a gaming machine. They buy it because it does games AND all the things consoles cannot do; that, understandably, will be more expensive.
Your point about Witcher 3 is invalid as well. You are not comparing apples to apples. It will be easier for the devs to develop FOR a console, because it has static hardware, but that hardware is inferior in capability to a PC. And as I had mentioned earlier, because many developers cater their code to the capabilities of these consoles, you never see PC systems being pushed; you never see progress being made by leaps and bounds. There were some developers, known first and foremost as PC developers, like id and Crytek, who put out games that pushed the boundaries of what gaming could be; they stressed the hardware on the PC. But when they developed the game for the consoles, that set, static hardware, they HAD to scale things down. Textures, polygons, post-processing effects, in order to work within the computational power limits of the environment. The same will be true of W3. The consoles will be given a version, but because CDPR are capable and apt developers on PC, they can scale things beyond to a point that would make the consoles crawl. Because PC's are modular in ability, they operate at varying levels of performance, based on their components.
Since you like summations so much, I'll make my counterpoints in summary.
1. Consoles are more simplistic, providing the user with less control over their environment and developing mindsets which can be dangerous in open-ended platforms that provide the user with finite control.
2. Consoles, due to static hardware that is standardized, enjoy more support from developers, even though this has caused stagnation in other more powerful platforms, as well as invoking a duration of regression in new technological advances until the next hardware refresh.
3. Consoles are priced according to what they do. When compared to their PC counterparts, they will never be able to do as much as a PC can, because they are not built with that in mind, and when restricted to just the gaming aspect of functionality, their performance comparison is static compared to the PC's ability to interchangaeably upgrade its hardware in between refreshes.
The psychology of it, as I've seen many places, is that people feel defensive if you state you support something they do not. I think this is a core reason why there's such a rift between console and PC gamers. They want to drill home to the other side why their choice is better than the other, to help make themselves feel like they made the right choice. But for whatever reason, comparing consoles to PCs is not an apples to apples comparison. They are 2 different machines, built around different needs, that share some common functionality. They provide different pros and cons depending on the needs and wants of their users. And the choice the user ultimately decides on is never a wrong one. You should never feel like you need to justify your choice. Be you console or PC gamer, you enjoy both the pros and cons of your platform; neither is perfect.
You keep saying "Plug and play" without actually knowing where that phrase comes from. PnP originates with PC hardware in which it can be added to a system and automatically discovered by the OS and utilized without requiring user intervention. The fact a console can be plugged in, turned on, and you can play games, has nothing to do with PnP. Plugging in a controller, and having the OS be able to use it without user intervention IS an act of PnP.
Your point is little more than "I like the system to do everything for me so that I don't have to understand what is going on in the background." Automation, to a point, is fine, it expedites a process. But that same mentality is dangerous, and I've seen it personally be responsible for people who turn in computers riddled with viruses because they just wanted to get from point A to B as quickly as possible, and in between, performed a myriad of unsafe actions to get there. This is actually one of the reasons why I personally am very concerned about the public's wanton nature to consume technological services without even understanding the most basic of safe use practices. In other words, their complacency and ignorance fuels their grief down the line.
Your problem with the "Build me a PC for $360" argument is 2-fold. First, the price these consoles came out at was $500, even though the price point of the consoles today has dropped. And often, due to the modular nature of PCs, you didn't have to upgrade every component in order to get the same power. Often, it was little more than a CPU and or new GPU that was needed in order to match the performance capabilities of the console. Also, you're not getting an apples to apples comparison. A PC is always more capable than a console. Because a console was designed from the ground up to do 1 thing: gaming. Sure, it has expanded into other areas, and the respective owners are trying to give it more functionality, but a PC will always be more capable because, well, it's a PC. The scope of a PC is not finite. That's the very nature of a modular, extendable infrastructure; something consoles currently do not offer. People do not buy PC to be JUST a gaming machine. They buy it because it does games AND all the things consoles cannot do; that, understandably, will be more expensive.
Your point about Witcher 3 is invalid as well. You are not comparing apples to apples. It will be easier for the devs to develop FOR a console, because it has static hardware, but that hardware is inferior in capability to a PC. And as I had mentioned earlier, because many developers cater their code to the capabilities of these consoles, you never see PC systems being pushed; you never see progress being made by leaps and bounds. There were some developers, known first and foremost as PC developers, like id and Crytek, who put out games that pushed the boundaries of what gaming could be; they stressed the hardware on the PC. But when they developed the game for the consoles, that set, static hardware, they HAD to scale things down. Textures, polygons, post-processing effects, in order to work within the computational power limits of the environment. The same will be true of W3. The consoles will be given a version, but because CDPR are capable and apt developers on PC, they can scale things beyond to a point that would make the consoles crawl. Because PC's are modular in ability, they operate at varying levels of performance, based on their components.
Since you like summations so much, I'll make my counterpoints in summary.
1. Consoles are more simplistic, providing the user with less control over their environment and developing mindsets which can be dangerous in open-ended platforms that provide the user with finite control.
2. Consoles, due to static hardware that is standardized, enjoy more support from developers, even though this has caused stagnation in other more powerful platforms, as well as invoking a duration of regression in new technological advances until the next hardware refresh.
3. Consoles are priced according to what they do. When compared to their PC counterparts, they will never be able to do as much as a PC can, because they are not built with that in mind, and when restricted to just the gaming aspect of functionality, their performance comparison is static compared to the PC's ability to interchangaeably upgrade its hardware in between refreshes.
The psychology of it, as I've seen many places, is that people feel defensive if you state you support something they do not. I think this is a core reason why there's such a rift between console and PC gamers. They want to drill home to the other side why their choice is better than the other, to help make themselves feel like they made the right choice. But for whatever reason, comparing consoles to PCs is not an apples to apples comparison. They are 2 different machines, built around different needs, that share some common functionality. They provide different pros and cons depending on the needs and wants of their users. And the choice the user ultimately decides on is never a wrong one. You should never feel like you need to justify your choice. Be you console or PC gamer, you enjoy both the pros and cons of your platform; neither is perfect.
If this game were coming out from Ubisoft, I'd say that in and of itself, is reason enough to know that the PC version will be getting a downgrade. Ubi has willfully earned itself as a reputation of a company who believes PC stands for "Port it from Console". Ubisoft is the epitome of a company that has actual talent working there, but whose projects ultimately end up as failures due to their executions. Ubi's UI is notoriously poor on PC, and their post-release support is laughable at best.
That being said, and knowing that CDPR is on the job here, I have no worries whatsoever that this game will get the "Ubi treatment". PC have to be very difficult things to develop for, because there's no standardization. I'm a professional web developer; we have the same issue with Internet Explorer. You can code up a website and it'll work flawless in great browsers like Chrome and Firefox, but then someone will view it in IE, and it'll be broken visually or functionally. That's because IE seems to ignore standards set forth and followed by other entities that good browsers follow. The very modular nature of a PC makes it tough to code for structurally. But consoles are set pieces of hardware; much easier to develop for, but that doesn't make them superior. I'm sure CDPR would love for PC development to be more standardized, as that could ensure that they could spend less time coding in order to make a product that would work as intended across a wider array of devices.
I agree with you Tommy. I think CDPR will give PC and console gamers a great experience. They have earned themselves a good reputation by word and deed. So I will give them the benefit of the doubt.
That being said, to me, UI, camera and FOV are the most common areas of failure I see from console-centric developers who port to PC. These are areas of the interaction model that are, at their core, very different from the console platform to the PC. And these developers, like Ubi, who don't understand this, are known for short-changing players on the PC repeatedly with these same issues.
You haven't understood so far (at least it seems so) that "downgrading" is not only about graphics.
It starts with basic game design centered around a controller instead around mouse and keyboard. But to be fair that was already true for Witcher 2.
Graphics/visuals are really the smallest possible issue for me...
He does understand, Tommy is just pointing out that with no evidence or extensive gameplay, we shouldn't worry. And he's right. My only fear on the issue is the PR angle they've taken in regard to platform parity. Granted that's a flimsy reason to worry, but it is a 180 from how they talked up the PC version of TW2.
Good points. A game is always more than just the eye candy.
The input method (gamepad vs. mouse/keyboard) is actually an integral design aspect which has a HUGE impact on the game itself. Because of these 2 very different styles of interaction, this makes UI and view/control issues paramount in importance. What works for 1 style of input, chances are, will not work as well for the other. I made a post called A Handful of UI suggestions to the CDPR devs that talked about a couple primary areas that I hope the developers remain vigilant about.
You don't need any gameplay evidence for that (basic design). There are just some things you cannot do with a controller. Everything in the game must be controllable with a controller and not only "kind of" but perfectly. The usual design and development route/rule is "make it perfect for controllers" and only after that "port it to M/K". That's how Assassin's Creed is done. That's how Witcher 2 was done. That's how Witcher 3 is done.
I'm not talking about visuals here, just as a reminder. I don't even think visuals are that important. Of basic importance for me is how a game PLAYS and not how it looks. Of course nice visuals add to the atmosphere and the overall feal. But I couldn't care less if the visuals are 30%, 40% or 50% better than the ones in Witcher 2. Everything above a certain threshold is just "nice to have" (I guess that threshold will be quite high with the next-gen consoles level being it). Of course you can't say much about visuals and graphical partiy or disparity yet without solid proof and I get it that this might be important for a few people who invested hundreds or thousands of dollars in their PCs and who are in dire need of some justification for that now. But that's not what I worry about. That's "just" graphics.
I want to know more about the actual gameplay and how it performs with M/K. If some people tell me that a game feels much better with a controller than with M/K (take e.g. Dark Souls or Assassin's Creed or even Witcher 2) I am deeply worried and disappointed because that's not a "true" PC game for me anymore. Even if it's PC exclusive (e.g. like Witcher 2 for a certain time) it's made with controllers in mind. It's made with console gameplay in mind. It's made by people and for people who are used to controllers and console gameplay. To me personally, that's REAL downgrading. That's sacrificying the possibilites and core values and devices on PC for console and controller gameplay and I don't like that at all. Too bad that it seems that exactly this is happening with the Witcher series since Witcher 1 as well...
uch:Yeah this is definitely true.. The question imo really isn't whether the Witcher 3 PC will be downgraded, but how downgraded the console versions will be in comparison to the PC version..
Resolution is the first thing that's going to be scaled back most likely. Even though they are targeting 1080p for both consoles, I'm almost positive the Xbox One won't reach it. The PS4 is more likely to do so, but even it's not guaranteed..
These consoles seem to have issues with massive, densely populated worlds so if Watch Dogs is any indication, 1080p won't be happening..
- Status