Ben-DutkaThere's no doubt in my mind that in the world of consoles, the best graphical productions can be found on the PlayStation 3. In all probability, this theory will be reinforced when Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception arrives on November 1.
Naughty Dog has done some amazing things with Sony's machine, haven't they? And they're hardly the only developer to do so. But after reading the comments made by Naughty Dog game director Justin Richmond, where he said we can only expect incremental graphical increases from here on out, I'm wondering about the future… Mind you, he doesn't say the PS3 is tapped out, nor does he say future games won't look better and better. Let's make that clear.
What he does say is that there was a ton of power left over after the first Uncharted , but that wasn't the case after completing Uncharted 2 . We have no doubt that Naughty Dog will keep polishing and refining, and other designers will continue to excel on the PS3 platform, but… Well, it's that implication that the PS3 doesn't have any big jumps left. In other words, while we'll see advances, it seems like the overtly significant progression is definitely behind us.
Therefore, have developers discovered everything there is to discover? After this, is it just about getting better at what they already know? And if that's the case, should we be looking forward to a new piece of hardware? Personally, I'm good with the PS3 for a few more years, but that may not be the case when other gamers read Richmond's comments.
No. Not even close.
tapped out? no, but expecting only "incremental" graphical increases sounds perfectly logical to me at this point.
i'm pretty happy with the graphics we get but i am starting to get an itch for more of an increase.
I let you know when the next God of War comes out.
Drake's Deception looks quite a bit better than Among Thieves. Maybe it's not the Drake's Fortune to Among Thieves kind of leap but it still looks better.
I wish you are right about the next God of War. It just seems logical to have another God of War because Santa Monica can't spend all the effort on the engine to just have one game.
Stig Asmussen all but admitted that there was a new God of War in the works during that God of War Directors Live panel interview. I'm sure we'll see another one before the PS3 is done.
I saw the director's live too. I remember Stig talking about having ideas of alternate endings to God of War trilogy, but refuse to reveal it. I guess that is enough evidence that it's coming.
God of War 2 took 2 years. God of War 3 took 3 years. If there is a God of War 4 in development, by having the engine created already for PS3, the 4th installment should only take 2 years.
I'd imagine two years, as well. The graphical quality of GOW3 was phenomenal! Retexturing the environment, possibly screwing with shading and lighting… To me, all the team really has to do (other than a storyline and map design) is modelling work for levels and new enemies. Everything else can be derived from existing models & skins.
I am fine for now, but there are things missing from the PS3 that I want in the PS4. If the PS4 is backward compatible I would pick one up tomorrow. I love the PS3 and everything it has done for me. But, the closer we get to no distance pop up and no pop in/muddy textures the happier I will be. All of you that say you are happy with the PS3 cannot be telling the absolute truth.
(runs for cover to avoid the stones) 🙂
i agree with some the things you are saying. i dislike screen tearing, muddy textures, sub hd, jaggies, games that can't even achieve 30 fps, tiny little maps with only one way to go through them, and dumb a.i. there is a lot of room for improvement to be sure come next gen.
The problems in games you speak of come down to lazy or know nothing developers. It's not the PS3's fault. If these developers could bother themselves with fixing stuff like tearing, the problem wouldn't occur. That said, I have no complaints about the PS3. It's given us the best exclusives on the market and continue to do so.
I am HAPPY with the PS3. It is logical to want and expect more from the PS4 but that does not diminish what I have now. If I did not enjoy it for what it is then I will never be satisfied.
We are getting PS1 and now PS2 "Backwards Compatibility" on the PS3 right now via PSN and HD Collections. Sony would be crazy to exclude PS3 BC on the PS4.
Thanks for speaking for me, but since I am happy with my PS3, completely so, you are not speaking for me. Actually you're not speaking for anyone but yourself. Sounds to me like you're trying to gain a reaction.
I don't think we will ever get 60 fps unless we change the standard of the games. Every game can get 60 fps if we dial down the graphics and gameplay. It all comes down to the developers' decision. If they have a choice of adding extra AI's or maintain 60 fps, they will definitely reserve the extra power for gameplay.
Will we ever see universal 60 fps? i don't think so. Its like chasing a carrot dangling in front of you. You'll never get it.
60fps is overrated.
i think its overrated in terms of using it as the sole reason a game is better than others. like sledgehammer games have been raving about 'our game is 60fps' like its a deal sealer.
it would be nice if more games were at 60fps if it doesnt sacrifice graphical fidelity like cod games do. barely any improvement graphically, it looks the same since cod 4. I think that maybe one main reason why they refuse to get it a major upgrade cuz they know they may not be able to get it to 60fps
@TheHighlander
Umm, no I wasn't, I was just stating my opinion. In my opinion I believe all gamers want what I stated. Yes, we are very happy with the PS3. However, it would be incredible if the PS4 fixed all the PS3's deficiencies. Photo realism is what every gamer is striving to experience. I know that is where gaming is going. It's just going to take time. Sure will be a fun trip though! 🙂
When it comes to competitive shooters, higher frame rates can make a world of difference. I know it's a reason alot of people prefer cod over battlefield.
@Crusader: I doubt you'll find one single element *every* gamer strive to experience other than to keep playing. Not a single thing.
That is my conclusion after following various discussions around here… 😀
Last edited by Beamboom on 10/18/2011 8:41:10 AM
Well, I AM happy with my PS3. But I WAS ecstatic with PS2.
🙂
Last edited by Vitron on 10/18/2011 9:08:23 AM
@Crusader, OK, you are correct I did not mean to attack you over your opinion. I do not believe thought that your opinion is that of every gamer. Nor do I agree that all gamers want photo-realism. I personally do not want photo-realism at all. I want my games to be games that I play. There are games and experiences that would benefit from photo-realism, and there are games where the environments might benefit from such graphical fidelity. However I very much want my games to look and feel like games that is why a game like "Ni No Kuni" sits at the top of my list of games I am looking forward to. Photorealism would ruin many a game for me, games such as Soul Calibur 5 would never survive the impact of photo-realistic graphics.
However above all, I make this simple point regarding photo-realism. Games are works of art, whether programming, writing or art direction/artistry in design or simply the visual art work itself. Games require art, simulations strive for photo-realism. I play games, and occasionally use sims (such as GT5). I want my games to remain games with an emphasis on art, not photo-realistic graphics. That is my opinion, but I think you will find a lot of gamers do not really want photo-realistic graphics, they want visually appealing and entertaining games. That's only my opinion of course, But I believe it is shared by many gamers, perhaps not the majority, but many gamers.
I don't believe that all of gaming is going to photo-realism, and in truth I really hope it doesn't. I do not find the concept of shooters and action games with graphics that are photo-relistic – including all of the action and the violence inherent in the action – to be an appealing one at all. I don't see any need for that level of fidelity in such games, but I know that I am in a minority when it comes to gore in games.
I don't think a lot of gamers or the majority share your opinion. By photo realistic graphics, I am referring to games that would USE them because of their subject matter or environment. For instance, Super Mario Galaxy 7 or Rayman 10 should not have photo realistic graphics. It's a cartoon oriented type of game. But it would be nice to see a 2017 remake of Uncharted, Demon's Souls or even Oblivion/Skyrim in photo realistic graphics. With what I just explained further 100% of gamers would rather have photo realistic graphics than the graphics we have today. 100%! Even you! To walk through the forest in Skyrim looking into the sky and to come to the top of the mountain and over look the majesty in front of you would be exhilarating!! I just cannot believe you would rather have the present gens graphics over the future photo realistic gens.
That's not what I said. I said I would rather have artistry over photo-realism.
If it's like nature seems in FFX or other fantasy games, like flying pyrflies, would that be considered photo-realism, artistry, or both?
Ok Highlander, that makes sense. Artistry is very different and harder to achieve based on the skill of the devs. So that is much more precious than photo realism. My apologies, I misunderstood. If you like artistry then you should give El Shaddai Ascension of the Metatron a try. This game is the epitome of art, no lie! Just an absolutely beautiful game that will make you forget what your original motives were to play the game. You'll find yourself just staring at the levels.
Thanks for that tip, I will give it more attention. I have wondered about that game a couple of times, but know so little about it.
Underdog, I would classify it as art.
Last edited by TheHighlander on 10/18/2011 3:10:13 PM
Not if Santa Monica's engine and Kojima's FOX engine has something to say about it.
MGS4 was in 2008 and so far no news about Santa Monica's next project.
lol@CrusaderForever I'm happy with my PS3. I still see great improvements graphically with games such as the Uncharted series but also the Killzone series amongst others including multi plat games.
I don't think that the PS3 is tapped out now but it might be in 2013
The PS3 will never be tapped out but we will see some diminishing returns from now on.
The PS3 is capable of some very pretty graphics, and developers (like ND) are definitely doing things with it that couldn't be done the first year or two that it was available.
That said, the system has been available for five years (the hardware specs were probably finalized closer to six or seven years ago) and in technology, that is ages. Think about the capabilities of your average cell phone in 2005/2006 and then consider what they are capable of today. So, while the games that are coming out these days are awesome, when we do eventually get a new Sony console, I think we will see some truly remarkable things, especially because this generation of consoles has lasted longer than generations past.
Well, as Ben points out ND didn't say the PS3 was tapped out, they simply said not to expect any more quantum leaps of graphical quality on the PS3. That makes sense, but it doesn't mean that there is no room for improvement, it simply means that the improvement will not com in terms of higher resolution or such, but in terms of frame rate stability, draw distance, texture quality, filtering and aliasing, and so forth.
When you consider that we are nearly at the end of 2011, it's highly unlikely we'll see either Sony or MS put out a new console prior to 2013. 2013 is about when most commentators probably expect the next wave of consoles, it would put the PS3 at 7 years old and the 360 would be 8 years old when replaced.
That would mean that 2012 will be the last year with a full wave of AAA titles for either PS3 or 360, and 2013 will be spotty at best with the new consoles coming and devs moving on to them.
Ah well, we'll see what happens.
Highlander, I think M$ will throw a curve ball… we may well see the promo videos for a new 360 next year, with a possible "go on sale" release date for the holidays 2012…
I tend to agree, the likelihood is not high for a 2012, but possible if M$ wanted to be nasty!
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
No more room for large graphical jumps doesn't necessitate new hardware. Remember, this is just one developer (one of THE finest around, do not get me wrong), and anything is possible. Shadow of the Colossus was released at the tail end of the PS2's main lifespan, and look how that turned out, pushing the PS2 further than it would even allow!
We still can't move the next generation .There is still tons of worlds to be explored using the PS3.
I don't think it is. Either way I don't want a new console yet as I'm happy with this gen.
The 360 just tapped out because the PS3 gave it a choke hold though.
I'm fine with PS3 for atleast a couple more years, if other devs. can match the graphics level as U2/3, GOW III, KZ2/3 then i'm more than happy with it.
I don't really care if the ps3 is tapped out or not. As long as they keep this years level of quality – and there's no reason why they shouldn't – I am fine for a few more years.
Last edited by Beamboom on 10/18/2011 2:11:20 AM
Go away. Graphics are good, but they don't make or break an experience. I mean, hell, I'm replaying Drake's Fortune, and although the lack of definition and detail really struck me at first, I've acclimatised to it. Graphics really do mean very little, to me, in any game.
I'd rather see devs improve their AI, level design, as well as offering new gameplay and more in-depth gameplay, like the ability to switch clothes and have that effect the game world (as it did in Hitman on the PS2, yet almost nothing else has adopted anything remotely similar). I want to see devs do more and provide more, rather than saying "look at my shiny graphics" (I'm looking at you, DICE).
I want… what isn't necessarily restricted by the technology, like stronger atmosphere and universally improved narratives and characterisation. I want to see more surreal-styled games like Child of Eden and El Shaddai. Just stop with the graphics…
Is the PS3 tapped out? If I didn't just manage to prove that I don't care, then I'll never convince you.
I hereby retract my post and refer to this. Lawless put it exceptionally much better than I. 🙂
Haha, thanks.
That's very noble. But we can never dismiss graphics entirely as if it doesn't matter. This is an interactive medium, true, but it's also a visual one. "A picture is worth a thousand words" goes double for our industry.
Would everyone remember Shadow of the Colossus with exactly the same affection if the artistry and detail of those Colossi wasn't so amazing? Would the real-life decisions in Heavy Rain mean exactly as much to our hearts and minds if the characters didn't look as real as game technology could make them at the time?
There are thousands of examples. I'm sorry, but as much as we all want to scoff and sniff at graphics, as much as we all want to think we're above those who think visuals are important, the facts of the case remain.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 10/18/2011 9:17:02 AM
While I personally agree to an extent, there is a ceiling on what is acceptable graphically.
For me, gameplay is the all-important thing, as well. In fact, a graphical 8 or even 7.5 might not matter to me against a graphical 10 if the gameplay is more up my alley and well executed.
So for something like the Drake's Fortune, I wouldn't care either. It isn't top notch anymore, but it's still pretty good and more than acceptable.
However, if gameplay is an 8.5, but graphics are, say a 4… well, there are lots of other games that have gameplay in 7.5 and higher with excellent graphics I would definitely prefer. Chances are, I wouldn't buy that game with 4 graphics.
It's nice to say graphics don't matter, but they do. Perhaps not so much between an 8 and a 10 when the gameplay is still good… but graphics can be way too crappy to be worth a purchase these days.
I don't think anyone here think that graphics doesn't count. I don't see anyone saying it either.
But there is a level where it's good *enough* (for now, of course), and as long as it is at that level then other game mechanics actually are more important.
At least I can say this is my honest opinion.
When I look back at my favourite games so far on the ps3 there's no direct relation between the graphics and my rating of the game. They all look good *enough*, but many of my best looking games are far, far down on my list.
Last edited by Beamboom on 10/18/2011 1:50:55 PM
Okay Ben, I concede the point a little. Graphics can improve the experience, but in no way, shape or form can I be led to believe that they make it. As Beamboom said, they can certainly be good enough. To use Heavy Rain as an example, I admit that the incredible graphical levels achieved in that game do help with immersion, but I would have been happy to have the game display less technical prowess. That being said, the game is an absolute gem.
Surely, however, you can't simply can't out the immense number of games that go for a more unique art style, Valkyria Chronicles is a perfect example. I was engaged with that world, in spite of the less than stellar graphics, though perhaps it was because of the incredible visuals… Would the same have occurred if it had been aiming for realism? Of that I cannot be sure.
And damn, I'd like to continue, but I'm late, so terribly late. I must be off.
Are we this filled with lofty, unrealistic expectations of what every single game should offer in terms of a visual breakthrough this generation? That if these expectations aren't filled it's a generation now in decline or that a new console is needed. Majority of games are multiplat to begin with so in terms of these the PS3 is EXTREMELY untapped still in this category alone. What of actual genuine innovation of the medium of game to begin with, devoid of technology, disregard visuals for a sec not many games or genres have moved past the PS2 or in some cases even earlier in mainstream console gaming in sheer game content and mechanics. The HD era has not been kind to innovation and content and ONLY now in the past year perhaps has a trend formed are we seeing a healthy turn of this tide.
My answer to is the PS3 showing age and tapped out? Hell no.
Oh come on. It's not "EXTREMELY untapped". 😀
You make it sound like multiplats are completely unable to use the hardware. The hardware spec is what it is. You only got so much memory, so much cpu speed and so much capacity of the graphics processors etc. Even an exclusive have to relate to the hardware at hand.
Sure, when you write code specific for one platform you got the potential of obtaining a slight edge on the visuals or smoothness, but that's about it unless that platform is leaps and bounds better than the other platforms (like the PC platform today – that's why Battlefield 3 looks better on that platform compared to the consoles).
There are plenty of multiplats today that looks and plays better than many exclusives. It's not *that* much of a difference, never has been in my humble opinion, but at least it is not any more.
Last edited by Beamboom on 10/18/2011 8:10:22 AM
I sort of agree, Beamboom. Two different systems with the exact same specs on paper may not be equal if the infrastructure and engineering of one system is more efficient (or more complicated, even). That's my only additional thing I would consider.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 10/18/2011 9:45:54 AM
That is of course true, Underdog. But 256kb is still just 256kb, and will only be 256kb available ram to use the best possible way, no matter how platform exclusive the code is you will not be able to push 1mb into those 256kb. There's no room for that. 🙂
I'm sure all the better developers that truly care about their craft(like ND), will continue to do whatever it takes, by "what-ever-means-necessary", to keep on crowding our "OH SH*T" moments for a few more years to come.
It's those developers that are only out for instant cash grabs without any regards to the gamer, that worries me, and could winding up dragging down the mainstream sheep's ill-willed perceptions of a longer lasting "this gen' PS3.
Anyway, I just bought another 60GB Phat Princess to replace the one the USPS clueless monkey's smashed, & promptly upgraded her into a 750GB Super-Phat princess, plus my 320GB Slim Move Mistress is now wearing a stunningly delightful 1T HD ensemble.
Soooo… now that my 2 favorite gals have a whole lot more "juice in their caboose", the 3 of us are all fully expecting at least 2 to 3 more years of triple-sweet tasting gaming morsels to keep right on a-coming.
If every developer finally get's their act together ASAP(and if M$ were to stop effing us over), then next 2 to 3 years could very well become as scrumptious as chocolate dipped bacon!
MMMMM, chocolate dipped bacon, MMMM!!!
Congrats with the new HDs! I saw the thread about your problems installing it too late, or I would have mentioned the USB trick. I've always used that method of installing a new HD myself.
Thanks Beamboom,
Yeah, I never thought to do the USB trick, cause with my 60 Gigger, I'd just pop a new HD in there and just like they used to say on the Honeymooners….."Away we go"