HDTV became a thing in 2006 and while Blu-rays brought the movies, the Xbox 360 and PS3 did the gaming part. In the beginning some there were games with 1080p support, but as time passed devs were happy if 720p didn't lag. Unfortunately now that time is also over, so Micro$oft and $ony released the "next-gen" consoles, which in reality was nothing more than a facelift.
So my question is: it's next gen in what exactly?
>Can't even manage 1080p in recent games
>Can't even get solid 60 fps in demanding games, heck, it can't even get solid 30 fps in demanding games
>No 21:9 support
>No 4K Blu-ray support
>No high refresh rate display support
>No wide gamut display support
It's the same shit bumped back to it's original resolution (1080p) so it can slowly fall down to 720p once again (more and more games are 900p only, if there are no new consoles by 2018, 720p will be inevitable).
Dark Souls 3 900@24p? Don't tell me it's Shitbox only because Paragon will run at 900p on the Playstation.
Gaming has became cancer. It's the same shit over and over again. Millions spent on hyping 12 year olds, but other then that no new ideas. Not technically, nor gameplay wise.
I mean while I agree with you, until there are some huge technological advancements again, we're kinda stuck.
Tech has been very stagnant for the past 5 years and the new architecture for the coming GPU cards apparently is somehow worse than current systems.
Neither of the big three can just magically make their shitbox better until we have the technology for it. Which is why Sony and probably soon Nintendo is jumping on the VR train because that most likely will be the new shit for a while now until consoles can deliver at least constant 30 FPS at 4K which won't happen for a while.
>>331982217
This contrived race for graphical fidelity is seriously killing videogames for me. I could honestly not give half a shit if the game can emulate a realistic scene or animation, it should always be secondary to gameplay. Yet, developers continue ti focus on making games look good that gameplay content is increasingly becoming so homogenized that I can barely tell AAA releases apart anymore.
It's become increasingly more difficult to dig through the marketing and hype bullshit to find some actual fucking videogames.
AI and better physics wouldn't hurt imo. Also, new console lunches should be on sync with new technology. A midrange 14/16 nm GPU with full DX12 support could probably feed an 1440p screen.
We get shitty games for the same reason we get shitty movies. It's no longer an entertainment business but purely money business. Let's make the same crp every year and market it like it's the next big thing. It works, so why would they innovate? Why tell a story or create a new genre? Why put artistic value in games? Just why? Kids will buy the new COD anyway.
>>331982217
You're cancer, graphics don't matter and this stress on them is what killed the industry back when the PS360 came out.
>>331982217
>"then"
>when it should have been "than"
All credibility lost, right there. Fuck you OP. I'm gonna buy a PS4.5 and an Xbox 10.
>>331985303
What stress? Do you have a fucking idea what I'm talking about? Not about fapping at high-poly models. More resources give more tools to the developers' hands. Bloodborne for example could have never existed if we all were using PS1s. Just imagine what kind of games could exist if we broke free of the limitation of current gen consoles.
Movies, games, music, books etc are all about story telling and the more powerful hardware we have, the less it will bottleneck the game's ability to tell you that particular story.
>>331985625
You're one of those funny guys, aren't ya?
>>331986956
>Just imagine what kind of games could exist if we broke free of the limitation of current gen consoles.
Name a game that can't be done on an Xbox 360
>>331982217
The games are good.
>>331987176
Undertale
>>331987176
Jesus... Of course every game can be made on every console. Bloodborne could have been a PS1 game for example. Would it have been as good? No.
Better AI, higher dynamic range, wider gamut, much better graphics (= more freedom for graphic designers), high framerates etc, there's a lot of room to improve. Faggots like you are the problem. One must never say something is good enough. Never. There's always better out there and it's our job to make it real. To make it happen. If life wasn't like that, we would be fucking single celled amoebas.
Breaking free of the limitations of current gen consoles sounds all fine and dandy when you don't take production and end user cost into consideration.
PC gaming is not nearly as widespread as consoles for the simple fact that it costs significantly more money to do. Don't come back at me with this budget build new egg bullshit, because I happen to own very high end gaming pc and I know what it takes to build and can be done on the cheap if done correctly. thing is we aren't talking about us, we are talking about mass market here and mass market doesn't want to spend hours in forums trying to figure out which graphics card is the best bang for their buck and what to do when you can't get your drivers to play nice.
We are nowhere near where we need to be for PC gaming to become the main stream solution. Right now and for the foreseeable future the evolution of gaming will continue to be driven by the console market, for better or for worse. This is mainly due to the low barrier for entry. It is a hell of a lot easier for Brett Everyman to buy an Xbox One and play GTAV with his buddies than it is for him to build/buy a gaming pc capable of running it and hoping his friends have similar means.
>>331988713
With the exception of AI, every improvement you named there was purely graphical.
Before the 8th gen, every new console gen brought with it entirely new genres or gameplay mechanics that technically could not have been done on previous generations of hardware.
You simply cannot make levels as large as Bloodborne's on a PS1. You don't have enough RAM. You don't have the CPU power for all the different considerations in the game world.
But at the same time, all the other souls games worked on the PS3 without much difference at all.
>>331989214
What's a realistic cost for a high-end gaming pc?
>>331989214
kudos to you, first time i read some1 redpilling the "pc is cheaper" bullshit
>>331989463
Depends on how high you want your "high-end" system to go. For some of my lower end but still powerhouse setups I have been around the $1300 mark. For the sake of the original argument though price point isn't the only thing to take into consideration. Not everyone WANTS to build a pc. While it isn't hard to do, it is something that takes some level of skill and knowledge. Not building it yourself just increases the cost even more.
>>331989463
Min a grand on graphics...then 1 to 2 grand on the rest.
>>331989463
You can get a solid PC for around $1000.
$1300 will get you a pretty fucking great one.
Beyond that starts to get to elitist overkill bullshit nobody needs, but some people want.
You have to replace parts here and there over time. Not because they break, but to stay relevant. Your GPU won't run games as well in 5 years, because those games will be more intense.
>>331982217
>no new ideas. Not technically, nor gameplay wise.
Nintendo is the only one trying anything remotely fresh or innovative in terms of both hardware or gameplay and they get nothing but crap for it. Games are Hollywood movies now, most games are going to be aimed at the lowest-common denominator, bigger publishers make AAA blockbusters and little else. The core and hobbyists stopped being the target audience some time ago.
>>331987363
Some games might have solid core gameplay but are ruined with poor or lazy design and a lack of content and polish. Too many games are treated like platforms for microtransactions and DLC.
>>331991520
+1
>>331989214
>mass market
And there you said it, that's exactly why gaming is cancer now.
