Next Gen Differences?

This is something i have been thinking about for some time (basically since M$ came out and said they woudl be first to market). What difference will the time between the next round of consoles cause? I don't think graphixs will be that much of a deciding factor this time. I know the xbox2 will be out a full year before the other two and that for that same reason the ps2 is noticably weaker than the cube and especially the xbox, but i dont think those same factors will apply.

Heres why:
Displacement mapping. any one who has seen the video demo of the unreal engine 3 knows it looks awsome for a lot of reasons, but the most impressive thing in that demo is something that i dont think they spent nearly enough time showing off. Right now games like doom and half-life and halo2 look much more realistic thanx to Normal mapping. Which makes bump maps react realisticly to real time lighting which causes a much greater sense of dimension on a flat surface. Displacement mapping goes one step further (and the final step as far as i can figure) by litteraly drawing a flat polygon into the third dimension with a height map. Now as this is a very new and not really commonly avalble thing i am far from an expert on it but as far as i can figure you should be able to make a sphere out of as little as one polygon, just a flat circle extend in both directions(maybe 2 woudl be required since it woudl extending in both directions). Maybe a little more dramatic than the actual ability but the point is the usual mesaure of how many polgons a machine can handle has become alot less important. so if you take a very low poly scene with low poly characters and throw in the ability to do real time lighting with realistic shadows all done in shaders what challenges are left to seperate the consoles of the future?

animation, physics and A.I.! I know i don't give much of a crap what EA thinks the fututre of games is (personaly i wish the whole company would fold cause i think its done more to ruin games in recent years than anyone). However i think the comment made in the recent story about the emotion displayed by characters is actully a worth while point. The next big challenge isnt going to be photo real graphics, i think anybody will be able to do that relativley well now, but rather life like animation will become a larger topic of intrest. If im not wrong (and i may be, please correct me if i am) but i think polygon deformation calculations are performed in the cpu before the info is passed along to the graphics chip for processing. if this is indeed the case the amount of animation information will then be limited by the strengeth of the cpu , bus speed, and ram quantity. Similarly physics and A.I are also handled by the cpu so realisic clothing and NPC's will be limited by cpu power. To me it seems like this is what the future power stuggle will be. Madden may look about the same across all the sytems but maybe the ps3 will have the jersesy of the players flapping realisiticly in the wind, maybe the characters will be able to yell out things, based on circumstance, and have realistic lip synicing on every character (trash talking about the previous play to each other on the line!). Maybe the ability to do real time damage do the charcter models, bruises cuts bleeding, all based on how they hit each other.

Thats just my thoughts, sorry if they are a bit scattered (its early and im jacked on caffiene), what are yours?
_______

Well, the ironic thing here is that only resource wealthy corporations (like EA) will have the means to develop substantially more sophisticated games than the current crop (at least within a reasonable devlopment period). The next generation of consoles will provide a sizeable increase in horsepower, but with better AI, animation, physics engines etc. comes longer development cycles and more complex project management.

Anyone expecting games of a similar aesthetic quality to Half-Life 2, will be left wanting - how long did it take Valve to develop? 4 Years? Most dev co's don't have that luxury.

Without evidence of current developments, no one can be sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 1st wave of games for XB2/PS3/Evo don't offer a huge leap in eye-candy to the current AAA games (Halo 2, GTA:SA, Metroid etc.).

You raise some interesting points.

Several of the people developing the 3D models for Metroid Prime 2 remarked that they could have made the graphics a lot better if they'd had more memory to work with.

Programmers and model designers will always find something to use the extra power for. As you suggested, physics and AI will probably benefit.

Interestingly I think that we have now reached the point where better graphics will no longer improve the quality of gameplay. I had trouble playing some (a lot of) N64 games because of the poor graphics, and this hasn't occured at all on the current gen.

In otherwords, while I think graphics will improve I don't think that they will sell games any more.

Which ugly games on the N64 affected your eagerness to play them? I had an N64, but was selective in the game's I bought (Mario 64, Goldeneye, Zelda, ISS etc.), and they all looked pretty groundbreaking at the time (IMO).

The Saturn, on the other hand, often put me off ;-)

I agree that current gen games don't ever look so bad you can't tell what they're supposed to represent.

Here's some of the games I had problems with:

* Mario 64: The camera got in the way and I found Maz hard and slow to control. It didn't feel like a Mario game.

* Zelda OOT: The horrible slow and clunky control system coupled with a "jumpy" frame rate mean't I just couldn't stand any time on this game. I still don't like OoT now, even the GC version, as the controls are hideously unresponsive and the fixed camera is irritating as hell. Too much pointless walking around.

* Jet Force Jemini: Awful.

* Goldeneye and (esp) Perfect Dark: I was put on the multiplayer. The dire frame rate and refresh rate gave me a headache after two minutes and the lack of clarity in the small rectangle meant that I found it impossible to navigate anywhere.

Conclusion: N64 minus a few games (Yoshi's Story, Paper Maz) sucks. I found this primitive 3D console unplayable. Bring back Starwing.

I'm Glad this has spawned some kind of conversation even if it wasn't the one i was hoping for. But, when in rome i suppose... I loved the n64 and still think mario 64 is one of the single best games ever made. Yes the camera had issues here and there but its still on par with some of the average platformers of today. as for the graphics the n64 usually didnt give me to much problem but there def where ocasions when it was to g'damn blurry to know what was going on, especially in perfect dark. Over all though i didnt really find it inhibited the play of most of the games. OoT was also fantastic and possibly the best zelda game ever, in my eyes.

Another thing i had been thinking about that i mildly related to this topic is something i read in an interview with Lorne Lanning (oddworld inhabitants)(i think the interview was in xbn) where he stated that he believes that machinima is going to be a growing trend. Like you could make an entire cg movie in realtime graphics. The characters would actually function partially on there own a.i. so that rather than making each part of the character move you would basically teach it how to walk and then just give it cues like a real actor. "walk from point A to point B in 3 secounds". While i believe the complexity of A.I. required to make this viable is still a bit beyond our reach i wander if anyoen will bother with prerendered graphics as time goes by. Generally i preffer in engine graphics because it keeps things consistent. Honestly gettign to see a final fantasy character in beutifull pre rendered glory just makes the rest of the game disapointing when im starring at the polygonal mess of a model.

Also i wonder what your feelings are on the next round of consol wars since the two of you that have postesd so far seem to be in agreance that graphics wont be as a big of a deciding factor in the next round. Is it possible that M$ is shooting them selves in the foot by comming out early or are they banking on the fact that when the other two come out they wont be able to look significantly better than the nextbox.

The way i see it this might actully be a very good move on M$ part as most of the consoles and games sold world wide dont go to "hard core gamers" anymore. EA is proff positiv that you dont have to make AAA games to succeed you just have to make games good enough and with enough character to sell to the main stream. One of the main reasons the xbox has done as well as it has is the visible difference in the graphics lureing in the casual gamer. If your a madden fan than the prospect of the best lookign version is a major selling poitn as they all play basically the same. [considering the current round sony had the advantage of having online support for a year (or two?) before M$ did.]

thats enough random thoughts for one post, discuss amoungst yourselves...
_________

Devlopers seem able to develop games cross-platform with relative ease (renderware?), because current consoles have round about the same capabilities (with perhaps PS2 games looking a bit rougher).

I think the variance in power between platforms in the next gen, will be even more subtle.

The main pulling power is IP. Will GTA and FF be cross-platform from the word go (doesn't Rockstar's exclusivity deal with SOny end 2004?, and I'm not sure about Square Enix). These are the big console franchises, along with Metal Gear and the EA Sports range, and any one of Sony, M$ and Ninty would chew their metaphorical arms off for it.

Would Konami/Square/EA/Rockstar be prepared to sell their souls for enough $$$?

They never did. It's one of those big myths: It looks better therefore it must play better. But these days gameplay is bankrupt... it's just the same running around slashing and shooting or casting spells crap in every game.

Games can look lovely and be terrible, and most games today are. There's little imagination and no innovation.

They can make Doom 4 100% lifelike, and it'll still be Doom in a prom dress.

Don't you consider a good frame-rate and optimum camera system as being vital? You can have the best gampelay concept in the world, but if the game engine hits patches of 10-15 FPS, and the camera stares at the wall as your being killed/ walk of a ledge/ drive into a wall (delete as appropriate) then it ruins a potentially great game.

You bet your bottom dolllar that they would.

There's no platform loyalty in these companies, just shareholders wanting their dividends. They sign exclusivity deals if a platform manufacturer offers them more cash than they would have made on the rival pltform... with games as huge as Grand Theft Auto 3: Generic Town-alike this becomes harder and harder to do, because they would make MILLIONS by going multi-platform.

Yes, of course. Buyt the camera system is more logic/mechanics than graphics.

Agree about frame rate though. If we must play fdodgy 3D wander-about-em-ups, then at I want a steady 25/29.97fps.

EDIT: upon reading a bit more of this conversation and reviewing my own posts i think that i am including the progress of computer strnegth over all when talkign about the improvment of graphics. There are things that are being delivered to you visually , like your fellow soldiers actions on the batttle field, that may not be specifically related to graphic quality but are indeed improved through better grapgics and stronger cpu and more memory, and indeed the quality of grapgics is directly linked to the strnegth of the cpu. you coudl stick a g-force fx on the 6.5 mhz processors of your snes and it would never be able to make the same game that that same graphics chip woudl do with a 3ghz P4. In other words, sorry if i seem a little of point but i feel A.I., physics, animation are all directly linked with the graphics so they cant be considered seperatly when talking abotu a systems potential.



I dont think you are entirely correct. Sure improvement in graphics within a category do not necesarily a better game make, but better graphic abilities can allow for new types of game play. I.E. the first person shooter. There are those who woudl argue that tetris is possibly the best video game ever made but its hard to compare somethign like tetris which is complelty cerebral with something like doom. Although admitedly the requirement for quick reflexes and decision making are required for both. Point is as far as simple games with simple play mechanics go, there are hundreds of games that where made durring the 80's to keep you satisfied on that sort of thing. I for one enjoy the story tellign aspect of games like zelda and halo. While the same stories could technically be told through an entierly text based game i dont think it would match the game play, even a mix of heavy story through text and simple pixel graphics game play would not deliver the same feeling. Plus it would be limited by the memory availble in the particular system. I do believe that graphics are a crutch for developers who arent good at telling a good story or making good game play but that doesnt mean that when used efficiently good grapgics cant improve play if not create new play experiences. splintercell for example would not be the same game if not for the real time shadows which coul definitly not be done on a ps1 or a nes. This is also besides the fact that the A.I. quality of your enemies in a game is also determined by the strnegth of the CPU (and developer talent of course). if not for better graphics FPS's would still be mindless sprites shifting around on the screen, alla doom, as aposed to the intelligent npc's in half life that can work as a team and look for cover and use terraine to their advantage. There is something alot more satisfying in killing a worth while apponent than there is in pumping rounds into a wind up toy. Which is why Multiplayer gamming is so incredibly popular, i suppose.

Oooh, controversial. Surely anything that is incorporated in, or directly affects, the rendering of graphics is under the "graphics" umbrella. I suppose this can be argued both ways - but either way I'd guess you consider gameplay a higher priority than lense-flare, heat-haze, bogey-running and dandruff effects...

If you're implementing a game then one of the major considerations should be camera - the way you design everything from levels to graphics will depend on the perspective. A poor camera kills a game. But anyway, I can see you're point that the cam could be considered seperate to the graphics themselves.

The main thrust of my argument was that the N64 couldn't generate enough frames for comfortable play nor enough polygons to create comfortably recognisable graphics in some senarios. Prehaps because of the early method of implementation of analogue control or the N64's processor (although I doubt this - 90MHz should be enough to implement quite a lot during that generation) the console had real problems with responsiveness - my point being that even when converted to the GC OoT still feels slow and clunky (interestingly this suggests inefficient programming along with the fact that Zelda: MM felt a lot more responsive than OoT - possibly an upgrade to Nintendo's standard developer tools?).

Thus in previous generations the lack of resources in the consoles meant that it was hard to create a good all-round game. Most things, in some way were compromised. Remember the N64 doesn't have any dedicated sound hardware - processor cycles and memory space were wasted implementing even basic sound. These extra cycles could have been used for graphics or to improve control.

Now what we have is games that not only look good but that have good gameplay mechanics as well. While in principle I think that graphics don't matter (you can't get better 2D gameplay than the Super NES) I think that they can seriously limit a game.

And I acknowledge (and agree with) yours that it is key to the graphics being usable in a gameplay context.



Again, I agree wiht you, although I think the N64 was at the cusp of 3D graphics becoming acceptable.

But your argument is predicated on the belief that ONLY 3D games can be good games. I accept that you are not stating this, and that you might not even belief this, but you do seem to be assuming this.

Looking back on a long gamesplaying career, more of my all time favourite games are 2D than are 3D. I think people are using increasingly realistic game environments to excuse increasingly unimaginative gameplay.