Forum - View topic

The X Button - Station Search

AiddonValentine wrote:

That is the problem with the next gens; they seem to have a tough time justifying why they're being released. For the Wii U it WAS understandable, but with the PS4 and XB1 I just can't see why they exist when we could have gotten a few years out of their predecessors without issue.

This is the longest generation of the modern 3D gaming era. The 360 launched in 2005, and the PS3 in 2006. Just because you personally might not be wanting to upgrade, doesn't mean it's not the time.

I would argue that Resistance was not at all an unremarkable game. Personally, the thing blew me away, and there were several moments that reminded me I was playing on a new console, with new tricks up its sleeve that my old systems simply weren't capable of. Watching an army of parasites engulf the face of a building I thought to be safe, or barreling through the hills in a jeep as I ran over Chimera... Resistance was fantastic on all fronts, in my opinion, and while the games after it were pretty bland for the most part (except for 3), the first one is a testament on how to do the obligatory launch shooter right.

But hey, that's just me as a biased game critic talking, I guess...

It runs $400, a hundred less than the PlayStation 3 originally cost,

Anyone who says it isn't time for next gen is crazy. Now, I'm perfectly happy with how games look on the PS3/360, but hell I'm playing BF4 on medium settings and it blows anything on current gen consoles out of the water.

Even FF14 on low PC settings looks better then the terrible PS3 version.

It's time.

Anyone who says it isn't time for next gen is crazy. Now, I'm perfectly happy with how games look on the PS3/360, but hell I'm playing BF4 on medium settings and it blows anything on current gen consoles out of the water.

Even FF14 on low PC settings looks better then the terrible PS3 version.

It's time.

Quote:

It runs $400, a hundred less than the PlayStation 3 originally cost,

Wasn't the PS3 originally $600?

My main issue is that there just isn't much of a jump between gens like we normally see. The jump from SNES to PS1 was huge. From PS1 to PS2 was huge. PS2 to PS3 wasn't as big but it had HD. Now its really not much of a jump at all, just more detailed character models and environment. I feel the consoles have pretty much maxed themselves out.

People say the gap lessens each time and for awhile I belived that.

Not anymore though. Sure the tech isn't radically changing, it is basically polygon's looking better. But they look a whole lot better.

PS3 games look old and tired compared to thier PC equals, it's almost night and day with some multi platform titles in looks.

There is no paradigm shift, but no I don't feel that next gen dosent look that much better. It looks leagues better.

Is this going to lead to better games? No, but we aren't talking about that either way, so I don't even see the need to bring up " good gameplay durr". Of course, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be intersted in visuals and be excited about them. This is a visual medium.

Rahxephon91 wrote:

People say the gap lessens each time and for awhile I belived that. Not anymore though. Sure the tech isn't radically changing, it is basically polygon's looking better. But they look a whole lot better. PS3 games look old and tired compared to thier PC equals, it's almost night and day with some multi platform titles in looks. There is no paradigm shift, but no I don't feel that next gen dosent look that much better. It looks leagues better. Is this going to lead to better games? No, but we aren't talking about that either way, so I don't even see the need to bring up " good gameplay durr". Of course, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be intersted in visuals and be excited about them. This is a visual medium.

I will agree with the visual department on a select few games that play on PC only now. You know that most have hd res patches now and I use them for games such as fallout 3/nv, gta sa, resident evil 4, elder scrolls III-V etc. PC gaming also offers for me with visual novels, more adult titles and so on aside from jrpgs that I do like play. I do have a pretty high end machine and I don't want to waste money on a new console when that can be invested into future upgrades.

Cecilthedarkknight_234 wrote:

Rahxephon91 wrote: People say the gap lessens each time and for awhile I belived that. Not anymore though. Sure the tech isn't radically changing, it is basically polygon's looking better. But they look a whole lot better. PS3 games look old and tired compared to thier PC equals, it's almost night and day with some multi platform titles in looks. There is no paradigm shift, but no I don't feel that next gen dosent look that much better. It looks leagues better. Is this going to lead to better games? No, but we aren't talking about that either way, so I don't even see the need to bring up " good gameplay durr". Of course, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be intersted in visuals and be excited about them. This is a visual medium. I will agree with the visual department on a select few games that play on PC only now. You know that most have hd res patches now and I use them for games such as fallout 3/nv, gta sa, resident evil 4, elder scrolls III-V etc. PC gaming also offers for me with visual novels, more adult titles and so on aside from jrpgs that I do like play. I do have a pretty high end machine and I don't want to waste money on a new console when that can be invested into future upgrades.

Yes but how much do you have to invest, how many times a year, and then compound that with some gamers not being terribly hardware efficient, making putting a computer together yourself not a feasible option.

Honestly PC gaming is probably the most expensive of any option. I can buy a console that will probably have a life of 5-6 years. A PC could be outdated in 5-6 months.

Sure a PC has better potential, but in my opinion its just a money black hole.