Nvidia: “It's no longer possible for a console to be a better or more capable graphics platform than - Sensationalist Headlines

Like take CryEngine. All it fucking does to make up for its horrible rendering is add effects like bloom and SSAO and this other shit that looks nice but adds fucking nothing to it. For fuck's sake, it has one of the most broken Net Codes I've ever seen. Seriously, we spend so much time making games look pretty that our gameplay suffers for it. I like a pretty game, but a game can look pretty and still have good mechanics. Focusing on just puking bloom and this other shit that we [I]consistently[/I] complain about in movies is annoying. Every Unreal game looks god damn similar to eachother, they puke bloom shiny metal or plastic. Its to a point where engines are just premade and they developers are like "CLSOE ENOUGAGF"

It was more of an awkward phase of where we thought we were gonna be where we are like ten years ago, or at least around the time the 360 and ps3 came out. Remember all the hype? And how games are only just now beginning to be like that? Like there was lots of hype surrounding how hardware achievements would be more impact full upon gameplay, being able to render and provide AI for a thousand man battle or a fully destructible city. We aren't even there yet and it's half a decade at least since. But it's really more because of the hype. As you may have noticed there are a lot of games coming out now that make hardware innovation translate into gameplay. Best example would be gta5 and especially with euphoria.

Euphoria is great and all until you realize its basically doesn't add anything except more run times and even more optimization issues. My biggest problem with the game industry thus far is their inability to realize that marketing doesn't need a massive budget, them not trying to take indies under their wing and finally FUCKING OPTIMIZATION. [I]HOLY FUCK GUYS[/I] [B]SERIOUSLY[/B].

[QUOTE=latin_geek;42309375]"louder, more power-consuming, more expensive things are more powerful" -nvidia, still butthurt that AMD got to sell their graphics chips to all three eight gen consoles[/QUOTE] you literally bring shame to this country like as if it wasn't bad enough already, man.

Euphoria is great and all when you realize every animation is rendered on the fly as if it were actually happening in game rather than a Ragdoll spawn inlace or the character model recite a specific animation Then it's fuckin amazing

[QUOTE=FoodStuffs;42311866]Moores law.. Duh Other wise consoles would either have to become modular or release more frequently. I'm guessing they will become modular [editline]25th September 2013[/editline] Uh he's talking about actual technical advancement. You know, things actually applicable to gameplay. He's saying graphics have been holding back innovation in other areas, and I agree. Although it's starting to focus less on pretty rays and more on crowd AI and dynamic physics based animation systems. Like how the last of us and bioshock infinite really only looked pretty and were otherwise average games. [editline]25th September 2013[/editline] Or hitman absolution... Focus on graphics are what ruined that game [editline]25th September 2013[/editline] Because in the end what the flying fuck does real time global illumination have to do with making the game more fun to play? That isn't rhetorical. Someone, give me a straight up answer as to How ray tracing, tessilation, ambient occlusion: techno babble babble babble, make a game any more fun to play. And don't say immersion. You're staring at a screen. Really graphics have fuck all to do with immersion if you ask me. Dwarf fortress is insanely immersive, and it doesn't even have graphics. I don't want to make any more assholish remarks but really. People who think graphics means much if anything are like people who get bored. You only really ever get bored if you're boring. That is to say its shallow to think graphics have anything to do with how fun a game is.[/QUOTE] a game can have other merits than all gameplay all the time u know

[QUOTE=FoodStuffs;42311866]Moores law.. Duh Other wise consoles would either have to become modular or release more frequently. I'm guessing they will become modular [editline]25th September 2013[/editline] Uh he's talking about actual technical advancement. You know, things actually applicable to gameplay. He's saying graphics have been holding back innovation in other areas, and I agree. Although it's starting to focus less on pretty rays and more on crowd AI and dynamic physics based animation systems. Like how the last of us and bioshock infinite really only looked pretty and were otherwise average games. [editline]25th September 2013[/editline] Or hitman absolution... Focus on graphics are what ruined that game [editline]25th September 2013[/editline] Because in the end what the flying fuck does real time global illumination have to do with making the game more fun to play? That isn't rhetorical. Someone, give me a straight up answer as to How ray tracing, tessilation, ambient occlusion: techno babble babble babble, make a game any more fun to play. [/QUOTE] the drive for more advanced rendering techniques also drives the advancement of hardware to run said techniques. with more powerful hardware, we can have more powerful AI, better realtime DSP, and have more advanced gameplay mechanics like destructible worlds, unique character designs, and other things like that. [QUOTE=FoodStuffs;42311866] And don't say immersion. You're staring at a screen. Really graphics have fuck all to do with immersion if you ask me. Dwarf fortress is insanely immersive, and it doesn't even have graphics. I don't want to make any more assholish remarks but really. People who think graphics means much if anything are like people who get bored. You only really ever get bored if you're boring. That is to say its shallow to think graphics have anything to do with how fun a game is.[/QUOTE] except that even in dwarf fortress, you're still looking at a computer screen, which is visually displaying the information that the game is generating. graphics [i]do matter[/i]. if you don't think that they do, think about this: would df be as good as a game if it only was allowed to display 2 letters for everything? what if df was in black-and-white? would you still play it if it there wasn't any visual elements at all, and it simply read back the letters and their grid position? don't get me wrong, df is an amazing game, but the reason why it looks the way it does is because the sheer number of assets the team would have to make would be insane. it's much much much easier to say "you pick up a box" than animating the character picking up a box, modeling the box, making a texture for the box, etc. additionally, rendering techniques such as tessellation, SSAO, and raytracing allow artists and writers to better show and explain their story and the environment that it takes place in. it allows them to better express themselves, and allows them to better show character emotion and feeling. would Michelangelo's "The Creation of Adam" be nearly as famous and astonishing if it was drawn using crayon and stick-figures?

[QUOTE=latin_geek;42309375]"louder, more power-consuming, more expensive things are more powerful" -nvidia, still butthurt that AMD got to sell their graphics chips to all three eight gen consoles[/QUOTE] They got a good point, while consoles are great in what they provide for the cost. I mean shit, you can get a whole package ready to play for the price of one GPU (for us computer builders). But they'll never reach the amount of raw power PC's have. Then again that amount of power does not really matter if we're getting shitty console ports..

[QUOTE=endorphinsam;42311834]this is pretty wrong. when the xbox 360 came out it didn't just "match a mid-level gaming pc" it was far better, the GPU inside of the thing was more powerful than any gpu... ever. for like, a year and a half. the cpu even was one of the most powerful. the ram is the only thing that the xbox didn't match the only reason the PS4 and Xbox One aren't more powerful is because they did not see the need to invest so heavily in power this generation, it's not that it's impossible, it's just they wanted to sell the console at the smallest loss. I know sony/microsoft are never going to do again what the 360 and PS3 did, because it takes to much investment, but it's not literally impossible for them to. just nvidia being butthurt about not getting in any consoles[/QUOTE] But the 360 and PS3 weren't even that impressive on launch. The 360's GPU was more than a year old on release and wasn't even considered higher end then, and the PS3's is around that level or even worse. If the CPU was so advanced they wouldn't have been able to run the games at E3 on PowerPC Macs. All I can say that was popular in either console was probably the PS3's Cell, and everyone agrees that piece of alien technology was a mistake.

Well, now that we have a new low level graphics API Mantle from AMD around the corner with much less overhead than the current APIs, which will hopefully; over time replace DirectX. Since porting to Mantle should be relatively easy, and because it works with Linux then you wouldn't even have to use windows anymore for gaming and the steam box should really benefit from this. That would make closed console systems pretty much obsolete. But we'll see how this turns out. Oh yeah, Frostbite 3 already supports Mantle.

[QUOTE=Swilly;42311970]Like take CryEngine. All it fucking does to make up for its horrible rendering is add effects like bloom and SSAO and this other shit that looks nice but adds fucking nothing to it. For fuck's sake, it has one of the most broken Net Codes I've ever seen. Seriously, we spend so much time making games look pretty that our gameplay suffers for it. I like a pretty game, but a game can look pretty and still have good mechanics. Focusing on just puking bloom and this other shit that we [I]consistently[/I] complain about in movies is annoying. Every Unreal game looks god damn similar to eachother, they puke bloom shiny metal or plastic. Its to a point where engines are just premade and they developers are like "CLSOE ENOUGAGF"[/QUOTE] i really don't even know what to say or where to begin

[QUOTE=Foda;42312109]would Michelangelo's "The Creation of Adam" be nearly as famous and astonishing if it was drawn using crayon and stick-figures?[/QUOTE] Probably not with stick figures but for the sake of argument lets leave that part out because it was an utterly retarded way to put things. Now, would it had been just as famous drawn in crayon? Yes. And therein lies my point. There's still a genius behind whatever tools make something. It's all up to the genius to pull it off. Also everything you said about dwarf fortress was also... Stupid. As long as the game retained its functionality then it would be just as engrossing. See the thing about df is that if you want to call them graphics rather than a display of information, then they are the worst graphics out there. And yet the game remains well known as one of the most immersive games to date despite being a rouge like. Graphics mean fuck all. I dunno where you got the idea developing upon one entirely separate, static and non interactable part of a game would lead development into gameplay advancements. If anything they take the focus off gameplay development. [editline]26th September 2013[/editline] It all boils down to this simple question. Would half life 2 have been just as groundbreaking if it had everything else, just the graphics were that of half life 1? Yes. Yes it would have. But it would have been terribly received and panned for its graphics. Everything else the game rose the bar to would have been ignored.