Surely Bethseda has a reason to hire future console programmers, they probably have a plausible explanation to those who apply.
What consoles usually lack in actual power, is partially made up by the fact that developers know more and more how to squeeze power out of the components since the specs never change. This only holds up for so many years though, and at some point there will be big trade-offs. For example, Battlefield 3 multiplayer only goes up to 24 players on consoles.
[QUOTE=Clavus;34901484]What consoles usually lack in actual power, is partially made up by the fact that developers know more and more how to squeeze power out of the components since the specs never change. This only holds up for so many years though, and at some point there will be big trade-offs. For example, Battlefield 3 multiplayer only goes up to 24 players on consoles.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention virtually all console games are capped at 30 FPS.
He is right about the higher optimizations (as much as I dislike Halo I'll admin Reach looks loads better than the other 360 Halos), but at the same time resolutions aren't exactly high on the consoles. At all.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;34898630]Their animators have been getting better, a lot of the animations in Skyrim were pretty nice, there were still some painfully bad ones though.[/QUOTE]
Actually almost everything was motion-captured (and terribly so, anyway; look at the feet of a character. If they float around a bit, then it's mocap)
[editline]28th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jackald;34898405]The next Xbox is rumored to be "6 times more powerful than the 360", which is pretty much just a mid spec PC.[/QUOTE]
except there aren't as many layers of abstraction on a console, and it means (along with a myriad of other reasons), you can get much more performance out of the same hardware in a console rather than in a PC
Such limited specs go such a long way on consoles.
Look at the graphics capabilites of the current consoles, even with their outdated tech.
[editline]28th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;34907334]
except there aren't as many layers of abstraction on a console, and it means (along with a myriad of other reasons), you can get much more performance out of the same hardware in a console rather than in a PC[/QUOTE]
Yeh that
Honestly, first thing I was thinking was "Wii-U?", because it's actually rather much around the corner. Who knows if Nintendo has sent Bethesda an SDK in an attempt to cater to the western markets?
I think it's a lot more likely than PS 4 or Xbox 720, you know.
[QUOTE=zombojoe;34901565]Not to mention virtually all console games are capped at 30 FPS.[/QUOTE]
They aren't capped, just most games can only run at 30fps due to hardware limitations (sometimes can get around 60fps in games if you look at non-intensive scenery like the sky or a wall)
[QUOTE=Atlascore;34897487]Calling it now Fallout 4 & TES VI are on the Xbox 720 & PS4[/QUOTE]
I don't want to wait that long for Fallout 4 just so people can play on a new outdated console :suicide:
Consoles will never need as much RAM as a computer, because when there running a game there is no windows Mac linux ect. running in the background
Correct me if I'm wrong
Hopefully this means the PS3 version of whatever elder scrolls game is next won't be a [B]BROKEN MESS[/B]
[QUOTE=Clavus;34901484]What consoles usually lack in actual power, is partially made up by the fact that developers know more and more how to squeeze power out of the components since the specs never change. This only holds up for so many years though, and at some point there will be big trade-offs. For example, Battlefield 3 multiplayer only goes up to 24 players on consoles.[/QUOTE]
From what I'm hearing, some of the big AAA developers are avoiding OpenGL/DirectX for consoles and writing directly to graphics card registers because the overhead of OGL/DX is starting to be a limiting factor. This is only possible because there's one GPU they have to worry about. And this is at resolutions smaller than 720p too!
From one of DICE's presentations on Battlefield 3 lighting, they were actually offsetting lighting calculations typically done on the GPU to the CPU (distributed over the 8 SPU cells), so as to utilize the unused CPU time when the GPU was actually drawing a frame.
There isn't really much more they can squeeze out of current gen consoles, at least graphically.
[editline]29th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Liem;34916804]Consoles will never need as much RAM as a computer, because when there running a game there is no windows Mac linux ect. running in the background
Correct me if I'm wrong[/QUOTE]
The Xbox 360's 512MB of shared RAM/VRAM is painfully small. You don't even get to use all 512MB, part of it is taken up by the kernel, the dashboard, and other background services. Then you're also sharing that space with all your vertex/index data and textures typically stored in discreet VRAM.
[QUOTE=TheGuru;34898751]Consoles don't have to be as powerful as PCs to run games as well, because they don't need to run resource intensive operating systems or background processes.
I thought at the time of release the 360 and PS3 were pretty close if not on even ground with the high end PCs at the time, its just PCs improve so quickly.[/QUOTE]
The issue is consoles don't have to deal with bloated, legacy supported, and unoptimized abstraction layers. The OS and background processes aren't a problem unless a computer has like 512MB of ram, and even shitty prebuilt PC's have way more than that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
