• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What Do You Want In The Next Gen?

Jax

Admiral
Admiral
and how do you think things will proceed in terms of getting the next gen of consoles out there in terms of price & the date etc. We had some really stupid rumors lately with the worst being...

* The Next X Box will require a constant internet connection :rolleyes: as FUCKING if.

Name wise I really don't know what the X Box will go with though of course Sony will go with PS4. Microsoft's next console will surley beat the PS4 to release since the PS3 came out later than the 360 and took a lot longer to make profit. Personally I think E3 2013 announcement for the X Box 360 successor and a release date of Easter 2014, that way Microsoft can keep their 360 promise of it being a 10 year console by M/S sayin they will support the 360 for one additional year being the 2015 10th anniversery.

In terms of spec I would like to see a lot more memory for the next consoles, both especially the PS3 have sucky memory IMO. Quad Core seems most likely though I like the X Box rumor of it having a spare core just for the operating system. I also hope M/S keep the wired headset because the PS3 wireless one was AWFUL so dam sensitive to noise anywhere in the house even on the lowest setting. I don't really care about 3-D but they will both probably have it and also I expect both to carry Blu Ray. Price wise in these times it needs to be competitive and avoid the mistake of PS3.

What do you want to see and what do you think will happen for the next generation of consoles?
 
I really don't see the point in another generation. Does anyone really think that 360 or PS3 games are too ugly for their tastes? Adding an extra processor or multi-vector-bump mapping isn't going to improve the games or even be noticed by 99% of gamers. Hell, most gamers can't even tell the difference between a Wii game and a 360 game. I know I can't.

I'd say let's stick with our current generation for another 10 years until we have technology that actually improves upon what we currently have.
 
^ Better tech can make better games...

Aside from the obvious grpahically improvement, which can help with immersion you can also use more advanced system to make your games bigger n better in terms of bigger worlds, giant armies etc without your framerate going to about 1FPS ;)

New tech opens up new doors for game makers + consoles are always behind PC's so they do need to keep some sort of pace behind em.

most gamers can't even tell the difference between a Wii game and a 360 game

I don't get the point your making? The Wii n 360 have little in common its easy to spot the difference.
 
^ Better tech can make better games...

The most popular game in the world right now is Angry Birds. That game could run on an NES. Spending billions on the development and marketing of a new console when MS and Sony are getting their asses handed to them by the Iphone and browser games doesn't make any sense. Sure, in time we'll see some awesome technological innovations that will improve gameplay, but we're not there yet. This generation still has a lot of life left in it.

I don't get the point your making? The Wii n 360 have little in common its easy to spot the difference.

I wasn't joking. I honestly can't tell the difference between the two. I can barely tell the difference between the Dreamcast and the 360. Come on, how much better than this do we really need to get?

ps3game2.png
 
No. More. Motion controls.

They suck! They have still yet to be used in a way that makes me feel they are truly the next level of gaming. They just make you flail your arms around and hope that it registers what you're doing properly.
 
The most popular game in the world right now is Angry Birds. That game could run on an NES. Spending billions on the development and marketing of a new console when MS and Sony are getting their asses handed to them by the Iphone and browser games doesn't make any sense. Sure, in time we'll see some awesome technological innovations that will improve gameplay, but we're not there yet. This generation still has a lot of life left in it.

Angry Birds is fun for about 15 minutes at most and I think MS finances are fine even after all the money they spent, X Box division is runnin at a profit. I have zero interest in IPhone & Browser games personally they have little depth to them.

This generation has 2-3 years left that will make it 10 years old so thats a lot of any generation.
 
If you can't tell the difference between Dreamcast and Xbox 360 you might need glasses. I can tell a huge difference between Xbox 360 games of 5 years ago and recent Xbox 360 games.
 
There are definitely differences between the 360 and Dreamcast, but only in minor areas such as resolution, lighting, and polygon count. Although I suppose some people might consider those less minor than me. :)

My point is that another generation of consoles is only going to boost resolution from 720p to 1080p (not noticeable by the human eye unless you have a massive TV), improve lighting, and, well, that's about it. Again, look at that Wii game I posted above. How much better can you get than that? More detail on the individual blades of grass? Does anyone really want to buy another $400 console for some extremely minor improvements?

And that's not even taking into account that you'll be drastically raising the budgets on games, which are already way too high as it is, and forcing developers to start over from scratch with new system architecture that they're not familiar with (aka. games will suck for a couple of years.) I don't understand this rush to kill off the 360 and PS3 when they're both in their prime. The Wii I agree has aged a bit, but there is a replacement for that coming out this year.
 
What I want can be boiled down to two simple points:

* Full 1080p support in all games.

* User-changeable hard drives. (PS3 had one, 360 didn't. I really wish I could just slap a terabyte or two in my 360 and keep all of my games installed.)
 
Alright, time for what I want. Keep in mind that I don't want any new consoles until the next decade, so it's going to be a bit more advanced.

- 100% Digital Distribution
- 1080p support
- Perfect motion controls that mimics my movements EXACTLY with accurate physics. However, I still want a controller for most games.
- Ability to play online FPSs with hundreds of players simultaneously, and all on the same screen, without lag or slowdown.
- Virtual console allowing for everything from the Odyssey to the Atari Lynx to the PS3 to be downloaded and played.
- Touch screen on the controllers similar to the Dreamcast's VMU (if it was a touchscreen), but bigger and with full colour support.
- Most games to come with full mod support allowing users to create their own "rom hacks" and distribute them.
- Microphone in the controllers allowing for full, and perfect, voice recognition. When I tell Natalya to get the fuck out the way I want her to move.
- Powerful CPU allowing for extremely intelligent AI support that will allow for enemies to adapt and counter your strategies. No more memorizing a boss's patterns, getting him into a loop, and finishing him off easily (sorry Mega Man).

Now that's what I call Next Generation.
 
My point is that another generation of consoles is only going to boost resolution from 720p to 1080p (not noticeable by the human eye unless you have a massive TV), improve lighting, and, well, that's about it.


Very true. Aside from resolution and an increase in polygon count, I doubt that the next generation is going to look all that much different, compared to say, the PS2 vs the PS3.
 
A delay of another five to ten years or so.

The current generation (barring the Wii) has yet to reach it's full potential and when an update to the hardware would result in relatively little change, i'd rather see the current consoles (except the Wii) stick around for a while longer.

Lets wait until the Xbox 720/ PS4 actually boasts significant improvements before forking out another 3-400 quid on a marginal increase in resolution.
 
A delay of another five to ten years or so.

The current generation (barring the Wii) has yet to reach it's full potential and when an update to the hardware would result in relatively little change, i'd rather see the current consoles (except the Wii) stick around for a while longer.
The current generation has been around for seven years. If there was any potential left in the hardware, they'd have found it by now.

Instead they - or at least the 360 - are forced to run "showcase" games like Gears of War 3 and Halo: Reach at sub-HD resolutions in order to keep up the visual quality.

Lets wait until the Xbox 720/ PS4 actually boasts significant improvements before forking out another 3-400 quid on a marginal increase in resolution.
I wouldn't call over twice the resolution at four times the frame rate "marginal", but that's what modern video hardware can do, and what the next generation of hardware should aim for. (1080p60, in 3D - so you need to render 120 FPS.)
 
See, the thing is, TVs for the most part are capped at 1080p at the moment. At 720p, it still looks really good, and at the most, the next generation will end up matching what a PC can do, and unless there's a revolution where we start seeing TVs go beyond that within the timeframe of release or a possibility of an expanded resolution, we're simply not going to see much what the current generation can't already do. I'd love to see the next Uncharted game in 1080p, since Naughty Dog are really good at pushing the hardware to its limits to create amazing visuals, but what we'll get next is likely to be marginal at best.

When you think about it, the current generation has done some amazing things with 720p. Games still look sharp, and yes, they could look sharper with 1080p, but I'm pretty happy with how this generation has turned out. What I'd love to see the next generation do is handle backwards compatibility. I know the PS4's said to not be backwards compatible due to new architecture, but how hard could it be to allow PS3 games to be compatible and use the extra processing power and added resolution? Popular games would likely need to be patched, and they'd likely make classic editions like they're currently doing with a bunch of games instead in order to make more money. But aside from architecture, there wouldn't seem to me to be a terrible difference aside from resolution, unless I'm wrong. I've known to be wrong.
 
What I'd love to see the next generation do is handle backwards compatibility. I know the PS4's said to not be backwards compatible due to new architecture, but how hard could it be to allow PS3 games to be compatible and use the extra processing power and added resolution?
It would be cheaper for Sony to put a separate Cell processor in the system just for BC than to include enough processing power to emulate a PS3 (on whatever the new architecture is).

Popular games would likely need to be patched, and they'd likely make classic editions like they're currently doing with a bunch of games instead in order to make more money. But aside from architecture, there wouldn't seem to me to be a terrible difference aside from resolution, unless I'm wrong. I've known to be wrong.
Architecture is a bigger difference than you're thinking. Theoretically, if developers didn't take shortcuts, it would "only" be a matter of Sony porting the OS to PS4 and developers recompiling their old games. In the real world, the code is not going to easily port. Plus devs won't bother - that's time & money they could spend on a new title to sell instead.
 
A delay of another five to ten years or so.

The current generation (barring the Wii) has yet to reach it's full potential and when an update to the hardware would result in relatively little change, i'd rather see the current consoles (except the Wii) stick around for a while longer.
The current generation has been around for seven years. If there was any potential left in the hardware, they'd have found it by now.

Instead they - or at least the 360 - are forced to run "showcase" games like Gears of War 3 and Halo: Reach at sub-HD resolutions in order to keep up the visual quality.

Sorry but i have to disagree along with several developers. Also given the rather recent addition of motion detecting nonsense to the main consoles, there is plenty for developers to fiddle with to produce new gaming experiences without a hardware update. Like a Kinect game that's actually worth playing for example.

Lets wait until the Xbox 720/ PS4 actually boasts significant improvements before forking out another 3-400 quid on a marginal increase in resolution.
I wouldn't call over twice the resolution at four times the frame rate "marginal", but that's what modern video hardware can do, and what the next generation of hardware should aim for. (1080p60, in 3D - so you need to render 120 FPS.)

And i would. Like others have said unless you have a cracking good television an increase from 720-1080 is undetectable to the naked eye. And forgive me if i don't find the current fad of 3D sufficiently impressive to warrant a new generation of consoles.
When the tech has advanced enough to produce a result similar to the leap from PS1 to PS2, or PS2 to PS3, then i will cry out for a new console. Until then i see little need for the expense nor do i have much desire to adopt a new console - especially if some of the stupider rumours about the next next gen are true.
 
What I'd love to see the next generation do is handle backwards compatibility. I know the PS4's said to not be backwards compatible due to new architecture, but how hard could it be to allow PS3 games to be compatible and use the extra processing power and added resolution?
It would be cheaper for Sony to put a separate Cell processor in the system just for BC than to include enough processing power to emulate a PS3 (on whatever the new architecture is).

Popular games would likely need to be patched, and they'd likely make classic editions like they're currently doing with a bunch of games instead in order to make more money. But aside from architecture, there wouldn't seem to me to be a terrible difference aside from resolution, unless I'm wrong. I've known to be wrong.
Architecture is a bigger difference than you're thinking. Theoretically, if developers didn't take shortcuts, it would "only" be a matter of Sony porting the OS to PS4 and developers recompiling their old games. In the real world, the code is not going to easily port. Plus devs won't bother - that's time & money they could spend on a new title to sell instead.


Ahh, ok then. Consider me corrected :) So, if I understand you correctly, it would be possible if it weren't for the tricks that developers use, but because they do, it presents bigger obstacles in making something like that possible.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top