Other than a pretty face.

[SERAPHIM]

I've seen tens, no hundreds of topics in the PS3 Discussion thread. But there is one thing I would like to point out. Around 90%+(speculation) of it is graphics. Graphics alone does not make the game. I would like you all to tell me what exactly will PS3 do to revolutionize the gaming industry. What will it be able to do with all that power?

[xbdestroya]

Hey man, it's all good - I love 8-bit Nintendo ROMS (and while it worked, my 8-bit Nintendo). PS3 won't do anything revolutionary. You don't have to get one. But I plan on getting one, so I can play PS3 games. I'm not looking for revolutionary, I'm looking for awesome new Fial Fantasy's, awesome new GTA's, etc...

Forum threads on gameplay would be pretty boring, don't you think? I mean - there's just not enough facts out there to debate on the subject. So I think that should help explain the 90% graphics discussion. The video game world is awash in technical graphics info to discuss, for better or for worse.

[Rallyracr420]

Graphics technology is the most significant difference between one generation of consoles and the next. This is why most of the threads are about graphics and the processing power behind them.

Besides gfx, I'd say the most revolutionary aspect about the current generation is networked/online gaming. Never before has it been used in a console (PCs not included). But nevertheless gfx are still talked about more.

I think for the next gen consoles, the most revolutionary aspect will be different input types. It'll be the PS3 that pushes the next Eyetoy, and I bet Nintendo's revolution has to do with different input types too.

[winslo2260]

To tell the truth, yeah. Graphics are pretty much the only really significant upgrade from the PS2. Let's look at the other aspects of games for a few seconds...

Sound - taken care of with the first Playstation.
Processes - slowly progressing, but also contributes to the gfx factor...
Story - doesn't matter how powerful your console is, you have to leave this up to the imagination of the gaming company's people...
Gameplay - any current-generation console can pretty much do anything as far as actual gameplay is concerned...

Pretty much, the only non-graphics advances we can hope for in gaming is different mediums and such, like Virtual Reality headset capabilities, and multiple-screen outputs (which nintendo is experimenting with with DS)...things like those...

[GUNDAMSEED]

To tell the truth, yeah. Graphics are pretty much the only really significant upgrade from the PS2. Let's look at the other aspects of games for a few seconds...

Sound - taken care of with the first Playstation.
Processes - slowly progressing, but also contributes to the gfx factor...
Story - doesn't matter how powerful your console is, you have to leave this up to the imagination of the gaming company's people...
Gameplay - any current-generation console can pretty much do anything as far as actual gameplay is concerned...

Pretty much, the only non-graphics advances we can hope for in gaming is different mediums and such, like Virtual Reality headset capabilities, and multiple-screen outputs (which nintendo is experimenting with with DS)...things like those...

Alot of things have left to be done with systems i break down like how you did .

Sound - was not taken care of by ps1 or ps2 some games not all. play SO3 . when you play that game surround really adds to it when move you hear the waterfall in the stage. It's dark in a stage and you can even hear where enimes are coming from , it addd to the game . More games should be in surround and up .Hearing a car come from left or right behind you in GT same for SH games would kick major ass.

Processes- nothing much to say but we can alway use more .

Story- to make the story better you need alot of things (gfx, sound ,effects) with more power stories will get better cause they can do effects etc and they will make story more real .

Gameplay alot is still left to be done they guy that MGS2 want when the ship was skining you had to swim to escape he could not have done it cause the ps2 was unable to . So they are alot of thing that are still left to do in game play they need more power so they can do it . Also GT4 car damge would add to game play buy once again it was not put in cause ps2 can not do it . lets take a game like ZOE for eg it would be alot of fun to take a enemy smash him threw a wall then into ground which would add to game play but no system right now i think can do that at a good frame rate with good gfx and sound .

[winslo2260]

Well, I was talking about the capabilities of the system itself. Not individual games...

I understand where you're coming from though. I do agree that more games should use all that are available to use with the power of the consoles...

What I meant by sound being taken care of with PS1 is that it had near perfect quality capabilities, using the CD format, rather than cartriges...

Most high-budget games now have surround sound, so it's a done deal, haha.

And...true dat, but what I meant by story is the actual plot itself. I know what you mean though, graphics, sound, and gameplay all add to how much the player is immersed in the story...

[Ferrismc]

Revolution On PS 3 i expet else i wouldn't buy if another console has it :

Multimedia Support
(Playing Back DVD , Avis, DivX, Xvid) on PS 3
Full Online Support , without it Sony can go home
Full Input Support , Eyetoys , Messengers, Digicams with lot of fun mini games combined
Wireless SUpport ( without joypad, or other external hardware cables )
Digital Video allowing to save movies , programmes from tv in the PS HDD
Good Games ( in combination in graphics)
Mous and Keyboard Support (Internet , EgoShooters Online etc)
In other words, a powerful "PC-Console" which can be used for PC like purpose.
Why people are talking about graphics is that it will show the power of the console. This is important as all extra things, hope many extras are already integrated will be able to be developed later also)

[Domination]

I've seen tens, no hundreds of topics in the PS3 Discussion thread. But there is one thing I would like to point out. Around 90%+(speculation) of it is graphics. Graphics alone does not make the game. I would like you all to tell me what exactly will PS3 do to revolutionize the gaming industry. What will it be able to do with all that power?


Great first post!!!

I admit, there are quite a few graphics whores on this site, and I believe the topics have more to do with THIS generation. For the longest, the PS2 was considered the weak link to most fanboys because it never really lived up the performance of the other two consoles, hardware wise. Since this area is being hyped the most RIGHT NOW, those same fans are quick to embrace it because it will now equal the odds of what made the system inferior in the begining.

Graphics aren't what makes a console. I, to this day, will continue to support this. Software matters the most, but if the software is already there, this will only help push this area. It is how a product is normally advertised, as I have stated before. One could easily attract an audience through a one minute commercial based on eye candy alone than that of another trying to attract an audience with pure software.

What we know as of this time about revolutionising gaming is very little due to Sony being the last contestant out the door, therefore leaving the bigger spoilers like this for the very end to remain competitive. A few things we do know is their online gaming will be taking a step up as well as their software division, based on dated information we've read.

[SERAPHIM]

I just don't see why alot of gamers today focus more and more on graphics and less and less on gameplay. Even though I am not old enough to have enjoyed the Atari, I am still old enough to have enjoyed the wonders of the NES and remember my time with it. Back then people rarely cared about graphics. NES was great, Games were extremely fun to play. Then came the N64 and the PS1. To tell you the truth I preffered the N64 for a few reason. Back then I thought that the N64 had good graphics. But thats not until I got Super Mario 64. I played it for 9 hours straight. I couldnt stop trying to explore the worlds. I wanted to find every secret in every painting and in the castle. I was hooked. I must admit the graphics were a feast to my eyes back then. Even though they are outdated, they still are now. I still play Super Mario 64 once in a while. I feel like I could spend days and never have fully explored everything. Now THATS what I like about a game. And those who played and enjoyed Super Mario 64 will probably understand why I hold it higher than oh say... Super Mario Sunshine. Super Mario Sunshine was an great sequel. But there was a problem with it. I felt like they focused more on teh graphics than the game itself. I didn't get that feeling that I was playing a Mario game. It looked like a Mario game. But in the end it just didn't feeling like one. Thats what I'm talking about. Another pretty face. But not as much substance as I was expecting. I was expecting for the Gamecube to show something 10 times greater than the N64. But in the end all I got was... A pretty face....

[xbdestroya]

Well Seraphim, I hear you. And Mario 64 was the bomb, to be sure. I haven't played Sunshine because it just didn't strike me as true to the Mario universe I've come to know and love, but I actually hear it's a great game.

I think we just need to be honest though - game companies are supposed to make money, and as far as it's possible, increasing graphics is the best (easiest) way to garner sales. I think that actually working on plot, gameplay, etc.. just is more effort than a lot of game makers are willing to put forth nowadays. Now, Nintendo I feel consistently tries to put the gameplay in, so props to them. And I feel there ARE also some stand-out plotlines throughout the industry as well. I'm partial to RPG's myself...

In my perfect world, a company would have to develop their game concept on something like an 8-bit system, where all the development HAD to be on the gameplay side of things. And THEN figure out how to transplant that concept onto the mega-graphics consoles of today. I think a lot of developers are taking the reverse - figuring out how to make some pretty effects easy and then slap it on whatever generic gaming model they have ready to go.

But so even though I described my dream above, actually personified I feel in games like Metroid Prime, I can't blame developers for doign what they do. It's just to cutthroat nowadays and development times have gotten so long. After all, I DO want good graphics out of newer systems. :wink:

Oh well, it's a dilemma, but I leave it to the game developers. For PS3, I'm just hoping for awesome hardware and great connectivity. Of course, that won't automatically lend itself to great games...

[Neon Sentry]

Sound - was not taken care of by ps1 or ps2 some games not all... Hearing a car come from left or right behind you in GT same for SH games would kick major ass

... Silent Hill does have surround sound...

Anyhoo, even stereo sound is great. Every once in a while I'll plug my headphones into the TV, just so I can hear the baddies yelling left and right in Spider-Man 2 :D

And as far as revolutions go... you can't ask for much. Just like when a new processor comes out for your PC. You ask for more, they deliver power. Power is the only thing a company can give you. It's up to the developers to be revolutionary. Even the DS's dual screens. All it is is more power. They're giving more power, and (some of) the developers are using it. But it's far from revolutionary. The PSP has a huge screen for a handheld device, but that's far friom revolutionary as well

Until we see, hear, and play the software that makes up the consoles we know and love, we can never know what is revolutionary. Just like the PS2, X-Box or GC sitting next to your TV. I'd much rather play an NES than an X-Box (actually, I do play NES instead of pretty much every console ;) ) because of it's software. But you wouldn't know that until you've played it. So, all in all, until these things are sitting on our entertainment centers ready to play GTA11 or whathaveyou, we can only discuss the power that Sony will be giving to developers to create the revolutions we want

Just my two cents, and just IMHO of course :)

[SERAPHIM]

Thanks for agreeing xbdestroya. And I also do agree that developers should think about gameplay before the graphics. But its also true what you say. The video game industry is out for money. They do what they have to to sell units. But I wish they didn't need to. I remember back in the day being mesmerized by Final Fantasy's 8 graphics. But I totally forgot the graphics after I got hooked to it. I looked at the gameplay. And I could tell that the people over at Square tried their best at it Now lets look at Suare-Enix (or how I like to call it *Squeenix* :wink: ) Now its all about the monies. I mean come on..... a sequel for FF? When I heard about FFX-2 I just knew that Squeenix was just out to sell some extra units.

[xbdestroya]

Yeah a FF sequal is total crap. I can't believe they did that; I guess they figured those FF girls from X were just looking too good! But I'm counting on the new Dragon Warrior and FF XII to hopefully keep things real. :wink:

[GTShotoKen]

I've seen tens, no hundreds of topics in the PS3 Discussion thread. But there is one thing I would like to point out. Around 90%+(speculation) of it is graphics. Graphics alone does not make the game. I would like you all to tell me what exactly will PS3 do to revolutionize the gaming industry. What will it be able to do with all that power?

Have you ever heard a dev team use the term "Hardware limitations". I bet you never really thought about it, but if you notice; most games going from one system to the next are usually alot better. Do you know why? Well, I will tell you.......... it is because the more powerful hardware allows the devs to make innovations in games that were not previously possible on older hardware. :wink:

You may say that devs are able to do everything with the hardware they have now, but I bet every dev in the field will tell you that there are always so many features that they want to incorporate into a game, but can't since the hardware limitations won't permit it. :D

Look games like: Grand theft Auto, Metal Gear, Resident Evil, Driver, Mortal Kombat, Half-life, etc. These games have become exceedingly better with more powerful Hardware.

Now when it comes to graphics, alot of people say that they are fine with what they have now, but there is always a thorn in the back of their heads making them curious of how much better a game could look. Devs always strive to make their games look better because the overall experience is better. How do graphics make the experience better....... two words: immersion and excitement. Better graphics will allow for larger and more meticulously detailed gameworlds and characters, which inturn does a much better job of immersing you into your role (Pac-man was incredibly fun, but I didn't feel that immersed. lol :lol: ). Better graphics also contribute to more excitement because it is just like going to the movies; bigger and better effects will make the experience that much more intriguing.

I definitely don't let graphics dictate my gaming experience, but I am definitely not naive enough to marginalise them on the scale of what is important for a game. 8) The people at sony are extending the life of the PS2 for another 10-yrs so you don't have to buy a PS3 if you don't want to (I am just joking with you :lol: ).

Besides, if everyone only talked about what features that could be put into a game, then when the game finally comes out, they might end up disappointing themselves because they might begin to expect for those certain features to be put into a game right away.

[Danji]

It is true, many developers want better hardware to implement ideas into games. Like the limit of size set by the format. The PS3 looks to have a promising solution to that (that is if it can read the 8-layer BD which should be able to). Also there are things like physics and AI that makes game better for gameplay. This is especially important in first person shooters. If the physics in a FPS were ridiculous and glitchy the game wouldn't be as fun or immersive as it would be if they were realistic. The GTA reference can't be said enough but I don't need to repeat it.

If you question the gameplay of today's games compared to yesteryear's and the one before it then you should really check out some of the better games for the PS2. Zone of the Enders 2 is really a great example of why we need better graphics and hardware in general. Without the processing monster that is the emotion engine it would not be the same. Simple, but nice and refreshing gameplay I would have to say is SkyOddysey. New genre would have to be the EyeToy series. New iteration of yesteryear's hardcore genre (platforming) is Viewtiful Joe and the new experience to be had is Budokai, part cinematic (and extreme anime-likeness) gameplay makes it fun and cool. These are all great games not possible until now and we have had everything happen this generation that happened the last couple if not more so. With the extreme increases in on-line adoption and processing ability I expect the next generation to be much more new too.

[Rallyracr420]

I don't think the PS3 will be able to read 8 layer BD-ROMS. I think it'll be 4 layers tops...even still that provides for a 100GB of storage. Hopefully they'll support more layers in a rom upgrade if this is the case.

Sky Odyssey rocks. Its in my top 10 PS2 games: http://playstation3insider.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=76794#76794

The only thing I like about Budokai is the realism in which it represents the show. As a fighting game its unbelievably shallow. I still haven't found very many competitors to the DOA series in fighting games...it has all the depth and still no fireballs/harpoons/fatalities...it does a damn fine job. IMO EyeToy will take off in the PS3. It will compute your image better, faster, and be more responsive. I haven't played Viewtiful Joe, yet, but I want to badly.

Mario64 was bomb. I still remember playing the first time at ToysRUs. I was so enthralled that when I drove home I went thru a stoplight because I didn't even notice it was red..I was too busy thinking about the game. As for Mario Sunshine...I refused to play with Mario with a lame ass bubble shooter on his back, so I can't accurately comment on the quality of this game. But I'll say this: I'm not alone in thinking this. Nintendo realized they fucked up by only marketing to kids...If you don't believe me check out the new ads for the NDS.

However

I still don't think its that big of a deal for ppl to only talk about graphics from one generation to the next. While its true that you can have an awesome looking game that suxs to play, and a shitty looking game that rocks, graphics are still the most noticable difference between one console and its next gen counterpart.

I love gameplay more than anything else in the world, which is why I've repeatedly stated that a high FPS (frames per second) is one of the most important things to me. It increases responsiveness and therefore the quality of the gameplay. Frequency and Amplitude are also on my top 10 PS2 games...they have shitty graphics and are all about gameplay.

In the end, gameplay is what makes the game. And as many of you have already mentioned...gameplay is timeless: good games that once were, will always be. Graphics are not. But gameplay is hard to quantify. Graphics are easy to look at and say, 'hey this is a million times better than its prequel.'

[xbdestroya]

Well said Rally.

[GTShotoKen]

I don't think the PS3 will be able to read 8 layer BD-ROMS. I think it'll be 4 layers tops...even still that provides for a 100GB of storage. Hopefully they'll support more layers in a rom upgrade if this is the case.

Sky Odyssey rocks. Its in my top 10 PS2 games: http://playstation3insider.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=76794#76794

The only thing I like about Budokai is the realism in which it represents the show. As a fighting game its unbelievably shallow. I still haven't found very many competitors to the DOA series in fighting games...it has all the depth and still no fireballs/harpoons/fatalities...it does a damn fine job. IMO EyeToy will take off in the PS3. It will compute your image better, faster, and be more responsive. I haven't played Viewtiful Joe, yet, but I want to badly.

Mario64 was bomb. I still remember playing the first time at ToysRUs. I was so enthralled that when I drove home I went thru a stoplight because I didn't even notice it was red..I was too busy thinking about the game. As for Mario Sunshine...I refused to play with Mario with a lame ass bubble shooter on his back, so I can't accurately comment on the quality of this game. But I'll say this: I'm not alone in thinking this. Nintendo realized they fucked up by only marketing to kids...If you don't believe me check out the new ads for the NDS.

However

I still don't think its that big of a deal for ppl to only talk about graphics from one generation to the next. While its true that you can have an awesome looking game that suxs to play, and a shitty looking game that rocks, graphics are still the most noticable difference between one console and its next gen counterpart.

I love gameplay more than anything else in the world, which is why I've repeatedly stated that a high FPS (frames per second) is one of the most important things to me. It increases responsiveness and therefore the quality of the gameplay. Frequency and Amplitude are also on my top 10 PS2 games...they have shitty graphics and are all about gameplay.

In the end, gameplay is what makes the game. And as many of you have already mentioned...gameplay is timeless: good games that once were, will always be. Graphics are not. But gameplay is hard to quantify. Graphics are easy to look at and say, 'hey this is a million times better than its prequel.'

This is the Hardware discussion thread. All you can discuss pertaining with hardware is what technical feats it can perform; it is up to the devs to utilize the features of that hardware to produce better gameplay. Thus, making it kind of pointless to discuss how hardware can make a game better because the developer decides were future of a game lies; the hardware only increases the potential of what the developers can achieve :)

Read this thorougly, then reply. :wink:

[Rallyracr420]

I don't understand why you quoted me in your reply. What you mentioned in bold really had nothing to do with anything I said. I never talked about the capabilities of the hardware in detail other than to hint at the notion next gen consoles will be more powerful than their predecessors.

I agree with what you're saying...but no one can really disagree with something so obvious.

[GTShotoKen]

I don't understand why you quoted me in your reply. What you mentioned in bold really had nothing to do with anything I said. I never talked about the capabilities of the hardware in detail other than to hint at the notion next gen consoles will be more powerful than their predecessors.

I agree with what you're saying...but no one can really disagree with something so obvious.

Sorry, I just wanted to make sure that you would take notice of it. lol :lol:

I wasn't talking about the capabilites of the hardware either. If you read it again you will see that. 8)

I was just explaining how hardware plays a role in the actual gameplay category of games, which is that more powerful hardware provides the potential for developers to implement gameplay mechanics that were not possible, or wouldn't be achieved to the degree that the developers hoped for because of previous hardware limitations.

[Domination]

I don't understand why you quoted me in your reply. What you mentioned in bold really had nothing to do with anything I said. I never talked about the capabilities of the hardware in detail other than to hint at the notion next gen consoles will be more powerful than their predecessors.

I agree with what you're saying...but no one can really disagree with something so obvious.

Sorry, I just wanted to make sure that you would take notice of it. lol :lol:

I wasn't talking about the capabilites of the hardware either. If you read it again you will see that. 8)

I was just explaining how hardware plays a role in the actual gameplay category of games, which is that more powerful hardware provides the potential for developers to implement gameplay mechanics that were not possible, or wouldn't be achieved to the degree that the developers hoped for because of previous hardware limitations.

I agree. This one of the reasons a game like Halo was able to succeed. Without the hardware, revolutionising gaming is hardly a possibility. Hardware is one of the keys to opening up new doors.

[SERAPHIM]

One thing I would like not only the Ps3 to do, but the Xenon as well is be able to play the REAL Fable (Project Ego). I would really like to see exactly how Fable would have been without all the map restrictions. I want to be able to see the trees grow and everything like that. And I would also liek to be able to have children as well and see them grow (Sims 2). There are so many things you guys don't think of that could be used in gameplay. The smalelst details could immerse you in a world of fun. If Fable was released with all its origional featurs on either PS3 or Xenon, I would defenitely pick it up.


Growing tress is just one of the things that having power is good for. What else can you guys think of that the processor's power will probably be able to do?

[julps31]

Well the increased processing power will allow more characters on screen at one time, plus of course higher detailed models with more realistic animations and movements (hair, clothes, facial animation), and more convincing environments (blowing grass, leaves, trees, hi-resolution ground textures). Exciting isn't it?

[SERAPHIM]

Yeah it IS exciting. Just thinking about what is possible with teh added RAM and processing power gives me shivers. And maybe it will help open up the mmo business to consoles.