Marijuana.com

imported_clarson0420

Apparently these topics don't have to do with pot sooo.

With PS3 and Wii finally released, the nextgen of x360 PS3 and Wii have become the current gen. Each console has their good points and their bad points, and overall I think that the 3 will make up a well rounded generation of consoles. With Wii trailing in horsepower but definatly a unique design, PS3 being a powerhouse machine and X360 sitting nicely in the middle as the system to have for people who don't want to fight crowds or have a preorder ticket.

My question is...what now? I know it's very early to start thinking about it, and its a few years (4-5?) off, but what do you guys think the next generation of consoles will bring? The consoles that are out now are simply amazing, stunning graphics, innovative designs, everything you could want out of new technology. But looking to the future, how much better can it really get?

__________________
I'm gonna smoke weed for the rest of my life.
See some people gave in but I ain't givin up this fight.
http://endhate.org
http://stopthedrugwar.org

 

innervision311

The next generation of consoles will finally bring them up to date with what computer games were doing 5 years ago.

Shouldn't this go in games and sports since it's not computer related?

imported_MarcoPolo

OK this is my whole take on the thing, ever since the biggining of video games, games have been better in graphics,but since the inroductions of 3d or the origional PS graphics are imporoving, but not to the extent that they once were(from pong to zelda) for example. its just to expensive to make a game right now that fully takes advantge of the ps3. so im not exitied about this rounf of video games, there are still many ps2 and ps games that need to be played before they become collectables

__________________

The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am.

innervision311

Gaming graphics have reached their current point because they evolved not from original PS but like you said, the introduction of 3d.

Descent was the first game to really utilize these weird things called 3d accelerators. Mechwarrior 2 was also one of the first games to use 3d accelerator technology. 3dfx (Voodoo) was the first company to really jump into the 3d accelerator market. ATi joined the card wars and competed with 3dfx for the number 1 spot for a while and that all changed when Nvidia released this remarkable new chip called the Geforce 256. The Geforce 256 is responsible for really bringing up the standard of PC graphics back around 1999 or sometime close to that. Nvidia knocked 3dfx on their ass and bought them up so now we have a "war" between ATi and Nvidia too see who can make the best graphics, which is great for us because it creates a lot of innovation like SLI or Crossfire.

The next step in realistic graphics is a realistic-acting environment. Graphics have reached the point of photorealism but the physics behind them aren't realistic at all typically. The enormous amount of computations required to make a realistic display of physics when say a grenade goes off near a pile of debris slows the computer down to a point that it actually hurts the graphics. Which is why someone came up with the PhysX card. The PhysX card in combination with DirectX10 are the next generation of graphics. The PhysX card takes the load off your CPU allowing it to work with your videocard for smoother graphics in a highly-realistic environment. Dx10 is just going to rock because it provides more photorealism.

imported_clarson0420

(Sorry if this should go in games and ish, mod move if nessasary? thank you)

WOW! These are some great responses guys. While we are straying off the topic of consoles speciffically, I'm ripped and graphics seem like a great discussion. Graphics evolution has been a slow process. The first true "3D" if you could even call them that, games were DooM and Wolfenstein 3D. I use the term 3D loosley because the so called 3D in the game, was made up of a bunch of 2 deminsional sprites, which from the players perspective, mimicked true 3d very well for the time period.

With the advent of dedicated graphics cards, true 3D became a possibility. In the way of consoles, the first 3D console I believe was the PS, followed by ne N64 (N64 for life!!!!). Now, developing 3D games for consoles back then was a little different then it is today. Today it is pretty much like developing for a PC, useing things like 3dsmax and Maya to make the game models.

The next gen of PC graphics will be powered by DirectX10 cards, supporting pixel shader 4.0, shader model 4.0, and numerious post-processing effects that will make the game enviroments look more true to life. Depth of field where things in the distance are blurry, heat haze (the stuff you see on the highway when its really hot, looks like water). One of the biggest things now is HDR Lighting. (High Dynamic Range). Basically it tries to mimic what the human eye sees in the way of light reflection and refraction. Ever look at a metalic surface in the sun? Notice how it gleems and "blooms"? Thats what HDR is for. Making surfaces reflect light used to be near impossibble without massive amounts of computing power. While HDR does eat a PC's power, for todays high-end computers, it's nothing.

I agree with innervision about DX10 cards and PhysX cards. With these two new technologies, we can expect to see some really great stuff come out of the computer gaming industry in the comming years. I believe the first DX10 card is out, the Nvidia 8800, which is a PCI-Express card that retails for around 400 dollars 0_0.

I believe the next generation of consoles will still trail PC games. Consoles will always trail PC games because consoles are expensive to develop for, requireing you purchase a DEVconsole that costs anywhere from 2000-10,000 depending on the console. I believe the PS3 dev console is somewhere around the 10,000 dollar mark, and the Wii is closer to around 1500-2000. PC games can be made on the fly, by your every day joe who has some 3d modeling knowledge and a good knowledge of a code language like C++.

Sorry for the long post guys, I blazed an L to the face and I'm kind of trailing off and ranting haha. At least it has some relavent information in it .
Keep up the good replies guys.

 

innervision311

Wolfenstein and Doom are 3d environments but everything within the environment was a 2d sprite. I know you know but I'm just clarifying...

There were a few 3d games on the 16-bit systems that used polygon models instead of sprites.

The first ones that come to mind are Stunt Race FX - SNES, VR Racing - Genesis, Ballz 3d - Genesis, Vectorman - Genesis, and Dirt Trax FX - SNES

You're right about the Dev console but keep in mind there are "engine fees" for all systems. For example the latest Unreal engine is something like $750,000 to use in your game. And that's the cheapest one of all, which is why there's umpteen gazillion games that use the Unreal engine. And outsourcing an engine is pretty smart because to develop an engine in-house can add years to the production. I think it's $2 million for the Source engine and $2.5 million for the Doom 3 engine. Console developers rarely (if ever...) create their own engine whereas on the PC you'll see some Swedish developer come out of no where with the Crytech engine. The PC is the home of innovation and consoles will always take everything they have from the PC because it's already been proven to be successful there.

imported_clarson0420

Wow innervision I didn't know that there were any games on the 16bit systems, I'll have to check some of those out. Thanks for the clarification also, I wasn't exactly sure how to word it in my stoned state, and you description is clearer then mine.

I also agree with the consoles taking proven PC technology. I also totally forgot to mention about licensing engines, thanks for bringing that point up because it is important. Also I had no idea source was that high, I mean I knew it would be alot but damn. Your also very correct on developing an engine taking years. The big three that come to mind that took years to develop are Source, DOOM3, and X-Ray, also the Jupiter itteration of the lithtech engine took a while if I remember correctly.

Add togeather the dev console, the engine fees, paying employees, and you get a total well over a coupla million dollars to develop a console game. I'm not saying developing pc games is cheap, but there are some cheap PC engines out there. Torque comes to mind being somehwere around 100 dollars to license for your game. Torque is dated though, being a slightly upgraded version of the engine Tribes 2 runs on. However with the PC, you don't have to shell out thousands of dollars for a coupla dev consoles.

I also agree consoles will always lag behind. It's just cheaper to develop and prove technology on a PC and then port it to a console, that's just the way it is and I don't really think anything will ever change that.

(Little side not about console devs creating their own engines. Only one actually comes to mind off the top of my head and its zelda:OoT. Nintendo developed the engine in house, and also used it on zelda:MM and I believe licensed it to a few other games, but thats the only in house console engine I can think of off the top of my head.