no new consoles till 2014... thank god for PC gaming.

It is kinda weird if a 4-5 year old CPU still is the most powerful one

But lets say you were using a program that is heavy CPU bound and could only use 4 cores. How would Cell vs lets say 2920XM go? 2920XM can TB up to 3.5 GHz. And can you really compare Cell CPU to a i7 clock for clock? I mean since 2nd gen i7 is brand new, it must be better right?

 

Here's something to think about, why aren't Sony and Microsoft compelled to bring out new hardware? Maybe because their attention was brought to some outstanding programming technique that wouldn't require them to invest millions in new hardware, but still use the current ones they have and advance in graphics technology software wise instead?

Is there any sort of new breakthrough in rendering technique that's been developed that would just require nothing more than a single core CPU, or even the CPUs' that's found on mobile phones and render scenes with unlimited detail easily without the need for powerful next generation hardware technology?

Hmmm...

 

It was a failure. That's the biggest difference. Cell doesn't exist anymore. It's gone. It failed... Pretty much the only thing IBM got out of it was the RoadRunner Supercomputer which used primarily AMD Opterons and some Cell Processors.

And they were made for two different things. Cell isn't a general processing CPU. Neither Linux nor Windows supports Cell Processor so it's useless to me and probably for you. So it doesn't matter. Windows and applications uses SSE which the SB use the new 256 bit AVX to provide double precision using SSE. In other words, for Windows, 2920XM blows away the Cell. Cell is a failure and useless to you.

Cell isn't most powerful for you or anyone that uses a laptop, it's useless. Again Cell is not a general processing CPU like the 2920XM is. It wasn't made for that purpose. 2920XM is the most powerful mobile PC CPU. Plain and simple.

 

I cant for the life of me think of a good Console only game... usually all the good ones get ported either legally or illegally eventually to the PC anyway.

On top of that Console are lightyears behind in terms of graphics and capibilities... I'll stick with a computer because I can use it for so many other things. If people weren't so lazy then consoles would probably be extinct.

If, while playing a console you have ever wished you could have used a mouse then you should have a good gaming computer. Buy a decent graphics card for your pc and you wont have to upgrade for years and years.

 

Sorry, but no. The CELL CPU was made fir supercomputer processings, yes. But that doesn't stop it from being one of the best. ( not better than Opteron 12 core though, or the 10-core xenon ). Almost no other CPU can perform so many tasks like the CELL can : graphics, physics, sound... All in one. That's why UC2 looks gorgeous with only using 30% of the GPU

 

The CELL would still win : what is TB? It is the disabling of other cores in order to benefit others, for example, to obtain 3.5GHz, 3 cores need to be disabled and only 1 core would be active, therefore, if comparing clock vs clock, the CELL would win, since its raw power is higher than the 2920XM

Also, the CELL isn't about "cores" though : it's SPEs and PPE. The PPE is like the mother, and the SPEs are the sons. So, to program the SPEs you must first code and program the PPE TO AFTERWARDS program and control the SPEs. Understand? If not, PM me, so I can explain a little better

^ That was a simple overlook, because things can go reaaally deep.

 

Also it's called Cell Broadband Processor for a reason. It's primary use by Toshiba and others was for VIDEO, not supercomputing. Same for PS3, primarily video/gaming. Not supercomputing.

No it wouldn't. Cell isn't made for it. The Cell processors is FAILURE. IBM CANCELLED IT BECAUSE IT FAILS. IBM pretty much stated, the Cell Processor was a technical failure, not just financial. Some of the technology from Cell will be used in their next gen of processors, but they are going a different route. The successor to that branch of Cell processors was cancelled...

There is no need to go on about how amazing it is if IBM themselves saw the Cell Broadband as a failure and for the next gen, decided to go in a different route. The only thing worth mentioning is the PlayStation 3. Big deal. IBM used PowerPC G5 processor for the 360 and now for Nintendo to do the same job. PS3 games don't do any more than 360 games, you exaggerate way too much.

 

They can't, follow the money trail. Developers are being dropped or closing their doors in this economy. There are publishers who are also taking a hit money wise. Only the big players can absorb new hardware to make games for it. And even those like EA and Activision would balk at the idea.

I think this eventually is all leading to a unified platform in the future which is what Peter Moore and several others in the industry are hoping for. If you look at the numbers a high percentage 90-95% of all games can be found on both the Xbox 360 and PS3. Exclusives (Square-Enix, Namco, Capcom etc,) are way down other than first party stuff and that also is down from the days of the PS2 and original Xbox.

 

Then why did folder@home, NASA and many other companies use the PS3 as a supercomputer? Would you care to backup your bland "IBM fails" comment? CELL IS made for supercomputing, therefore, if programmed correctly, it may achieve amazing results.

 

ROFL nope. The projects to use PS3 in clusters failed. Sorry, maybe you need to be more current on the news. Far as I know there is only one successful sustained clustered of PS3s. Sony disabled ability to install and run other OS's on the PS3, so having a PS3 cluster now is about as useless as having a rock as your supercomputer.

Supercomputing at single precision. Big deal. If you throw in enough processors you can make a supercomputer. Any processor can be made into a supercomputer. Stop throwing around supercomputing as if it's a big deal.

If you want supercomputer, look at Nvidia. Nvidia is the one that got the billion dollar contract to build a supercomputer, not the Cell Processor. Even the US Department of Defense has contracted Nvidia to make the fastest supercomputing processor that is supposed to be thousand times faster than your Cell. Cell is a failure, no one wants to use it. Toshiba bailed. Sony Bailed. IBM Bailed.

 

Yeah Cell is used at universities, the US military, in big corporations that need cheap super computing. I would not consider Cell as a failure. It was never intended to be used by end users on a windows environment anyway. If i remember correctly IBM are working along with Sony to develop Cell further for PS4.

TB = Turbo Boost. Yeah you are right about Quad turbo not going up to 3.5 GHz. I misread the chart. 2920XM can Turbo boost up to 3.2 GHz on all 4 cores. Which is where Cell cores are at. But i want to know who would win clock for clock since i7s are a lot newer and the technology are totally different.

 

Cell and and general computing CPU's are two completely different beasts. You can't really compare them. It's like comparing a tractor and a minivan. They're both cars and have wheels and a steering wheel, but otherwise are completely different.

The Cell processor has aged just like any other tech. It still gets the job done but when compared with current tech even in general purpose Intel/AMD chips it's old. If they doubled the number of Cell processors in the PS3 then it may have a chance, but it still needs an updated general GPU.

 

Err nope. Wrong and wrong. The PS3 cannot run other OS's which means it can't be used for supercomputer or cluster in research or US Military. The few that a University may have that didn't upgrade their firmware that's it. If they buy any new PS3, useless. At University level, most they got was maybe 8 PS3's clustered. And because the PS3 has a huge ram limit, for universitys they discoverd the gains were hampered hugely by the ram limitations. It's not nearly as impressive as PS3 fanboys make it out to be. It's not a big deal at all. The US Air Force used 2 million to make PS3 cluster. But US Dept of Defense just gave Nvidia 25 million to make them a supercomputer that will be thousand times faster than the Cell. So again, big deal, even defense doesn't care, they are looking at Nvidia's super scaling technology, not the Cell.

And no, IBM is not developing Cell for PS4. IT WAS CANCELLED. IT'S GONE. Not sure why that is hard to understand. Sony bailed on the Cell. IBM did say other branches that use some of Cell technology may still be developed, but there hasn't been any announcements for what. But PS4 was definitely not mentioned. It will more likely be for their mainservers. This is not a Sony, Toshiba, IBM project, it's an IBM project.

 

Yup I read that they will go with a mainstream CPU this time around. Also the only cluster that was fairly successful was the US Navy but they were running Linux IIRC on the original PS3's.

 

Yep they were able to use Linux. But as said before, Sony made sure you can't run Linux on PS3 anymore. There were only a handful of PS3 that were protected from that. And there were only a handful that could be clustered to make it worthwhile. That is something that is not said in most of the blogs. Not all PS3 could be clustered in the hundreds to make it worthwhile, there were only certain revisions. I only know this because I know someone at McGill that works on the PS3 cluster project here. I do not believe this was general public news. The most people have heard about is Air Force and 8 PS3s clustered at Umass Boston.

As for this topic, I'm not sure why Sony or MS would want to upgrade the consoles. The game sales etc are going fine as is. And people are buying console games more than they are on PC. So that just shows, better hardware does not mean it's that important for console gamers, or else they would all be buying super PC gaming machines.

 

Oh my goodness... The PS3 CAN run other OS's. NASA uses PS3, UNI, USMC...
The CELL IS GOOD, but it is hard to program on. Ask any dev.

 

The U.S. Air Force is using 1,716 PS3s in a supercomputer cluster:
New PS3 "Condor" Supercomputer Now Fully Online - HotHardware

 

So how are they getting around the "no linux installed" issue? Programming their own firmware?

It is also very cheap:

"Once the Department of Defense approved $2.5 in funding for Condor, the Rome Lab bought as many systems as it could then afford—a total of 1700."

Only in the government do you have to get DoD to approve two and a half dollars...

But it doesn't change the fact that it is a highly specialized CPU as the article states:

"Digital image processing has always been one of the PS3's greatest strengths, some of Sony's original demonstrations back in 2005-2006 focused on the Cell processor's ability to crunch simultaneous video streams."

 

That doesn't dispute what I said. All it means is Air Force managed to order a lot of PS3 unaffected by what Sony did to the off the shelf PS3s for consumers.

Nope they can't. Not unless you have a PS3 from 2008 or earlier without the firmware upgrade. Which is nearly impossible since anyone who owned a PS3 would have upgraded since it bricked them from viewing new BluRays and playing games on the PSN network etc. Any of the PS3 made from 2009 onwards didn't even offer the option, the firmware upgrade was just for the older PS3s and they forced it on them by making Sony PS3 games and software unavailable unless you upgraded.

I think the article is very misleading. Sounds to me they ordered directly from Sony for these. The Sony Slim which were introduced in 2009 did not even offer the other OS option. These aren't off the shell PS3, they sound more like custom ordered for Air Force PS3s.

 

If back then it could run, it means the CELL CPU CAN run it. But Sony removed it due to financial reasons, but in theory and in practice it CAN run other OS's.

 

Even if you could for what? The Umass Boston uses it for imaging for their astro physics department. The Air Force is using it for surveillance imaging. What are you going to do? Use it so you can view 48 thumbnails of video at the same time, surveillance and spy on your neighbors.

You don't seem to get why it's called Cell Broadband. Despite your claim of being supercomputer, you are wrong. It was made primarily for imaging which is why Sony wanted it for PS3 and Toshiba wanted it for their HDTV series. And what is the group called that made the Cell? STI, SONY, TOSHIBA, then IBM. Hello?!?!

And Folding@Home means nothing when you are comparing to x86 from Intel/AMD. The fastest for Folding@Home is Nvidia CUDA. Are you trying to tell me that Nvidia CUDA is better than the i7 2920XM? Then I hope you are joking.

Also the fastest supercomputer and future supercomputer are not using IBM or Intel tech. Nvidia won the contract from DARPA, US Defense. This would make sense since they are trying to overtake China, which has the current fastest using Nvidia Tesla supercomputing processors. And again, this is completely different from Cell or x86. My point with this paragraph is, supercomputer, cell processor, whatever, comparing it the 2920XM is ridiculous. Neither are made for what cloudfire needs on his laptop. An Nvidia Tesla cannot do the things he needs to do, and the Cell Processor is not made for that either. For the questions cloudfire had, yes the 2920XM is the fastest and best CPU for laptop gaming on large high performance/gaming laptops. Cell Processor is not more powerful for that.

 

I used to think the same, but in practice it is a loss for me. My console is in a bag tucked away in a room unused and collecting dust. After witnessing the quality of PC gaming on my laptop, I can do without those console exclusives.

 

Well, you are the opposite of me then

I really enjoy Uncharted, Killzone and LBP, they are amazing games, thay I couldn't miss out

Specially with UC3 in the door... Watch the MP traiper in youtube, it's amazing! Naughty Dog did/fixed EVERYTHING that the community wanted... Also, UC3 beta for PS+ comes 28/6 and for everyone in 5/7.

 

It was a big mistake to remove OtherOS on PS3 because it made cheap supercomputers. That is why universities etc chose to use it. They still do use it since the clusters are obviously not connected to PSN and did not recieve the update from Sony. Wonder if they have some sort of deal that let them get PS3s with OtherOS?!

Anyhow claiming Cell is dead is wrong. According to multiple sites IBM did pull the plug on Cell but used its technology on POWER7 CPU instead. So it is not dead per se. What PS4 is having nobody knows. Some say that it will have improved Cell CPU, some say POWER7. Nobody knows until Sony says what it is. So until you know exactly what CPU PS4 will have laptopfan88, you shouldn`t speak like you know the exact details

 

Having said that, I am really interested in the NGP though, not sure whether I will buy it or not yet. I guess for me, I feel saturated with available titles as it is, especially ones from steam sales etc.

 

ps3 pulled the plug on other os because the ps3 costed them more to produce then they were getting back from the sale at the time so a cluster of 1700 ps3 was a hudge loss of money for sony that'S why they pulled the plug on other os

 

Sony is too domineering and tries to control the PS3 hacking/open source community so much. Look at what happened with George Hotz. Sony should relax and be like Microsoft.

Anyway, the XBox 360S and the Kinect kicked the PS3 Slim and the Playstation Move's butt. I mean really, a light-up ice cream cone that I have to wave in the air?

 

Too bad for people wanting to build a supercomputer for their calculations/simulations etc. It was a good deal for them to build a cluster of PS3s.

BTW: How did it cost anything for sony to feature OtherOS? Isn`t it just a piece of software?

 

They are not buying PS3 games and using the PSN network to buy more stuff from Sony... So it's a loss. It wasn't until recently that manufacturing costs for PS3 lowered so Sony could make a profit. Sony does not own Linux, so they can't make a profit off of Linux users.

 

Theres a few things that need to be said for both consoles and pc. Consoles have definitely helped with optimization and work arounds to push lesser hardware into achieving great visuals. Take into concideration normal mapping, they whole concept of normal mapping is to project a texture into looking 3d to save on polygon counts of a certain scene. This method was created originally for consoles and is now used in every game. The effect works and saved on hardware cycles.

Anyone who thinks that current consoles are holding back graphics they are only partly right. On one hand we have new DX11 but on the other its not boasting radically better graphics. Its not a drastic enough leap in graphic fidelity that will make games now look dated and aged, not yet atleast. I will again submit this wiki page File:Unreal Engine Comparison.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Each one of the images of the character effectively shows a chapter of a generation of graphics, unfortunately DX11 won't be adding a fourth to this image because it doesn't do enough to change the game.

In the end though it is all about money. Both for developers and the electronics manufacturers. Developers would rather have one piece of hardware for a set period of time, they know all the budgets for these set specs, they can build and optimize for these over heads. PC suffers from split specs. Not everyone has the same GPU, not everyone has the same CPU, this is difficult for a developer who wants to create a gaming experience that is the same for the end user, but can't because there are too many different set ups to try and build for. It is too much a risk for developers, this isn't a charity and they don't owe anyone favors.

 

It had more to do with closing a huge gap in security. This goes back to the baby days of the PS3, essentially having LINUX on ps3 would mean one would be able to play some pc games aswell. Sony had implemented a policing software on the ps3 called hypervisor that when running linux, one of the SPUs is that is locked from developer use, the one with OS embedded is used to run hypervisor in the background. this software would stop you from accessing the RSX chip, and the RAM locked to it. Which would effectively stop any 3d acceleration. But one day their was a breach of Hypervisor and the whole system was comprimised, not only could playing PC games be possible, but you can now transform your PS3 into a Dev Kit and run games off of the hard drive.

Sony did the only thing they knew would solve and fix all these issues, disable LINUX support, sue Geohot from distributing the hack, and update their firmware so you could not run pirated PS3 games. It was in Sony's best interest to get rid of the function in order to preserve their investment, like any business would, regardless of if people used the function or not.

 

Why do you keep insisting that a processor that came out five years ago as part of a system that cost a total of $800-$850, is better than top of the line consumer processors today? It is a specialized processor, and not necessarily optimized for console gaming. It's more general than a GPU and more specialized than a normal CPU. And owing to its design, even though it claims very high performance in some respects, in real life it doesn't quite add up. Modern processors are very capable of getting close to their theoretical performance limits in a broad range of applications, while the Cell processor can't get close except in some very narrow, very specific applications. And even if you are running it as part of a supercomputing cluster running the type of program that can get the most out of it, it will rarely compete with the top end generalized processors of today.

Well considering Sony was selling PS3's at a MASSIVE loss, it is no wonder they didn't want that happening. It was only a year and a half ago that they broke even on PS3 sales. And by break even, I mean selling the PS3 for the cost it was to make it, not breaking even on the project as a whole.

 

Yeah that makes sense. A bad move to advertise OtherOS and then remove it because they couldn`t afford it though.
But atleast they had someone to blame for it..

I agree. However since Linux is considered open source, it wouldn`t cost them anything to include linux?

 

It had more to do with closing a huge gap in security. This goes back to the baby days of the PS3, essentially having LINUX on ps3 would mean one would be able to play some pc games aswell. Sony had implemented a policing software on the ps3 called hypervisor that when running linux, one of the SPUs is that is locked from developer use, the one with OS embedded is used to run hypervisor in the background. this software would stop you from accessing the RSX chip, and the RAM locked to it. Which would effectively stop any 3d acceleration. But one day their was a breach of Hypervisor and the whole system was comprimised, not only could playing PC games be possible, but you can now transform your PS3 into a Dev Kit and run games off of the hard drive.

Sony did the only thing they knew would solve and fix all these issues, disable LINUX support, sue Geohot from distributing the hack, and update their firmware so you could not run pirated PS3 games. It was in Sony's best interest to get rid of the function in order to preserve their investment, like any business would, regardless of if people used the function or not.

 

It's just in poor taste and leaves a bad mark on a company to offer something only to take it away regardless of reason. Sony isn't stupid, and should have considered that before releasing the PS3. It's not like it was an error, they allowed it.

 

Sony figured that their investment in the PS3 would break even after 3 years, but it was only just before that time frame that they stopped operating their gaming division at a loss. Also they had hoped to sell 140 million consoles during the PS3's lifetime, but now, over half way through the product cycle, they haven't even come close to half that. I'm just guessing, but they probably couldn't afford to sell thousands and thousands of PS3's to people and institutions without ever expecting to make the money back after they realized that sales were a lot worse than they had envisaged.

 

Some of you are missing the bigger picture. They weren't really hoping to sell 120 million "gaming units" in the ps3, they were hoping to sell 120 million units to standardize their proprietary technology (Cell and blu-ray). They do it with a lot of their products. So yes, Sony isn't stupid but this generation they undermined their gamers and it backfired (save bluray). However just like Betamax was better than VHS, it never became standard. Just like HD-DVD was better than Bluray...at least they got the market for that (Thanks to the ps3). Hopefully next gen they just focus on giving the gamers what they want; cutting edge GAMING technology. Their R&D cost BILLIONS on Cell. And it flopped. I'd rather have more R&D going into better GPU and CPU integration and cooling. I still love my PS3 but I am not ignorant to what their true motives were. Having all of the systems does keep my fanboi goggles off

 

My future is PC + NGP, which I think will be the greatest combo of all time.

 

I am eagerly awaiting to preorder the NGP from Amazon.com

 

God of War 3 and Armored Core 4 Answer regularly brought my PS3 to its knees.. Baynetta and those 2 previously mentioned games are the only ones who are able to force the PS3 fan into full-speed mode...

I don't care if they release new consoles now or in 2 years, development needs to go from PC to consoles and not the other way around like they do now. I also agree that gameplay will always be superior to graphics, otherwise the Minecraft developer wouldn't have made $30 millions...

 

"we haven't reached the potential of the ps3"
Translation: "We don't know why Sony makes super complicated platforms to develop for and it will take us years until we figure out how to use those SPE thingys."

I'd rather have a new system DX11 or 12 Capable and can really push tessellation and new technology than anything really..

 

I'll buy on Day 1, unless Sony is stupid enough to price the base model (no 3G) above $299.

 

Both consoles are lagging in ram which is probably limiting some part of game development, since ram normally is needed for higher-end games. Try crysis with 512mb and then 2gb ram and see the difference. I know the PS3 has teh CELL+RSX, the cell alone has like 8million cores alone/s with like 6 or 5 usable or some nonsense. I agree with the above user about the PS3 being too difficult to develop for with it's 20 core internals doing all these different task. Also it doesnt seem to use dx like xbox/pc so that's more work and on top of that it has Bluray disk to use.

 

Well it only means PC hardware current that is will last longer and max out games for a longer time than before.

As for the PS3 I like the console and I own both a PS3 and a 360, however it is a general failure if you look at the games released on the 360 looks better and runs better generally 90% of the time than they do on the PS. Though exclusive games like Killzone 3, Uncharted 2 looks just great.

 

Wow. People who think the PS3 is still "powerful" or "superior" to the Xbox need to have a look here: List of Rendering Resolutions + basics on hardware scaling, MSAA, framebuffers - Beyond3D Forum to see just how many Xbox 360 games run at higher resolutions, sometimes significantly higher resolutions in the case of Call of Duty Black Ops, and with higher quality anti-aliasing, again, sometimes significantly higher quality anti-aliasing. Look at Dirt 2 on both platforms. 720p on both, but the PS3 version uses QAA while the Xbox 360 version runs at 4xMSAA. Games that started out as PS3 exclusives, like GTA4 and Red Dead Redemption, both run at 1152x640 with QAA on the PS3 but true 720p on the Xbox with 2xMSAA. Thats a very significant difference. Check this out: Face-Off: Red Dead Redemption - Page 1 | DigitalFoundry | Eurogamer.net and this: Face-Off: Modern Warfare 2 - Page 1 | DigitalFoundry | Eurogamer.net

Also go here: Game Face-offs - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net The only time the PS3 bests the Xbox 360 is during an extremely botched port, like FF13, or if the Xbox 360 version of the game was held back, like Portal 2.

If you look at the specs for the PS3 and Xbox 360, you see that the Xbox 360 literally has double the fill-rate and, depending on operations being done, up to 4x the fill-rate of the PS3's GPU.

So even if the Cell was as powerful as Sony tried to say it was (and it's clearly proven not to be), it doesn't matter because the GPU in the PS3 can't compete with the GPU in the Xbox. It doesn't matter if the Cell can help the PS3's GPU draw pretty water effects like the lighted water in Uncharted 2 (which the Xbox 360 can do in hardware without CPU assistance), because the PS3 GPU's fill-rate will prevent the system from running it at a higher resolution and frame-rate.

Just check out the links I provided then go look at screenshots of actual games. You'll find that the "best" looking PS3 games don't have texture resolution approaching anything like you'll find in the "best" Xbox 360 games, like Gears of War. Look at Gran Turismo 5 and Forza 3. They both had the same real world in-game polygon counts for cars, yet Forza 3 had significantly higher resolution textures everywhere, it's lacking the layer of gloss GT5 uses to hide flaws, Forza has significantly higher quality environments, the physics engine runs at 360 frames per second, full damage model on ALL cars, and yet Forza 3 maintains solid 60 frames per second no matter what is happening on screen. GT5 will page tear and drop frames at 720p when just going around a turn with no cars in front of you.

Heres a technical analysis showing how bad GT5 looks and runs: Gran Turismo 5 Tech Analysis - Page 1 | DigitalFoundry | Eurogamer.net

And whats up with these Playstation 1 like effects? http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/3/0/4/5/7/0/Dodgy_Alpha1.jpg.jpg http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/3/0/4/5/7/0/Dodgy_Alpha2.jpg.jpg

In fact, details were even lowered from GT:HD to GT5 even though GT:HD was based off GT4's "HD" 1080i mode! http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/3/0/4/5/7/0/1080p_GT.jpg.jpg http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/3/0/4/5/7/0/1080p_GT5.jpg.jpg

Watch some of the videos they posted in that article as well. You can see that a lot of the shading effects are downright Playstation 1 quality. Same goes if you go to youtube and watch some of the side by side Forza 3 and GT5 comparison videos.

For those who actually think the Cell is still a good processor, theres a ton of links if you google that show the Cell getting beaten by old Pentium 4s, single core Power PC G4 and G5 processors. The Core 2 Duos and Core 2 Quads that came out around the time of PS3's launch were significantly more powerful than the Cell. A modern Phenom II X6 or Core i5/i7 would have a field day against the Cell. Like I said, even the old Core 2 Duos would outperform it.

The PS3 really ended up being a super expensive joke for Sony. I feel sorry for the people who bought it at $600.

 

As someone mentioned much earlier, I would rather have crappy graphics and an amazing game as opposed to blind-blowing graphics and a game that makes me cry from boredom.

Mr. Mysterious

 

Ah of course any sane person would. But what if you could have both?

 

I feel the same. Game developers should concentrate on gameplay rather on making the game graphics look best. There are plenty of games with awesome visuals but with abysmal gameplay quality. It makes me sad when I see a highly aticipated game came out as horrible as I would have never thought it could. "But just look at its graphics! They are astonishing!" You know what, if you wanna see astonishing graphics, go outside, see a sunset, visit a tropical island. In a game I want fantasy, something I couldn't experience in a real world and I don't need real-life graphics for that! That's the problem of gaming industry. Todays gamers prefer virtual world over the real one, that's why graphics is on top of most game developer's lists.
No wonder why nowadays I find myself playing NES games more often than current consoles' games.

By no means "stunning graphics = horrible gameplay" apply to every title released today, but for the most part, few developers pull off an exellent "stunning graphics = wondrous gameplay" equation.

 

Clearly great graphics ≠ great gameplay. I still enjoy many games from the 1990's, and heck even break out the Atari 2600 time and again. But we're kidding ourselves if we don't think graphics need to progress like the rest of PC technology. Or that it's ok that consoles just stagnate progress. With newer technology comes innovation. And especially with today's market where consoles are the driving tech behind games, when the PC clearly has the computational advantage.

I'd be fine if console updates weren't happening until 2014/2015 if developers shifted the primary development platform to the PC and ported over to the consoles. Make use of the latest PC tech and then adjust for consoles. But they won't so games will continue to stagnate, recycling the same game engines they've been using for the last five or six years.

I don't think we're at half the potential PC gaming could be if consoles didn't dominate the market like they do. That developers use six or seven year old technology to develop games. It's absurd if you think about it.

 

We're done here, class dismissed.