Sections

Rumour: Next Xbox to get E3 2013 unveil, PS4 games already in works

Thursday, 20th October 2011 16:22 GMT By Johnny Cullen

Develop’s rumoured today that Microsoft’s planning an E3 unveil and launch of the next Xbox in 2013, and that first-party Sony studios have started “preliminary” work on PlayStation 4 titles.

The site’s rumouring an E3 2013 unveil based on sources ranging from “processor chip manufacturers to middleware firms,” with a launch to come months afterwards, most likely the holiday period.

Microsoft launched Xbox 360 in December 2005, seven months after the console’s initial MTV launch special and subsequent E3 press conference.

Develop also claimed today that Lionhead is working on a new Fable installment as a launch title, something which was recently rumoured by Xbox World 360. The mag also said a “mature” launch game was in the works from Rare.

Four CVs from Microsoft employees recently pointed to work on the next Xbox hardware.

Turn 10, Remedy, Volition, Crytek and EA have all also been rumoured to be in possession of dev kits for the new console.

EA denied the first claim back in May, but Develop is still insisting that the publisher “has rudimentary Xbox console technology on desks.”

It also says it’s likely the next Unreal Engine will come about earlier than the 2014 timeline given by Epic’s Tim Sweeney at the end of September.

Develop‘s also said that “various game projects” for PlayStation 4 are underway at several SCE WorldWide Studios.

Developers working on the games weren’t disclosed, however.

The main focus for the next few years, however, will be on PS3, Move and Vita for Sony, according to the site, with many in the industry not expecting a new PlayStation until 2014 at least.

Sony’s refused to comment. The company admitted in May, despite a previous denial from SCE chairman Kaz Hirai from February, it had begun work on a “next platform,” but little else was said.

Latest

77 Comments

  1. Gheritt White

    I’m surprised Ubisoft aren’t rumoured to have dev kits too… they’ve been publicly crying out for a new gen since about 2009.

    #1 3 years ago
  2. Razor

    The longer the wait, the better IMO. More time for technology to mature and for prices to come down.

    And for me to clear my damn backlog of games :)

    #2 3 years ago
  3. MegaGeek1

    2013/14!?! Faaaaaaaaaaaaack

    #3 3 years ago
  4. Gheritt White

    @ Pat: Listen, all I want to say when the Wii U releases in 2012, the NeXtBox in 2013 and the PS4 in 2014 is that I FUCKING CALLED IT IN 2008.

    #4 3 years ago
  5. gamb1t

    @4

    good lord you are a GENIUS!

    #5 3 years ago
  6. Takeshi

    Damn, looking forward to what Santa Monica Studio, Guerrilla Games, Sucker Punch Productions and Naughty Dog comes up with.

    #6 3 years ago
  7. Yoshi

    @6 God of War 4, Killzone 4, InFAMOUS 3, Uncharted 4 LOLOLOL XD

    #7 3 years ago
  8. DLTDawnlight

    I hope PS4 does not release so early. I mean look at how well the PS3 is doing exclusive-wise and how more consumers are getting into the experience. So much for a 10-year life cycle. :shrug:

    #8 3 years ago
  9. Fin

    Ya, Q4 2013 sounds about right!

    #9 3 years ago
  10. 2plus2equals5

    I don’t care, next gen i’ll stay with psvita alone.

    #10 3 years ago
  11. monkeygourmet

    Whaaaaa?!

    But the world will have ended before I get a chance to get a 720 or PS4?!!!

    Seriously, joking aside, i really hoped the new Xbox would have been shown at E3 2012 with a launch shortly after… Annoying to say the least.

    Next year we have:

    Halo 4
    Forza 5?
    Fable Kincect shite
    Bioshock Infinate
    Mass Effect 3
    Kingdoms or whatever Crytek have called it
    Syndicate
    Fallout 4? (i hope)
    Alan Wake 2?

    Well, thats not a bad list i suppose, i just wanted to play them on newer hardware!

    Looks like i’ll finally have an excuse to build a new PC, also i hope Apple don’t see that gap in the market and unveil some kind of gaming TV thing-a-me-bob.

    #11 3 years ago
  12. Ireland Michael

    There’s absolutely no rush.

    The technology we have right now is doing the job just fine.

    #12 3 years ago
  13. Gheritt White

    @ 12: Agreed. But by 2014, it will have already felt old by a good 12 months (these things always happen in retrospect), so 2013 makes for the perfect launch date.

    X720 around Xmas 2013, PS4 around Easter 2014 innit.

    #13 3 years ago
  14. G1GAHURTZ

    To say that the technology that we have now is “just fine” is somewhat naive.

    The technology that we have now was supposed to be giving us the top games in 1080p from the start.

    Instead, we have games like BF3 on 360 that have low res textures and run at 30fps.

    And that’s just on a visual front. There are so many more areas that have grown old.

    #14 3 years ago
  15. Telepathic.Geometry

    The next gen should have 1080p, 60FPS, BR playback and big hard-disks as standard. That should be the basic benchmark. If they can’t manage that, what’s the point?

    #15 3 years ago
  16. monkeygourmet

    @12

    Not really, it’s only just about holding up.

    Graphically it’s not too bad yet but AI scripting, Framerate, Resolution etc… could all do with a bit more under the bonnet.

    You can always keep your old machine or buy the Wii U if you want to keep trying to squeeze more juice out of the current hardware.

    By 2013/14 the 360 and PS3 will be easily outclassed in the power stakes by small mobile devices.

    The old mantra “gameplay is the most important” will prob be wheeled out about now, but, why can’t you have silky smooth framerate, at least 1080p resolution, huge multiplayer online and advanced AI and 3D as well…

    I mean, surely you’ve felt you’ve got your $$$’s worth out of your 360/PS3 by now?!

    #16 3 years ago
  17. The_Red

    Hopefully both PS4 and Next Xbox have ALL of these AT THE SAME TIME:
    1- Super powerful hardware to have the same graphical improvement PS2 over PSone while being relatively affordable.
    2- Some innovation in terms of control and gameplay.
    3- Have reliable hardware that can last more than a couple of months at launch.

    In other words, please no “One trick pony” like Wii, no uber crappy hardware at launch like 360 and no insane start price like PS3.

    #17 3 years ago
  18. G1GAHURTZ

    @15:

    Forget that! 1080p is old hat now.

    It’s got to be 4k or nothing!

    #18 3 years ago
  19. manamana

    @12 its doing well but has reached its zenith. Most smartphones have more RAM than those consoles. By 2013/14 they should have the processing power. Lets move on!

    Btw:The PS2 is doing its job just fine, regarding some parts of the world. So could the lifespan of this-gen, but as lowbudget consoles alongside the new ones….

    #19 3 years ago
  20. freedoms_stain

    @12, I guarantee you ask pretty much any dev out there they’d tell you they could do so much more even if they just had a moderate memory boost over current console hardware. The hardware is now holding the creativity back, and that’s the topping point where you need something better.

    #20 3 years ago
  21. Ireland Michael

    @14 And the PS2 was supposed to be the second coming for online gaming, but that never happened either.

    Graphics. Graphics. Blah blah blah. Good art design will trump high resolutions and frame rates any day.

    Okami, to mention just one example, is to me a better looking game than most things released right not because of high resolution textures or nice bloom effects, but because its visuals are so creative and well designed on a technological level that resolution jumps mean little.

    People screaming about higher definitions and higher resolution textures are exactly what this industry doesn’t need.

    Games are way too expensive to make as it is with these constantly overbearing visual expectations from increasingly jaded gamers, and gamers have become so fucking obsessed by how many pixels exists per inch in a single texture file that they’ve completely forgotten how to simply enjoy games for the creative, inventive experiences they are.

    The best JRPG of this generation of console is a fucking blocky, low resolution Wii game, for christ sake.

    —–

    And no, I’m not some jaded retro nerd stuck in the past, who think that’s it was all better “in the old days.” My problem isn’t with the games. Its with the gamers.

    I think gaming is at the best its ever been, and it only continues to get better. But it’s not because of “silky smooth framerate, at least 1080p resolution, huge multiplayer online and advanced AI and 3D as well…” but because the graphical processing power of consoles (and even handhelds) right now is so high that game’s visual designs are no longer limited by hardware, but by a designer’s own creativity.

    But if the only games you enjoy are “realistic” looking titles, you’ll probably have a hard time comprehending the fact that not everything has to look photo-realistic to be an enjoyable experience.

    @15 “If they can’t manage that, what’s the point?”

    Here’s a crazy suggestion… good games. That’s the point.

    #21 3 years ago
  22. Telepathic.Geometry

    “Here’s a crazy suggestion… good games. That’s the point.”

    We have good games now. Why do we need new hardware if it can’t even realise the promises of the previous hardware generation is all I’m saying. And for what it’s worth, I’d be more interested in hardware that helps out with scripting and AI and unique features.

    #22 3 years ago
  23. G1GAHURTZ

    Sure. If all you want to play is abstract, artsy-fartsy platform titles, then that’s fine.

    What about the racing-sims? What about the sports games? What about the realistic FPS’s and TPS’s?

    Do all of these need to go for some sort of post-impressionist look in order to move forward?

    In any case, why should a new console generation mean that creativity will suffer? It’s strange to say that graphics are so far ahead that devs are getting creative now, but any more technological power will somehow harm that.

    What’s wrong with an Okami at twice the resolution and twice the frame-rate?

    #23 3 years ago
  24. monkeygourmet

    @21

    This art over realism debate is not really the focus here.

    Everyone understands that a game with a unique art style can be a wonderful thing to behold. It can also be a pretentious piece of crap.

    We might as well have stayed with the PS2 / Xbox with your arguement. In reality, hardly any games have changed gameplay wise this generation.

    Batman Arkham City : A prettier looking Spiderman 2 on gamecube
    Mass Effect : A prettier looking Jade Empire

    etc, etc…

    Do you see, gameplay has hardly changed. You like Okami, it does look great but it’s basically Zelda when you get down too it.

    Having more RAM, Graphics power etc, doesn’t just mean more realistic graphics, it means more room to create and expand on game worlds and physics that we’ve barely touched on now. This is never a bad thing.

    #24 3 years ago
  25. fearmonkey

    I hope this is true, but I can’t imagine Sony releasing a marginal performance increase console from what MS offers again.
    If Sony doesn’t release till 2014, and MS indeed releases the xbox successor in 2013, i would hope they use that time to make it stand out.
    If the next xbox has in box upgraded Kinect, Sony will need something to really stand out, unless MS takes the low road performance wise and doesn’t make it as powerful as it could be (I’m afraid of this)

    A launch Fable, most likely a Fallout 4 in the launch Window, A new gears trilogy game, Halo 2 anniversary or Halo 4, Forza 5, Killer Instinct or a new Perfect Dark game from rare would all be possible.
    Ms could set up an incredible launch if they do it right.

    I’m just hoping they DO NOT SKIMP ON RAM, or FUDGE THE CONTROLLER much (ala PS3 boomerang. I’d love to see an Xbox controller with a bottom touch pad ala Vita, or extra buttons, maybe a screen of some sort.

    #25 3 years ago
  26. Ireland Michael

    @22 “Why do we need new hardware if it can’t even realise the promises of the previous hardware generation is all I’m saying.”

    We have fully social, completely online gaming consoles with great graphical capabilities and a constantly expanding library of games. That’s all the “promise” I need fulfilled.

    I don’t give two flying fuck if its in 720 or 1080. It doesn’t make a shit of difference to me.

    @23 “What about the racing-sims? What about the sports games? What about the realistic FPS’s and TPS’s?”

    What about them? We have all those on the current formats, and they’re doing just fine.

    “Do all of these need to go for some sort of post-impressionist look in order to move forward?”

    Not my point in the slightest. I simply said games shouldn’t only be about “realistic” graphics, and that the machines we have right now do the job just fine. We don’t need the upgrade.

    “In any case, why should a new console generation mean that creativity will suffer?”

    Because people will expect even higher visual stimulation, requiring most investment and time put into graphics, meaning higher costs, meaning lesser risks.

    #26 3 years ago
  27. G1GAHURTZ

    Not my point in the slightest. I simply said games shouldn’t only be about “realistic” graphics, and that the machines we have right now do the job just fine.

    “Just fine”?

    Sorry, but Gran Turismo 5 has cross trees and flat clouds on a texture.

    That’s not “fine” by any means. That’s in desperate need of improvement.

    Because people will expect even higher visual stimulation, requiring most investment and time put into graphics, meaning higher costs, meaning lesser risks.

    If that were the case, all the best gameplay would be coming from indie titles.

    Which it isn’t.

    More processing power doesn’t necessarily mean a more expensive dev process, either. In terms of open world games, and games of bigger scope, it almost certainly does, but not for other ganres.

    #27 3 years ago
  28. Telepathic.Geometry

    @Ireland Michael: Huh?

    #28 3 years ago
  29. Ireland Michael

    “Sorry, but Gran Turismo 5 has cross trees and flat clouds on a texture.”

    It really isn’t my problem that your imagination can’t expand beyond photo-realistic graphics.

    I just took a quick peak at your Xbox Live games list, and beyond Arcade titles and Street Fighter (kudos for that at least), you’re almost exclusively only interested in shooters and driving games, the vast majority of them focused on portraying “realistic” graphics.

    Seriously, there’s almost no variety in the list at all.

    That’s your problem right there. You’ve no fucking imagination. Your own definition for a worhtwhile game seems to be solely based on whether it has guns or wheels in it, and if it looks realistic.

    While you’re busy enjoying those, I’m having fun with first person shooters, third person shooters, racing games, beat-em=ups, Western RPG, Japanese RPGs, puzzle games, arcade games, “abstract artsy fartsy games”, sandbox titles, spectacle fighters and music games.

    The graphics we have do the job just fine for 90% of the people playing games. Heck, just look at Street Fighter IV, which is one of the only exceptions to your realism rule. The game looks fucking gorgeous.

    The square trees in Gran Turismo what nothing but pure laziness on the devs part anyway. Games have been doing trees with proper branches and leaves for years. That’s not a fucking hardware limitation.

    “If that were the case, all the best gameplay would be coming from indie titles.

    Which it isn’t.”

    It comes from both. Indie titles and retail titles alike.

    #29 3 years ago
  30. monkeygourmet

    @26

    I suppose you still have a CRT TV too? I mean, you could still “watch” films and play games on an old SDTV..?

    Technology needs to move forward and progress in practically every area of our lives.

    The real danger is HOW people apply the technology.

    For example, an older film like Aliens still looks great today with hardely any computer effects. Whereas some of the new Aliens movies have sucked big time even though the “effects” have got better.

    However, something Pans Labyrinthe which combines a unique story with subtle computer effects can be a great experience…

    I mean, lets face it, the New Call of Duty will be the same kind of game regardless of what it is on, but who wouldn’t want to see what FROM software or Team ICO could create with a bit more leg room to play with.

    I was watching my girlfriend play Arkham City last night on 360. It looks great but the 360 is def start to creak in a lot of area’s im afraid…

    #30 3 years ago
  31. Ireland Michael

    @30 I haven’t owned a CRT in nearly six years.

    “Technology needs to move forward and progress in practically every area of our lives.”

    Yes it does, but increasing the resolution of textures and adding more post-processing technique will not makes games better.

    But the technology right now is doing the job just fine, like I said. So a game might come on more than one disc? So fucking what? That was happening practically out of the gate on the PS1! And yet we can still get stunning masterpieces like Red Dead Redemption on one disc.

    In fact, your example with Aliens does the perfect job of cementing my point home even more. Gaming isn’t movies, I know, but look at it like this. Sure, a high-definition re-release of the original Alien movie would be nice and everything, but it isn’t necessary, and it still remain 10 times better than any of the new stuff.

    Why? Because of strong art direction. And this does remains true of gaming too. Rez, Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, to name a few. Those games have aged well because they visual identity is so strong that they don’t need some lazy post-processing graphics card technique to make them look better.

    A good painter does not need digital editing software to make his art look good, and I will also appreciate the guy who drew his drawing by hand to create something unique over the guy who slaved over a digital tablet for hours just to draw some generic looking fantasy elf in skimpy clothing every single time.

    “However, something Pans Labyrinthe which combines a unique story with subtle computer effects can be a great experience…”

    That’s exactly what I’m saying, dude. Talented creators can still get plenty out of the existing hardware if they know what they’re doing. Only simply minded people desperate for their next graphical “fix” think otherwise.

    For all the PC’s graphic horsepower, I’ve yet to play a single game on my computer that event comes close to the same scale and sense of visual drama and suspense that the Uncharted series so brilliantly creates.

    “I mean, lets face it, the New Call of Duty will be the same kind of game regardless of what it is on, but who wouldn’t want to see what FROM software or Team ICO could create with a bit more leg room to play with.”

    I don’t understand this at all. The Last Guardian looks absolutely phenomenal. Why does it need “a little more leg room”?

    Yes, the technology has to develop eventually. I’m not saying otherwise. I’m just saying that graphical fidelity is now so high across the board that it still doesn’t need to happen any time soon, despite what all the PC graphic elitists want to believe otherwise.

    #31 3 years ago
  32. G1GAHURTZ

    Your own definition for a good looking game seems to be solely based on how many fancy post-processing effects can be applied to the graphics at any one time.

    Now this is a logical fallacy.

    First of all, my own definition of a good looking game has absolutely NOTHING to do with the games that I play.

    I play games because I enjoy them. Not because of what they look like. How many FPS’s are there around that look better than CoD?

    Loads.

    Do you see them on my list?

    No.

    Why? Because I’m more intersted in gameplay. This is one point I’m making. If the gameplay is good, the game can be more enjoyable with better visuals. It’s silly to imply that devs can only concentrate on making a game good if they’re happy with visuals which are “just fine”.

    Secondly,

    I don’t play games that I don’t like.

    That has NOTHING to do with “imagination”.

    Why should I play a JRPG and sit through turn based combat and the most unineresting, waste of time conversations in the world if I don’t like them?

    Why should I play get-fit games(!) and prance around in front of my TV in my living room like an idiot?

    These things have nothing to do with imagination, and more to do with your own personal preference.

    Thirdly, GT5 has cross trees and flat clouds on textures, because they spend about 90% of their on-screen poly budget on the cars.

    Not because of laziness.

    If other games have more realistic trees, it’s because they’ve chosen a different poly distribution.

    Which, again, is a problem problem that is made lesser, the more powerful the technology.

    #32 3 years ago
  33. G1GAHURTZ

    Graphics this gaming generation are just fine.

    LOL!

    #33 3 years ago
  34. daytripper

    2013 would be good, still getting good entertainment from 360, PS3 and the Vita is looking good too although i do get excited at the thought of a new Mass Effect, Uncharted or Gears on much more capable machines. I think RAM is a vital handsome upgrade ingredient for the new consoles, especially if they want a all in one entertainment box.

    will they offer both day one download and disc at retail or stick with the current formula?

    #34 3 years ago
  35. fearmonkey

    @26 – “I simply said games shouldn’t only be about “realistic” graphics, and that the machines we have right now do the job just fine. We don’t need the upgrade.”

    I agree with the first part of what you said, then disagree with the 2nd part. I play on a projector, those jaggies make a big visual difference when a game is upconverted from a lower res than 720p or 1080p. A new console that has better antialiasing, filtering, and a native 1080p res rather than a much lower res upconverted would be wonderful.
    I understand where your coming from, but you must not be much of a PC gamer, because the difference in visual quality from My 4 year old PC with a nice video card (480GTX) is huge, especially when blown up on a larger screen.

    If we just compare games on a monitor, the PC version of Deus Ex:Human Revolution looks absolutely amazing at 1080p, I also own the Xbox360 version, and the game’s lighting is subdued, has less geometry, and much blurrier textures. If that makes no difference to you, fine, but it does for plenty of others. I played through the PC version first, and the Xbox version, while it plays great, just isn’t as immersive to me.

    Games with great art help, but games on consoles are just outclassed by PC’s so much now, that I prefer playing a high end game on the PC. I actually like playing on a console more, so I cannot wait for the next gen.

    Also, the next gen will bring better games to the PC’s too, since alot of PC games feature minor upgrades from the console version as it was primarily designed there first.

    #35 3 years ago
  36. Ireland Michael

    @32 “First of all, my own definition of a good looking game has absolutely NOTHING to do with the games that I play.

    I play games because I enjoy them.”

    And you clearly have incredibly simplistic tastes.

    “Why? Because I’m more intersted in gameplay.”

    That’s a laughable remark to make considering how few genres you genuinely explore.

    “Why should I play a JRPG and sit through turn based combat and the most unineresting, waste of time conversations in the world if I don’t like them?”

    So not only are your tastes simplistic, but you’re ignorant as well? Wow, you really are starting to sound like the average Call of Duty player. It all makes so much more sense now.

    Tarring every game in a particular genre with the same brush is pretty fucking high on the idiot scale. Every single genre has tonnes of bad games. It’s the good ones that make them worthwhile. Just because you don’t like them doesn’t suddenly invalidate their relevance or importance to gaming as a whole.

    “Why should I play get-fit games(!) and prance around in front of my TV in my living room like an idiot?”

    That’s funny, because I never had to “prance around in front of the TV” while playing Your Shape: Fitness Evolved, and I’ve lost over 30lbs in the last year. Thanks in part to a “shitty casual game” that helped motivate me where other methods were boring me shitless.

    “These things have nothing to do with imagination, and more to do with your own personal preference.”

    And your personal preferences are dull, simplistic, boring, and unimaginative.

    I mean, I can’t say I’m ever going to ask a monkey what his thoughts on the works of Shakespeare are, because he wouldn’t have anything relevant to say on the subject. The only words out of his mouth would be “Uuuuh Uuuh Aaaggh! (Give me banana. It’s all I like!)”

    #36 3 years ago
  37. Ireland Michael

    @35 I enjoy PC gaming just as much as I do console gaming, but the difference is visual quality is something I’ve never cared about.

    “If we just compare games on a monitor, the PC version of Deus Ex:Human Revolution looks absolutely amazing at 1080p,”

    Yeah, it’s a pity that with all those “improved” graphics they still couldn’t make a good game to surround it.

    What I laugh at most about most current arguments about graphics nowadays is that perfectly visible textures that can be made out clear as day are considered “blurry”.

    The PS2 had blurry textures. What we have now are not blurry textures. They’re textures so sharp that it’s impossible to emulate photo-realism accurately because they’re sharper and more detailed looking than anything we ever see in the real world with our own freakin’ eyes.

    #37 3 years ago
  38. G1GAHURTZ

    Hmm… For a second there, I thought you were being serious and trying to discuss a valid point about the need for a new console generation.

    Now I see that you’re only interested in pushing some needless ad hominem foolishness.

    Grow up, Michael.

    Stick to the topic.

    #38 3 years ago
  39. G1GAHURTZ

    The PS2 had blurry textures. What we have now are not blurry textures. They’re textures so sharp that it’s impossible to emulate photo-realism accurately because they’re sharper and more detailed looking than anything we ever see in the real world with our own freakin’ eyes.

    Wow. You really do have an amazing ability to show just how little you know, sometimes.

    But this? This is a classic.

    #39 3 years ago
  40. fearmonkey

    @37 – I usually understand where your coming from on your posts even when those here bash you for your views. I sometimes agree with you, but when you say that Deus Ex:Human Revolution isn’t a good game, you come off as an arrogant troll. Even if you didn’t enjoy it, the mass reviews say otherwise. You mention you enjoy JPRGs, I cannot stand them, doesn’t mean that they aren’t good games.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrZnzmxfC_M – the Xbox version starts at 6:03. Seriously, there isn’t a comparison to how much better the Dx11 version looks maxed. (His video has jaggies however, I am assuming that it was his settings, as my PC version didn’t have them, and my CPU is a dual core 6600 Intel)- Look at the textures on both versions, the 360 versions are so much more subdued and not nearly as sharp, and not nearly as immersive. If the only argument you can counter with is DE:HR is a suck game, thats sad, as it isnt true.

    #40 3 years ago
  41. Ireland Michael

    @38 I am. And I’m stating that you’re too simple minded in every single regard to have any valid opinion on it. The narrow tunnel through which your view every single one of your arguments is proof enough of that.

    Actually, I think I would prefer discussing Shakespeare with the monkey…

    @40 And every single time people mention what other reviewers think, I

    Trolling? Not by the definition of the world. Arrogant? God yes!

    Deus Ex is a terrible game in every regard.

    Gun-play, should you choose to employ is? Weak.
    The AI, should you choose to stealth? Broken.
    Character animations? Lazy and lacking.
    Story? Pseudo-intellectual garbage.
    The acting? Mostly terrible.

    Human Revolution’s one shining point is in its really strong art design and the depth of detail with which they constructed the game world. Lots of games could learn from that.

    Everything else about it is just terrible though.

    I honestly couldn’t give two flying fucks about what other reviewers said. Why would I? It’s their opinion, not mine. Most video game journalists are basement dwelling nerds with little professional journalistic education, and have absolutely no capacity (or desire) for quality standards when it comes to constructing a review.

    This is an industry practically overflowing with high scores first day reviews for the sake of exclusives and early coverage. Most of these reviews are about as irrelevant as they come, because these guys would stop getting review copies if they ever started using the full numbering scale for games reviews.

    #41 3 years ago
  42. G1GAHURTZ

    No Michael.

    You’re obviously struggling to understand.

    That’s what’s called an ad hominem arguement.

    Clearly, I need to spell it out for you.

    You see, what that means is that instead of addressing the point, you attack the person that you’re arguing with.

    Instead of trying to explain why a dev would need to spend less time on gameplay, or any of the other ludicrous points that you tried to make before you realised that you’re arguement was terribly weak, you tried to attack me with, quite frankly, ridiculous claims of having no “imagination” and not liking as many different genres as you do.

    This has nothing to do with thread.

    In reality, it’s just trolling.

    #42 3 years ago
  43. Ireland Michael

    It would be trolling if I was doing it intentionally to get a a reaction out of you. I’m not. I’m simply telling you what I think.

    Any reaction you have to what I say is entirely at your own provocation.

    #43 3 years ago
  44. G1GAHURTZ

    No. It’s trolling, because you’re attempting to derail the discussion with needless personal insults.

    #44 3 years ago
  45. fearmonkey

    @41 – “Deus Ex is a terrible game in every regard.”

    Wow, so far that “Terrible game” is my game of the year…… I have had a blast with it, so much so that I’ve played it three times, and on my 1st Xbox play through. I understand not caring what reviews have said, but more people disagree with you than agree.
    Admitting your arrogant isn’t a plus btw…

    #45 3 years ago
  46. manamana

    Michael, its no secret that at the end of a console’s lifecycle, the games are looking better. The developers have finally “maxed out” the hardware and developed tools to undergo the hinderings. But since the tech took a huge visual step from last-gen, it’s still stuck in middleground. HD came up and multicore processors where something new and shiny back then.

    Gamedevelopement has changed. Games are big business nowadays. And since AAA games are pushing boundaries, the developement of those games isn’t designed on six year old computers or software as you shurely know. That means that developement for this-gen consoles is like: how much do we need to leave out, to make everything happen at once: improved AI, higher polygoncount, higher AA, shorter loadingtimes, higher viewingdistances, 60fps @1080p and so on.

    Just to let you know: I enjoy playing retro games a lot. And I like all kind of gaming genres. But I also enjoy highend graphics as everybody else. And thats the first thing everyone notices. Thats what a trailer is made of. And thats what sells.

    #46 3 years ago
  47. fearmonkey

    @46 – well said……..

    I am also a retro gamer…. not stuck on high end graphics… but they can make a game so much more immersive, ala DE:HR.

    #47 3 years ago
  48. Ireland Michael

    @45 I honestly couldn’t care if “most people” disagree with my my opinion of the game.

    Most of the people that I know – the ones that don’t live, eat or breath video games, and who actually enjoy reading a good book or two once in a while – couldn’t stomach the game for more than a few hours due to its terrible storytelling alone.

    You would have to very little literary experience to consider Deus Ex’s story impressive, deep or meaningful on any level. I’m sorry, but “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” beat Human Revolution to most of these ideas 40 years earlier, and it was better written to boot.

    And again, that’s not ignoring the fact that the mechanics are lacking, the shooting is weak, and the AI is broken. Or that you can’t influence the story is any way whatsoever, which is at least something you could do in the original, as badly written and pretentious as that was too.

    @46 And they seem to be selling just fine on current hardware.

    Especially considering we’re in the middle of a worldwide depression (this is well beyond a recession at this point) that makes the Wall Street Crash of 1929 looks like some lost change.

    I do not have a problem with immersion. I do not have a problem with games looking good.I don’t think we should be stuck in 1994 forever. I simply believe the current hardware does the job just dandy.

    #48 3 years ago
  49. G1GAHURTZ

    Everyone else seems to be capable of figuring out that good gameplay + better tech/visuals is a win/win formula, and that continuing to develop games on old hardware actually does nothing for creativity.

    There’s probably only one person (troll) in the entire world who can’t see that.

    #49 3 years ago
  50. Ireland Michael

    @49 Even Carmack agrees that limited tech always devs to focus more design and come up with creative ways to make games look and play better.

    Constant numerical hardware specifications jumps just make developers lazy.

    That’s you can often get a game that looks just as good as another, but is coded so badly that it runs half as well on the same software.

    #50 3 years ago
  51. fearmonkey

    @48 – “Most of the people that I know – the ones that don’t live, eat or breath video games, and who actually enjoy reading a good book or two once in a while – couldn’t stomach the game for more than a few hours due to its terrible storytelling alone.”

    Yeah, those are called Casual or recreational gamers, and I wouldn’t think a game like DE:HR would be a good game for them anyways…
    I could see you saying that your friends were bored with the game, action gamers aren’t going to go for a game like DE:HR. Some of my hardcore gamer friends got bored with it. I love exploration and roleplay the most, RPG’s are my favorite genre.
    The “reading a good book” part made me laugh, as I read every night…..
    Sci-fi, fantasy, but mostly non fiction like history, astronomy, and science, and yet I game quite a bit…..
    The “very little literary experience” is especially funny as I write, and read voraciously. You should read “The Man who was Thursday”, which is where some of inspiration the original story came from. The story in DeusEx:HR isnt as good as the first game, but it’s a heck of alot better than most of the crap out there.
    Your talking about Phillip K Dick, great!! But what about Harlan ellison, William Gibson, etc. Jack Chalker is a fav of mine, not the best write ever, but a hell of a story teller. So many have done that type of story, so what……

    #51 3 years ago
  52. manamana

    @50 speaking of Carmack. Rage is so limited in every possible way.

    #52 3 years ago
  53. G1GAHURTZ

    Even Carmack agrees that limited tech always devs to focus more design and come up with creative ways to make games look and play better.

    ORLY?

    He seems to be looking forward to the next-gen here.

    Using words like “tragic” to describe potential ‘limitations’ which offer more processing power than the current-gen consoles.

    Nope.

    I’m pretty sure you’re in an extreme minority of… about one, here.

    #53 3 years ago
  54. Ireland Michael

    “So what?”

    So Deus Ex does it badly. Very badly.

    The lead character is an idiot. He seems oblivious to anything going around him. That doesn’t make for an interesting character. Its like they couldn’t decide whether he should have characterisation and development, or if he should just remain a cypher for the player’s own ideas? It was a horrible mess.

    Most of the villains are carbon copy caricatures that exist purely to appear, spout pseudo-intellectual garbage, and then die. I expect that kind of lazy story telling from a Metal Gear Solid game, not a Deus Ex game.

    “I could see you saying that your friends were bored with the game, action gamers aren’t going to go for a game like DE:HR. Some of my hardcore gamer friends got bored with it. I love exploration and roleplay the most, RPG’s are my favorite genre.”

    Most of them are RPGs fans, and RPGs are also my favourite genre.

    In fact, the one friend of mine who most voraciously disliked the game is not only an RPG fan, but a science fiction fan as well. It also reads religiously, and while gaming isn’t an every day hobby sort thing for him, he’s far from a “casual” gamer.

    “You should read “The Man who was Thursday”, which is where some of inspiration the original story came from.”

    I’ll definitely give it a look. Thanks for the suggestion.

    #54 3 years ago
  55. fearmonkey

    Deus Ex:Minor spoiler alert

    @54 “The lead character is an idiot.” – He is no idiot, but there are some parts to his story or behavior that had me scratching my head, but overall was well done.

    “Most of the villains are carbon copy caricatures that exist purely to appear, spout pseudo-intellectual garbage, and then die.” – this makes me think you didn’t really play the game. Most of the villains did not indeed spew intellectual garbage. The bosses didn’t spew it, they were big tough guys, the main villains didn’t die by your hands.
    The average grunt or soldiers in the games you fought hardly spouted pseudo-intellectual garbage either….

    Is this friend you mentioned one of those who quit in a few hours because he didn’t like the story? That is sort of like quiting Morrowind as you hate the story after a few hours, you havent even touched whats going on…..

    #55 3 years ago
  56. Ireland Michael

    I’m not going to enjoy a book if its opening chapters are garbage. Same goes for a game.

    “Oh, you know, this segment was a bit weak, and that bit was a little poor, and these parts didn’t make much sense… but other than all that it’s the best game of the year!”

    #56 3 years ago
  57. Erthazus

    @reland Michael, “Even Carmack agrees that limited tech always devs to focus more design and come up with creative ways to make games look and play better.”

    and thats why they created a garbage game called RAGE. Which battles between game design and engine. In which were so much cut content that… oh jesus christ.

    Carmack said that because of console limitations they cut a lot of content. Straight fact from the QuakeCon.

    Also, as an oldschool gamer, in my opinion consoles limit a lot of gameplay features. When there were just PC games and console games PC games had much better gameplay in every aspect there is.
    You can look even on Battlefield 3 and compare it to Battlefield 2. Battlefield 2 had much more classes and commo rose (commander) and 64 players at that time.
    In 2011 we have less then that and 64 players again (still on PC while on consoles 24-32 at best). At least thank you for destruction.

    I want to see one game that is close to the deep mechanics from SHOGUN:TOTAL WAR 2 this year versus console title. There is none of that.

    #57 3 years ago
  58. fearmonkey

    @56 – I guess I cannot understand how the first few hours of DE:HR can give anyone an idea of a poorly developed story.
    Sure, later in the game you could pick out certain character development choices, but i can do that in almost any story driven game I have ever played.
    It sounds to me the the game isn’t your cup of tea, and that’s fine.
    That is why there are so many types of games, everyone has their own taste.
    The original point though was how this particular game looked so much better on a PC rather than a console, and how it made it more immersive with its DX11 lighting, larger and sharper textures, more geometry, etc.
    you countered that with ” the game sucks” which really wasn’t much of a counter.
    Plus, you said something about textures already being sharper than the eye can detect, which made no sense… Im still trying to figure out that one. Unless you wear glasses covered in vasoline, I’m not sure how you got there….

    #58 3 years ago
  59. Ireland Michael

    If a game can’t be immersive without “Direct X 11 lighting”, that’s really bad art design. I find the game’s world immersive without that anyway, but I already did applaud Human Revolution for that achievement at least.

    “Plus, you said something about textures already being sharper than the eye can detect, which made no sense… ”

    No I didn’t. I said that the clarity of games (and even movies) makes everything look so detailed up close that everything ends up looking more detailed than we ever actual see it in real life.

    When I look at a pavement, I don’t see all these perfectly detailed pebbles staring back, with almost blinding lightning blowing up every single inch of it into ridiculously high crispness and clarity. I see a rather dull and featureless pavement.

    It’s what commonly called hyper-realism.

    Just to give you an example. This is not what a person normally looks like, but by using lighting, make-up, and digital reprocessing, you create an image that while clearly real, is so meticulous in its perfection that it goes far beyond anything the human eye will ever witness in the real world.

    This is my problem with all this graphic whoring. By trying so hard to replicate reality, you end up with something that is more meticulously detailed than what actually see with our own two eyes. It completely fails to capture the nuances of the world around us at all.

    One of the most visually arresting gaming experiences of my life so far is Silent Hill 3. There is something incredibly real and human looking about the characters in those game, and that game is running on very modest hardware. It worked because the designers had a talent for picking up on and highlighting the visual nuances of what we do see in the world around us, instead of simply trying to replicate things at the highest resolution possible.

    “Realistic” graphics is a pipe-dream, that will never be achieved by processing power alone. And good gameplay has never, ever required powerful hardware to achieve.

    #59 3 years ago
  60. Fin

    People can never be happy, ye always have to find something to complain about :(

    #60 3 years ago
  61. DaMan

    #59, Notice the difference in visuals between cutscenes and gameplay in Sh3? If you didn’t, then well so be it.

    #61 3 years ago
  62. freedoms_stain

    I’d like a step up in AI.

    That’s what I really really want in games.

    Higher difficulties usually mean ridiculous accuracy, damage and health for the enemies, I’d like it if they were smarter instead. This is why online shooters have become so big. Beating Human intelligence and reactions is so much more satisfying than killing super accurate supersoldier enemies who require 5 headshots to die and auto-lock on to you the moment you pop your head in the door.

    #62 3 years ago
  63. Gama_888

    **See Headline**
    **62 Comments**

    Oh yeh, Here we go again….

    I dont think Sony will want to launch second again, i know its kinda hard to stomach them having Vita and PS4 in such a Short amount of time.
    But the year 360 had over PS3 is something they have to consider

    #63 3 years ago
  64. fearmonkey

    @59 – If a game can’t be immersive without “Direct X 11 lighting”, that’s really bad art design.” Well, I can remember watching the show night gallery with Rod serling as a kid on a crappy old color TV. The picture sucked, but we didn’t know any better then, and It was very immersive and terrifying,
    As an adult, watching that same show on the same tv would look really crappy.
    Time moves on, technology isn’t partying like its 2005 anymore, Direct 11 after seeing it in action, especially with the tessellation, makes it tough to not want that lighting and featureset in every game.
    After playing Deus EX:HR in Direct 11 at high res, hi res textures, and all the options turned up, it is highly missed when you go to the 360 version.

    Another game like that for me is Morrowind… When I play the xbox version of Morrowind is just looks so crappy to me, yet i placed 500 hrs or so in that game. With the latest mods that came out in the last 6 months, the game looks phenominal on PC. Makes me want a new game that looks that good, I have yet to see one. Skyrim will be it i guess, though I have heard it wont have a direct 11 patch.

    #64 3 years ago
  65. G1GAHURTZ

    This is my problem with all this graphic whoring. By trying so hard to replicate reality, you end up with something that is more meticulously detailed than what actually see with our own two eyes. It completely fails to capture the nuances of the world around us at all.

    Clueless.

    Absolutely clueless.

    http://www.cgarena.com/freestuff/tutorials/max/songhyekyo/

    #65 3 years ago
  66. Ireland Michael

    I never said it was impossible, you dumb fuck. I said it was rare, and wasn’t entirely dependent on hardware (within reason, of course). I used Silent Hill ad an example of that.

    And it took me five seconds of looking at that to pick up on the fact that that was a CGI model and not a person. It’s transparently obvious in the hair and the mouth.

    It’s good. Very good. Won’t deny that. But just by looking at his samples of real photos of her, you can tell the difference in a heartbeat. She looks uncanny in some places (again, the mouth and hair ruin it) and *too* perfect in others. The lack of even the slightest facial blemishes at all is probably what destroys the illusion of the CGI model the most.

    When a PCs can render *that* kind of detail in real time though, *then* we can start a new hardware generation. Right now, the difference simply isn’t large enough to justify it.

    #66 3 years ago
  67. Telepathic.Geometry

    @Ireland Michael: You are wrong because your opinion is too extreme. There are some games which are all about gameplay, where you don’t mind how it looks so much, and I for one am mostly into games for their gameplay, so I’m on board with that.

    But other games rely a lot on atmosphere and storytelling, and for those games, the extra muscle could go a long way to strengthening the suspension of disbelief. In the same way that movies like The Matrix could have been made decades earlier, without that extra cinematic chicanery, it wouldn’t have worked.

    In short: Gain experience and moderate your opinion. And don’t call people dumb fucks either please, it’s mean.

    #67 3 years ago
  68. Ireland Michael

    Again. Missing the point. I have no problem with creating atmosphere. I do not have a problem with good graphics at all. The point is… the hardware we have right now is still doing the job just fine.

    The jump simply is not large enough yet for it to be neseccary yet. And I think games visual fidelity is very close to reaching its peak. We won’t be able to go much further soon without the costs simply not being able to be recouped by the sales unless you’re one of the mega-giant titles.

    As for calling people dumb fucks… I usually wouldn’t. I normally wouldn’t bring people’s character into a discussion either. But there some individuals you come across in your time, of such a short sighted and simple minded nature that I find so incredibly… insipid. People like TEA or Giga are those kind of people.

    #68 3 years ago
  69. G1GAHURTZ

    Seriously, I hope you get banned.

    Your foul mouthed responses show your clear inability to construct an intelligent response.

    Very immature.

    Anyway, the point was that you used a very badly airbrushed pic of some girls face to try and prove that “by using lighting, make-up, and digital reprocessing, you create an image that while clearly real, is so meticulous in its perfection that it goes far beyond anything the human eye will ever witness in the real world.

    This is so wrong, it’s not funny.

    Imperfections, film grain and bad lighting can all be replicated.

    The ‘girl’ in my link has the subtle imperfections in her skin that refract light naturally.

    The very fact that, by your own admission, it took you “five seconds of looking at that to pick up on the fact that that was a CGI model and not a person” just goes to show how far CGI has come over the years. Just look at any current-gen console CG head, and you can tell instantly. Not after 5 whole seconds.

    The fact is that with my link, you have to look twice, because it’s very realistic.

    Of course it’s not a perfect replication. The hair is a giveaway, but with improvements in technology, more realistic hair is an obvious possibility.

    If the technology is there, all you need is a capable artist, and people may have to start getting magnifying glasses out to tell the difference.

    Now imagine if that was animated in real-time. There’s a ton of processing power needed to do something like that, but this is an example of just how far away from realism, current-gen visuals are.

    They’re not “just fine“.

    They’re lightyears behind where almost everyone except YOU knows that they could be.

    So this claim that “By trying so hard to replicate reality, you end up with something that is more meticulously detailed than what actually see with our own two eyes.” is clearly ridiculous.

    It, again, shows your inability to come up with a logical argument. You keep trying to act like you know about technology and the inner workings of game development, but in fact, you keep showing that you know almost nothing.

    #69 3 years ago
  70. G1GAHURTZ

    I normally wouldn’t bring people’s character into a discussion either. But there some individuals you come across in your time, of such a short sighted and simple minded nature that I find so incredibly… insipid.

    More likely, it’s because I keep deconstructing your ignorant claims.

    Like, ‘Features are added after the beta all the time!’.

    LOL!

    That was a classic.

    You have no answer, and an inability to accept that you’re clearly wrong, so you resort to foul language or just leave ungracefully.

    It’s pathetic.

    #70 3 years ago
  71. G1GAHURTZ

    And I think games visual fidelity is very close to reaching its peak.

    Let’s compare this: http://www.cgarena.com/freestuff/tutorials/max/songhyekyo/final_large.jpg

    With this: http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/711/711613/heavy-rain-20060607010126302.jpg

    Oh dear.

    #71 3 years ago
  72. Ireland Michael

    The problem is, the girl in that link *doesn’t* have all the subtle imperfections of a real human face. That’s its whole problem. There are a tonne of little details in her photos lacking from the CGI model.

    I’ve seen CGI stills far more convincing than the one you just posted, to be honest. It’s far from the best out there.

    Regarding features added after beta, I could have sworn I said “during beta” in that post, unless I mistyped. My bad.

    @your comparison pictures. You’re comparing apples and oranges.

    That was an in-engine prototype video. And not a particularly good one either. There are plenty of games that both look and animate far better than that on current hardware, including the final product of Heavy Rain itself. So I fail to see the point you’re attempting to prove with it.

    The other one is a still render. It’s not running live, and its going to be many, many years before you can get any hardware that potentially could, and creating that level of graphic fidelity across an entire game would be exorberiently expensive and take an extremely long time.

    #72 3 years ago
  73. G1GAHURTZ

    That’s its whole problem. There are a tonne of little details in her photos lacking from the CGI model.

    As I explained, these can be added. In fact, this is mainly due to the tech side. In real life there is a ton of light refraction and caustic reflection that affects almost everything, and it changes all the time. The processing power needed to replicate this is enough to make Intel’s best engineers weep.

    The pic I gave is clearly by a fan of the girl, and it’s obvious that he wants the image to be as close to his own version of ‘perfection’ as he thinks.

    The point is that the tools are there to make CG look incredibly real. Infinitely more so than current tech. You yourself said that there are more convincing CG images than the one that I showed, and I agree.

    It’s not the case that the better the technology is, the more “hyper-real” and unrealistic visuals become. We are by no means at a dead end in terms of realistic visuals.

    The better the tech, the bigger the ability for more realism. It’s as simple as that.

    ____

    The other one is a still render. It’s not running live, and its going to be many, many years before you can get any hardware that potentially could, and creating that level of graphic fidelity across an entire game would be exorberiently expensive and take an extremely long time.

    That’s a completely different issue.

    The point is that visuals this current-gen are getting old, very fast. When you put them side by side with the latest CG stuff, you can really see the huge difference between the two.

    I’m not saying that the level of realism in the pic I showed is achievable now or will be in the next 5 or even 10 years in real-time.

    That’s another matter, entirely.

    #73 3 years ago
  74. Ireland Michael

    And that’s where we completely disagree.

    I don’t think current console graphics are “getting old” by a long shot. I still find myself being blown away by the stuff we get.

    Graphics on the PC are clearly impressive, but they are *not* an entire generation gap wide just yet.

    I mean, sure, it’s easy to look at something like… say… Modern Warfare 3 and see how outdated it looks. But that’s down to creatively uninspired art design, not hardware limitations.

    Putting the PC and console versions of Battlefield 3 next to each other, there are clear differences if you look close enough, but I don’t think they’re large enough to warrant a hardware jump just yet… or even in two years.

    I don’t personally care for a new format for the existing formats before 2015. Except for the Wii, obviously. Even if it does house some of my favourite games of this generation.

    #74 3 years ago
  75. OrbitMonkey

    Well while their seems to be one or two (emphasis on one) gamers In this thread who don’t want a hardware jump, I think its important to point out a lot of devs do.

    It must be frustrating building a game on a pc rig, seeing what it could be, then reconstructing it to fit a console. It must be like building a Bugatti Veyron, but then having to chop it up into a Toyota Prius :(

    #75 3 years ago
  76. mojo

    1080p60 for ALL games or u can keep it.

    #76 3 years ago
  77. fearmonkey

    @74 – “Graphics on the PC are clearly impressive, but they are *not* an entire generation gap wide just yet.” – The reason for this is games are made with consoles in mind, not PC. The last game where the PC was really the focus was the original Crysis. They released it for the consoles recently and it looks good, but if you saw it running on max settings at the highest res there is still no comparison, and that game came out in 2007. The days where most games were written for the PC first and then ported to consoles have been long gone, and with that went all the graphical bells and whistles.
    Even Id’s Rage and Bethesda’s Skyrim were made primarily for consoles, if they were trying to max out what a PC could do, it would be alot better.
    The entire generation gap statement you made is crazy, you realize that the Xbox 360 GPU is a modified R500 with R600 features which was advanced for its time, but that processors tech was 2004 to 2005. If A new console comes out in 2013, and uses 2012 to 2013 tech, that is almost 8 years difference, you don’t think GPU’s have changed much since then????????
    Carmack has recently talked about the overhead the PC has to deal with but you can’t get down to the hardware like you can on the console. If a console had an equivilent of a 480GPU right now the difference would be HUGE!! and the 480 will be multiple generations old by the time the next consoles come out.

    Lets not even talk Polygons, lets talk Physics acceleration, lets talk better animations thanks to more memory. Hopefully less loading times, etc, better AI thanks to the better CPU, all of that…

    A game like the original Portal was great, Portal 2 was great 2 and had a decent jump in graphics. This is a game where the highest end graphics may not matter. But you say your an RPG fan, this is a genre where graphics probably matters most, especially if your a Fan of games like the elder scrolls, fallout 3, Two Worlds, Gothic, Drakensang, etc.
    I don’t care if a game is realistic really, but I would love a next gen game to look like that Samaritan Demo from Epic, or a console that could do battlefield 3 as well as a high end PC. I would argue neither looks just like real life, but it would absorb you more so than current games today…

    #77 3 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.