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

@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……

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

“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.

“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.

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…..

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!”

@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.

@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….

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.

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

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

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.

**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

@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.

“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/

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.

@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.

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.

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.

“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.

“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.

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.

“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.

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.

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

1080p60 for ALL games or u can keep it.

@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…