Ken Levin Don’t Care ‘Bout No Next-Gen

[News Portal]

Ken Levine is awesome. If you haven’t heard the BioShock head honcho steaming up the place with industry insight via Irrational Interviews, you haven’t lived. Well, you have, just not fully. Ken’s living, though. He’s so busy living he doesn’t even care if an eighth generation of consoles ever rolls around. You know why? Because Ken reckons the ones we’ve already got have “lots of juice left.”

Read full article by Toby McCasker

[Novocaine]

[Ooshp]

Probably only funny if you're familiar with Scots....

[TRB]

they still retain the power to visually amaze me

That happens with people who have really low standards.

[Ooshp]

they still retain the power to visually amaze me

That happens with people who have really low standards.

So... you don't think any of the games he mentioned look any good?

I do wonder what your standards are in that case.

[TRB]

they still retain the power to visually amaze me

That happens with people who have really low standards.

So... you don't think any of the games he mentioned look any good?

I do wonder what your standards are in that case.

"any good" and "amazing" are not interchangeable.

and no all console games look like **** by 2011 standards.

[woodfox]

I can't help but to see where BF3 has been held back by being on consoles as well as pc it's stupid to say they are not hampering development.

[vcatkiller]

He hasn't been the only one to say this type of thing, John Carmack said something similar not too long ago. (ie devs still haven't unlocked the full potential of current gen consoles yet) I'm sure I remember a few other high profile developers saying the same as well, ie there's still room for the current gen consoles to flourish. I agree to be honest, I think it will be a good while before current gen will be pushed too far and we need to march to the next gen. We'll see I guess.

[Ooshp]

"any good" and "amazing" are not interchangeable.

and no all console games look like **** by 2011 standards.

You mean every cross-platform game looks like **** because it was partially console developed, or just the console versions look ****?

I've only got a PC so I don't really know, but the PC versions of many cross platform games look pretty damn good to me.

Besides that, before the console market exploded, you had to buy a new $500 video card every 6 months if you wanted to play anything that looked decent on PC. If you want to go back to those days, you're obviously wealthy as ****.

[Scarshi]

Quality is as quality does.

Current consoles are just fine for most people with limited budgets. Good games on their HDTV's are enough for most.

I am not one of these though. I will buy a PC game for my overpriced rig compared to a console anyday.

Some enjoy driving their Nissan Micra, some love their Holden Commodore and a few will never settle for less than a Supercar. Its all about justification and realism.

[Bronze_D]

"any good" and "amazing" are not interchangeable.

and no all console games look like **** by 2011 standards.

You mean every cross-platform game looks like **** because it was partially console developed, or just the console versions look ****?

I've only got a PC so I don't really know, but the PC versions of many cross platform games look pretty damn good to me.

Besides that, before the console market exploded, you had to buy a new $500 video card every 6 months if you wanted to play anything that looked decent on PC. If you want to go back to those days, you're obviously wealthy as ****.

They don't technically look ****, but the console are almost at the ceiling of the potential...

so instead they do the more sensible thing with limited hardware power, they mask it as best as they can...

you don't technically need to fill the scene in a game with the best high poly objects and best resolution textures to impress someone, you can impress 'MOST' ppl with good use of filter, proper placement of lighting, and by subtly directing ppl's attention AWAY from things you don't want them to scrutinize.

You can wow ppl with 'seemingly' vast landscape on console even if they are nothing but decoration skybox with minimal actual objects involved (which are expensive to compute).

This is what console makes game dev good at. But eventually... no amount of sharp dressing and makeup will hide the limitation, and we're either almost there... or already there for quite a while.

It's all fine and good, but the same technique means there is a limit to what gameplay is available... some things are obviously harder to mask properly and will be avoided, others which are easy to be dressed up pretty will be more favourable... and this is the part where console is a BAD influence.

[Shinanigans]

PC gaming has long suffered due to the extreme amount of nerfing that has to be done in order for today's games to work on consoles. Console games look great for consoles, there's no doubt about that... PC games could look a tonne better if devs didn't have to cater to the severely underpowered status of consoles in comparison, however.

[cromfayer]

I remember the move from Video Tape to DVD was amazing and then so forth with Bluray. Tape movies were perfectly watchable and impossible to imaging anything better. If we had been content and not strove for better always then we would still be there watching monochrome.

I say go ahead with the next gen as soon as possible. If devs still want to stay at 360 level fine, but there must be room for innovation and improvement.

[TRB]

"any good" and "amazing" are not interchangeable.

and no all console games look like **** by 2011 standards.

You mean every cross-platform game looks like **** because it was partially console developed, or just the console versions look ****?

I've only got a PC so I don't really know, but the PC versions of many cross platform games look pretty damn good to me.

Besides that, before the console market exploded, you had to buy a new $500 video card every 6 months if you wanted to play anything that looked decent on PC. If you want to go back to those days, you're obviously wealthy as ****.

What I mean is that any game looks bad on a console.
resolution for a start is awful.

and no you have NEVER had to buy new GFX card every 6 months, $500 or otherwise.
The first 3d GFX card I owned was a riva tnt in 1998 with 16mb of ram.
then came a diamond viper V550 then a kyro II then a geforce Ti4200 then a Gefore 7600GT then a Gforce 8800 GTS [640mb] and now a Gforce GTS250 [because the 8800 died].

its about time to upgrade again as you can well see but those cards are far from 6 months apart and none of them were ever $500 when I got them and I've never not played a new release game because my GFX card isn't powerful enough.