Jump to content

PlayStation vs Xbox vs Nintendo thread


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, RV1709 said:

Hey don’t slander rdr2. It’s a classic 

Dude read the article first and then my post in the context of article . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Krazyniks said:

my original post where i share this link said pretty clearly - Want to discuss genuine stuff affecting the industry and not console wars . Read the article ..if you don't have anything genuine to contribute don't quote me . 

 

 

this link is nothing but hokum.

 

game development needs to go forward and not get stagnated.

 

For that innovations need to happen. Development time is just a fallout of that. If you want graphically inferior titles, stick to 8/16 bit games.

 

Also, not all titles are 4k/60 on current gen. Yet they are a lot of fun.

 

 

However the sad part is, when a marquee title runs at 540P :rofl:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KrIzAliD said:

 

new ideas takes time to implement... but if you want cod type games to come out every year then yeah this is fine... 

The article talks about the excess work required on minor graphical upgrades not gameplay ideas. Same point is being discussed here. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, radicaldude said:

 

 

this link is nothing but hokum.

 

game development needs to go forward and not get stagnated.

 

For that innovations need to happen. Development time is just a fallout of that. If you want graphically inferior titles, stick to 8/16 bit games.

 

Also, not all titles are 4k/60 on current gen. Yet they are a lot of fun.

 

 

However the sad part is, when a marquee title runs at 540P :rofl:

Again console wars. Got nothing further to say to you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Krazyniks said:

The article talks about the excess work required on minor graphical upgrades not gameplay ideas. Same point is being discussed here. 

 

 

so what do you think are the minor graphical upgrades? 

 

in current gen/next gen details matters a lot no matter how small they might be... how hard they need to work on it is up to the developers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kumar123 said:

They don't take 5 years. 

 

they take even more than that... current example for you is Cyberpunk... they showed the teaser in 2009 and see the state the game was released in... even though they know how to make open world games and see what they gave.

 

telling bungie to make a brand new ip like HALO in 5 years yeah good luck with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KrIzAliD said:

 

they take even more than that... current example for you is Cyberpunk... they showed the teaser in 2009 and see the state the game was released in... even though they know how to make open world games and see what they gave.

 

telling bungie to make a brand new ip like HALO in 5 years yeah good luck with that.

So you are okay with game taking 5/10 years to develop . Wouldn't you like these games to be released a little earlier - we ain't getting any younger are we ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KrIzAliD said:

 

they take even more than that... current example for you is Cyberpunk... they showed the teaser in 2009 and see the state the game was released in... even though they know how to make open world games and see what they gave.

 

telling bungie to make a brand new ip like HALO in 5 years yeah good luck with that.

Bruv, the development of that game was a shitshow. They apparently redid huge parts of the game to include Keanu Reeves as a main character once he expressed his interest to be in the game. Delays caused by mismanagement and Incompetence =/= time required to come up with and implement innovative ideas. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Krazyniks said:

So you are okay with game taking 5/10 years to develop . Wouldn't you like these games to be released a little earlier - we ain't getting any younger are we ? 

 

yes i am ok when bungie moved away from Microsoft and took activison/Sony help to make and build a new franchise DESTINY... and see where they are right now... and destiny took a lot of time to develop and their are lot of small/minor details in it which improves the overall experience.

 

Just now, Kumar123 said:

Bruv, the development of that game was a shitshow. They apparently redid huge parts of the game to include Keanu Reeves as a main character once he expressed his interest to be in the game. Delays caused by mismanagement and Incompetence =/= time required to come up with and implement innovative ideas. 

 

I know.. that why i am saying you cannot limit certain things in game development to a certain time frame... its not going to work

 

See how is call of duty is doing vanguard numbers are so bad right now for a call of duty game... but that's what time crunch does to games... outcome wont be good.

 

5 minutes ago, Krazyniks said:

As quoted in the article . 

 

that article is dumb... so she didnt like the starfield delay and now going on all nuts on why they need to tweak minor stuff... 

well for me it improves over all experience... i still remember when i first played uncharted 2 and during the opening sequence when you move through the snow.. how it interacts with the character was something i havent seen before... even though the character is limping... i was doing summersault with him just so see how snow gets attached to his body this is a minor thing but improves the overall experience for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, KrIzAliD said:

 

yes i am ok when bungie moved away from Microsoft and took activison/Sony help to make and build a new franchise DESTINY... and see where they are right now... and destiny took a lot of time to develop and their are lot of small/minor details in it which improves the overall experience.

Fair enough. I personally don't want to wait that long but to each his own. 

 

21 minutes ago, KrIzAliD said:

 

 

well for me it improves over all experience... i still remember when i first played uncharted 2 and during the opening sequence when you move through the snow.. how it interacts with the character was something i havent seen before... even though the character is limping... i was doing summersault with him just so see how snow gets attached to his body this is a minor thing but improves the overall experience for me.

 

I remember that sequence and yeah was amazed by it . The minor details like these did improve overall experience for me as well . UC2 still remains one of my fav games of all time . But Naughty dog released a new game every 2/3 years and still managed graphical improvements over previous game ..

from UC1/2/3 and TLOU 4 games in what 8/9 years with great improvements in graphics each time and that too on the same system . Now that's the kind of timeframe i would still like games to be released in . 

Also we are definitely into an era of diminishing returns with respect to graphical upgrades.

Wouldn't agree that jump from 480p to 720p was more impactful than jump from 1k to 4k . 

Similarly the detail you described from UC2 improved your overall experience of the game more than say what you would see in a game now ( like things mentioned in article)  especially compared to the time it took for both those things .

Again just an opinion..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KrIzAliD said:

I know.. that why i am saying you cannot limit certain things in game development to a certain time frame... its not going to work

 

See how is call of duty is doing vanguard numbers are so bad right now for a call of duty game... but that's what time crunch does to games... outcome wont be good.

Bruv, if AAA game devs stop obsessing over graphics, the dev time will come down considerably. That's a fact. It's not the 'ideas' that take 5+ years. For example, Naughty Dog is a studio that gets huge budgets and complete freedom for their projects but they are still notorious for their crunch culture. It took them 6 years to make The Last of Us II but they still had to crunch till weeks before the game release. What do you think they were crunching for? Ideas? It was because of the graphics.

If Naughty Dog had been given just 3 years for developing TLOU 2, everything would have been the same as the game we originally got except for the graphics which wouldn't have looked as good. And that's a sacrifice some of us are okay with if it means we'll get to play these games sooner.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Krazyniks said:

Fair enough. I personally don't want to wait that long but to each his own. 

 

 

I remember that sequence and yeah was amazed by it . The minor details like these did improve overall experience for me as well . UC2 still remains one of my fav games of all time . But Naughty dog released a new game every 2/3 years and still managed graphical improvements over previous game ..

from UC1/2/3 and TLOU 4 games in what 8/9 years with great improvements in graphics each time and that too on the same system . Now that's the kind of timeframe i would still like games to be released in . 

Also we are definitely into an era of diminishing returns with respect to graphical upgrades.

Wouldn't agree that jump from 480p to 720p was more impactful than jump from 1k to 4k . 

Similarly the detail you described from UC2 improved your overall experience of the game more than say what you would see in a game now ( like things mentioned in article)  especially compared to the time it took for both those things .

Again just an opinion..

Not an opinion lol. You're speaking facts. Studios can spend an unreal amount of time and money to make the games look good graphically and it still wouldn't be as impactful as the graphical upgrades of the previous generations. Diminishing returns and all that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kumar123 said:

Bruv, if AAA game devs stop obsessing over graphics, the dev time will come down considerably. That's a fact. It's not the 'ideas' that take 5+ years. For example, Naughty Dog is a studio that gets huge budgets and complete freedom for their projects but they are still notorious for their crunch culture. It took them 6 years to make The Last of Us II but they still had to crunch till weeks before the game release. What do you think they were crunching for? Ideas? It was because of the graphics.

If Naughty Dog had been given just 3 years for developing TLOU 2, everything would have been the same as the game we originally got except for the graphics which wouldn't have looked as good. And that's a sacrifice some of us are okay with if it means we'll get to play these games sooner.

 

Phele toh yeh batao tum london wale ho kya?? :P

 

btw that's how the things are right now with AAA development... if it doesn't look as realistic as possible then its not a AAA game and i blame sony for that they are raising the bar very high with their games.. and others finding it very hard to match up to that... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...