Are consoles holding back video games?

The shitty console CPUs also limit simulation genre a lot.

Yes, but moreso because they're platforms where the vast majority of users are phone-tier casuals and children, and as such have dogshit taste.

Find yourself a pirated copy of HL2 without patches.
The game has been updated up the ass and looks absolutely nothing like your pic, especially on computers at the time.

half life didn't look like that in 2004

No. Video chipset companies are with their high prices for hardware that provides marginal improvements.

>the PS4 has a weaker processor than the latest iPhone
The absolute state of consoles.

Yes
>Can't handle effects
>Can't handle distance
>Can't handle simulation
>Can't handle AI
>Can't handle physics

Ps4 literally has tablet cpu from 2010, what's your point?

>if graphics are your biggest priority than you're GAY
Hardware is used for more than just graphics, retard. Have you ever wondered why old games had sprawling non-linear levels while the newer ones are shitty corridors with arenas and load screens every 5 steps?

And yet, when competent developers get their hands on the hardware, they're able to do shit like RDR2 or Uncharted 4 and pull off stable framerates while doing so.

Hardware only gets you so far. If you lack the proficiency to properly code and optimize your software on the provided hardware, then not even the strongest CPUs and GPUs can save you. CoughUbisoftcough.

wrong

Yes

There is more detail in the gun in the lower pic than in all of the above.

>RDR2
>stable framerates
Shitposting aside, that's the only thing the consoles are good for. Interactive movies with pretty visuals. AI, physics, simulation detail, etc... you know, the stuff that actually makes games good, suffers from the anemic processor.

>RDR2
Empty world with life(smoke and mirrors) only existing as lonf as you looking at it.
>Uncharted 4
Small scripted locations with only a handful of npcs
Both of those games heavily suffers from weak cpu.

Stable 30fps is still 30fps. Absolute garbage framerate and not anything to boast about. And you haven't disproved OP's point either. If Sony's godly optimization teams can make Uncharted 4 run on an iPhone tier processor, imagine what they could do for an actual modern piece of technology.

>while the newer ones are shitty corridors with arenas and load screens every 5 steps?
I fucking wish. Market is oversaturated with open world trash nowadays.

>shitposting

Just because something balances between 25-30fps as opposed to 45-60 doesn't make it unstable.

What makes that distinct look Source has so appealing? Is it just nostalgia?

Attached: MV5BOWZkYTNjZDQtNTExYS00YzU1LWJlY2UtNjk0NzY2ZGY4MzZjXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjc3OTE4Nzk@._V1_SX1777_CR0,0,17 (1777x999, 282K)

>25
Try 19-30fps

Yes. I never found source looking that good.
However i have good memories of that horror section in that old town.

>fluctuating between two framerates
> Stable
You don't understand what that word means.

>no bloom
>no dof
>no chromatic abberration

Yes.

It's relatively light weight, but it's fucking ugly by modern standards.

Valve's behind the scenes assets are improving, and supposedly there's gonna be a big lighting overhaul for HL:VR

could have at least posted farcry 1

It's not the engine itself, it's the artstyle. And the lack of a bunch of gaudy post processing.

HL2 has had bloom since the Orange Box update you derp.

See a doctor.

Or wait... is this the new "human eyes cant see above 30 fps!" that consolecucks have to tell themselves to feel better?

>25-30fps
That's the definition of shitty frame rate

It really just comes down to the insane amount of detail Valve put into their environments. Most Valve games assets are pretty uggo up close but when put together into a big open enviornment it looks solid.

> Implying any of these things are good

>consistently poor performance
>a-at least its consistent

This demonstrates the real thing holding vidya back. People having no god damn standards.

I named wrong shit. I meant motion blur.

Even if the current best PC you could build was the universal standard, games would still shoot solely for ugly hyperrealistic graphics at the expense of performance, physics, AI, and of course gameplay scope, all to appeal to the largest possible audience.

You see all kinds of great physics and AI tech demos every year, yet all AAA games are still using basic behavior trees and fucky Source-esque physics engines.

Games are much more interested in keeping up visually with films than in simulating reality, so the technology really is not the problem here.

They aren't and i named them because hl2 doesn't have them.

Why the fuck would you want motion blur?

The newest game I played with Source Engine was INFRA. While at times some textures and lighting looked quite dated, a lot of scenes looked super "clean" and sharp. I was very immersed after a few minutes. All those filters and overblown particle/fog effects in a lot of modern AAA games are super uncanny to me. Everything looks like a shitty transformers movie.

>implying ARM trash would be able to run a game from PS2

It's also used as an excuse to make shitty unoptimized games and then blame the players for not having 16gb of RAM to run your janky Unity bugfest.

no, its upper management and big wigs
>muh moneys
>muh expenses
>we need this done NOW

High-end ARM like that in top-end phones has more IPC than the PS4's Jaguar.

Yes.

This is a 2009 PC game made by a bunch of slavs, and modded by another bunch of slavs.

Attached: 41700_screenshots_20190622154529_1.jpg (1920x1080, 545K)

but this is exactly what console shitters do.

Art direction. Funny how Modern Warfare Remastered is probably the prettiest CoD game this gen, despite being a bonus to the main game, because it tried to replicate simple and overall good looking and atmospheric art style of original game, compared to recent overdesigned and almost cartoney games to monetize shitty cosmetics.

Attached: 20170401195718_1.jpg (1920x1080, 495K)

>all to appeal to the largest possible audience
Retard, MUH GRAFIX isn't a thing because of the mass appeal.
It's because the only aspect of a console turd that can be churned out consistently is shiny visuals. As long as it looks pretty enough to distract you from the rotting carcass underneath, everything else is secondary. Peasants won't bother with botched AI if they're too busy looking at a pretty sunset. Just like how journos don't give a shit if the writing is abysmal as long as it's left-wing, so do retards who can't afford to be picky get distracted by surface value skinner-box shit.

No. They are releasing new consoles every 2 years now

Mobile games are already miles ahead PS2 games when it comes to the graphics.

Webm related is Genshin Impact, an upcoming mobile game.

Attached: Genshin Impact.webm (506x344, 565K)

Yes and they fuck up the entire market they are useless cashgrab that make their biggest apperance flying out windows of some amerimutt children.

Just compare the characters models.
Modern Warfare Remaster.

Attached: mwr model.jpg (1920x657, 208K)

Black Ops 4.

Attached: bo4.jpg (3840x2160, 1.01M)

>looks absolutely nothing like your pic

Holy fuck the zoomers on this board.

It looked exactly like that in 2004, everyone who played it admired the effects.

Try talking about games you played after you were born, faggot.

No, over expensive PCs are holding video games back.

Attached: Uncharted 4.jpg (3840x2160, 1.58M)

huh

Attached: serveimage.jpg (1024x768, 103K)

user, you're picking a fight with senseless graphics fags. Abandon the argument while you can.

Yes but please port console games to Pc .

>graphics
Which is what the OP made the thread about, brainlet.

>The BOTW killer those threads have been talking about is a fucking mobage

I'm a poorfag and all I can play is xbox, sorry.

>over expensive
What's it like being a poor nog?

>"2004"
>posts 2007 post-Orange Box patch HL2
Crysis came out in 2007 too btw, much prettier game

It's both amazing and pathetic that a phone game looks better than BOTW in every way.

I would say development cost and sleazy publishers are holding gaming back. Power only matters if it’s utilized and devs are to lazy or fighting with budgets and time constraints.

What's it like having no games on your PC that costs the same as a car LMAO

>Still waiting for RDR2 on PC because they can't release the "enhanced edition" until PS5 comes out

Yes I'm fucking mad.

Yes. Not because of the graphics, but because of controls. Default controller is fuckign 20 y.o.
No gyro aiming by default.
Shitty sticks.
No grips by default.
Designed in a way pressing triggers and bumpers at the same time is uncomfortable.
Using face buttons and right stick is literally impossible for normal person.
People still hold up to D-pad because crunch because of how shit sticks are.
Next to no customisation of controls is possible by default. Some games present a couple of templates and quite a few allow to actually remap controls.
Just try to play some RTS on a console - it would end up being a shitshow like Tooth and tail or be fucking awkward like KKND was on PSX

>he can't afford a car either

Attached: gig-nog.gif (498x278, 1.94M)

Don't be. The game is utter shit, it's only got some cool graphical effects but that doesn't make a game fun. If Rockstar does make you wait for PS5 re-release before coming to PC, I hope all of you motherfuckers pirate that shit.

That's literally what it looked like and if anything, moving HL2 to newer engines made it look worse (other than 360 port and fanmade HL2 Update).

Attached: $.jpg (1024x819, 167K)

I can afford a car, a gaming PC and a console, unlike you retard.

Shitty devs are holding back games

Also
>muh graphics

>play game on low settings
>the game ends up looking bad
who woulda thunk

Attached: 1540625041181.png (278x248, 55K)

Attached: 1560352287957.jpg (600x450, 33K)

Sucks to own a $1,000 bus simulator, I know.

Nobody's forced to develop for console parity, so no. Actually if you really think about it, consoles help games as a medium. They provide a cheap means for the public to consume games and studios to develop for. If gaming existed exclusively for cutting edge PCs then only a select number of people would be able to play them, and a select number of studios would develop for them. This would decrease the number of games being made, therefore the amount of innovations in games would decrease as well.

Tech is always advancing, it's just a matter of waiting until the milestones become viable mass products.

>Marketing bullshot

Console plebs are stupid enought to fall for this shit.

Attached: JL5nD0Y.jpg (2000x1584, 456K)

I love that consolefags are retarded enough to think still images are enough to trick anyone into thinking their game looks good, when in motion it's a 24FPS motion blurred piece of shit with no AA and pop-in out the ass.

It did look like that if you didn't have a 2004 toaster.
The game looks different running it directly from steam with all source updates but OP's pic is from the release state.

imagine if consoles didnt exist and pc was the only platform for gaming, you think they would go all out for teh based master razzeee? no. corporations gotta sell their shit, and if games can only be played by a small percentage of the population then its not profitable, games would look just how they look nowadays or EVEN WORSE since there is no cheap alternative for gaming so every game would be downgraded for pc, that way you reach to all your consumers

>b-but muh expensive cars and watches
not the same thing, those are luxury goods and videogames are not and will never be like that

>no AA on reflections
>The brightest point on the image is the light clipping on the vines even though they would actually diffuse most of the lighting
>no AO outside of cutscenes
>temporal reconstruction
to be fair I'm still kinda SEETHING over people saying TLoU:R looked good a week after GTA V's remaster was revealed and made the flat lighting and agressive LOD look pathetic in comparison

>max payne
>bully
>mgs 2 and 3
>gta 3, VC and SA all with higher quality models and textures than PC at max
>fortnite

Attached: 1561729002546.jpg (1366x768, 263K)

It's not the consumer hardware, although it's kind of been soft capped at what can perform on a GTX1080 for years now.

Tools need to be improved so that better looking games can be made without requiring half a film studio of visual artists and 2 years of development.

Most games look a decade old because lack of tools, time and talent.

but gameplay built around a controller also fucks gaming in the ass, so does instant gratification addicted nature of consolefags as well, especially with regards to story telling and quest depth

FPWP

Yes

To me it's fucking ugly. Only boomers like this look, glad I never grew up playing such ugly looking games.

here's a fair comparison
youtube.com/watch?v=NI9aSFHJRO0

Yes but not for graphical reasons.

Attached: ruins every genre.jpg (500x281, 12K)

Just enough good graphics to make their point but not enough to cover the screen with unnecessary garbage.

Attached: Znl7Iu9.jpg (1920x1080, 338K)

They fuck up every consievable aspect of a game: sound, controls, options, GUI, gameplay, you name it. There is nothing, nothing that consoles improve or at least didn't spoil.

have there been any substantial gameplay improvements in the last 10 or even 20 years?
the interface can be better (arguable), but gameplay?

>substantial gameplay improvements
Depends on a genre.

like which ones? give examples

Not really anymore. But during the PS3/360 era most definitely, more so then any other gaming generation.

Yes, as always. But the sells are on the consoles so...just look at the shit that PC only games can do like...memes aside Star Citizen..all that tech...a console couldnt even dream handle it

reminder that the best selling PC game of all time is minecraft

>a console couldnt even dream handle it
PS5. Scarlett.

Lazy bumfucked devs becoming complacent is the problem

yes

Right now it's PUBG. Before Minecrap it was The Sims, both of which could be reasonably run on toasters.

Well, I feel that there are occasional improvements, but they don't catch up because gameplay usually is made by unimaginative faggots who bundle up all the possible meme mechanics, and your usual game conventions are worse with every day. Thank god cover shooting fad is dying off, but there are new fads coming.
Physics is more prevalent in gameplay. Return of the Obra Dinn accidentally figured out proper detective game. AI sometimes is better than in games of the past. Also don't forget games that wouldn't be possible on a old hardware, Mount and Blade, for example, or non-target combat in MMOs. Stealth system in KCD is pretty involved, every piece of your clothing has stealth (i.e. darkness, how hard is to spot you), "usualness" (i.e. how noticeable and suspicious you look) and noise stats, and game claims that it takes into account your silhoette and surrounding background Does it all work as intended? I'm not sure, really, but they tried.

>fps
>graphics

Die zoomer

>Not really anymore
Whole setup "game on tv screen, gamepad in hand" is putrid, and it is here to stay.

Isn't it disappointing how little they even try, let alone achieve.

First Post Best Post

The whole console issue for me is the one of the limited input, disallowing any game that would require a keyboard and mouse, if you want to go full multi-plattform for maximum sale potential.

Graphics are never a major concern, provided no glitches or shitty design concepts how things look in general. It used to be the case that games that show graphics trivia were just trying to hide their actual gameplay by distracting with visuals. Respect for decent animations though, wherever they're done well.

>consoles holding back video games
Meanwhile your average PC game looks like this

That setup has been here since the 70s, perhaps this hobby is not for you.

Yeah. It feels like that devs tired of modern tropes end up doing literal retro reskin, like they don't have any other options, modern and retro - all that they got.
Wait, I remember another example - Blitzkrieg 3 has a neural-network learning AI opponent.

>controlling any kind of 3d action game or any 2d action game more complex than mario with a keyboard
Keyboards are not conducively laid out for comfortable gaming, period.

It works because it still looks decent and most important: CLEAN, Nowadays we have too much filters and everything looks like shinning plastic like said

OLD SETUP IS GOOD
Perhaps setup is okay for limited genres, but since then we were graced with the gift of KBM controls, and now we know better.

Minecraft has sold WAY more than PUBG.

nope

Attached: Marvel's Spider-Man_20190627213907.png (1920x1080, 2.63M)

no. Publishers are

Also there are glimpses of procedural animation and unironically new genre of Minecraft.

>contorting my fingers uncomfortably to play crash
Unless your game is a spreadsheet simulator or a boring RTS game controllers will reign supreme.

Yeah, claw sure look comfortable.

Attached: LyE5PTX.jpg (2560x1440, 232K)

At least they can handle soul. Video games don't feel right on PC, high framerates make games look like old TV shows and you have to sit at your desk typing like a secretary.

I think Minecraft in big part became such a success because it is really an original game.

According to Wikipedia, PUBG is the current best selling PC game with 50 million total sales based on what Screenrant reported,though the Xbone sales may have been lumped into that total too. Minecraft is currently at 30 million.

Xbox sales are included in the PUBG numbers.

You fucking moron. Of cource your default input method will reign supreme, because input method comes first, and games are made with controller in mind. My point is that controller layout is a hard limit on game design, and it is not a high limit. Look at phone games: they are an example of extremely explored field with extremely shiity controls. They can't even replicate Tetris on the phones. Games suited for gamepad are not much different, look for example at very comfortable setup of Mass Effect: "x is for cover, run, use and roll at the same time, cause we run out of buttons."
Keyboard with mouse is either better or, in some rarest cases of two-button games, on par with gamepads.

How good is PS4 Spider-Man? I've seen it going for 20 britbucks at a game shop nearby.

absolutely
but its not actually a hardware problem,
its the incredibly small input options. Controllers fucking suck

>not actually a hardware problem,
Remember Deus Ex IW and Thief 3.

i tend to say yes. there is literally no objective reason to own a console or for devs to make console games outside of the needs of poorfags or the tech illiterates(exception being handhelds or shit like nintendo gimmicks). the whole point of a console is to streamline the performance of a pc to create consistency on every machine and every game, but they keep trying to push the power of hardware and they are slowly going into the pc price range where its prob better to invest in an upgradeable computer in 2019. exclusives are one of the only things keeping consoles afloat, and those are dwindling hard, even sony loyalists like jap game companies are dumpin all their quirky jap games on PC. studios cant afford to sell on only one platform when its absolutely guaranteed profit to port and sell on other platforms.

more like console shit eaters who are willingly paying $60+ for any crap each month, videogames used to be innovative now it's just diluted shit for masses

Attached: 1559280968706.jpg (1920x2157, 573K)

No but you are.

Attached: 1508947774553.jpg (1224x1445, 218K)

in COD blops4 they had to nerf certain smgs on PC because m+kb had the insane technology to jump/slide while aiming and shooting and rushing was much stronger since people didnt have to choose between aiming with their thumb or pressing jump. controllers are so shit it made COD on console be completely camp oriented because the layout literally didnt allow you to move properly while shooting