Does powerful hardware/software matter when it comes to consoles?

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by SacredWarrior, May 3, 2016.


Does powerful software/hardware matter when it comes to consoles?

  1. Yes

    3 vote(s)
  2. No

    2 vote(s)
  3. Depends on the system

    1 vote(s)

    6 vote(s)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The question says all.

    In my opinion I don't think it does for several reasons.

    PCs will always superior to consoles in terms of specs and it's useless trying to have powerful hardware to catch up to them. What sells a console to me is the launch, overall marketing, and the library of games as well as its features.

    The PS2 is the best selling game console of all time and it was much weaker than the Xbox and the GameCube. The PS3 was the most powerful last gen yet the launch was horrendous due to the $600 price tag. The Xbox 360 and the Wii did far better despite being weaker.
    SEGA wound up becoming a third party company because of the Dreamcast (which is a shame since it was pretty awesome :( )

    Basically having a console being a powerhouse isn't enough for it to sell and never should be in my opinion.
  2. A PC with the same price of a launch console will always be superior. Mind you consoles aren't built exclusively for games anymore, they have to run their own OS now on top of managing movies, music, streaming, etc.

    A console can make do if it's got the games to back it up. PS2 had tons of games. Tons of shit though to go with the gems here and there.

    When consoles started becoming multimedia machines.. I don't know. Something. Can't finish the thought.

    Edit: Graphics are lauded as end all be all by marketers. Gameplay should be all that matters. Dwarf Fortress will always be superior to even the prettiest 3D wannabe rogue like.
    • Love Love x 1
  3. I agree. I have always played for great story telling. The more we focus on technology and better visual the more lackluster stories in games get, that's how I have witnessed it. I rather focus on quality stories. Because in the end of the day does it matter what a game looks like on HD graphics if the story is what you talk about.

    Bioshock 1 is still a great game because of the story and will be something I remember for the story

    System Shock is a lot like that too

    And so is Shin Megami Tensei Nocturne. Great stories. And yes they had great artwork. But artwork and graphics are different imo. Shin Megami Tensei had a water color storybook like art style to it.

    While Bioshock reminded me a lot of those dystopian 50s art pictures you see.

    Most of the games in this latest gaming generation are forgettable because you don't remember anything about them besides they had great graphics. Few of them fall into both categories.
  4. I'm gonna agree to disagree without going into it over details.

    Gameplay > All other aspects.

    Good story, okay graphics, bad gameplay = won't slog through to see to completion.

    Good gameplay, okay graphics, bad story = it's fun just to play.

    • Nice execution! Nice execution! x 1
  5. I agree. I like a good story but gameplay comes first and foremost for me.
  6. See I don't play games for gameplay. That's the funny thing. There have been some games where the mechanics have been clunky, but the story was so good I'd still recommend the damn game. And then there are games that came out that had amazing everything.

    Kingdoms of Amular is still by far one of the best RPGs I have played in a long time. It had a unique story, a unique art style, unique gameplay with the weapons. And each quest was unique and interesting.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Yes. Hardware & Software matters. It absolutely matters. It tells you several things.
    • What limitations the developers for that system will have. (Ex: The reason you still have loading screens entering small 1-2 room buildings in games like Skyrim is because modern consoles don't have enough RAM to deal with it.)
    • What sort of anti-DRM measures might inhibit your ability to customize the device to your liking. (ex: When my family owned a PS3, we had several issues getting it to play files from our media server because the DRM built-in on the box fought with everything that wasn't a .mp3 file. It would sometimes fail to even read file information correctly, so you could open an album folder, and get zero information on the music files beyond their file names. Sometimes, not even file names.)
    • What limitations the multiplayer will be put under. (If the system has unreliable multiplayer software, it will slow everything down.)
    • What OS the system is running will help determine how much of a pain in the ass it will be to get cross-platform connectivity. If it's a new OS, software developers will have to learn it. (Ergo why operating systems nowadays tend to steal features from each other--makes it easier to code across if you have the same features across every OS.)
    • Whether or not backwards compatibility will ever come back. (It won't in any sort of practical capacity. Because greed.)
    • How much money the company selling you the box is shaving off in personal profits.
    • How many more ways corporations will attempt to steal and sell your personal information for various ends. (If you think Microsoft smartened up after its creepy always-on built-in webcam shit was shouted against, you're a fool. Both Sony & Microsoft constantly monitor your network activity. For... "Stability reasons." Cough.)
    • How many limitations the system has that will require peripherals. (Ever wondered why Nintendo boxes tended to be so cheap and minimal? Because they would sell you a dozen peripherals that got them their money back.) Fun fact: This is the same reason new consoles don't come built-in with features they've been toting in previous generations for a while now, like motion controls, and web cams. At least they stopped with the rumble pack nonsense.
    For example: The PS3 came out boasting a humongous amount of graphical power, but it has an absolutely fucking terrible amount of RAM. That's why most games on it have tons of loading screens. The PS4 didn't do much in the way of upgrading graphical fidelity, but it has a ton of RAM now. And now, a games like No Man's Sky are touting about procedural generation, and gameplay videos show no loading screens... Hmm... HMM... Couldn't be tied to hardware, no siree.

    Now, gameplay is always what matters. So, keeping that in mind, the more power any system has (and the better rounded that power is), the more options developers will have in choosing and designing SDK's to add features you might not have been able to get on previous generation hardware. I love X-COM Apocalypse, but I'm not going to pretend that the graphics aged well, and the limitations the game had with its interface were directly a result of the hardware of the times. The newer X-COM's, simplified though they might be, play a lot smoother and have a more rationally designed interface. I might enjoy old first person shooters like DOOM, but I'm not going to pretend that the graphical fidelity one can find in Metro 2033 is unwelcome at all. Hell, the atmosphere that game projects onto the player is only possible because of the graphical fidelity it is able to use to create that atmosphere.

    Now, do all games need millions of dollars of graphics? No. Aesthetic is the thing people remember and aesthetic design is what makes something nice on the eyes even if it's designed in DOS. BUT! Better hardware & software means the developers have more power and more options to develop what they want to make rather than what they're forced to make due to limitations. Especially software. The PS3 was apparently a massive pain in the ass to design games on because of its unorthodox software architecture and frankly, considering I had to use the damn thing, yes: It is a software nightmare.


    As for gameplay vs story, depends on the game and the genre obviously. Arguing one is objectively better than the other is foolish, and arguing over personal tastes even more-so. It's why we have so many genres, everybody enjoys their own thing.
    • Nice execution! Nice execution! x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  8. True. A great story might make the gameplay at least tolerable.


    Good game. Absolutely a good game. But so so AVERAGE. It did so much with so little, it was so big and bold. Every bit of its core had love and attention to detail poured into it like molten metal into a perfect mold.

    But. People didn't want it. It wasn't flashy enough.

    Or maybe it was just a lack of marketing. It's hard to compete with the big dogs and their 100+ million dollar marketing budgets.

    I'm still sad that it didn't sell nearly enough to stay afloat. My wife beat it and loved it as well.
  9. BPBP

    Brovo Post Best Post
    • Love Love x 1
  10. The fact that we got to travel to different locations and each of them actually, truly feel like they belonged in different areas and had different feels. I admire it. And I want another Amular game. One of these days I am going to get it to happen. lol
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Not to mention every person was unique. Every person had a house you could go in.

    I beat and never knew you could actually buy a house.
  12. Wait you could buy a house in Amular?
  13. SEE!
  14. roflcopter now I need to replay the game
  15. Just added it to my Steam Wishlist. Last time I went on sale for literally 4 dollars or something.
  16. It's a great game. Actually imo, I think the reason Amular did so poorly was also because of the Hype machine. Think about the games that came out that year as well. I think Mass Effect and God of War.

    Another great game is Two Worlds 2, they actually fixed a lot of their mistakes and it wasn't as glitchy and it actually was very creative and challenging. Yeah the ending was a bit anticlimatic. But god damn did I enjoy the spell crafting system and again traveling to different regions. Dealing with different unique and interesting quest. I daresay it was better than Skyrim and they came out the same year.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Yes, because more powerful hardware means it can load faster, handle heavier processes, and generally just make the game a lot more pleasant experience.

    However, if we're talking strictly stuff like graphics or whatever, then not so much for me. Games now are all pretty crisp looking and smooth, so even stuff like the Wii U can produce some really beautiful games even though it's nowhere near as powerful as a gaming PC. It's not like a couple generations ago where a lot of games are just blurry, indistinct messes that makes you wonder how the fuck you could handle it to begin with.
    • Useful Useful x 1
  18. See, this turns into a rather big and complicated topic that Brovo skimmed the surface of... And is also a topic far beyond my understanding to trying to dig much more into myself.
    But a footnote to remember "High Specs =/= Better Console" because it could run into the SEGA issue of being such a good console no one can code for it affordably, meaning no games.

    Also, as a very simplified and ignoring a ton of elements bit as well.

    This does kind of tie back to the Console VS PC debate, which in a lot of ways boils down to "Convenience VS Quality".

    Consoles provide Convenience, every game made for the console is guaranteed to work. It may load for a while, the graphics may be piss poor, but you're guaranteed to have it run. No one needs to stress about specs, you just buy the console, buy the game and you're good.

    A PC though is not one uniform system. It is highly customizable, so some games may work on some PC's that don't work on others. This requires a lot of people to pay more attention to what's actually in the PC and make smart decisions surrounding that. But the trade-off for this extra work is an ultimately better gaming experience.
    • Useful Useful x 1
  19. Well, the bigger issue with Sega back in its hardware days was that it never stopped pumping out consoles. When it finally did with the Dreamcast, it had already burned public good will enough that nobody wanted it, and then Sony's playstation and Microsoft's XBox hit the market and crushed any dream Sega had of coming back, because there just wasn't enough room for four consoles to compete. It's the same pain the Wii U is feeling now: Release too soon, and the public doesn't care. It's also the same pain Atari felt when the market was absolutely fucking flooded in garbage and public interest in games nose dived afterward. Ironically, it is possible to inflate a market too quickly and thus crush demand with a massive overabundance of supply. It's actually a basic principle of capitalist economics, called a "bubble." Anytime a market hits one, it's only a matter of time before the bubble pops and it crashes.


    HISTORY! I do History, okay? :ferret:
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thank Thank x 1
  20. Another advantage of the PC being an open platform is that it is damn near always on the cutting edge; experimentation is encouraged, both in games and hardware, since the platform will just keep trucking along and evolve away from anything that doesn't work. It's why VR is so huge now, after all.

    Edit: Shit, or Minecraft, or Steam/Digital Distribution, or so many genres being a thing.
    #20 MurderDeathKill, May 3, 2016
    Last edited: May 3, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.