When will we get a "TRUE" next-gen game on PC?

What exactly do you want? Many games are already maxing out PC specs. There are ways to maximize your gaming experience now. 3D, triple monitor, 5.1 sound... Skyrim maxed out burdens my system. The technology is out there to crush even the strongest computers, but since they are smart and not dumb (cough cough) they chose to find the middle ground that will allow for a decent market penetration.

I agree. In this context, do people really want quad-GTX 680 setups to spit out 10fps with current games at maximum or near-maximum settings?

Technologically, I think the tech behind Battlefield 3 on the PC is the kind of step that was needed for modern PC gaming. It looks great, sounds great, plays great, and while you still need a powerful machine to run it well at max settings, you don't need anything ridiculous.

I do like that DICE is going to make some future games require a 64-bit OS. Better and more efficient use of resources is what's needed.

Battlefield 214? should push PC gaming forward. (it is almost a given that it is in the works) It is still several years off and by then next gen will be fully underway, you can bet they will make full use of the updated hardware of those systems and won't have to hold back on game design for fear that consoles couldn't handle it. (like they did with Battlefield 3's linear singleplayer)

Next-Gen is a console concept, that really doesn't apply to PC gaming as it's constantly evolving. Even though I Hulk smashed keyboards and mice over the old thinking mans PC games of the past, I do miss them.

I wold guess that Metro: Last Light will be the next system crusher. I remember when 2033 came out, it killed my system at the time, now I can play it at 5760x1080, DX11, on high with 4xAA at great framerates.

My only concern is using an abstract term like "next gen". Ok, what's that mean exactly? If you mean "almost photo-realistic", supposedly we are 10-20 years off from that...the thing is however that games are like movies, and all movies are shot with different lenses and different lighting scenarios to help tell the story, so even movies are not realistic....so what does realistic mean.....what does 'next gen' mean......Skyrim doesn't look like a real world, it looks like a very detailed computer world you can walk around in.

GTA4 looks realistic on small screens from a few feet away..but then again so does, say, any in-cockpit racing game...

So what's "next gen" mean...

Lurkor is right in that "next-gen" is really a console term. A number of PC games have been utilizing DirectX 11 features to significant effect, which is an example of the constant evolution in PC tech.

In terms of visuals, I think most of the leaders in game technology have agreed that ray tracing signifies the next big step. Of course, we are probably at least a few generations of GPU hardware away from making that happen with desired performance levels.

As an interim, I can see Nvidia championing some hybrid ray tracing features exclusive to their hardware. They seem to be big on ray tracing (OptiX, for instance), and on differentiating themselves a bit from the competition whenever possible.

* PC gaming is on the verge of becoming a popular platform.

Here's my opinion why:

* The next generation of game engine's such as Unreal 4 that has just been released promises easier and faster throughput for developers. This includes technical hurdles that required hundreds of man hours just to solve and get right> such as lighting...most games require someone to fill in where the proper lighting and shadows should be and fall onto in a particular scene...imagine shining a light down on a table with miniature models of buildings...now in a game that same flashlight light has to be programmed as to where it falls on every single building and object...it's tedious and time consuming...thus the new unreal engine solves this by doing it automatically.

* The Unreal engine solves other issues that developers have faced that inlcude new motion tracking software...the software allows animators to record their movements in front of a special camera and utilize those movement's for a character in a game> this was previously not possible and required Sr Engineers to actually program the movements> this simplified process free's up more time to other developers to focus on the more technical aspects of the game.


Overall the new engines that will become available will allow for games to come to market in months instead of Years as it can be.


* Apart from New engines that cut production time in half...GPU's for the PC are getting smaller and utilize less power. The latest gtx670 consumes very llittle power and has same same graphic prowess as 680...simply...high power gpu's will cost less (the smaller they get) and stay just as consistent in performance specifications...while reducing power consumption dramatically.

I believe the NEXT generation consoles will not sell as dramatically as they have in the past any longer...due to the slow increase in GPU processing..currently Microsoft are going to be using an equivalent $50 GPU from ATI...how much better can it perform is for you to decide...but most gamers pick GPU's at price points at in the $200-300 range...while getting 200% better performance from them. This means that next gen consoles will have a $30 GPU from ati when they finally come out in 2 years (price will drop in half by then)...will they provide any eye candy?...I still can't see it packing much of a punch for 1080p screens.

I would not be suprised to hear Console maker's taking losses on selling their gear to consumers. But smartphone gaming could be another factor as well.


As for current GPU processing power> Developers of Unreal 4 stated that in order for GPU's to render their new engine to it's maximum capabilities and resolution...GPU's need to increase in processing power by 400% or something....which in terms of market availability could be in another 3-4 years for consumer level pricing. But 4 Years is well worth the wait rather than a consoles meager 30% increase in GPU processing every 10 years!

Interesting points, shingdaz.

Regardless of where consoles are going, things are looking good on the PC front. Developers of AAA games now seem to care about making their games really shine on the PC by utilizing just about every exclusive feature the platform allows. Max Payne 3 is the most recent example.

Unreal Engine 4 does look promising based on what has been said. It appears that the engine will be a nice step forward in improving visual aspects unrelated to mere texture quality. If the new consoles aren't up to snuff in terms of power, ease of development should allow game developers to reasonably make use of the engine's most advanced features only on the PC version of their games.

If I remember correctly, Epic even has a PC-exclusive game currently in development. I never thought I would see that happen again.

Speaking of tech wanted as a standard feature in future games, I just saw a neat video today demonstrating the advanced soft body physics that CryEngine 3 is capable of.

^^^^^

Let me know when something close to this is actually implemented into a good game. Then it will be worth mentioning. I see promises like these all the time.

As far as the OP question.... whenever a good developer with resources, skill and some balls decides to make this theoretical game that could exist. We sure as hell have the hardware for it these days. The software and smarts on the other hand....

Just to clarify, the video above is not a "promise" from anyone. It is from the makers of the "Rigs of Rods" simulator showing their physics model using CryEngine 3.

Although, it is certainly what people want to see in good games (outside from the soft body physics we've already seen in some good games using Nvidia's hardware PhysX).

"Capable of" and all the hoo-haw I read about it on OCN suggests the typical hollow videogame "promise" imho.

I'm very cynical about videogame development so ... just ignore me in threads like these.

Well, if you throw in high quality lighting, shadowing and textures along with a lot more going on in the scene, I wouldn't be surprised if even today's best single-GPU card and CPU would be heavily burdened by those physics simulations. Much more trivial GPU-based PhysX effects can be highly taxing on the best cards. Arkham City is a perfect example of that.

In other words, it is probably safe to say that these types of advanced features are not ready for use in large-scale games, even on today's costly gaming PCs.

Well then... why not put our awesome current-tech multi-core processors to proper use?

From what I've read from people who actually work on this stuff, the GPU is much more fit for intensive physics computations. A modern desktop CPU is a good aide, but the GPU has a plethora of cores running in parallel that are much more capable of taking the brunt of this type of processing.

PC gaming will never become the norm. Consoles will always be the preferred overall gaming experience.

I'd say PC is more for the enthusiast.

...Arkham City is a perfect example...its a pretty pedestrian environment, so what is taking up all that physics power...calculating clothing rippling? File that under 'who cares'. Arkham City with every building and window open-able, or GTA 4 with a fully integrated world of buildings will full interiors, apartments, and destructible terrain.....that's really where we need to be.

We all too often fall prey to the 'Stripper' mentality of gaming..."HIGHER RESOLUTION AND MORE, UH, POLYGONS!"....but that really isn't bringing us any closer to reality, or to better games...in fact at this point ever-higher resolutions seem like the ultimate waste of resources since so much else has to catch up.....I mean in the best game out there today the shadows are still crap........and yet shadowing is one of the effects that can transform a game from looking like a video game to looking like a 'creepy video game trying to look real!".......

I've hated Phys-X because the effects it produces are so "meh".......seems to me we should be focusing efforts on the bigger pictures before we try to impress people with ultra-rez clothing that flaps realistically in the fake wind of the environment...meanwhile every time I beat on a punk in that game and it slow-mo's their death, I am treated to a stupidly-expressioned ragdoll mannequin falling in a completely unbelievable way......

Priorities, developers, Priorities....

Well said.

Ignoring PC's for the moment, with a price point of current HD consoles between $200 - $350, how much more powerful do you expect next gen consoles to be, honestly? The genius of Nintendo is they managed to convince people that an overclocked Gamecube was highly innovative. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Will next gen consoles determine the quality of PC games in the future, or will they be left behind for better things? It remains to be seen, but I'm guessing the latter.

I understand what you're saying, but you have to wonder how much benefit there is in being able to explore the interior of every building. GTA IV and Arkham City's game design elements are quite good as they are (GTA IV did need garages though). Is it really worth the extra time needed to add frills like that?

Just Cause 2 is a game where significant use of destructible terrain makes sense, as destroying things is a large purpose in playing the game. Not so much in a GTA game, as these games are much more story driven.

I must add that significant destruction can bring lots of value in basic shooters.

I always thought the best levels in Unreal Tournament 3 were the special PhysX levels. The one level where you can fully break through walls is extremely fun.

Noted.....but I think my point is developers tend to go "down the rabbit hole" so to speak, they get caught up in whatever it is they are doing..they need someone to pull them out of the hole and focus on the bigger picture. Its why ID's games, driven by John Carmack, were really only so-so when he was driving them....technically great, game-wise very blah....

So I don't want to see PhysX wasted on things like free-flowing capes, or a rug that gets caught up in someones claws and moves realistically, because the non-phyx version of those effects is equally convincing to me...and I don't care if each time you blow up barrels they go in a different direction. I'd rather see physics on doors that can be blown open (like..ALL doors can be blown open or shot open)..windows too.....I don't need to see 8000 little 'polygons of material' blow out (think MAFIA II) each unique each time you play (cuz it all looked the same every time anyways, while dropping your framerate in HALF)......what we need is for those powerful processing abilities re-purposed to something that will enhance the game, not just the "look" of the game per say. There have been plenty of games using HAVOK that produce fun physics for half a decade now, what is Phys-X *really* buying us....not very much that I can see. I can't break open a wall with explosive gel, but I can watch Batman's cape look like a freakishly light-weight piece of material that is almost alive...... ?? Meh.


Unless that is how they start to change and refresh the GTA.....GTA is on version 5, so it could use some tweaking and expanding.....GTA with a Just Cause 2 type of experience could be pretty awesome

I just don't like Phyx being wasted....sucking performance while producing very little payoff for that depletion of resources is kind of something I think developers should acknowledge and pull back from....

Any time I find a door in a first or 3rd person game that can't be opened even with my RPG, Grenades, 40mm grenade launcher, etc....I always go "Jeebus, its 2012, can't we get PAST this??).....I will even accept if every room in every building is generic to a certain extent so artists dont have to try to populate 40,000 unique rooms or whatever.....but being able to blow open interior walls to make escape routes or blowing out doors or windows for the same purpose (or just to damage enemies on the other side) is soooo much fun to do.

Rainbow Six Vegas, being able to just spray bullets or toss a grenade near a door to blow it open and damage individuals on the other side (you could shoot through doors in that game right?? I know you could blow open doors, which was awesome fun)...


Wow I don't think I ever played them, I only spent a very limited time with Unreal Tournament 3 because ....well...as a SP game it just wasn't much fun (too many capture/flag/hold point modes that the AI didn't do very well with).........maybe its time to revisit that...

I still remember the first time I blew open a wall in Bad Company 1, it was an increadible feeling.

+1 Couldn't agree more.

I feel this is more because the games arent optimized like they should be vs the games are true graphical powerhouses.

Look at GTAIV. That game can barely run on the best of pc's not because the graphics are the best thing since sliced bread but more that the code isnt optimized. Just lazy development because they care more about consoles.

I agree with OP. Other than BF3, Witcher 2, Crysis, Batman there really isn't a true PC game that takes advantage of cards these days.

* I agree developers are more concerned about console> but that might soon change...Online gaming is becoming more popular...with newer console coming out they have to keep up with with more graphic intense consoles...or at least the console will have to carry the extra workload for the newer consoles, what carries the work load...the internet proivder or the console GPU?...I;m not sure...but I've seen it can be slow at times...PC onine gaming is not perfect but the hardware is more capable (possibly just my quick thought).

* Again this brings us to Graphics intensity of console games> assuming next generation console games makers claim that they are 6X more powerfull than that previous generation consoles, is it noticeable?...well I think these guys are good at making their games look good on small HD displays...X-box 360 Ghost Recon on my 32" CRT display looked amazing...then I switch to LCD @ 32" and it still looked amazing....now...go down the road a bit....people now mostly have 45-55" displays...ok...so here's where next gen consoles still have an advantage in terms of graphics prowess...the HD displays are still actually still relatively small...so the games will appear to look slightly better...but I don't see it being mind blowing...I plugged a PS3 into my Latest 60" HD tv...threw on Call of Duty 3 the latest in Graphics power...and it looked like a 16bit Sega Console blown up that big...just not immersive and unplayable