byte modal
73
   |
Posted - 2014.05.09 18:40:00 -
[1] - Quote
meow.
Loaded and unfair question, honestly. If we're going to use that logic as a basis for argument, then the fact I'm still screwing around with Phantasy Star II on the Sega Genesis has all you b!tches beat. How many decades and still going strong?
Look, your premise is apples to kiwi here. Sure, a PC costs more, granted. A console is cheaper and will continue to play newly released titles as they come out, and development will evolve in time to become more efficient allowing a level of progressive improvements as dev teams become intimately familiar with the environment and its limitations. Two things you are at best assuming or at worst blatantly misrepresenting:
1. Console development is bound to the finite limitations of the platform.
New releases will be produced and sold. Some production teams will make subtle contributions to the development standards, others will make great mind-blowing strides (mmm Strider). But all development will still be bound by the limitations of that console's architecture. Capacity will be reached, and the cycle will begin anew, as Elton John so eloquently explained in the Lion King.
2. Console development does not exist in a vacuum.
As experience and efficiencies are gained over the lifespan of that console's development and support, so too are the same efficiencies made within the PC gaming world. The difference? The console is capped and frozen as another poster puts it. Sooner or later, gaming concepts, commercial application, and customer expectation will exceed the limitations of any console (generalizing, I know, as many older systems still offer considerable value for entertainment---see my Genesis reference up top). Development will reach a threshold that the console system will eventually be unable to support, thus creating the need for the next generation of console development.
The PC goes through the same cycle, of course, but a key difference is modular upgrades and software rendering efficiencies that evolve independently of the core PC system. Bump the RAM and switch cards and done. I'm not wiping an entire system for the latest and greatest. Even without the upgrades, I can still reduce performance load to stretch my gaming PC on well past it's marketed life cycle----all at, a very minimum, the same specs as console if not better. All while being able to access the then newest releases on down the line.
lol, all ribbing aside, I get the frustration. I'm not happy about it either, but for different reasons. While upset, I can still empathize with the long-term concerns and current practicalities of development (their method of development), and can appreciate the intent. At its core, to me, was the simple shyte smack in the face that was the Legion announcement. I wonder, had that been handled better, would the blind outrage be nearly as.... blind?
You honestly have far more reasonable arguments to make, if love of the game's longevity is your motive. Sooner or later, the tantrums have to end if you expect to be taken seriously by any gaming community aside from those who's only purpose is to burn something just for the sake of watching it burn. That's not a development problem, that's psychological and petulant.
Though I still stand by my assertion that Phantasy Star II proves that the Sega Genesis' life is far from over, and as a result, it is unquestionably the superior gaming system. Wait. The cartridge save-state battery died back in the late 90s. sh!t, Rolf and Nei are GONE?! you got me there. Please ignore this post.
all the best,
- me.
Irony: Post #35
|