I highly doubt the answer would be yes. Consoles were created with the sole purpose of making gaming more accessible to the average person. While consoles certainly do have an impact in when BGS releases new games, I dont think they necessarily slow down the entire cycle. Not in a linear sense anyway. Im sure there are some graphical upgrades BGS could have implemented if they would have waited for the next generation, but Todd said they were fine with the current one. We'll have to see when Fallout 4 is released to really judge anything, but I wouldnt say consoles are much of a hindrance to how fast they can produce titles. The technology can still make great games. With that said, I think consoles have really helped keep gaming alive and thriving. If you can afford higher end gaming on a computer, then props to you. But I'm sure BGS appreciates the extra revenue. Thats why they can have so much more detail.

Detail trumps mere graphics.

No, the http://www.yugiohabridged.com/page-ep51 came first. Duh.

What you say about the Saturn is true however the PS3's architecture is in no way at as much fault as the Saturn, and so you can't really put it in the same category, sure it's not perfect but no system is 360 has it faults too same with PC each is different and it's just a case of you can't get perfection, you can get close but relative to what? our idea of perfect is ever changing and most likely always will be, we'll always find faults with different systems and we all have our opinions, and they are exactly that opinions if we didn't have them there'd be no progress and there's no point arguing who's is superior because it will achieve nothing. /endthread.



One other thing however when buying a new system always take Moore's law into account never buy the best of the best because there's will be something twice as good in no time you're just wasting money as technology will far advance games and other applications.

In a recent interview, as I recall, Todd make a great big list of stuff that they COULD have done if they had better hardware. Of course, he immediately tried to downplay it all as unimportant, but I have little doubt he was just blowing smoke (open cities vs closed cities the same experience? Really?). To do otherwise would have been a bad PR move. Anyways, he basically admitted that the current gen of consoles is holding back Skyrim on a technical level.

The problem with consoles is their cycle is too long. The console hardware is ancient and already having a negative impact on game development. We wouldn't have a problem if the Xbox had an I7 and 6990 equivalent under it's hood. The Xbox was released in 2005 which means it's tech is over years old which is far too old. Consoles and PC could lived together if Microsoft release more then 1 console per years.

I support better games so I buy the PC version

Why it took 9 to 10 years the get Morrowind released after the last game?

There would be problems with having open cities however what's to stop you being followed by a dragon into a city and it killing everyone with closed cities the cities are safe havens from monsters which gives players an area to rest.

The current gen consoles can't handle open cities. Current gen PCs can.

Because it didn't?

Daggerfall came out in 1996 and Morrowind came out in 2002

Do the math

That's six years not 9-10

I think Fallout 4 will be their first next gen game, and if that's true then they'll have a bit of experience under their belt by the time they start working on TES VI, but by then we'll be a few years into the next gen consoles and people will complain about them being outdated... again.

You've disregarded my point entirely even if consoles could handle open cities there would be problems as i stated in my previous post and that's just one point.

My fear is that they will go the "pretty pretty graphics" route and when they make the next game they will make ever more pretty characters and environments and we'll be back to square one: machines so taxed by ever more pretty people and environments that they cannot handle open cities any better due to the resource drain of the ever more pretty graphics.

I'm very interested to see what Nintendo and third party supporters have to show at E3. It may not show everything we can expect from the next generation, but we may see whether they use the Café's increased power more for game flow reasons like background loading to get rid of most load screens or if they will just use that power for ever more pretty graphics.

Don't get me wrong I want to see very pretty things from Nintendo's project Café and the other machines of its generation when they come out, but I also want to see that power tapped for stream loading and other features.

Exactly. I just like being part of a gaming community. Regardless of what platform we choose, we are all fans of The Elder Scrolls. I love coming on here and talking about the game with the community, but I hate these types of threads, I.e. "consoles are bringing us down." We are all gamers, and we choose what platform works for us, whether it be because of friends, money restraints, or pure choice of desiring one system over another. Come on guys, please, enough of these types of anger inducing threads.

Because you're point was irrelevant. That's a design decision completely unrelated to the limitations of the hardware. And it's something that can be worked with or worked around.

Not that it really matters i guess but i see a lot of people complaining about the price of a pc. Didnt most of your new consoles when you bought them cost 300+ USD not counting all the 60 dollar games, the extra controllers, the Xbox live, that bigger harddrive, that tv that your playing your console on, etc. Youd be very surprised at how cheap a good computer is now, or at least a computer with much more power/tech than a 360/ps3. But i guess im somewhat biased in favor of PCs lol, and i enjoy the mouse keyboard setup for faster speeds and more accuracy with every type of game.

I don't think companies will backtrack. The logic behind it makes no sense.

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l9v8vywZQK1qcj8pdo1_500.jpg

You need to understand that Bethesda is a business. And on top of it, people come off as greedy when they want to shut out an entire audience for their beloved optimizations.

The question was.

Is console hardware holding games back?
The logical answer? Yes.


However that doesnt mean more games should be PC exclusive, the consoles still make up a vast majority of the market and the sales from them are still needed. Pretty much console cycles are just too long.....the average laptop is more powerful then a 360 nowadays, yet we still arent looking at the next gen of consoles yet, the limited power of the consoles is frankly ridiculous. And it really does show, I saw someone playing Black ops the other day on their 360.....it was a just a mucky brown mess and I cant see how anyone would play that.

When the next consoles roll around, you'll see a massive jump in game quality, visually and behinds the scenes, but even then, the consoles will jump up to current PC power at the point, then for the next 7-8 years it'll stall again.

But why would you even bring up something like open cities they most likely wouldn't include that even if they could as it's not exactly a high priority who cares about a small loading screen really? there are more problems than solutions in this case and they'd most likely use the power for other things as has been said they would focus on graphics etc

Look lets be honest there is no huge difference between current consoles and the average gaming rig and NO ONE who is interested in a business which if you think about it game design is would sacrifice it's audience to add a few insignificant features like getting rid of a small loading screen as thats totally illogical and logic is the core of game design.


[censored] NINJAS!!!!

Yes there is.

Note the word AVERAGE i don't mean something someone's spent 1 grand + and where is you point to back up your statement.

I know. A $500+ gaming rig and a console are worlds apart as far as I'm concerned.

As far as backing up my statement, a PC is an all-in-one machine (games, movies, music, web browsing, creating your own music/movies/graphics/games, etc). Not to mention it'll run circles around a console's hardware.

Think about this, computers are improving faster than consoles, to devolp for the next gen consoles you have to devolp for 4 gens in computer hardware because of the speed they improve. If anything its pretty much even in my opinion

Err....most people do spend a grand for a PC......

A custom built Gaming PC is around $1500 if someone hand builds it themselves (about $2500 + if they store by it), but a standard store bought machines from $700-1000 easily outclasses a console.

That's more like it. $1500 is more along the lines of including the extras that aren't even remotely needed for gaming (a higher end GPU (above mid ranged), 6 core CPU, water cooling for OC'ing, an SSD, etc).

First, do not confuse the average computer (business and word processors) with the average gaming rig. They are two very different beasts.

Second, Todd said that if they had better hardware, they could have open cities. That means that the hardware on current gen consoles is not powerful enough to allow them. Anything else you might mention regarding gameplay differences is irrelevant. The consoles can't handle them, even if they did want them. The end.

As an aside, who cares about loading screens? No loading screens lends itself to a more fluid gameplay experience. Fewer breaks and fewer interruptions allow for a more continuous flow of events. Some people find that desirable as it helps to keep them immersed in the game world. I still remember when I first went from the zones of FFXI to the open world of WoW. It was significant.