curl-6 said:
Already covered this; learning to use PS4/Xbone efficiently was, by intentional design on MS/Sony's part, easier than PS3/360, hence less room for improvement over time. Look, you can rail against the realities of development as long as you like, but there's a better option; because graphics are a matter of subjective perception, you're still allowed to think that something looks better to you no matter what the facts say. For example, even though the raw facts say PS4's power leap over PS3 is quite large, I still personally feel it was a little underwhelming, and that's okay. We all have cases where our perceptions don't align with the raw numbers. Just be satisfied with your own opinion and don't take it as an affront when the objective side is brought up. If it seemed like I was attacking you, I should clarify that was not my intent; you seem to have taken this personally and there's really no need for that as I bear you no ill will. |
You seem to be ignoring the fact that improvements or the comparisons for improvements really come down to the the progress from developers. Yes 360/ps3 were a bigger jump in terms of tech, they were near high end PC'S that's why there was a huge room for improvement, more then your reason you have about exotic/complicated design. 360 in particular was a very efficient console. Still those consoles had severe limitations with ram. I remember that gen clearly, good AA solution was rare and was jaw dropping lmao. Still you can not say that it's a fact PS3 had bigger gains then PS4 because of this, because it's clearly not a fact. At the end of the day it's The progress developers make for games to look, and run better is it what it all comes down to, I also gave you great comparisons, that you can't deny looking much better then shadowfall, and running double the frame rate is a huge leap when you compare what 360/ps3 games looked like at 60fps.
