Quantcast
The inflection point for diminishing returns appears to be the PS3/360 generation

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The inflection point for diminishing returns appears to be the PS3/360 generation

BMaker11 said:

Dude...some late PS1 games "come close" to early PS2 games. Some late Xbox games "come close" to early 360 games. And now, some late PS3 games "come close" to early PS4 games.

Do you honestly believe that PS2 games, in the end, didn't look much better than PS1 games? That Xbox 360 games didn't look much better than Xbox games? This happens in the infancy of EVERY generation when compared to the previous one. Why are you ignoring that historical fact?


What in the HELL are you talking about!? Read my damn post. I have not made any claims stating that this generation won't feature huge technological graphical advancement. I am asking theproff to clarify what he meant in his post. 



Around the Network
BMaker11 said:
Jay520 said:
theprof00 said:

I can safely say that my eyesight is good enough to tell the massive difference between this gen and last gen. People really pretend like it's small....but, I dunno. I played all the infamous games...watching the infamous ps4 gameplay....stunning. FAR better quality. Sure it's not like stick figures compared to 3d models, but the difference is pretty clear.

Have you seen the quantum break gifs? I don't think I've seen detail like that in any ps360 game. It's quite a nice game.

But you just said some last gen games "come close" to The Order, Infamous or Quantum Break.

Dude...some late PS1 games "come close" to early PS2 games. Some late Xbox games "come close" to early 360 games. And now, some late PS3 games "come close" to early PS4 games.

Do you honestly believe that PS2 games, in the end, didn't look much better than PS1 games? That Xbox 360 games didn't look much better than Xbox games? This happens in the infancy of EVERY generation when compared to the previous one. Why are you ignoring that historical fact?

open wold games already see a generational jump, games like witcher 3 and the divisionare clearly a generation ahead of anything on 360/ps3 thats open wold, also the order, looks to be a huge leap but we need 1080p footage, even ryse is a huge leap.



SvennoJ said:

Not even close. Next gen 4K tvs will become standard with continuously growing screen sizes. 1080p looks pretty dull once you've seen a 70" 4K screen in action. With bigger screens, higher framerate becomes important to reduce judder. The bigger the screen space covered by objects the higher the fps you need to be able to track them without judder. 120fps will be the new 60fps.

VR is still in its infancy. Spreading a picture over a 90 degree visual field requires 4K to get the same detail as a 42" 720p picture from 5.7ft away. Double that for 3D.

Resolution and frame rate will matter for generations to come. Plus we haven't even started with real time ray tracing for realistic lighting.
Consider this, Gravity took 50 hours per frame to render, or the equivalent of 7000 years for the movie using only 1 processor. And that's rendered 2K 48 fps (3D) and most of it is just a backdrop with a few objects on screen. (ok the space shuttle alone was 25 million polygons)


It will matter for VR, I'll give you that. But if you think people are going to keep getting bigger and bigger tv screens just so that resolution can matter, you're disconnected from reality. There will be some people that do that, but the majority of people won't care enough to get a 70" screen. 4K will be the end of the line for resolution for anything anyone cares about, and next gen it'll be pretty common. 240fps will probably be the end of the line for anything anyone cares about, and we'll begin to see that next gen with the gen after making it standard. At that point, you'll be able to render photorealistic games on pretty much any screen the typical consumer gives a shit about without judder. Sure you can say that you need even more to get it on even bigger screens, but that won't be useful to many people, it'll be a niche part of the market. The only place graphics will matter at all will be VR and various effects like lighting, not resolution or framerate. I mean I'm not saying we can simulate reality perfectly anytime soon, but visually we're approaching the point that people won't be able to tell the difference. For hardware developers to even want to improve things for graphics, there has to be consumer demand for it, and as less and less people are able to tell the difference, less and less money will go towards improving graphics, as most people just won't care.



lol



”The environment where PlayStation wins is best for this industry” (Jack Tretton, 2009)

FATALITY said:
lol


people might think well thats a cut scene, well yea but the actual gameplay looks the same. thats easily a generation ahead of gear of war.



Around the Network

I don't really think the point of diminishing returns is about what the hardware is capable at all (although that's part.)

Let me quote youtube personality Matthewmatosis from his Wind Waker review.

"It just goes to show how sometimes a simple approach can just work brilliantly. I mean Link's face is nothing more than a tiny nose and some very simple textures representing everything else, but it conveys every emotion it would ever need to, and it does it so well that it's still putting other games to shame to this day. You could have a million polygons on a character's face and not come close to achieving something on par with Link's expressions in the Wind Waker.

...This is one of the major benefits of moving away from hyper-realistic styles because it puts an emphasis on the little touches and reduces the work load on the artists. When somebody spends hours trying to get the stubble to look right on a space marine's face, it's probably not a really worthwhile endeavor. The whole thing suffers from diminishing returns where the realistic details are necessary just to keep up with everybody else, but don't really add much to the experience.


So diminishing returns isn't (only) about graphics, but about the time a developer spent making them. I am all for developers making pretty games, but by and large with the last game that meant oppressive corridor games with level design which made no sense. Why was it this way? To force players through machine gun turrets when anyone with two brain cells would go around...and to give the engine time to load textures before you got to where they would need to be displayed.

So more power is certainly useful, but only if the developer uses it right.



HylianSwordsman said:
SvennoJ said:

Not even close. Next gen 4K tvs will become standard with continuously growing screen sizes. 1080p looks pretty dull once you've seen a 70" 4K screen in action. With bigger screens, higher framerate becomes important to reduce judder. The bigger the screen space covered by objects the higher the fps you need to be able to track them without judder. 120fps will be the new 60fps.

VR is still in its infancy. Spreading a picture over a 90 degree visual field requires 4K to get the same detail as a 42" 720p picture from 5.7ft away. Double that for 3D.

Resolution and frame rate will matter for generations to come. Plus we haven't even started with real time ray tracing for realistic lighting.
Consider this, Gravity took 50 hours per frame to render, or the equivalent of 7000 years for the movie using only 1 processor. And that's rendered 2K 48 fps (3D) and most of it is just a backdrop with a few objects on screen. (ok the space shuttle alone was 25 million polygons)


It will matter for VR, I'll give you that. But if you think people are going to keep getting bigger and bigger tv screens just so that resolution can matter, you're disconnected from reality. There will be some people that do that, but the majority of people won't care enough to get a 70" screen. 4K will be the end of the line for resolution for anything anyone cares about, and next gen it'll be pretty common. 240fps will probably be the end of the line for anything anyone cares about, and we'll begin to see that next gen with the gen after making it standard. At that point, you'll be able to render photorealistic games on pretty much any screen the typical consumer gives a shit about without judder. Sure you can say that you need even more to get it on even bigger screens, but that won't be useful to many people, it'll be a niche part of the market. The only place graphics will matter at all will be VR and various effects like lighting, not resolution or framerate. I mean I'm not saying we can simulate reality perfectly anytime soon, but visually we're approaching the point that people won't be able to tell the difference. For hardware developers to even want to improve things for graphics, there has to be consumer demand for it, and as less and less people are able to tell the difference, less and less money will go towards improving graphics, as most people just won't care.

8K is targeted for the end of consumer resolution which is near indistinguishable from real life. It will be most useful for VR anyway.
This gen is struggling with a jump from 720p to 1080p, 4k 60fps is at least another whole generation away.

Anyway yes the end of output resolution is in sight. Draw distance, lighting, object detail still has a long way to go. There is always consumer demand for better looking graphics. People can still tell the diference in movies and obviously care considering the success of Gravity, which can be summed up as grieving mother rediscovers will to live after facing certain death.



Jay520 said:
theprof00 said:

I can safely say that my eyesight is good enough to tell the massive difference between this gen and last gen. People really pretend like it's small....but, I dunno. I played all the infamous games...watching the infamous ps4 gameplay....stunning. FAR better quality. Sure it's not like stick figures compared to 3d models, but the difference is pretty clear.

Have you seen the quantum break gifs? I don't think I've seen detail like that in any ps360 game. It's quite a nice game.

But you just said some last gen games "come close" to The Order, Infamous or Quantum Break.

I didn't say some last gen games come close to those. I said, you MIGHT be able to find some games that come close, but they'd have to be very recent.

I, off the top of my head cannot think of one that looks as good as any of those. But screenshot for screenshot, you might find a game that has a close single screenshot. That's not saying a lot. That's saying, "if you tried really hard to find the best possible ps360 screenshots, you might find one that comes close to a launch frame title's bad screenshot". Maybe that wasn't conveyed properly. I never said some last gen games come close...it would take a lot of digging, hence why I didn't post any examples.

Now, there are some launch game titles for pOne that aren't as graphically stunning and I think you could more easily find better games on previous gen.



Games are still getting better looking, but the improvements don't have much impact. I played some PS4One the other day, and I was hardly drooling. Good, but nothing compared to playing a game on any previous new gen system.



SvennoJ said:

8K is targeted for the end of consumer resolution which is near indistinguishable from real life. It will be most useful for VR anyway.
This gen is struggling with a jump from 720p to 1080p, 4k 60fps is at least another whole generation away.

Anyway yes the end of output resolution is in sight. Draw distance, lighting, object detail still has a long way to go. There is always consumer demand for better looking graphics. People can still tell the diference in movies and obviously care considering the success of Gravity, which can be summed up as grieving mother rediscovers will to live after facing certain death.


Well you sound like you're a lot more familiar with this. We do have more generations to come of improvements, but I think we'll soon start caring about new sorts of improvements, not just graphical ones. I haven't heard of Gravity, I'll have to check it out.