Quantcast
This is for those who care about "Next Gen" console graphics

Forums - Gaming Discussion - This is for those who care about "Next Gen" console graphics

PullusPardus said:
Raziel123 said:

All i'm seeing here is Wii U propaganda
Saying things don't make them true you know

This whole "jump is smaller" thing is nonsense. You can't take the consoles and just place them next to current PCs. This gen the jump is bigger, you know why? Because last gen lasted too long. The consoles were last year more outdated than the other gen ever was. THAT's how you measure a generational jump.

is it because of my picture? I had it awhile ago and don't bother removing it, I'm not a Nintendo fanboy.

Jump is smaller not because PS3 is outdated, because PS4 is already very outdated compared to current PC market.

its not the PS3's fault its the PS4 that came way too early and is very underpowered, the saving grace is not that its more powerful , but that it is easier to develop on, is that enough to make a new console for?

the issue here is that people are expecting too much from PS4 when the reality is that it is very outdated , 450 GTX is about 5 years old and still outperformed the PS4, your laptop probably has a better GPU than a 450 (if you bought it in 2012 or after at least)


What is a 450 GTX? I only could find 460 GTX on Wikipedia and its computing power is below Xbone and PS4. So how is this outperforming anything?

And even *if*, who cares about PC gaming and graphics? Do you not buy a PC because there are supercomputers who are faster than your PC at home?

If you play console only you don't have to care how much more powerful PCs are because you can't play specs.



Around the Network
Raziel123 said:

All i'm seeing here is Wii U propaganda
Saying things don't make them true you know

This whole "jump is smaller" thing is nonsense. You can't take the consoles and just place them next to current PCs. This gen the jump is bigger, you know why? Because last gen lasted too long. The consoles were last year more outdated than the other gen ever was. THAT's how you measure a generational jump.


Actually that ain't correct.

PS3/X360 were more powerful than high end PCs at the time of their release. They were also a lot more expensive at the time of their release than PS4/X1 are today even though they were sold at a loss.

PS4/X1 equal medium PCs at best, and even though they are cheaper than PS3/X360 were at the beginning they are sold at a profit.

PS4/X1 are already outdated at the time of their release.

Bolded part also isn't true. I mean if you talk about raw hardware it probabily is, but that's not how you measure a generational leap. SNES to PS1/N64, PS1/N64 to PS2/GC/Xb, PS2/GC/Xb to PS3/Wii/X360 all had bigger leaps than you had this generation. 3D gaming, HD gaming, motion controls, etc all implemented big leaps in past gaming generations. Now all you have is better lightning and textures, and console manufacturers didn't event bothered to build high-end consoles to really improve those textures at the highest standards of today's technology.



Raziel123 said:
Mr Khan said:
Pullus Pardus is not a particular fan of Wii U or Nintendo, folks. You're barking up the wrong tree here.


Clearly he is. But then, so are you, so I'm not surprised to see you defending him.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this, but you've been warned by Khan nicely to drop the topic. So another comment like this or similar to it and you'll be enjoying a nice visit to banland. 



 

Here lies the dearly departed Nintendomination Thread.

Kane1389 said:
PullusPardus said:
AnthonyW86 said:
''they're much closer to WiiU than you think''

Stopped reading right there.


Explain how thats not true?


 

And this is just the GPU chart, not accounting the massive difference in RAM and CPU (where even PS360 have a better one than WiiU)

the PS4 and Xbox 1 do not use GTX 7XX or Radeon 7XXX.

also Quadro/Firepro >>>> Geforce/Radeon

those are meant for super computers and are not optomized for games , why are they even on the list? 



Raziel123 said:
PullusPardus said:


TL;DR 

 

  • Wii U propaganda
  • repeat
  • etc
  • you get the point 

 


Ok. I'd tell you it's best for you to enjoy your Wii U instead of wasting your time like this but..that's your decision

Again, i'm not a Nintendo fanboy.



Around the Network

I'm seeing a whole lot of claims with very little evidence here.

The easiest thing to say is that people are still being impressed by the graphics for upcoming console games...making this pretty much a moot point.

Next thing would be to say that the specs speak for themselves and the gap between the PS3 and PS4 is giant and the gap with the WiiU is very large aswell.

lots of noise here but not a whole lot of substance.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

Conegamer said:
Raziel123 said:
Mr Khan said:
Pullus Pardus is not a particular fan of Wii U or Nintendo, folks. You're barking up the wrong tree here.


Clearly he is. But then, so are you, so I'm not surprised to see you defending him.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this, but you've been warned by Khan nicely to drop the topic. So another comment like this or similar to it and you'll be enjoying a nice visit to banland. 


Oh, so this is a topic for you Nintendo fans to come and talk propaganda? But if you don't want us to come here then who are you trying to convince? Yourselves?

 

User was moderated for this post - Conegamer



The PS4 and Xbox One are next gen compared to ps3 and 360... That is all that matters. The same applies to any previous gen, I dont know why it would change now.



Headshot said:
PullusPardus said:

the first uncharted looked okay back then 

Uncharted 2 looked the best

Uncharted 3 looks like crap compared (it was rushed, but people don't want to admit it)

Last Of Us looks a bit better than Uncharted 2 during cutscenes but was very lacking during gameplay 

 

Yeah I agree Naughty Dog is very overrated and they use really shameful techniques to fool people (make games extremely linear, removing anti aliasing for better textures...etc) the way they handled Uncharted 3 was really really poor but people just ignored it for a while and then after the hype went down realized how rushed it was (even the story was shit), on the other hand we have Guerilla Games for example that actually do amazing things in terms of graphics with what they're limited too.

However the big difference between the two is one makes a first person shooter with the most generic characters possible, and the other makes actual memorable characters, honestly the best thing about Killzone is the lore and the villians , the main characters are just so.... generic, and the story other than the first one are so so bad.

Uncharted 2 and TLOU really look great though and naughty dog did a great job at getting the most out of the ps3. You could argue that many developers use techniques to fool people like epic and guerilla who seemingly didn't realise there was more colours than brown and grey until gears 3 and killzone shadowfall although gears 3 and Killzone SF do look great. The question is if naughty dog can continue to set the bar in terms of graphics moving away from the complexity of developing for the ps3 which many third parties just didn't have the time or patience to master with the 360 there.

Yes, but it will also force them to make more these techniques in favor of not getting a backlash from people who hype their games for their graphics.

meaning more cutscenes and less interactivity, its the same happening for FFXV by the way.



Giggs_11 said:
Raziel123 said:

All i'm seeing here is Wii U propaganda
Saying things don't make them true you know

This whole "jump is smaller" thing is nonsense. You can't take the consoles and just place them next to current PCs. This gen the jump is bigger, you know why? Because last gen lasted too long. The consoles were last year more outdated than the other gen ever was. THAT's how you measure a generational jump.


Actually that ain't correct.

PS3/X360 were more powerful than high end PCs at the time of their release. They were also a lot more expensive at the time of their release than PS4/X1 are today even though they were sold at a loss.

PS4/X1 equal medium PCs at best, and even though they are cheaper than PS3/X360 were at the beginning they are sold at a profit.

PS4/X1 are already outdated at the time of their release.

Bolded part also isn't true. I mean if you talk about raw hardware it probabily is, but that's not how you measure a generational leap. SNES to PS1/N64, PS1/N64 to PS2/GC/Xb, PS2/GC/Xb to PS3/Wii/X360 all had bigger leaps than you had this generation. 3D gaming, HD gaming, motion controls, etc all implemented big leaps in past gaming generations. Now all you have is better lightning and textures, and console manufacturers didn't event bothered to build high-end consoles to really improve those textures at the highest standards of today's technology.


https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS543US543&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=diminishing+returns

In order to maintain the same sized gap in graphical output the new consoles would need to grow exponential more powerful and more expensive and they would quickly price themselves out of the market.

How many people would have bought an $800 PS4?



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.