Quantcast
When did you first notice that grafix had diminishing returns?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - When did you first notice that grafix had diminishing returns?

linkink said:
curl-6 said:

PS3/360 ports aside, I wouldn't say PS4 improved all that dramatically over time from a graphical POV, not anywhere near as much as PS3/360 anyway. Killzone Shadowfall was a launch title and still holds its own visually today, whereas five years into the lives of PS3 and 360 all their launch titles looked like trash.

Killzone Shadowfall  looks awfully dated imo, this in a genre that mainly pushes for 60fps, by one of the best graphics developers in the business. this looks near a generation  ahead at 60fps to boot.

As great as DICE's games look, I still think Shadowfall holds up very well and the gap is overall quite small,

compared to the absolutely massive gap between early and late PS3/360 games.



Around the Network

linkink said:
curl-6 said:

To be fair, when people were saying that, they were mostly referring to super early 360 games which were mostly PS2/Xbox games boosted to HD (which would've been lost on many as most people in 2005 were playing on SDTVs) with maybe a few extra effects thrown in, and stuff like Perfect Dark Zero and Kameo which both originally started development on Gamecube/Xbox and rather ugly art styles that didn't best showcase the power of the 360.

Once Gears of War rolled around in 2006 the leap over even the best of PS2/Xbox/Gamecube was absolutely gargantuan, and it only grew as the gen progressed and games looked better and better.

Pretty the much same thing with PS4. Once the order 1886, second son, horizon, and god of war came, pretty much The majority was in agreement that the leap was huge, and sufficient. With the PS2 this was not the case at all, it was being compared to dreamcast, Not ps1/n64 just to show how big the gap was. People online were saying it wasn't a big enough leap over dreamcast.  That all ended with the MGS2 trailer which blew every dreamcast game away graphically at the time, kinda the same with order 1886, Everyone jaw dropped saying it was CGI level.

The_Liquid_Laser said:

Heh, maybe.  It might be that I'm impressed by different things though.  

Part of the diminishing returns in generation 8 is that higher resolution can make things look worse.  Like I played Spider-Man last year, and the city looked beautiful but the people looked terrible.  The people were more detailed and such, but the higher resolution pushed the people into an Uncanny Valley and so they looked kinda creepy.  On the other hand Breath of the Wild went with a more cartoony style and I never had any issues with the people.  On top of that one of the few advantages the Switch has is draw distance.  Things look exceptionally crisp and clear at a distance on the Switch.  In Breath of the Wild this means that I could see Mount Doom on the other side of the map, but then later I could actually visit and interact with that place.  I had never had an experience like that before, and in this case the graphics were an enhancement to the exploration of the game and not just eye candy alone. 

Breath of the Wild used better design instead of better horsepower.  I am impressed by the better design, because it actually created a better game.  More CPU/GPU power can ironically make a game worse, because of the Uncanny Valley.

You can't have a serious conversation about graphics when you say higher resolution makes things worse, its's honestly the first time i have heard  a opinion like that. You seem not to be into realistic graphics, which most games that push the envelope are aiming for realistic graphics so i guess it makes sense. It is impressive being able to that in zelda, but we have seen that before on 360/ps3, and most games are doing that now.

I'm on my phone so trimming down the post is not worth the effort. I just wanted to say that the PS2 and Dreamcast are from the same generation. People may have said "The PS2 isn't a big enough leap over the Dreamcast" at launch but the Dreamcast launched with Soul Calibur--a HUGE leap over Sega Saturn, PS1, and N64 graphics.



Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!

curl-6 said:
linkink said:

As great as DICE's games look, I still think Shadowfall holds up very well and the gap is overall quite small,

compared to the absolutely massive gap between early and late PS3/360 games.

This is a FPS, and honestly looks like a cartoon compared to the dice FPS games running mostly at 60fps, So this is a stylistic choice which look better while requiring less usually to do so. Those type of games tend to hold there visual appeal longer  compared that to let's say the first uncharted on ps3 which still holds up to later ps3 games. On PS3, not one third person game looks better then uncharted original  targeting 60fps on ps3 to this date.

Last edited by linkink - on 06 May 2019

d21lewis said:

linkink said:

Pretty the much same thing with PS4. Once the order 1886, second son, horizon, and god of war came, pretty much The majority was in agreement that the leap was huge, and sufficient. With the PS2 this was not the case at all, it was being compared to dreamcast, Not ps1/n64 just to show how big the gap was. People online were saying it wasn't a big enough leap over dreamcast.  That all ended with the MGS2 trailer which blew every dreamcast game away graphically at the time, kinda the same with order 1886, Everyone jaw dropped saying it was CGI level.

You can't have a serious conversation about graphics when you say higher resolution makes things worse, its's honestly the first time i have heard  a opinion like that. You seem not to be into realistic graphics, which most games that push the envelope are aiming for realistic graphics so i guess it makes sense. It is impressive being able to that in zelda, but we have seen that before on 360/ps3, and most games are doing that now.

I'm on my phone so trimming down the post is not worth the effort. I just wanted to say that the PS2 and Dreamcast are from the same generation. People may have said "The PS2 isn't a big enough leap over the Dreamcast" at launch but the Dreamcast launched with Soul Calibur--a HUGE leap over Sega Saturn, PS1, and N64 graphics.

Yes i'm aware dreamcast is the same generation. just pointing out the leap was so massive from ps1 to ps2, that nobody ever compared ps1/64 it was being compared to a console from the same generation. 



linkink said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

Heh, maybe.  It might be that I'm impressed by different things though.  

Part of the diminishing returns in generation 8 is that higher resolution can make things look worse.  Like I played Spider-Man last year, and the city looked beautiful but the people looked terrible.  The people were more detailed and such, but the higher resolution pushed the people into an Uncanny Valley and so they looked kinda creepy.  On the other hand Breath of the Wild went with a more cartoony style and I never had any issues with the people.  On top of that one of the few advantages the Switch has is draw distance.  Things look exceptionally crisp and clear at a distance on the Switch.  In Breath of the Wild this means that I could see Mount Doom on the other side of the map, but then later I could actually visit and interact with that place.  I had never had an experience like that before, and in this case the graphics were an enhancement to the exploration of the game and not just eye candy alone. 

Breath of the Wild used better design instead of better horsepower.  I am impressed by the better design, because it actually created a better game.  More CPU/GPU power can ironically make a game worse, because of the Uncanny Valley.

You can't have a serious conversation about graphics when you say higher resolution makes things worse, its's honestly the first time i have heard  a opinion like that. You seem not to be into realistic graphics, which most games that push the envelope are aiming for realistic graphics so i guess it makes sense. It is impressive being able to that in zelda, but we have seen that before on 360/ps3, and most games are doing that now.

To be fair, I've kinda felt that way about a game once, that a higher resolution made it look worse, because the added level of detail just turned otherwise blurry graphics into slightly uncanny valley material. That game was just a remaster, though (Shadow of the Colossus, PS2 x PS3), so I guess in that case it makes a little bit more sense for the argument. Definitely a very strange thing to say... I only wish Breath of the Wild ran at 1080p, it would look at lot better.



Around the Network
mZuzek said:
linkink said:

You can't have a serious conversation about graphics when you say higher resolution makes things worse, its's honestly the first time i have heard  a opinion like that. You seem not to be into realistic graphics, which most games that push the envelope are aiming for realistic graphics so i guess it makes sense. It is impressive being able to that in zelda, but we have seen that before on 360/ps3, and most games are doing that now.

To be fair, I've kinda felt that way about a game once, that a higher resolution made it look worse, because the added level of detail just turned otherwise blurry graphics into slightly uncanny valley material. That game was just a remaster, though (Shadow of the Colossus, PS2 x PS3), so I guess in that case it makes a little bit more sense for the argument. Definitely a very strange thing to say... I only wish Breath of the Wild ran at 1080p, it would look at lot better.

Very strange indeed. I was watching some 4k on Resident Evil 4, Ninja Gaiden, Mario galaxy 2 and MGS2 and it's kind of crazy how much Resolution plays a role in making graphics look better, they look better then most 360/ps3 games.



Yesterday. Around 2:32 am. Right after i took a nap.



Hunting Season is done...

Around the first time I played demos of 360 launch games. They just didn't look that much better than the better Gamecube games or God of War 1 from that year. Of course, Gears of War blew me away the next year. Felt much the same with the PS4/XB1 launch titles. It took till 2015 before I started feeling that the current gen was reaslly starting to look significantly better than late-7th gen games. So it took 1 year for gen 7 and 2 years for gen 8 to start impressing me, wheras Gen 6 was a huge jump over Gen 5 from the start. Soul Caliber on the Dreamcast, Rogue Leader on the Gamecube, no launch titles have ever been so much of a leap over what came before since then.



linkink said:
d21lewis said:

I'm on my phone so trimming down the post is not worth the effort. I just wanted to say that the PS2 and Dreamcast are from the same generation. People may have said "The PS2 isn't a big enough leap over the Dreamcast" at launch but the Dreamcast launched with Soul Calibur--a HUGE leap over Sega Saturn, PS1, and N64 graphics.

Yes i'm aware dreamcast is the same generation. just pointing out the leap was so massive from ps1 to ps2, that nobody ever compared ps1/64 it was being compared to a console from the same generation. 

My fault. Didn't see the earlier posts. Carry on!



Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!

I haven't. Sure, there were a few games on the ps3 that still look great today like Uncharted 2. But that is just because developers like Naughty Dog are masters at working around hardware limitations and kept the level design simple. However, compare Red Dead Redemption to RDR2 and the difference is pretty obvious.