By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
archbrix on 03 June 2013
Edit Thread
Dr.Grass said:
archbrix said:

PS2 fixed a lot of the big problems and flaws (very blocky poly models, pixilation, etc) that were unavoidably present on PS1, whereas the PS3 mostly made improvements.  It's not that the technical leap isn't there – it is – but the perceptive leap isn't as large to me.  The gap between PS2 and PS3, while certainly noticeable, is not as profound, and I certainly don't expect as big of a perceptive leap between PS3 and PS4 either.

 

Clearly people are way different.

Silky smooth, full HD gaming with only high-res assets will be very, very perceivable to me.

I'm very much in disagreement on this point with you (and quite a few others).

Well, as you said everyone's different, but I'm not saying the PS2 to PS3 or PS3 to PS4 leaps are not preceivable.  I'm saying that the leap isn't as big as it was between the PS1 and PS2 specifically (to me, of course), because you're going from the infancy of a particular gaming presentation littered with flaws to the presentation having much more stability.  From then on, the improvements are more incremental given that it takes more and more power to see results.

A perfect example of what I mean is demonstrated in trent44's post a few posts back when comparing the sprite-based Mario games.  I see a much bigger leap between Mario on the Atari and Mario on the NES than I do between the NES and the SNES.  Again, the Atari being the infancy of sprite-based gaming was very rough looking/performing and was hugely surpassed by the far less limited capabilities of the NES.  While the jump to the SNES was the same on a technical level, going from "flawed" to "good" is more perceivable to me than going from "good" to "great", which is the same as my opinion between the Playstations.