Egann said:
Except that as time goes on it becomes obvious the relationship between graphical beauty and raw power is definitely not a linear one. http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2013-02/why-playstation-4-announcement-was-weirdest-pitch-ever In fact, both technical development and the eye's perception of detail are logarithmic functions, but it's becoming increasingly obvious they aren't the same logarithmic functions, either. "Imagine if" arguments are incurably deceptive. The hardware is now better at churning out detail than your eye is at absorbing it. Clearly, the PS4 and XB1 do have more raw power. No one denies this. The question is, however, if that increased power will actually be able to deliver notable graphical improvements. For my money, I think not. Sony and Microsoft both overshot the optimum mark for their systems because they have third party developers and multiplatform titles. The power is a buffer to allow thirt party developers to hit the butter zone with less effort. Nintendo? Most of their games are first party. They don't have to worry nearly as much about the console's power going to waste. Will the Wii U show some graphical weakness compared to the other consoles? Probably. Nintendo clearly undershot the butter zone to fit the gamepad in. But even so, the difference is likely to be minimal. |
I think most people with a half-decent gaming PC would tell you that the difference is pretty significant, and that's based on multiplatform games that were designed around the HD consoles. With developer moving to designing games with extra power as the core, we'll be able to see the major differences that extra power gives.








