| Fayceless said: Crunch the numbers all you like, our brains couldn't care less. There's really no way to look at graphics objectively - it doesn't matter how many terraflops you've got, if it doesn't look good, it doesn't look good. Put up pictures side by side, compare the differences, people will pick the older generations as bigger leaps every time. Why? Because, as it matters to us, the gamers, and our experience, they were bigger leaps. Period. The numbers don't support that, but they don't have to. It's simply not relevant, only what we see and experience are relevant. |
I know I did a somewhat poor job explaining myself in the op but you completely missed the point. The number crunching is all about comparing each gen's processing power that is used just for rendering at a higher resolution. Can you objectively say PS4 graphics are 10 times better than PS3? No, but the PS4 is 10 times stronger than the PS3. I also assume the PS3 is 10 times stronger than PS2 just to keep everything simple. Same goes for PS2 to PS1. With these somewhat flawed assumptions, my number crunching shows that the PS4 has a bigger jump due to the lower resolution change. Ignoring resolution, the PS3 is X times stronger than the PS2. Ignoring resolution, the PS2 is 1.3X times stronger than the PS1. Ignoring resolution, the PS4 is 1.7X times stronger than the PS3. This has diddly squat to do with what is visually perceived.
Now on to your points.
Of course our brains don't care about the numbers, but they do care about what the numbers influence.
I'm not trying to look at graphics objectively, just the relative power of the consoles objectively.
You have seen only a tiny sliver of this gen and you're already proclaiming "it doesn't look good," or did I misunderstand?
I'd like to point out that my number crunching says the leap from PS1 to PS2 was bigger than PS2 to PS3. Pre-3D consoles? This technique doesn't apply.
