When did you first notice that grafix had diminishing returns?

[curl-6]

linkink said:

curl-6 said:

You don't need to be a developer to know that PS3's CPU used a complex and unorthodox design that took devs years to master while PS4 basically used a well documented off-the-shelf part.

Shadowfall to Battlefront, while noticeable, is not nearly as stark as the above. Also remember that Killzone is 1080p while Battlefront drops that to 900p.

I know ps3 was more difficult work, and took years to master, but PS4 games kept improving and looking better in big ways, developers really learned to take advantage of the weak CPU cores, something that has never been really used in gaming Pc's

Like I said that's very arguable I think battlefront looks vastly better, sometimes comes close to real life, and is at 60fps.  Yea it's 900p but has amazing AA solution, and looks cleaner then shadowfall.

When it comes to the PS4 graphical quality is dependent almost entirely on the GPU, which again was mature well documented part that was easy to max out from day 1.

PS3 was a different story as its design meant that getting optimum results required using the CPU's satellite processors to offload GPU tasks, which was a difficult feat for developers to master.

It is only logical that the system that was very difficult for developers to fully exploit will show far more graphical progress over its lifespan than a system using simple, straightforward hardware, and the games reflect this.