8th Gen to 9th Gen: Visual Analysis Thread

[DonFerrari]

Mnementh said:

DonFerrari said:

Neither of the games that had good scores or good looks suffered on gameplay because they were pretty or had a lot of resources on it, that is just a fallacy throw for not liking the gameplay on that game. It is possible that these games that you don't like the gameplay had more resources put on gameplay than a Mario game that you like.

And I looked at the image, again the difference becomes more on the details and static images make it harder to see. But you naturally notices the differences and when getting used to it and go back to older you see that something is amiss. That happens to me all the time when I rewatch something of older gen that I found to be fantastic and now I can see the gaps.

I actually don't like Mario or Jump&Runs in general. You are assuming I am arguing down to you as a Nintendo fan willing to put down Sony. But I still feel as a DOS gamer in heart, I got away from gaming as the general direction was in a way that didn't mesh with me before Wii introduced me to console gaming. And I appreciate a console game as much as I did a good DOS game in the 90s. This is not about Nintendo or Sony or this crap. This is about games. And I appreciate that Sony does make good games. I don't think Horizon is a bad game, and R&C in the presentation looked outright awesome. But not because of graphics, but because of the other stuff that felt like a step ahead. And that is why I was impressed by Kena, but have worries about Project Athia.

Sony presented some good games, that is out of the question. But they are often good for other reasons than graphics. And diminishing returns are a reality, just look again at HollyGamers pictures of R&C through the gens and tell me the wow-effect is the same for the difference of the PS4/PS5-comparison, as it is for the PS2/PS3-comparison. Look through this thread how often people said that you should look at 4K-streams to see the difference. This all should tell you: people need to pay a lot more attention to notice and appreciate the differences in visuals, than was needed back then in PS2 gen. This simply is diminishing returns.

It is funny that multiple posters say they are not impressed, but others saying: just look at this detail or at a 4K-stream to see the difference, while at the same time denying that diminishing returns are relevant already. These posters that aren't impressed are simply a result of the diminishing returns. That happens. That some people have learned themself in looking at some visual details still notice the improvements does not change that. Because diminishing returns means less and less people are impressed.

And again, that is not a shot against Sony, the same is happening for XSX and Nintendo and PC and Stadia. Stadia also showed off what theoretical is possible (still not present in actual games), but I wasn't impressed. And the Stadia machines have very beefy hardware.

I know that diminishing returns exist and the perceived jump is getting smaller, that isn't what I'm disputing. But that still doesn't make the gap from the two R&C that small. The game is still pre-Alpha and is already easy to see the general difference. Sure at first glance it may be reduced to more fur or the like, but when you see the two in movement at maximum quality the difference is noticeable.

I just put some of the games revealed for my wife to see and even on the 1080p presentation she said that it wouldn't run on PS4 (and didn't even need to show the crabs CGI used), and she doesn't understand the technical part she had that gut feeling just from the looks of the games she see me playing versus what was show.

Some of the users that aren't impressed say stuff like for then the level of graphics of PS3 is enough or that they can't see a difference from that to PS5 graphics in general and that the game would run there with small concessions, or that TW3 is almost on the same level among PS4Pro and Switch and that with DLSS Switch 2 will be about as equal IQ as PS5 and XSX. So it is very muddy water.

Stadia have a lot of issues that we don't need to discuss here =p

I understand that you aren't taking shots against Sony. But there isn't really a lack of investment on gameplay versus graphics. Sure the graphics got a lot of investment and need a lot of manpower to realize, but the gameplay isn't relegated because of that. The level design and gameplay elements are lot less manpower demanding than the execution of the graphics, so it isn't really a matter of lacking investiment. Would you say that a game like RDR2, GoW, UC, etc where they put hundred million dollars on the development they cheaped out on the gameplay? I can perfectly understand you not liking their gameplay or choices but that wasn't because they didn't invest. Similar stuff with AI, it have several issues and points to improve but it isn't because the CPU is just to weak or no investment is made. It is just harder and harder to impress and confuse us with the AI without making the game impossible to beat. That is because we have a lot of experience to know how to beat the AI.