if the ps4/nextbox are really gonna be 700% better than the ps3/360 then will it just look like real life?

James Armstrong, Vice President of SCEE (CEO SCE Spain and Portugal) told in an interview that won't be better graphically than the PS3. He said: It’s hard to say right now.I do not think we’ll have a console with a lot better graphics than the PS3 currently offered.I believe the future will be to offer consumers better and more accessible experience .The aim will be to make more people enter the world of video games and try to design titles for women.

link: http://gamingbolt.com/sce-executive-ps4-may-not-have-better-graphics-than-the-ps3

I think the next system should look like this.

I hope this is a joke? Even high end PCs are still more or less at "smudged brown is ground, smudged green is grass". I know I'm overdoing it to an extent, but if you can't look at games like The Witcher 2 and BF3 and not see massive room for improvement, then you're suffering from a lack of imagination.

That said: Realism by itself isn't necessarily interesting, but also with abstract graphics I think there a things to be seen that can only be dreamed about today.

Our frame of reference for graphics should be art, movies and real life. We're nowhere close at the moment.

@ctalkeb

700% better than ps3 would look a lot better than crysis PC. crysis PC looks like real life. ur crazy brah

I'm not saying stuff like Crysis or the recent Unreal tech demo doesn't look good, I'm saying there's massive room for improvement on nearly every level.

Textures, modeling, increased detail, lighting, reflections - everything.

All you need to do is look at a high end CGI movie and imagine that done in real time. Then realize that even Avatar looks occasionally stiff and sparse.

Again: go to an art museum and imagine the stuff you see there, at the same level of detail, moving.

AI? I can imagine, say, a forest filled with life, but in video games it's far off.

I doubt the Fujitsu K can do it, so why should next gen consoles? Even just the developing tools to do it are far off.

I'll admit that Crysis does look really good, but it definitely could look better. Mainly, the textures could look a lot cleaner, particularly the ones midrange to far away. Wouldn't it be awesome if even textures really far away still looked good? My computer is pretty good (probly 2x a PS3), but I still see pop-ins and such. Also, the game could actually use a lot more polygons.  Plus, we'd want the game to run at 60 fps in 1080p. The PS3 is not even close to being able to handle this.

Then != Than

I had to vote for 100% more powerful because that's the highes option in the poll. Had it been me who made this poll, 500% would be the lowest option considering that only means 5x. 1200% would be the highest.

My midrange PC is AT LEAST 5x more powerful than my PS3...




I've said this before and I'll say it again.
What did the PC versions of PS1 games look like 1 or 2 years before the PS2 was released? They were the same as the PS1 version but at a higher resolution, better textures, less aliasing, more effects, higher framerate, etc. Did PS2 games look like the PC version of PS1 games (higher res, etc?)? No, they went for a generational leap in graphics instead of just having the same graphics at a higher res, etc.

What did the PC versions of PS2 games look like 1 or 2 years before the Xbox 360 was released? Again, they were the same as the PS2 version but at a higher resolution, better textures, less aliasing, more effects, higher framerate, etc. Did Xbox 360 games look like the PC version of PS2 games? No, again, they went for a generational leap in graphics instead of having the same graphics at a higher res, etc... even the highest end PCs of 1 or 2 years before the Xbox 360 was released would never be able to run stuff like Gears of War 3.


What do the PC versions of PS3 games look like today? They are the same but at a higher resolution, better textures, less aliasing, more effects, 16xAF, sometimes tessellation, sometimes depth of field, higher framerate, etc. Now, if history repeats itself, instead of just just having the same graphics at a higher res (1080p), better textures, etc, they'll go for a generational leap in graphics once more and we'll have stuff like the Samaritan Tech Demo or better.


If they don't do that and they're just the same but with all those things mentioned (1080p, 60FPS, tessellation, dynamic lightning, etc) what will third parties do? They'll try to maximize their profits by releasing their games on current gen consoles with the graphics we know today (1280x720, 30FPS, etc) AND on PS4 and the next Xbox with better graphics(1080p, 60FPS, etc) just like what happens today with games on both PC and Xbox 360/PS3.
By doing that, gamers will just keep buying their games on current gen consoles, they'll see no need for a next gen console just as they don't see the need to get a PC when they see the difference... a difference few seem to notice.

If PS vita is almost as powerfull as the ps3 and 100% more powerfull than ps3 is like saying 100% more powerfull than ps3 : 1) you are short on imagination , it could easily be 300% more powerfull than ps3 2) if sony is not loosing money on vita i thins that the should be a heavy price that for soemthing that is only 100% more powerfull, almost anything ca be 100% more powerfull now days and processor and GPU are now integrate so is even less expensive this time around to make a big leap

Tech sees advancement each year, how to turn that into a high powered console with a reasonable price-tag is another question.

Should be beyond 100% most likely.