Did the op compare launch titles? No

He compared BF4. No where in his op did he mention comparing launch titles.

Great post.  Worse yet, add another level on the end... going from 60K to 600K triangles.  Even less of a difference indeed.  

Developers are going to have to work in other areas (texture fidelity, lighting, etc.).  Going to be harder and harder for people to see the difference "jump" out at them as each generation goes on.

I agree his comparisons make no sense, just seemed when i saw your post

that you were trying to say the differences were massive. They are beginning to beginning, but not end to beginning. You get what I'm saying.

I get where your coming from. And agree. Just hate these early comparisons.

Next gen the big selling point will be 4K. Even if people don't see a big jump with their naked eye they still buy smartphones and tablets without really seeing a difference in the displays. Surely getting a new console every 7 years or so with no pricey contract can survive if getting a new tablet for $600 every other year is acceptable.

Generational leaps in visuals have been getting progressively smaller since the 4th to 5th gen leap.

Well it's pretty easy to prove you wrong with XBOX to 360 by doing simple forum searches. Tons of people are impressed sure, but lots aren't. Do you even remember all the XBOX 1.5 comments? Here's a thread about the original 360 reveal. Maybe it will enlighten you. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46948&page=5

Also I may need to remind you, but lots of people were blown away back in February and still are with exclusives. Are you not blown away by Ryse, Infamous, and the Order?

Plus I can only laugh when people say graphics can't get significantly better than this. That's just silly.

what's funny is every gen I see people saying "graphics are soooooo much better on PC look at the jump these consoles need x amount of ram and x amount of processing power to be decent" then the consoles get it and make said jump and everyone says it not there!  Really?  Then why were you saying how much better PC looked for 5 years at least?

I think some people are confused with diminishing returns and are pulling up examples of games that used beyond what was previously used to show improvement. Now I will try to explain this as best I can but some still may not get it.

Okay make a face using 5,000 polygons. Now make the same face only this time use another 5,000 for a total of 10,000. you just put in the same effort but got less results. Now make another and add another 5k to it for 15k. the results are even less dramatic.
You guys are comparing 20k polygon counts to 60k polygon counts and saying that diminishing returns aren't happening, yet your examples are in some cases contain 3-4 times more work put into them to get to those results.
Devs today are putting in far more work, for far less results.
I think most of you showing off pics of PS3/PS4 games need to start showing PS2 game pics as well but then again that will only make your point less valid to do so.
Lets look at Ryse. Originally going to use 150k polygon count. Cut to 90k and still looks amazing even though its using 60k less polygons than was originally announced. a 60k cut is more than some contained. That's enough cut from it to make another decently looking model.

But Polygons are not the only thing to take into account, Texture resolution, lighting, post process effects, shaders and Physics is where you will see the massive improvements. 

Oh no I didn't take it personal. It was just that NOWHERE in his post was there anything regarding the slightest bit of justifying a purchase. That's why I asked was it a jab. That's why I had to ask lol.

But of course the jump is not going to be HUGE. I think his point was that if you look back at the launch of each generation of course the jump did not seem big. But over time as developers got used to teh system things looked better. But I see you two already cameto an understanding so that ia ll good