By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - This could be the biggest generational leap in the 3D era

Nintentacle on 03 November 2013

Nope.



Around the Network
prayformojo on 03 November 2013
HokageTenshi said:
prayformojo said:
HokageTenshi said:
WagnerPaiva said:
Actually, is the smallest leap ever made in a generation.

because its the cheapest launch price which everybody wants, so don't expect too much...


Nonsense. The PS2 was the same price as the PS1 and was a MUCH bigger leap than we are getting now. 

my bad, what i mean is its cheaper than PS3 launch price, so don't expect too much leap over PS3...


lol...

I am expecting nothing less than greatness. Afterall, it awaits.



JoeTheBro on 03 November 2013
Nintentacle said:
Nope.


Oh sorry thanks for clearing that up.



Links

curl-6 on 03 November 2013
torok said:
curl-6 said:
Visual leaps between generations have been diminishing for a long time now.

The 5th to 6th gen leap was smaller than the 4th to 5th.

The 6th to 7th gen leap was smaller than the 5th to 6th.

The 7th to 8th gen leap is smaller than the 6th to 7th.


I would say that 6th to 7th gen leap was bigger than 5th to 6th, since it marked the use o programmable GPUs vs. fixed function ones. Lightning on PS2 and PS1 is basically very similar, while PS3 has all the advantages of a shader capable GPU to render more realistic lightning. The jump on models and textures was bigger on PS1 to PS2, but lightning has the hability to grab much more attention than these two. Fixed function GPU games have terrible lightning compared to modern ones. We will probably see a massive leap with the 9th gen when they start to use ray tracing capable hardware and all 8th gen games will start to look really, really bad.

(I've used PS consoles as a reference, but the same can be said about Xbox 360 and Wii U compared with their fixed function GPU powered antecessors).

About the leap, is to soon to judge. When X360 came, people hurried to call it Xbox 1.5 and they were wrong. Resistance: FM looks like crap compared with Killzone 3 as GTA IV is horrible side by side with GTA V. So we can assume that Killzone Shadow Fall and Ryse will look like crap in 3 to 4 years compared with newer games.

Fixed function to programmable shaders were indeed big leap, but I'd say the gargantuan improvements in models, textures, and the kind of worlds and scenarios you could create on 6th gen platforms versus the 5th still edged out the 6th to 7th upgrade.

Of course, PS4 and Xbone will improve visually with time, like any platform, but I do not think the increase will be as dramatic as last gen; PS3 was very hard to develop for, so it took devs ages to tap its full power, but PS4 is said to be very easy.



novasonic on 04 November 2013
JoeTheBro said:
novasonic said:

Was the standard for PS2 not 640x480 like all the other consoles of that generation?

EDIT:
240p for standard PS1 games
480i for high res PS1 and standard PS2
480p support for most ps2 games
720p for one or two games
1080i for GT4

Yes?

For the PS2 resolution I just booted up an emulator and tested a few games. God of War 2 was 512X448 as well as most games. A few less intense games ran at 640X512. Also googled it and got similar results. I can check GT4 if you want.

Hm, strange. The 224p 448i standards were used more in the 4th gen. 5th gen standards changed to 240p 480i. I suppose it's possible that they lowered the resolution in some games to get better graphics out of the PS2, and let the TV stretch it to fit. It would be interesting to see resolution comparisons between earlier and later games as well as lower and higher end graphical games.




8th gen predictions. (made early 2014)
PS4: 60-65m
WiiU: 30-35m
X1: 30-35m
3DS: 80-85m
PSV: 15-20m

Around the Network
DucksUnlimited on 04 November 2013
Nintentacle said:
Nope.

The most well thought out rebuttal I've ever seen.

Bravo sir.



Fayceless on 04 November 2013

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.



JoeTheBro on 04 November 2013
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.



Links