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

Forums - Gaming - The inflection point for diminishing returns appears to be the PS3/360 generation

endimion on 03 March 2014
Jay520 said:
theprof00 said:
Have you ever seen shadow of the colossus...or god of war 2, ff12, odin sphere?
The games actually look better than early ps360 games.

You really have to wait until the devs get used to the programming.
I mean, I look at games like quantum break, infamous, killzone and I can see immediately how much power these next gens are packing...and this is only the beginning

I went and played SotC the other day, and felt like I was playing a ps3 game.


When he says diminishing returns, I don't think he's referring to smaller increases in graphical output. I'm sure the developers could definitely crank out many more pixels, etc. Rather, I'm pretty sure he's referring to human's ability to notice/care about increasing graphical output after a certain threshold. For example, I think many PS3/360 games look good enough, and any further advances would be largely unnoticeable and/or negligible.

exactly my point I was making the other day... about graphic difference this gen.... if we expect both console to improve graphically over the course of this gen (which should happen on both side...) I'm pretty sure even if the technical gap widdens between PS4 and XBO it will be less and less noticeable to the human eye especially the untrained one not activelly looking for the differences in quality....

now that being said we have also to consider people didin't upgrade their TVs for this gen like they probably did with last gen.... and probably won't do it  this gen....

but next gen if they output in 4k natively and OLED 80" 4K display become more accessible and decrease at a steady pace over the course of the PS5 and XBOX ULTIMATE :P we could see a new jump...



Around the Network
alabtrosMyster on 03 March 2014

I think this may be slightly true if you only look at your character models taken out of context, I think the fact that you can have games like Tomb Raider:DE running at 1080p/~60fps on the PS4 along with enhanced textures and particle effects is a pretty big deal, it does not shine that much on screenshots (but it does) but once you have seen it in action there is no going back, same for Battlefield 4 (which is not even 1080p) ... obvisouly the true next gen titles like Killzone and Knack look even better and they can't be mistaken for great looking PS360 games, as well as running better than their contemporaries.

So yes, what you see on the screen may look somewhat close to what you had before, but it also runs much better when you see it in action, even the 30fps games have much less drops than they had on the previous generation of console.

We gained temporal resolution, which makes all games much better in motion than trowing in a million polygons.



nitekrawler1285 on 03 March 2014
ctalkeb said:
nitekrawler1285 said:

The writing of any blockbuster film is often horrible.  Luckily with movies in particular there are far more and better ways of expressing your intent. As you'll see in my above post there are reasons for the film to resonate with international audiences outside of how it looked. 

Those are your reasons, however.  In hindsight, and indeed at the time, the visuals of the movie were what constituted its "watercooler" power. Your claim above this about women going to see Bullock/Clooney no matter the rest of the movie is also more than just slightly sexist, and also probably not true.

If you can show me some data showing the number of households whom even have a 1080 p television of the right size(I believe 42'' or larger) to percieve the difference between 720 and 1080 and I will stop hollering diminishing returns.  You just can't. HD TV penetration is supposed to be 50% by 2016 last I heard. Though those do not make a distinction in HD level.  

1: as you've kindly pointed out below, screen size doesn not matter, but rather how close you are to the screen realtive to its size. The market penetration number you quote is worldwide - including BRIC countries. The number for the U.S. was 75% at the end of 2012. Where I live, I'd guess the number is higher.

Generally speaking, if you sit more than 10 feet away from your TV, and your display isn’t bigger than 50 inches diagonally, you won’t be able to tell the difference between 720 and 1080. 

This rate is caculated for film/TV content that benefits from almost infinite antialiasing. It cannot be compared to native resolution rendering.

Most customers don't have the equipment needed so they can even notice the difference. It's where technology is in consumer homes that clearly state most people can't precieve the difference. Irrespective of my or your own anecdotal evidence. 

Most consumers actually do have the equipment, as I've shown above.

However, when was this resolution thing even part of what we were talking about?

I have already said that diminishing returns are real enough, but that you can't point to them in one field, such as polygon count or resolution, and conclude that we've reached that point in all fields.


I assume that advertisements and marketing are the way in which most are informed about films. Otherwise it seems silly to waste money on generating them or paying for them to be shown before other films. But yes the preview is what caused my decision and I'm sure no one elses.  

You can think that as sexist as you like.  I just hope advertisers don't have the same ideology as yours or they would waste tons of dollars advertising films like Miss Congeniality to the macho 16-25 year old male audience and that would be a waste.  Tehe.  I was just talking to my mom on the phone. She thinks it's funny that you would think she is sexist too.  

 You show that you cherry picked numbers to inflate your argument. Games sell world wide.  Even if I was just talking about the US only up until recently did larger 40+ inch HDTv's get popular. Meaning that unless people are sitting right in front of the TV ie 2- 4 feet it's still a practically indistinguishable. You aren't supposed to be that close to your TV to avoid eyestrain and headaches. So it looks to me like most consumers don't have the right equipment.  Though obviously we have different ideas of whom that market is since you just assume the US.    

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/playstation-4-exclusive-deep-down-delayed-to-improve-graphics/1100-6417593/ This is the reason I am in this thread.  Developers pointlessly adding cost to games that no one can see.  There can't be any differene greater than 720 to 1080 in this specific instance.  Even that difference is one that at this time the majority of possible consumers probably can't see.  That is why I have focused on that difference in particular.  

When it comes to art and entertainment that humans consume because we are only capable of perceiving so much with our eyes I can easily say that in primarily visual mediums we have hit diminishing returns across the board.  Unless you want people to start producing content for resolutions that nobody has displays capable of displaying for the next 15 years but .01% of the market there isn't any financial incentive.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



SvennoJ on 03 March 2014
alabtrosMyster said:

I think this may be slightly true if you only look at your character models taken out of context, I think the fact that you can have games like Tomb Raider:DE running at 1080p/~60fps on the PS4 along with enhanced textures and particle effects is a pretty big deal, it does not shine that much on screenshots (but it does) but once you have seen it in action there is no going back, same for Battlefield 4 (which is not even 1080p) ... obvisouly the true next gen titles like Killzone and Knack look even better and they can't be mistaken for great looking PS360 games, as well as running better than their contemporaries.

So yes, what you see on the screen may look somewhat close to what you had before, but it also runs much better when you see it in action, even the 30fps games have much less drops than they had on the previous generation of console.

We gained temporal resolution, which makes all games much better in motion than trowing in a million polygons.

Agreed.

Screenshots far from tell the whole story. Before we had dynamic shadows you couldn't see anyone approaching around a corner. Now lighting techniques get better and better you can start telling movement from subtle light changes. More releastic physics and animated environments add a lot to immersion. Before last gen trees and grass were static, nowadays most at least have some swaying motion. There is still a long way to go before we get things looking like this as standard. Rain is still very simplistic in games. Destructability is still in it's infancy, blowing sand, mud, snow, wind. Indeed polygon models and texture resolution won't be a lot different at the end of this gen, games will look fresh again with a whole array of more realistic lighting and effects.

And what can it do for gameplay, maybe a realistic Mantracker game, could be great asynchronous multiplayer. Rally racing could become a lot more interesting when you're actually interacting with the terrain. It all adds to immersion, living breathing worlds are the next target.



ctalkeb on 03 March 2014
nitekrawler1285 said:
ctalkeb said:
nitekrawler1285 said:

The writing of any blockbuster film is often horrible.  Luckily with movies in particular there are far more and better ways of expressing your intent. As you'll see in my above post there are reasons for the film to resonate with international audiences outside of how it looked. 

Those are your reasons, however.  In hindsight, and indeed at the time, the visuals of the movie were what constituted its "watercooler" power. Your claim above this about women going to see Bullock/Clooney no matter the rest of the movie is also more than just slightly sexist, and also probably not true.

If you can show me some data showing the number of households whom even have a 1080 p television of the right size(I believe 42'' or larger) to percieve the difference between 720 and 1080 and I will stop hollering diminishing returns.  You just can't. HD TV penetration is supposed to be 50% by 2016 last I heard. Though those do not make a distinction in HD level.  

1: as you've kindly pointed out below, screen size doesn not matter, but rather how close you are to the screen realtive to its size. The market penetration number you quote is worldwide - including BRIC countries. The number for the U.S. was 75% at the end of 2012. Where I live, I'd guess the number is higher.

Generally speaking, if you sit more than 10 feet away from your TV, and your display isn’t bigger than 50 inches diagonally, you won’t be able to tell the difference between 720 and 1080. 

This rate is caculated for film/TV content that benefits from almost infinite antialiasing. It cannot be compared to native resolution rendering.

Most customers don't have the equipment needed so they can even notice the difference. It's where technology is in consumer homes that clearly state most people can't precieve the difference. Irrespective of my or your own anecdotal evidence. 

Most consumers actually do have the equipment, as I've shown above.

However, when was this resolution thing even part of what we were talking about?

I have already said that diminishing returns are real enough, but that you can't point to them in one field, such as polygon count or resolution, and conclude that we've reached that point in all fields.


I assume that advertisements and marketing are the way in which most are informed about films. Otherwise it seems silly to waste money on generating them or paying for them to be shown before other films. But yes the preview is what caused my decision and I'm sure no one elses.  

You can think that as sexist as you like.  I just hope advertisers don't have the same ideology as yours or they would waste tons of dollars advertising films like Miss Congeniality to the macho 16-25 year old male audience and that would be a waste.  Tehe.  I was just talking to my mom on the phone. She thinks it's funny that you would think she is sexist too.  

 You show that you cherry picked numbers to inflate your argument. Games sell world wide.  Even if I was just talking about the US only up until recently did larger 40+ inch HDTv's get popular. Meaning that unless people are sitting right in front of the TV ie 2- 4 feet it's still a practically indistinguishable. You aren't supposed to be that close to your TV to avoid eyestrain and headaches. So it looks to me like most consumers don't have the right equipment.  Though obviously we have different ideas of whom that market is since you just assume the US.    

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/playstation-4-exclusive-deep-down-delayed-to-improve-graphics/1100-6417593/ This is the reason I am in this thread.  Developers pointlessly adding cost to games that no one can see.  There can't be any differene greater than 720 to 1080 in this specific instance.  Even that difference is one that at this time the majority of possible consumers probably can't see.  That is why I have focused on that difference in particular.  

When it comes to art and entertainment that humans consume because we are only capable of perceiving so much with our eyes I can easily say that in primarily visual mediums we have hit diminishing returns across the board.  Unless you want people to start producing content for resolutions that nobody has displays capable of displaying for the next 15 years but .01% of the market there isn't any financial incentive.  

I'm not qualified to say whether your mom is sexist or not, suffice it to say that it's fully possible to be a woman and sexist without being aware of it.

I also don't understand why you're so hung up on resolutions, even if you're wrong (and you are), that's not really what we're talking about.

Just read the post by SvennoJ.



Around the Network
nitekrawler1285 on 03 March 2014
SvennoJ said:
nitekrawler1285 said:
 

I went to see Gravity myself.  I went because the preview looked to be full of thrilling possible life threatening situatinos which it was so most certainly the latter. Women would have gone to see Sandra Bullock and George Clooney without the graphics.

The Oscar Committee and critics take pride in talkikng about things that aren't really a big draw to mainstream audiences all the time. This is why I stopped taking reviews seriously and just judging on the previews about a decade ago.  So you can stop using both to try to convince me as they haven't for some time.

Having your land stolen and way of life deprecated by white men(America, Corporations, Whatever metaphor for imperialism you'd like) is something that almost every culture the world over can understand and identify with strongly.  It's a nigh universal tale. Making them blue instead of any shade of red, yellow, brown or black or any human skin color and you have a way of depicting a situation that never ever get's talked about ever because it's socially inappropriate to speak about.  Even when talking about a movie that depicts it. The science fiction lense makes it almost cute and cuts through the drama that normally surrounds the issue.  Avatar's subject matter is profound and merits revisiting for many non caucasian people and thus it has a world wide appeal that few movies will be able to match. I think that focus on imperialism is what causes the appeal for world wide audiences.  

I don't expect a film critic or even most American audiences to get that.  The purposeful building of the Na'vi to resemble various indigenous people's by Cameron's experts.  Here is some great stuff from the wiki that might help others understand how this film appeals specifically to non US and caucasion audiences:

Cameron said "that maybe in the enjoying of it makes you think a little bit about the way you interact with nature and your fellow man". He goes on to say "that even though there are good humans within the film, the humans "represent what we know to be the parts of ourselves that are trashing our world and maybe condemning ourselves to a grim future".[80]

Cameron acknowledges that Avatar implicitly criticizes the United States' role in the Iraq War and the impersonal nature of mechanized warfare in general. In reference to the use of the term shock and awe in the film, Cameron said, "We know what it feels like to launch the missiles. We don't know what it feels like for them to land on our home soil, not in America."[81] He said in later interviews, "… I think it's very patriotic to question a system that needs to be corralled …"[82] and, "The film is definitely not anti-American."[83] A scene in the film portrays the violent destruction of the towering Na'vi Hometree, which collapses in flames after a missile attack, coating the landscape with ash and floating embers. Asked about the scene's resemblance to the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, Cameron said he had been "surprised at how much it did look likeSeptember 11".[81]

 

Tons of reasons for international audiences to love the film that most mainstream films don't touch. Cameron managed to do it with most people having seen it and still being none the wiser. If you want to simply say Avatar is just a pretty film and that is even the largest part of it's appeal fine you are free to think so.  I think that questioning imperialism in today's society is something the world over is concerned and cares about because it is where most of our defined cultures come from. That in that way Avatar can be seen as something touching on the zeitgeist and resonating well with international audiences making it more appealing than mainstream films before it.  

My wife doesn't want to see gravity, she thinks it's dumb. I bought the blu-ray, the 2 hour technical behind the scenes footage is definitely worth watching, and it looks great. Although it pains me that all this tech and budget gets wasted on something so simple, Alfonso Cuoron could have taken on the humanities first interstellar space flight in Stephen Baxter's Ark. Very interesting and pretty realistic plot. Anyway I'm glad he got the oscars, he was owed due for Children of men.

And yes I got all that from Avatar but found it very simplistic and heavy handed. There are much better movies and documentaries dealing with the subject matter. But maybe I'm overestimating the intelligence of the general audience, it was a weird realization too when I found out that most people (still) don't see the satire in Starship troopers. So maybe the straight forward approach of Avatar better fits the mainstream. I found Starship troopers much better though.
Avatar is just Dances with wolves with colorful explosions and a happy ending, with stuff from Lawrence of Arabia as well. (Now that's a visual feast, looks amazing on blu-ray mastered in 4K restored from 70mm) Avatar doesn't come anywhere near those 2.

I stand by my reason that most people went to see it for escapism, not to get riled up over current affairs.

I guess I'm just from a sexist family lol.  

I can concur that most wanted to see it for escapism and not politics.

 I think that elements of the design of the heroes and their situation were simply far more appealing(and less excluding) in Avatar than any other comparable film with similar plot in the mainstream eye. Making the characters like many indigenous peoples made it easy for people of any culture to instantly identify with the Na'vi and escape.  Making them blue as opposed to any normal human skin color means you don't exclude any group at all.  So they weren't trying to get riled up over current affairs.  They were tricked into empathizing and escaping into it.  

Imperialism and it's effects aren't just current affairs.  It's the affairs of man since man's time has begun.  You really dont get much older than imperialism.  Any place that has a theater for people to go see Avatar has likely been touched by an imperialist nation.  So chances are more likely it can appeal. 

I love Lawrence of Arabia.  I've seen it 3x in 70mm at a local theater that plays classics during the summer.  I prefer Avatar personally though.  Surely you can see how the Na'vi are more appealing than say bugs in Startship Troopers or Ender's game or even the more direct ones like dances with wolves and pocahontas or fern gully.  The Na'vi are basically meta people designed to appeal to all of our positive image of whatever your genetic legacy happens to be.  



Mr Puggsly on 03 March 2014
theprof00 said:
Have you ever seen shadow of the colossus...or god of war 2, ff12, odin sphere?
The games actually look better than early ps360 games.


What early PS360 games are you talking about?

Those games you mentioned do not look better than Condemned, Quake IV, or CoD2.

If you like their art style, well that's a different story.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

nitekrawler1285 on 03 March 2014
ctalkeb said:
nitekrawler1285 said:
ctalkeb said:
nitekrawler1285 said:

The writing of any blockbuster film is often horrible.  Luckily with movies in particular there are far more and better ways of expressing your intent. As you'll see in my above post there are reasons for the film to resonate with international audiences outside of how it looked. 

Those are your reasons, however.  In hindsight, and indeed at the time, the visuals of the movie were what constituted its "watercooler" power. Your claim above this about women going to see Bullock/Clooney no matter the rest of the movie is also more than just slightly sexist, and also probably not true.

If you can show me some data showing the number of households whom even have a 1080 p television of the right size(I believe 42'' or larger) to percieve the difference between 720 and 1080 and I will stop hollering diminishing returns.  You just can't. HD TV penetration is supposed to be 50% by 2016 last I heard. Though those do not make a distinction in HD level.  

1: as you've kindly pointed out below, screen size doesn not matter, but rather how close you are to the screen realtive to its size. The market penetration number you quote is worldwide - including BRIC countries. The number for the U.S. was 75% at the end of 2012. Where I live, I'd guess the number is higher.

Generally speaking, if you sit more than 10 feet away from your TV, and your display isn’t bigger than 50 inches diagonally, you won’t be able to tell the difference between 720 and 1080. 

This rate is caculated for film/TV content that benefits from almost infinite antialiasing. It cannot be compared to native resolution rendering.

Most customers don't have the equipment needed so they can even notice the difference. It's where technology is in consumer homes that clearly state most people can't precieve the difference. Irrespective of my or your own anecdotal evidence. 

Most consumers actually do have the equipment, as I've shown above.

However, when was this resolution thing even part of what we were talking about?

I have already said that diminishing returns are real enough, but that you can't point to them in one field, such as polygon count or resolution, and conclude that we've reached that point in all fields.


I assume that advertisements and marketing are the way in which most are informed about films. Otherwise it seems silly to waste money on generating them or paying for them to be shown before other films. But yes the preview is what caused my decision and I'm sure no one elses.  

You can think that as sexist as you like.  I just hope advertisers don't have the same ideology as yours or they would waste tons of dollars advertising films like Miss Congeniality to the macho 16-25 year old male audience and that would be a waste.  Tehe.  I was just talking to my mom on the phone. She thinks it's funny that you would think she is sexist too.  

 You show that you cherry picked numbers to inflate your argument. Games sell world wide.  Even if I was just talking about the US only up until recently did larger 40+ inch HDTv's get popular. Meaning that unless people are sitting right in front of the TV ie 2- 4 feet it's still a practically indistinguishable. You aren't supposed to be that close to your TV to avoid eyestrain and headaches. So it looks to me like most consumers don't have the right equipment.  Though obviously we have different ideas of whom that market is since you just assume the US.    

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/playstation-4-exclusive-deep-down-delayed-to-improve-graphics/1100-6417593/ This is the reason I am in this thread.  Developers pointlessly adding cost to games that no one can see.  There can't be any differene greater than 720 to 1080 in this specific instance.  Even that difference is one that at this time the majority of possible consumers probably can't see.  That is why I have focused on that difference in particular.  

When it comes to art and entertainment that humans consume because we are only capable of perceiving so much with our eyes I can easily say that in primarily visual mediums we have hit diminishing returns across the board.  Unless you want people to start producing content for resolutions that nobody has displays capable of displaying for the next 15 years but .01% of the market there isn't any financial incentive.  

I'm not qualified to say whether your mom is sexist or not, suffice it to say that it's fully possible to be a woman and sexist without being aware of it.

I also don't understand why you're so hung up on resolutions, even if you're wrong (and you are), that's not really what we're talking about.

Just read the post by SvennoJ.

I read his post.  Still unconvinced. Games aren't supposed to be accurate simulations of life.  If that's what people wanted they would go outside. Outside of those producing an engine or middleware such an investment is fiscally irresponsible.

I'm hung up on resolutions because you can't see a video game without some sort of display.  So if the display isn't up to allowing them to see  the difference then how can such improvements even be percieved let alone percieved as a worthwhile investment. 

Titan's Fall seems to be a critical and fan darling. It has not one single of those improvements you are talking about.  It's in 720p on a decade old engine.  Probably because they aren't necessary for making a fun game.  

 



theprof00 on 03 March 2014
Mr Puggsly said:
theprof00 said:
Have you ever seen shadow of the colossus...or god of war 2, ff12, odin sphere?
The games actually look better than early ps360 games.


What early PS360 games are you talking about?

Those games you mentioned do not look better than Condemned, Quake IV, or CoD2.

If you like their art style, well that's a different story.

pugg stay focussed.

Just as there are ps360 games that look better than psOne games, there are ps2xbox games that look better than ps360 games.

I wasn't talking ALL games. The entire point I've been going on about was how This gen there are already games that look better than ps360, but some do not because late ps360 games are a stark contrast to early ps360 games. If you don't understand I don't know how else to explain it.

Picture it like an overlap.

Quality marked with Q's

PS2-QQQQQQQQ------------------------------------
PS3--------------QQQQQQQQQQ------------------
PS4------------------------------QQQQQQQQQQQ

horizontal axis is from lower to higher graphical quality



theprof00 on 03 March 2014
endimion said:

exactly my point I was making the other day... about graphic difference this gen.... if we expect both console to improve graphically over the course of this gen (which should happen on both side...) I'm pretty sure even if the technical gap widdens between PS4 and XBO it will be less and less noticeable to the human eye especially the untrained one not activelly looking for the differences in quality....

now that being said we have also to consider people didin't upgrade their TVs for this gen like they probably did with last gen.... and probably won't do it  this gen....

but next gen if they output in 4k natively and OLED 80" 4K display become more accessible and decrease at a steady pace over the course of the PS5 and XBOX ULTIMATE :P we could see a new jump...

That's kind of a hard point to make.

Differences won't matter this gen, but they will next gen?

Diminishing returns would say the opposite.