Forums - Gaming Discussion - How much do you care about the graphical leap between consoles at this point?

The technical side talk have become the main points of each passing gen to understand the differences. The moment of magic where you could see this obvious leap between two generation is over since graphically, there isn't as much room to grow than it had at one point far long ago.

Tough, enhancements and changes can be made. It will never get the same initial feeling of discovery we had. It's the way it is.

I think most of these "wow" moments will have to pass by devs who actually wants to actualize visuals or other aspects that can advance in a meaningful way. Change the way we perceive certain aspects of a game.

Last edited by Mar1217 - on 07 May 2020

Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909 

Around the Network

I still care though probably not as much as before.

Saying that, the PS4 and Xbox One are pretty dated hardware now. Although both can produce some nice visuals they are clearing holding back graphics development. Console gamers been so used to 1080P/30fps as baseline, its going to be a shock once people get their hands on those consoles where games at 4k (or upsampled) and higher fps are the norm.

Ready to get blown away by Sony's first party studios. God of War 2 and whatever Naughtydog has cooking up next after TLOU 2.

So yeah. If this generation was incremental update with new games I would be a late adopter and go full hard into PC upgrades.

Just look at this clip for Star Citizen, just amazing. If Mass Effect 5 could look like this.. hrrngh.



Mar1217 said:

The technical side talk have become the main points of each passing gen to understand the differences. The moment of magic where you could see this obvious leap between two generation is over since graphically, there isn't as much room to grow than it had at one point far long ago.

Tough, enhancements and changes can be made. It will never get the same initial feeling of discovery we had. It's the way it is.

I think most of these "wow" moments will have to pass by devs who actually wants to actualize visuals or other aspects that can advance in a meaningful way. Change the way we perceive certain aspects of a game.

Talk what you want but even games like Killzone Shadow Fall and Ryse of Rome showed the graphical jump in a very easy to see way, Infamous Second Son is even better at it.

Perhaps you think like that because you weren't actively seeing the release of the systems like PS2 and PS3 when the gap between end gen PS1 games like FFIX jump to launch titles of PS2 or GoW2 on PS2 to launch titles on PS3 weren't as massive as you would believe when trying to compare launch title of PS1 with end of life PS2, etc. Because sometimes looking behind it looks different than what it really was.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

The last time a generation gap impressed me was seeing Gears of War 1 in action back in 2006; I could hardly believe what I was seeing was a video game, it was a quantum leap beyond anything I'd ever seen before. First game I ever saw running in HD I believe.

I am curious to see how PS5 and XSX look visually compared to the current gen, but I feel like the days of mind-blowing leaps between gens are probably over.

Who knows though, maybe I'll be surprised.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 07 May 2020

Not been impressed since the jump to HD and before that PS1 to Dreamcast. Now I play my Dreamcast with HDMI. I play Switch games on the TV. Games focus so much on realism and use the same tricks every gen to show how powerful it is. Look at this very real looking face that will never be in-game. Look at the shiny car. Just so bored of it now. I just wanna see the games I want to play. The Astral Chain knockoff looks fun but unless it comes to PS4 I'm not getting it. It doesn't look like a game that says I need to spend $500 to play it. Shenmue or Gears of War were those HOLY SHIT next-gen games and so far not seen that. Not seen that game that not only looks next-gen but the gameplay is only possible for next-gen.

I was more impressed getting an Arcade1up machine playing a really good version of TMNT Arcade at home after 31 years of waiting than I have been with next gen face tech demos.

Last edited by Leynos - on 07 May 2020

Bite my shiny metal Cockpit!

Around the Network

I think these kind of threads pop up prior to every new generation.

Just take a look at TLOU on PS3

and compare to the TLOU 2 on PS4. And this is for a 7 year old console.

TLOU 3????

I can't imagine what first party developers can do with orders of magnitude better specs can do with this. At the end of this upcoming gen 8th gen is going to look a little dated again.



hinch said:

I think these kind of threads pop up prior to every new generation.

Just take a look at TLOU on PS3

and compare to the TLOU 2 on PS4. And this is for a 7 year old console.

TLOU 3????

I can't imagine what first party developers can do with orders of magnitude better specs can do with this. At the end of this upcoming gen 8th gen is going to look a little dated again.

Yep, every new gen people say we hit the ceiling and nothing will impress us anymore, but they are always wrong. But well, some don't really care about graphics.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

I actually think cutting edge graphics make a game worse and we've been at that point for a while now.  Why?  Because gameplay has been butchered.  There is a lot less variety among the leading games now.  That is because the budgets are too high.  Studios can't take risks easily because there is too much at stake.  I think only first party studios take risks on their games, because the risks of launching hardware are even bigger.  So they take risks, but third party companies don't.  They play it safe and actually cut a lot of corners in other areas. 

A good example is Final Fantasy 7 Remake.  First they have to go back to their most successful Final Fantasy title, because the risks are too high.  But the game only goes through Midgar now, when that is about 15% of the original game.  That is just to illustrate how much you are missing because of the focus on graphics.  

Indies are still innovative, but they have extremely low budgets compared to AAA games.  I actually prefer something in the middle, a game that takes risks but still has a decent budget.  My "sweet spot" is probably Breath of the Wild.  To me the game looks beautiful, but I can tell they saved some money by not going for realistic graphics.  And more importantly the game took a lot of risks.  They could have easily alienated their core fanbase by taking risks that big.  Another good example is Demon's Souls.  Sony almost didn't publish this game originally, because it looked terrible when they first saw it.  The reality was they had spent almost all of their development time on the gameplay and they just fixed up the graphics in the end.  So the game looked good at the end, but graphics wasn't really their focus and their budget was a lot lower than other "big" games at that time.  I would like to see more of this from AAA studios.  Put the focus on gameplay and keep the graphics good but not cutting edge.

So, I'm not really looking forward to graphics upgrades, because that ends up hurting the gameplay a little bit more every generation.  I want to see more gameplay leaps and less graphical leaps.



DonFerrari said:

Yep, every new gen people say we hit the ceiling and nothing will impress us anymore, but they are always wrong. But well, some don't really care about graphics.

Yeah that's true.

And there's false misconception that better graphics =/= more realistic graphics. You can have better graphics and it will improve a games look, even with more stylized designs. Take Nintendo, hypothetically, if they decided to go power route for next gen for Switch 2.. you could have Mario running around in 4K with ray-tracing and it would look stunning.

Last edited by hinch - on 07 May 2020

I do.

There's still so much that can still be done when it comes to game visuals. Better lighting. Better draw distances and less noticeable object/texture popping/"LoD-ing." Better animations. Better textures. Just better quality all around, and running at better frame rates and higher resolutions than what was the norm just a decade ago.

I remember a lot of people thinking this gen wasn't going to be much of an improvement over last gen. They were wrong. Sure, some games leave a lot to be desired even by the standards of this generation, but the best-looking games of this generation blow away even the best-looking games of last generation. And it's only going to keep getting better.

When it comes to gameplay, things are mostly just a series of general refinements (most old 3D games had lousy controls and bad cameras, something that's much more rare these days) and games coming up with specific gimmicks to distinguish themselves. We're still basically playing just the same kinds of games we did 20 years ago. The last time we saw a truly major leap forward in game design was the switch from 2D to 3D. Video games have as a medium been marked by evolution, not by frequent radical advances that fundamentally reshape the medium itself. And that's perfectly fine. I'm honestly cool with each successive generation having been basically "better graphics boxes." There's no need to reinvent the wheel.