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

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

I can still go back as far as decent looking games from last gen where 3D graphics are concerned , and I actually really liked the Vita's graphics, so I can go further than that I guess. I usually find it kinda shocking to go 2 gens back and revisit the GC, Xbox, and slightly more so, the PS2. Not that I do that much.

So, I'm not really concerned with the significance of the leap, but at the same time, onwards and upwards.



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."

Around the Network

To me, we're getting to the point where the graphical leaps seem way less big. Even if the spec differences in the consoles are just as big if not bigger than ever, the returns don't seem as noticeable.
NES-SNES-N64-GCN. Look at that line of consoles. You take a still image or gameplay footage from any of them and you see a massive leap with each console. Then GCN to Wii was not anything too significant for a successor. But then the Wii U looked far better than the Wii. And again with the Switch, it doesn't look like a successor to eye.
But even an PS4 doesn't seem to be as much of a step up from a PS3 as earlier PlayStations.
Maybe my eyes and attention to detail suck, but it seems 7th to 8th to 9th Gen doesn't seem to be anywhere near as much of a leap as say 5th to 6th to 7th.
Due to the fact that Nintendo is very behind on the graphics and spec front, I do want a big leap on the Switch's successor. To maintain the hybrid nature, it can't be anything too insane. Let's be real, the Switch 2 won't even be close in specs to the Xbox Series X and PS5. But Switch 2 really needs to perform at least the level of a base PS4, if not a PS4 Pro. Another Nintendo console in-between the graphics of a PS3 and PS4 isn't going to cut it.



Lifetime Sales Predictions 

Switch: 151 million (was 73, then 96, then 113 million, then 125 million, then 144 million)

PS5: 115 million (was 105 million) Xbox Series S/X: 57 million (was 60 million, then 67 million)

PS4: 120 mil (was 100 then 130 million, then 122 million) Xbox One: 51 mil (was 50 then 55 mil)

3DS: 75.5 mil (was 73, then 77 million)

"Let go your earthly tether, enter the void, empty and become wind." - Guru Laghima

hinch said:
Slownenberg said:

Honestly I feel like this disproves your point! Sure the PS4 game looks quite a bit better than the PS3 game, and sure a PS5 game is gonna look a quite a bit better than the PS4 game. But look how fantastic the PS3 game looks! While there is clearly a difference, both of them look great - both of them look realistic! So, does the bit higher level of realism in the PS4 game do anything to actually make the game better? Maybe at best it is a bit more atmospheric and that's it. From those two videos I wouldn't say it makes much of a difference at all to the game. It's just a bit prettier. Sure I'd take the prettier version of the slightly less pretty but still great looking version, but it isn't a huge difference and doesn't really affect the game at all.

There's a huge amount of difference with level of detail between TLOU 1 and 2 even from those small clips. I guess we all have our standards. Being primarily a PC gamer I'm just used to playing stuff in the highest quality. I value graphics as part of a package. Doesn't mean I value over it other things, it doesn't make a game more fun I agree. I just prefer if a game didn't look like crap and drag me out of immersion. I still can happily play a Super Mario 3D Land on 3DS and boot up a game on Switch but it would be a better experience on a bigger screen and if i was higher res and not so pixelated when I plug in my Switch into a big screen.

Which is kinda the whole point of this thread. Not saying the next gen won't have a noticeable graphical upgrade to this gen (especially for those who don't play 4k with the current upgraded Ps/Xbox systems), but just saying how much does it really matter at this point. Sure I like seeing prettier versions of the same game, but we're past the point where it makes a difference to the quality of the game for the vast majority of games.

Like at this point, I look at Breath of the Wild and Horizon Zero Dawn and I think to myself I can't wait for a Zelda game on next gen Nintendo to have the graphical fidelity of Horizon ZD because having that level of detail in the environment would greatly increase the feeling of the world being alive and full, but then a jump from that graphical level to say PS5 level doesn't excite me in the same way at all. Sure it'd be cripser moving up to 4k and textures would be more detailed, but look at what Horizon ZD already looks like...improving graphics beyond that is gonna fall into the "oh cool its a little be prettier" category and that's it.

Again, every generation the same thing is repeated. Just wait several years the games will come and we can make a judgement then.

I look at the Star Citizen video on the second page of this thread and I think okay yeah that looks better but a current gen version of that would be the exact same game just a bit less crisp and slightly less detailed to the point where it wouldn't make a difference. Or I look at the low res FF7 remake texture pics from the first page of this thread and think to myself: "really?! this is what people care about now, nitpicking around looking for any resolutions in a game that aren't super high rez? Who cares?! How does this in anyway affect your enjoyment of the game if you have to go searching for a non-high-rez texture here and there just to prove a point that the graphics aren't perfect?!"

Star Citizen is whole another level of detail. The scope of the game is so huge and hasn't been seen before in a Sim. You can see kilometres in front of you. There so much stuff on there that it requires and SSD to run correctly. Its not all just resolution but the amount of level of detail these developers put into a game as well. More horsepower means that developers can not only push graphics but worlds that are well beyond what you can create on current gen hardware.

That's my point though, thanks for perfectly illuminating it! The big difference is extra little details or draw distance. That ain't a generational leap!

For the vast majority of games all that means is it looks a bit prettier but doesn't do anything the previous gen couldn't. And I mean we basically already had that happen from the previous gen to the current gen. At this point generational leaps are basically just hey we can fit in a few more details in an already very detailed environment. Not saying that is bad, improving graphics is a generally a good thing, but its just not much to get excited about for new system launches. Not to mention the fact that if you don't have a 4k TV you lose a lot of the tech leap right there.

Maybe you primarily being a PC gamer explains it. It has always seemed that people really into PC gaming (constantly needing the best hardware to set games to the highest settings) care a lot more about every last graphical detail than most people. Doesn't change the fact that the difference between next gen and current gen is basically gonna be better lighting, already very detailed settings become a bit more detailed, and games move from HD to 4k, though obviously that last one is basically a non-factor for anyone who has the upgrade PS4/XBO.

At some point nitpicking between super fantastic graphics and super super fantastic graphics becomes something that just doesn't hold much sway. Though obviously it still does for PC gamers, which is fine. But the thread is just kinda pointing out how while there are still graphic whores out there haha. And hey I used to be one up until we started getting great looking 3D games on the Gamecube and Xbox. I remember thinking to myself playing some games like Rogue Squadron 2 and Ninja Gaiden that graphics had kinda reached a turning point of diminishing returns.

I just looked up video of Rogue Squadron 2 and yes that game still looks pretty freakin fantastic 19 years later. Sure it looks blurry in Standard Def now that I'm used to HD but thats the main graphical "downgrade" I notice. Put it in HD, add high res textures, better particle effects, and add more details to ground surfaces or spaceships would all make it look prettier sure, but really the only thing in the last 19 years of tech advancement that would make any real difference to the game itself would be the ability to add more ships on screen for larger dog fights and maybe a rock solid 60fps for faster action, that's about it in 2 decades of advancement.

In the past two decades the main four achievements of technological progress that have really made a difference in gameplay have been online play, motion control (though that's now become more niche), the advancement of mobile tech allowing a handheld like Switch to have nearly console level power, and graphical upgrades that allowed for large area games like open world games or big battle royale games to be feasible. See how only one of those is graphics related and it has nothing to do with higher resolutions or adding in a few more details each generation.

The current state of super realistic graphics being the norm means that an ever increasing amount of the gaming audience finds small graphical differences less and less important.



mZuzek said:
GhaudePhaede010 said:
Part of the issue here is that instead of Sony and Microsoft waiting until the next generation to release 4K capable consoles, they upgraded their current generation consoles. This now makes the leap to the next generation seem even smaller than the leap from the Playstation to Playstation 2.

PS1 to PS2 was a small leap?!

Relative to the generational leap preceding or following it, yes. SNES/Genesis to PS1/N64/Saturn was huge. PS1/N64/Saturn to PS2/Gamecube/XBOX was not nearly as big. It was a leap, but not nearly as big a leap. And then PS2 to PS3/XBOX 360 was gigantic. And in this case, the leap will be smaller than the PS1 to PS2 which is to say, not very big at all.



01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01001001 01111001 01101111 01101100 01100001 01101000 00100001 00100000 01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01000101 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101001 01110100 01111001 00100001 00100000

For a Next Generation Console, there should absolutely be a very satisfying leap in Graphics.

For a Revision, an increase in Resolution, Frame Rate, and overall System Speeed is perfectly fine.

In my opinion a Next Generation console has to have a Wow factor of a Graphical Leap. That is the point of a New Generation. If a New Generation Console is not delivering a Wow factor, and showcasing never seen before capabilities, that bad for the industry.

Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo can put out enhanced revisions multiple times, with increased performance, and minor improvements to Resolution and Frame Rate time and time again, and that is perfectly fine. I would have no problem with 3 or 4 revisions of PS5 and XBSX between now and 2030. When the PS6 and XB5 drop in 2030 though, I expect to be blown away by the graphical capabilities.



Stop hate, let others live the life they were given. Everyone has their problems, and no one should have to feel ashamed for the way they were born. Be proud of who you are, encourage others to be proud of themselves. Learn, research, absorb everything around you. Nothing is meaningless, a purpose is placed on everything no matter how you perceive it. Discover how to love, and share that love with everything that you encounter. Help make existence a beautiful thing.

Kevyn B Grams
10/03/2010 

KBG29 on PSN&XBL

Around the Network
Shadow1980 said:

@Bolded. That's what I meant when I said things have been "mostly just a series of general refinements." Advances in computing power have been amazing and have resulted in a lot of improvements. But for the most part they have not fundamentally changed the medium.

The NES was a major jump from the likes of the 2600 and Intellivision. Not only were the graphics far superior, the kind of games they were able to develop were amazing. Many genres were either born on or were able to come into their own on the NES. Platformers really took off, giving us amazing titles like Mario, Metroid, and Mega Man. The JRPG began to flourish with titles like Dragon Quest. There were amazing adventure games like Zelda that were only possible on a third-gen console like the NES. Over its life cycle, developers were able to squeeze a lot more out of the NES; while Super Mario Bros. was a big leap from Pitfall and Astrosmash, later NES titles had graphics that were just that much more amazing than SMB's were.

Then the 16-bit era came about and blew all that out of the water. Game worlds were not only a lot prettier, but the increases in computer power allowed developers to move the medium forward. Sonic's speed was only possible due to the power of the Genesis/Mega Drive. Games like Super Metroid and Link to the Past were larger, more complex, and more refined games than their NES originals. JRPGs really hit their stride here, as they were able to have bigger worlds, more characters, and deeper narratives; while NES classics required padding in the form of level grinding to keep it from being too short, the SNES's first major JRPG, Final Fantasy IV, didn't require level grinding, but still managed to give us a 40+ hour adventure due simply to its sheer scope. The SNES's Mode 7 ability was able to pull off quasi-3D effects to great effect, which made excellent racing titles like F-Zero and Mario Kart possible.

But gaming ran into a "where do we go from here?" situation. The 16-bit era saw pretty much the same kind of games we saw in the 8-bit era. Platformers, JRPGs, beat-'em-ups, shoot-'em-ups. Even versus fighting games, which came into their own with Street Fighter II, Mortal Kombat, etc., date back to 1984's Karate Champ.

The advent of true 3D polygon-based graphics allowed for things to progress from there. New genres and game experiences were able to proliferate, and old genres were reinvented. The fifth generation gave us titles like Super Mario 64, Tomb Raider, Ocarina of Time, and GoldenEye 007. None of these games were possible on older hardware. The switch to 3D didn't mean much for games where it didn't really impact gameplay (e.g., turn-based JRPGs) or that belonged to genres that had been trying to emulate 3D for a long time (e.g., racing games), but it drastically impacted platformers, fighting games, and action-adventure games, and allowed for first-person shooters to be a thing.

The sixth generation came into being as the 20th century yielded to the 21st, and evolved things even further. We saw Halo do things no previous console FPS did, giving us believable AI and massive outdoors environments as well as a deeper narrative. As you mentioned, we saw open world games like Grand Theft Auto III emerge, giving players a massive free-roaming game world with incredible amounts of choice in what one can do and where one could go. GTA's popularization of this This has parallels to the 2D era, where game worlds started small and got bigger and more detailed as the tech improved. And the open worlds of the 21st century have 20th-century antecedents of their own. The Legend of Zelda had a free-roaming non-linear world back in 1986, and there are even older example of games with open-world elements. Open world is an old concept, even if the tech has made for much bigger worlds. Sure, the sprawling game worlds of GTAV or RDR2 couldn't have been done on the PS1 or N64, but the increasing size of game worlds falls under the "gradual improvements over time" thing.

Aside from the increased feasibility of open-world games in Gen 6, gaming was already hitting another "where do we go from here?" wall by the turn of the century. You say Gen 8 had nothing new? That's been the case for a while. While the Dreamcast was the first console with built-in online capacity, and the Xbox the first to support broadband out of the box, with Xbox Live (and Halo 2 in particular) pushing further innovations for online play on consoles, online/networked gaming has been around since at least the 90s, maybe earlier (see Doom, Quake, Neverwinter Nights, EverQuest, etc.). LANs allowed multiplayer to be played on multiple screens instead of a single screen, and online moved things from local to global, allowing for a larger player base, so even that was a natural evolutionary progression.

As for motion controls, while Gen 7 did see the first successful attempts of that tech with the Wii and, later on, the Kinect, and while it may have seemed like the sole innovation of last generation, it wasn't a truly new way to play. There had already been several attempts at motion controls since the late 80s (e.g., the Power Glove, U-Force, and Sega Activator). Sure, they failed, but motion controls as a concept are old news. The Wii was the first time anybody was able to do motion controls right, but they were still nothing new, and they've been more or less a dead end in game development outside of VR, with Nintendo scaling back tremendously on them after the Wii and MS flat-out abandoning Kinect.

In each case, while technological advancements have allowed for many things that simply were not possible in older generations, the history of gaming has been one of gradual stepwise evolution, not a series of revolutions. The way we play games has not changed fundamentally. In addition to the examples above about seemingly newer innovations actually being quite old, most genres have existed since the 80s and some since the 70s, and even the ones that are heavily associated with the 3D era have older 2D antecedents. Much of the 2D-to-3D shift was basically developers figuring out how to translate existing genres to 3D. 3D-era shooters in general, both first- and third-person, are arguably evolved from run-and-gun shmups like Contra, just shifted to a 3D world and a new perspective (look at how easily Metroid shifted from a side-scroller to an FPS). Games like God of War and Bayonetta descended from old school beat-'em-ups like Double Dragon, River City Ransom, and Final Fight. Even things that essentially require 3D or some approximation of it aren't new; first-person games in general have been a thing since Maze War and Battlezone. There has been very little in the way of major game-changing innovations since the turn of the century. All the big innovations have been around for quite some time, and game developers have basically been building upon all those old preexisting concepts. There is nothing new under the sun.

This isn't a knock against the industry. It's simply a description of how things are. Things have improved drastically. I've been playing video games since the mid 80s, before "Nintendo" became a household name, and the progress from old Intellivision, Atari, and classic arcade games to the high-definition worlds of today has been amazing to watch. The gameplay experiences we have today as well as the accompanying visuals and audio have evolved remarkably. But ultimately they're just that: evolutionary. Writ large, each new generation of consoles have been "better graphics boxes," but that's not a bad thing. It's a good thing.

Agree for the most part that its always been evolutionary steps. Though I would say the jump agree the jump to the NES was revolutionary and I would say the jump from 2D to 3D was revolutionary because it really did create completely different games. Even if many of the games were of the same genres, 3D meant totally different play and entirely different immersive worlds than 2D for lots of those genres.

But if you look at (let's just use Playstation for naming gens here cuz its easiest) the PS2 to PS3 to PS4 to PS5 gens it's basically like if the industry had stuck with 2D after the SNES and tried to just upgrade 2D graphics for the next 4 generations. Sure we'd be like oh cool the 2D graphics look a little better than last gen which are a little better than the one before which are a little better than the one before. PS1 is basic but not primitive 3D like NES was basic but not primitive 2D (I guess the FX chip 3D games like Star Fox would be akin to Atari/Intellivision), then we got pretty good graphics with the PS2/SNES 3D/2D generations, beyond that sure the graphics improve but what those graphics do in terms of advancing the medium starts getting stale - and so going into the next gen that's almost 20 years of graphics no longer doing much to evolve games other than just making them a bit prettier. With next gen about to come out, you're about to have 4 generations in which not only are the leaps getting smaller and smaller but the differences they make to as a video games medium are getting smaller and smaller to the point where there isn't a whole lot of difference between a PS2 and a PS5 game in most genres other than it looking prettier.



GhaudePhaede010 said:
mZuzek said:

PS1 to PS2 was a small leap?!

Relative to the generational leap preceding or following it, yes. SNES/Genesis to PS1/N64/Saturn was huge. PS1/N64/Saturn to PS2/Gamecube/XBOX was not nearly as big. It was a leap, but not nearly as big a leap. And then PS2 to PS3/XBOX 360 was gigantic. And in this case, the leap will be smaller than the PS1 to PS2 which is to say, not very big at all.

Gotta agree with mZuzek here...that is an odd stance to take.

PS1/N64/Saturn to the next gen was HUGE! You went from having very basic plain environments and quite a lot of graphical artifacts to having vastly less glitchy or blurry or foggy worlds, much larger worlds with a lot more going on, and for the first time a graphical detail level that could be called realistic.

PS2/GC/Xbox gen to PS3/360 gen was fairly big but not nearly as much, and half of it was just the raise in resolution to HD. I'd say that gen we went from fairly realistic graphics to very realistic graphics which is a significantly smaller leap than going from very basic 3D with lots of artifacts to fairly realistic looking games.



Slownenberg said:
GhaudePhaede010 said:

Relative to the generational leap preceding or following it, yes. SNES/Genesis to PS1/N64/Saturn was huge. PS1/N64/Saturn to PS2/Gamecube/XBOX was not nearly as big. It was a leap, but not nearly as big a leap. And then PS2 to PS3/XBOX 360 was gigantic. And in this case, the leap will be smaller than the PS1 to PS2 which is to say, not very big at all.

Gotta agree with mZuzek here...that is an odd stance to take.

PS1/N64/Saturn to the next gen was HUGE! You went from having very basic plain environments and quite a lot of graphical artifacts to having vastly less glitchy or blurry or foggy worlds, much larger worlds with a lot more going on, and for the first time a graphical detail level that could be called realistic.

PS2/GC/Xbox gen to PS3/360 gen was fairly big but not nearly as much, and half of it was just the raise in resolution to HD. I'd say that gen we went from fairly realistic graphics to very realistic graphics which is a significantly smaller leap than going from very basic 3D with lots of artifacts to fairly realistic looking games.

Yeah, that seems quite revisionist. The jump to 720p and 1080p being downplayed by you is insane. We did not just have prettier graphics, we had television hardware boosts to resolution to accommodate advancing video game technology. Something we had not had before that point. For the first time, we felt like home consoles were catching PC's. That jump was way bigger than the PS1 to PS2 jump. How is this debatable?

Going from 2D gaming to 3D gaming was a gigantic leap. It seems you are focused on slight upgrades over the totality - which is fine. There was nothing from the PS2 generation that hit like Mario 64 hit. The leap from Super Mario World to Mario 64 was massive. Far, far bigger than the leap from PS1 to PS2. I cannot believe I have to explain this. But to say the leap was as big as the HD leap or from 2D to 3D is, at least as someone really active during those times, undervaluing those generational leaps.

Playing Mario 64 felt like playing the next generation. Same with Gears of War. Playing PS2 games felt like a jump, certainly. But it did not feel like playing Mario 64 after the SNES or Gears of War after the original XBOX on a 720p monitor. Not even close.

Last edited by GhaudePhaede010 - on 08 May 2020

01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01001001 01111001 01101111 01101100 01100001 01101000 00100001 00100000 01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01000101 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101001 01110100 01111001 00100001 00100000

GhaudePhaede010 said:
Slownenberg said:

Gotta agree with mZuzek here...that is an odd stance to take.

PS1/N64/Saturn to the next gen was HUGE! You went from having very basic plain environments and quite a lot of graphical artifacts to having vastly less glitchy or blurry or foggy worlds, much larger worlds with a lot more going on, and for the first time a graphical detail level that could be called realistic.

PS2/GC/Xbox gen to PS3/360 gen was fairly big but not nearly as much, and half of it was just the raise in resolution to HD. I'd say that gen we went from fairly realistic graphics to very realistic graphics which is a significantly smaller leap than going from very basic 3D with lots of artifacts to fairly realistic looking games.

Yeah, that seems quite revisionist. The jump to 720p and 1080p being downplayed by you is insane. We did not just have prettier graphics, we had television hardware boosts to resolution to accommodate advancing video game technology. Something we had not had before that point. For the first time, we felt like home consoles were catching PC's. That jump was way bigger than the PS1 to PS2 jump. How is this debatable?

Going from 2D gaming to 3D gaming was a gigantic leap. It seems you are focused on slight upgrades over the totality - which is fine. There was nothing from the PS2 generation that hit like Mario 64 hit. The leap from Super Mario World to Mario 64 was massive. Far, far bigger than the leap from PS1 to PS2. I cannot believe I have to explain this. But to say the leap was as big as the HD leap or from 2D to 3D is, at least as someone really active during those times, undervaluing those generational leaps.

Playing Mario 64 felt like playing the next generation. Same with Gears of War. Playing PS2 games felt like a jump, certainly. But it did not feel like playing Mario 64 after the SNES or Gears of War after the original XBOX on a 720p monitor. Not even close.

The jump from ps1 to ps2 was way bigger than ps2 to ps3. Ps1 to ps2 was going from things that looked vaguely like what they were supposed to look like to actually looking like what they were aiming for, an example of this is fifa on ps1 all the players looked nothing like who they were supposed to be but on ps2 they were actually recognisable. This was the first time that the art for a game actually looked kind of like the in game graphics.

The ps2 to ps3 is noticeable but feels much smaller. We are going from things looking like what they are supposed to look like to looking a bit more like what they are supposed to look like. Things just feel more polished and clearer on this gen.

Don't get me wrong it is still a big jump but I wouldn't consider it as big as ps1 to ps2

Last edited by pikashoe - on 08 May 2020

Yeah the jump from 5th gen to 6th gen was enormous. Put something like F-Zero X next to F-Zero GX for example.

The jump was 6th to 7th was about the same to me, also massive.

(Please tell me the images work, for some reason it seems every time I try to post picture here they don't work for some fucking reason)