Do you refute what i'm capable of seeing? :p

I know that diminishing returns exist and the perceived jump is getting smaller, that isn't what I'm disputing. But that still doesn't make the gap from the two R&C that small. The game is still pre-Alpha and is already easy to see the general difference. Sure at first glance it may be reduced to more fur or the like, but when you see the two in movement at maximum quality the difference is noticeable.

I just put some of the games revealed for my wife to see and even on the 1080p presentation she said that it wouldn't run on PS4 (and didn't even need to show the crabs CGI used), and she doesn't understand the technical part she had that gut feeling just from the looks of the games she see me playing versus what was show.

Some of the users that aren't impressed say stuff like for then the level of graphics of PS3 is enough or that they can't see a difference from that to PS5 graphics in general and that the game would run there with small concessions, or that TW3 is almost on the same level among PS4Pro and Switch and that with DLSS Switch 2 will be about as equal IQ as PS5 and XSX. So it is very muddy water.

Stadia have a lot of issues that we don't need to discuss here =p

I understand that you aren't taking shots against Sony. But there isn't really a lack of investment on gameplay versus graphics. Sure the graphics got a lot of investment and need a lot of manpower to realize, but the gameplay isn't relegated because of that. The level design and gameplay elements are lot less manpower demanding than the execution of the graphics, so it isn't really a matter of lacking investiment. Would you say that a game like RDR2, GoW, UC, etc where they put hundred million dollars on the development they cheaped out on the gameplay? I can perfectly understand you not liking their gameplay or choices but that wasn't because they didn't invest. Similar stuff with AI, it have several issues and points to improve but it isn't because the CPU is just to weak or no investment is made. It is just harder and harder to impress and confuse us with the AI without making the game impossible to beat. That is because we have a lot of experience to know how to beat the AI.

Horizon Forbidden West:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq594XmpPBg

God of war:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0u_kAWLJOA

The different simply isn't big. Horizon Forbidden west failed to fix some issues atm, the trailer still has a lot of fog, most likely to hide the view distances, the tree leafs still looks flat.

Don't know what to tell you on Horizon 2 and GoW not showing a jump. But again you were discussing with CGI that his model looked worse than PS4 games.

i'd use his model as background if she had a bit more fat on the bones

I remember when the Xbox 360 came out and I played demos of its games at EBgames and K Mart I was really unimpressed by its graphics. It took till Gears of War before there was a game that made me go 'wow' when I saw footage or screenshots. Then 2007 had beautiful games like Bioshock, Assassin's Creed 1, COD 4. But for the first year the jump didn't seem so impressive. With Gen 8 it took even longer for games that seemed a true generation ahead to start coming out often. There were a few games like Ryse that were far more beautiful than anything a gen 7 system could do, but those tended to be more like tech demos than full-fledged games. The Order 1886 was the biggest offender in that regard. But by 2015 we started seeing games that really looked a generation above. By 2023 I expect the differences will seem huge to everyone.

The law of diminishing returns is real, but it has always been blunted by the development of new technologies and new techniques, Pixel shaders in gen 7 made characters and environments look like they had many more polygons than they actually did. Ambient occlusion provided a natural look that wasn't possible before. Ray-tracing is the big one nowadays. With a generational leap developers can't get away with doing the same things they did on older hardware, but better. That something new has to be there that wasn't there before.

Sorry but this isn't very convincing, and proves the view of those claiming the graphical jump isn't impressive more than it counters it. Unless that was your point, I'm not exactly keeping up with who's who here. There is 'an' improvement from PS4 to PS5 sure, but it's absolutely tiny. For all intents and purposes, especially if you consider you won't see a moving image the same amount of time as you're looking at a still here, those images look the same. The difference from PS3 to PS4 is much more noticeable at a glance. Obviously the difference from PS2 to PS3 is huge, though I suspect PS2's image isn't really the most flattering to pick. If you need a magnifying glass to spot the improvements I don't feel it's fair to boast about a graphical evolution. But I get it, the console maker's PR is their life, that's all fine.

I feel like this generation games will look less gamey and much more into the realm of CGI. All these small improvements add up and do add the sense of realism and believability (even for more stylized video games). If you can't see it then, well that's on you.

Give it a few more years and the whole diminishing returns argument will go out the window. Again.

I was actually pretty impressed by what I saw graphically, much moreso than 7th -> 8th gen. Now planning the best time to upgrade my gaming PC to match the next gen. Will wait a bit before I buy a PS5 since my Switch and PS4 backlogs are pretty big still.

I don't see the effect of diminishing return yet. We hear about it every new generations. But I always notice the leap from one gen to the other.

I like to use the grass strands example.
Gen 5: no strands, grass is only a pixelated/muddy texture.
Gen 6: patches of grass or bushes scattered here and there but mostly flat ground with grass texture.
Gen 7: Higher res textures with individual grass strands, but those are big and overgrown.
Gen 8: Smaller individual strands, more realistic for sure, but still bigger than they should. Effect still makes the games look more realistic.
Gen 9: proper sized individual strands, so A LOT more of them are used to cover the actual landscape. Making the games look much more realistic.

Now that's just using grass as an example. But this kind of increase in graphical fidelity is pretty much like that in most if not every aspects of the graphics.

Then you factor in the lighting that keeps on getting better gen over gen. The effect being that graphics are now very, very close to look as good as pre-rendered visuals. I can understand if people don't notice all the details that are improved, or aren't as impressed by them as some others (myself included) are. But there is no denying there's a leap between gen 8 and 9 visuals. The generational gap is clearly there. Sure it's all in the details, but that's always been this way. The details are simply getting smaller than when 3D graphics were still in their infancy. Those tiny details may not be much in isolation, but the screen is filled with those, so to my eyes there's one heck of an improvement over the 8th gen visuals.