Remember when generation leaps used to actually be generation leaps? 

This ...

lol. I actually like the PS4 Pro version's look better here. This used to be like the difference between a PS2 and GameCube port of the same game, not two games running on different generation hardware. 

Resolution bumps and lighting effects give little net gain after a certain point but the performance cost is massive. The fact that a little DLSS and maybe 2.4 teraflops with some shinier lighting effects thanks to Ampere can trick game developers/journalists into thinking a Switch 2 is running a PS5 game isn't that hard to believe at all. There's barely anything on a PS5 that doesn't look like a PS4 game that put on a tiny bit of makeup. 

The arguments keep getting worse in this thread, such as the comparison between a sequel developed from the ground up for next gen hardware vs. an enhanced port of a last gen game. But I don't think it's worth to continue talking from there, so it doesn't matter much anyway.

Back to the start of this thread, everything that is rumored to be shown was running on hardware specs that are allegedly the target of Switch 2 hardware, meaning that Switch 2 was actually not shown at Gamescom. Yes, Gamescom. Eurocom is a former development studio that resided in the UK. And that's basically where this whole thread shows its first cracks. The OP gets so excited that the basic facts become irrelevant and speculation about a rumor takes over immediately.

Target specs mean that a console manufacturer isn't obliged to have the final product perform at the same level and it isn't uncommon that compromises have to be made later on in order to get the product on the market at the targeted price point. Nevermind that there's no public footage of this, so hearsay distorts reality even more.

In addition to that, by the time Switch 2 launches at the earliest, it can be expected that Sony's PS5 Pro is out as well, so all the current excitement over Switch 2 will be revised to "graphics are good for portable hardware" even in the case that Switch 2's actual hardware matches the currently targeted specs and that any third party publisher bothers to release a game that counts as technical benchmark during the console's launch window.

Honestly yea that's where current consoles shine cause we are finally get 60fps in most games with great graphics, and 30fps looks like crap compared to 60fps. yes you can get used 30fps just like you can used to 720p or 900p, 60fps is a huge difference. 

First of all, CVG and Eurogamer have both gotten many things correct and leaked the Switch 100% months before its release. If you want to debate whether or not they have sources that's on you, but you are a random nobody on the internet. They have a track record and have done it before, so I will take their word for it over someone who doesn't work in the industry period. 

Second I don't really care if PS5 Pro Whoopity Doo is coming out. Maybe it can run last gen games at both 4K and 60 fps, lol. 

The fact of the matter is PS4 tier graphics are already approaching CGI quality from 10-15 years ago, unless you are a fucking nerd that pauses every frame of a game or movie and examines how many light bounces are happening in real time. 

This is Final Fantasy VII Remake on the left and Final Fantasy Advent Children, a CGI movie made on the right from circa 2007 ...

The game honestly looks better. 

To keep going beyond this level, you're going to get graphics on par with like the first Avatar movie ... but to make a 30 hour game with that fidelity is going to cost like $300-$400 million dollars on the low end. Even if you had the hardware  that could do that, no one is doing that. 

A PS5 Pro is going to be 20 teraflops, but so what, an Nvidia 50 series will chew that up and spit it out. The hardware is not the limiting factor, if someone wants to make a $500 million dollar game with a large part of the budget spent on pushing the graphics to CGI level, they can do that. A PS5 might not run that game but a Nvidia 50 or 60 series using extreme DLSS probably will. But you'll never make any money on that game. 

I think if your happy with ps4 graphic then you will be very happy with switch but DSLL is hyperbowl.

https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/vmjp0m/question_for_1080p_gamers_is_dlss_quality_worth_it/

PS4 graphics are basically all we're getting. I don't see a big difference at all between FF7 Remake and FF16, they don't look like a completely different generation at all. They both look nice. 

To me, once we've reached this point in real time graphics rendering:

I'm good. They can only make a graphics demo with those graphics too because to make a full game like that, the cost is going to be ridiculous. Like studios in Japan certainly are not going to be able to afford that. To be honest even the FF7 Remake, that's still an insane visual fidelity to me but the above straight up is approaching photo-realism. What kind of budget and how many hundreds of staff do and how many years do they need to work to create a 30+ hour game with dozens of environments and characters at that level? 

I agree with you for the most part but 60fps/4k is worth the difference for me lol.  if you don't care about 4k and 60fps in multiplatform games you will be very happy, and nintendo games should look amazing at 30fps.

If you care about 4K 60 fps (or why stop there, why not 90 fps? 120 fps?) the only platform you should accept is a PC. 

Get that weak ass PS5 and XSX shit outta here. 

But no to me, playing PS4-tier graphics just at a higher resolution and double the frame rate isn't blowing my mind. I remember when generational leaps used to be like ... actual generational leaps. 

If the PS2 came out and it just played a PS1 game MGS at double the frame rate and resolution, like the system would've straight up tanked, lol. People expected a lot more from generational shifts back then. 

Even with Switch 2, they will I'm sure inevitably release BoTW/ToTK probably with 4K DLSS and 60 frames second, it's not like I'm going to fall off my couch in amazement, it'll be more like "eh, yeah, nice I guess". 

How does needing hours to render a single frame for big budget films change the fact that path tracing is a huge leap over traditional methods in video games and will cause a big increase in visual fidelity when it becomes standard in them?

The performance cost is going to decline overtime, you just need to compare how much better 4000 series cards are at ray tracing compared to 2000 series ones so eventually it won't be difficult for even mid-range hardware to do path tracing.

It's far more than just the water, it's the entire environment that gets a big boost to fidelity and it doesn't prove your point at all since you don't need a GPU anywhere near that expensive to run it. It's literally a clickbait title, come on. A game as demanding as Cyberpunk has path tracing now and you don't need a top end GPU to run it thanks to DLSS. The point is that even games with simple visuals due to a low budget will benefit a lot from it by having far better lighting than anything on the PS4.

 Monolith is the best  1st party studio to get the most out of hardware. Every Xenoblade and working on BOTW/ToTK. Amazing how they squeeze such massive worlds in such limited hardware.  Excited to see what Monolith can do. Xenoblade or new IP.