Graphics are pretty much at their peak. We don't need a new console generation.

1. Boards
2. PlayStation 4
3. Graphics are pretty much at their peak. We don't need a new console generation.

ChunkersMcflush 7 hours ago#1 I remember when graphics made huge jumps with each generation. That seems to have stopped when the PS4 and Xbox One came out. The graphics don't have that huge leap that the PS1 to PS2 did or that the Nes to SNES did even.  All that you really see is extra dust particles, god rays and that's about it. I'd say that graphics are pretty much at their peak right now. I don't think it's really wise to invest in another console cycle, just focus on how games are for the rest of time. That would be the better choice because costs would actually go down on the games being made and we'll have more original games because developers will be familiar with the hardware and gaming engines if they don't try to come out with another system. If they come out with another system then costs will just keep rising and rising and there will barely any noticeable graphical differences. It just wouldn't be worth it. I honestly wouldn't mind if games stuck with PS2 graphics forever, I just want the games to be affordable to make and not make budgets rise. A fun game should be the most important thing when making a video game. I hope all of these big companies just stick with current hardware forever since graphics have already peaked. stickyreportquote

Wildspark 7 hours ago#2 That’s not true. Games still don’t look 100% photorealistic so they’re not at the peak yet I did not hit her! Its not true! Its BS! I did not hit her! I did not! Oh hi, Mark. reportquote

PayItForward 7 hours ago#3 theyre not "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Patrick Moynihan reportquote

john7281 7 hours ago#4 The games still aren't at there best on consoles. Graphics in general may be almost as good as they can get, but current consoles have a hard to impossible time running them at 60fps or higher, and we can get games on PC from I've read running 120fps, so until consoles can run top graphics at 60-120fps I still see room for improvement in the consoles, since they aren't matching PC's of a couple years ago even in that area. PSN Faclorien IGN : John FC: 3325 7804 6627 reportquote

Degalon 7 hours ago#5 Wildspark posted... That’s not true. Games still don’t look 100% photorealistic so they’re not at the peak yet On the other hand, they don't need to either.  Personally, I''m fuckin tired of "realistic" games. The harder they try, the worse they look. At this point the issue is rendering hair. Why the fuck is it that playstation 2 games, specifically Metal Gear Solid 3, did hair and facial hair better than 2018 games like Horizon Zero Dawn and other crap where here looks like electrical wiring taped to their face? But yeah it's more about processing power than graphics at this point. It's not "how good can things look" it's "How much can be on screen at a time?" Complicated engine tricks, particle effects, number of items and characters on screen at a time, framerate considering all the above, etc, etc. GT/PSN: DEGALON Official Fuu of the Naruto Storm 3 Boards reportquote

AceofSpades1700 7 hours ago#6 The leap from last gen to this gen is greater than people give it credit for. Some games this gen near photorealism. Ps3 games look crap in comparison. o_o reportquote

Wildspark 7 hours ago#7 AceofSpades1700 posted... The leap from last gen to this gen is greater than people give it credit for. Some games this gen near photorealism. Ps3 games look crap in comparison. True I did not hit her! Its not true! Its BS! I did not hit her! I did not! Oh hi, Mark. reportquote

Pharsti01 7 hours ago#8 Hmm, while im perfectly fine with the graphics as they are right now (or even last gen), theyre not really at their peak... at all. And besides, its not like hardware limits only how "shiny" things are. Think you could make enemies as smart as they are now if wed kept to old hardware? Or that youd be able to see 10 feet in front of your character without fog to help that draw distance XD? Its just not "graphics" at this point that matter. (edited 7 hours ago)reportquote

MrDude1 7 hours ago#9 I wouldn't mind not seeing ps5 until at least 2023. We are at a point of diminishing return on graphics and a longer 10+ years console generation would make sense. Eventually, we do need a new console. Unless you live with your parents. Who wants to throw away hundreds of dollars every few years for diminishing returns? Asus MX27AQ | Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8 Ghz E7400 | Zoltac GTX 1050 2GB VRAM | 4 GB DDR2 Mushkin RAM My PC sucks but I still want to play it (edited 7 hours ago)reportquote

3rd-Dagree 7 hours ago#10 IMO There is no peak.Just like every generation since Atari we would never imagine that games would look like the way they would now.So you just cant really imagine what it would look like 5 years from now.In reality technology leaps are getting faster and faster. I just think PC is always generations ahead of consoles.Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft always seem to limit theyself on purpose.They all say how they have a original secret powerful console but when they come out they pretty much the same specs. **** and ******** the damn ******* ***** ****. ****! (edited 7 hours ago)reportquote

FreeMan5407 7 hours ago#11 Go play last of us on PS3 and comeback and play Horizon or GOW on a PS4 4Ksetup, massive difference The Witcher 3 , Bloodborne and God of War are the best games of this gen reportquote

vexermaster 7 hours ago#12 I think there is room for improvement. And I don't think there will ever be a peak reached with because ya know 4k, 8k, 10000kdot alien government tech held captive by the government. I was born to see two thousand years Of man's effect upon the planet Extinction seems to be a plausible risk Whatever happens well i'm part of all this!!! reportquote

peontom 7 hours ago#13 You haven't seen 8k 120fps gran Turismo Sport. I would definitely like that. (edited 7 hours ago)reportquote

john7281 7 hours ago#14 Wildspark posted... That’s not true. Games still don’t look 100% photorealistic so they’re not at the peak yet I feel the start of the downfall of gaming WILL be when games look photo realistic. That's when level for graphics that should NEVER be touched on, not even in VR or AR. Personally the games are "realistic" looking are some of the absolutely worst games I've played and it IS because of the realism, games have always been meant to be as an escape from realism so I dont want realistic graphics in my game ever. PSN Faclorien IGN : John FC: 3325 7804 6627 reportquote

MooreCoffee 7 hours ago#15 There is no real limitation besides the speed of technological advances, we’re getting PS5 because it’s a cash cow to sell new consoles, not because the industry needs them right now. Electable Candidate 2020 reportquote

WTGHookshot 7 hours ago#16 We need a new console generation, but not because of graphics. We need new consoles to make better AI, to have more destructible environments, more interaction with environments and characters, new ways to play (i.e., new controllers, things like VR/AR, new peripherals, new output options, etc.), faster load speeds, new mediums for games to be printed on and loaded off of, new features that aren't possible with the current hardware, etc. There's a lot more that comes with new hardware generations than just graphics. Thanos was wrong. Mike Ehrmantraut, "The moral of the story is: I chose a half measure when I should have gone all the way ... No more half measures." reportquote

chobit_A5HL3Y 7 hours ago#17 i kind of agree. however, i think one more generation would be good enough for me. i haven’t been amazed by any graphics in years, and i can’t even remember the last game that i thought it. i don’t need it to be photorealistic at this point. just need to to look “nice” and run smoothly. i am i. reportquote

TruthBomber21 7 hours ago#18 graphics most definitely are not at their peak with current gen hardware. current gen hardware is old tech that wasn't peak when it was released, it's below budget level pc at this point. Some console games can't even hold 30 fps costs for development wouldn't go up, if anything they may go down with better, more powerful development tools. ChunkersMcflush posted... developers will be familiar with the hardware and gaming engines if they don't try to come out with another system. games are developed on pc or dev kits and scaled down to fit consoles. more powerful hardware would just make it easier to optimize reportquote

vonVolik 7 hours ago#19 Even if graphics are almost at peak, a new gen will give us more processing power, more memory, and bigger, and better hard drives. All of which with a slight increase in graphics make a new console gen something to look forward to. Growing up trolls lived under bridges, now they live in their Mom's basement. reportquote

pnut027 7 hours ago#20 Graphics are one thing. Performance is another. I hate Naruto fanfiction. reportquote

yadehtsiyadot 7 hours ago#21 john7281 posted... Wildspark posted... That’s not true. Games still don’t look 100% photorealistic so they’re not at the peak yet I feel the start of the downfall of gaming WILL be when games look photo realistic. That's when level for graphics that should NEVER be touched on, not even in VR or AR. Personally the games are "realistic" looking are some of the absolutely worst games I've played and it IS because of the realism, games have always been meant to be as an escape from realism so I dont want realistic graphics in my game ever. This. Stylized all the way. Bloodborne: https://www.youtube.com/PraiseTheHunt Bedlam Video: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCthYLU5wCVu2MdhqTFlj3RQ reportquote

Degalon 7 hours ago#22 MrDude1 posted... I wouldn't mind not seeing ps5 until at least 2023. We are at a point of diminishing return on graphics and a longer 10+ years console generation would make sense. Eventually, we do need a new console. Unless you live with your parents. Who wants to throw away hundreds of dollars every few years for diminishing returns? This. it's why I never bothered getting the "upgraded" ps4 pro. I'm not paying another 600 dollars just for some motion blur on a couple of supported games. GT/PSN: DEGALON Official Fuu of the Naruto Storm 3 Boards reportquote

Degalon 7 hours ago#23 yadehtsiyadot posted... john7281 posted... Wildspark posted...  show hidden quote(s) I feel the start of the downfall of gaming WILL be when games look photo realistic. That's when level for graphics that should NEVER be touched on, not even in VR or AR. Personally the games are "realistic" looking are some of the absolutely worst games I've played and it IS because of the realism, games have always been meant to be as an escape from realism so I dont want realistic graphics in my game ever. This. Stylized all the way. Agreed. GT/PSN: DEGALON Official Fuu of the Naruto Storm 3 Boards reportquote

Wildspark 6 hours ago#24 Degalon posted... MrDude1 posted... I wouldn't mind not seeing ps5 until at least 2023. We are at a point of diminishing return on graphics and a longer 10+ years console generation would make sense. Eventually, we do need a new console. Unless you live with your parents. Who wants to throw away hundreds of dollars every few years for diminishing returns? This. it's why I never bothered getting the "upgraded" ps4 pro. I'm not paying another 600 dollars just for some motion blur on a couple of supported games. It’s only $400. And it has 1tb of space instead of 500gb. But you could just connect a bigger hard drive to a regular PS4, I guess lol I did not hit her! Its not true! Its BS! I did not hit her! I did not! Oh hi, Mark. (edited 6 hours ago)reportquote

WTGHookshot 6 hours ago#25 john7281 posted... Wildspark posted... That’s not true. Games still don’t look 100% photorealistic so they’re not at the peak yet I feel the start of the downfall of gaming WILL be when games look photo realistic. That's when level for graphics that should NEVER be touched on, not even in VR or AR. Personally the games are "realistic" looking are some of the absolutely worst games I've played and it IS because of the realism, games have always been meant to be as an escape from realism so I dont want realistic graphics in my game ever. Maybe games have always been meant to be an escape from realism for YOU, but not for everyone. Sometimes, they are used for educational purposes. Sometimes, they are used for purely entertainment. Sometimes, they are used to connect people (for instance, I would love to play a VR game in the vein of something like Second Life with fully realistic graphics and our characters actually look like us in the real world, so I could "hang out" with my friends that have moved away over the years). We don't all play games for the same reasons. Thanos was wrong. Mike Ehrmantraut, "The moral of the story is: I chose a half measure when I should have gone all the way ... No more half measures." reportquote

samurai1900 6 hours ago#26 The CPU inside PS4 is a pretty low piece of tech...! Saving The Last Remnant, one step at a time - https://steamcommunity.com/app/23310/discussions/0/2906376154333740815 reportquote

The_DOAM 6 hours ago#27 Wildspark posted... That’s not true. Games still don’t look 100% photorealistic so they’re not at the peak yet pretty sure 100% photorealistic is a bad a thing thus even with mroe power they aren't going to go for it. As for TC's topic power is more than a pretty picture however I'd say its too soon and that the current gen needs to stew for a bit until costs and development time drops a bit more. The .5 consoles really screwed up the gen when comparing it to previous gens and what needs to happen is the .5 need to be treated as a step thus the 5 or so year gen needs to start with their release and not the base models. Ignorance is Bliss... reportquote

juker79 6 hours ago#28 Degalon posted... But yeah it's more about processing power than graphics at this point. It's not "how good can things look" it's "How much can be on screen at a time?" Complicated engine tricks, particle effects, number of items and characters on screen at a time, framerate considering all the above, etc, etc. Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a **** how crazy they are! reportquote

Dark_Emil 6 hours ago#29 You are not on the Nintendo board, dude. This thread is ludicrous. reportquote

Ammonitida 6 hours ago#30 Fun fact -- Graphics reached their peak with Dragon's Lair and Night Trap. We've only regressed since then by replacing these actual photo real graphics with these weird triangle things. Double Switch on the Sega CD literally had real-life Cory Haim as a quasi-playable character. reportquote

Degalon 6 hours ago#31 Wildspark posted... Degalon posted... MrDude1 posted...  show hidden quote(s) This. it's why I never bothered getting the "upgraded" ps4 pro. I'm not paying another 600 dollars just for some motion blur on a couple of supported games. It’s only $400. And it has 1tb of space instead of 500gb. But you could just connect a bigger hard drive to a regular PS4, I guess lol 400 is still a lot for a minor upgrade. if I didn't already have a ps4, or if mine broke down for some reason, THEN the Pro would seem like a good option. But as is? Nah. The "upgrade" is too minor to warrant the cost. GT/PSN: DEGALON Official Fuu of the Naruto Storm 3 Boards reportquote

dougsdad0629 6 hours ago#32 MrDude1 posted... I wouldn't mind not seeing ps5 until at least 2023. We are at a point of diminishing return on graphics and a longer 10+ years console generation would make sense. Eventually, we do need a new console. Unless you live with your parents. Who wants to throw away hundreds of dollars every few years for diminishing returns? QFT Dear pessimist and optimist, while you were arguing about whether the glass was half empty or half full, I drank the water. Signed: The Opportunist. reportquote

Korppi123 6 hours ago#33 As if graphics are the only thing current gen is starting to choke on.. WTGHookshot posted... We need a new console generation, but not because of graphics. We need new consoles to make better AI, to have more destructible environments, more interaction with environments and characters, new ways to play (i.e., new controllers, things like VR/AR, new peripherals, new output options, etc.), faster load speeds, new mediums for games to be printed on and loaded off of, new features that aren't possible with the current hardware, etc. There's a lot more that comes with new hardware generations than just graphics. Thank you. reportquote

fereydoom 6 hours ago#34 i think the new console generation will focus on TRUE 4k/60FPS with fast load time. 'Welcome to Gamefaqs. Where there are no Mods, only children with power. Where trolling is encouraged, and there is no time for logic or sense. reportquote

john7281 6 hours ago#35 WTGHookshot posted... john7281 posted... Wildspark posted...  show hidden quote(s) I feel the start of the downfall of gaming WILL be when games look photo realistic. That's when level for graphics that should NEVER be touched on, not even in VR or AR. Personally the games are "realistic" looking are some of the absolutely worst games I've played and it IS because of the realism, games have always been meant to be as an escape from realism so I dont want realistic graphics in my game ever. Maybe games have always been meant to be an escape from realism for YOU, but not for everyone. Sometimes, they are used for educational purposes. Sometimes, they are used for purely entertainment. Sometimes, they are used to connect people (for instance, I would love to play a VR game in the vein of something like Second Life with fully realistic graphics and our characters actually look like us in the real world, so I could "hang out" with my friends that have moved away over the years). We don't all play games for the same reasons. The comment of games as a way to escape realism has been used by the gaming industry, not just the fans, since the 90's. That is where I got that comment from, I play games to have fun with the stories and friends, at least with multiplayer, I dont need an escape from realism myself. That is just one of the main things that have been said about games for the last 25-30 years. PSN Faclorien IGN : John FC: 3325 7804 6627 reportquote

Lamace 6 hours ago#36 I can see resolution, performance, and lighting as the major improvements over this gen. (edited 6 hours ago)reportquote

MWXIII 6 hours ago#37 if you play a console game, and then put that same game on PC with max graphics it looks completely different. theres still plenty of room to grow. also, load times are too long Karma, Truth, Vengeance PSN - MWXIII NSW- 772023730916 Steam - TyrXIII/Tyr Above All B.Net - MWXIII reportquote

MeteoraXV 6 hours ago#38 i dont care about photorealism because that's not what i play games for, otherwise id just watch movies also it'd just mean longer and more expensive dev cycles (edited 6 hours ago)reportquote

Bird_Man_Yu 6 hours ago#39 MWXIII posted... if you play a console game, and then put that same game on PC with max graphics it looks completely different. theres still plenty of room to grow. also, load times are too long That's all fine and dandy but honestly not everyone cares to have the best graphics possible, so long as a game is fun or enjoyable, that's all it really needs from me, well, actually running and doing so smoothly is an obvious thing as well, but ultra4Ksorealisticgraphics!!!!!, isn't gonna sway me to or to not buy a game, Gameplay first.... PSN: http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/TwilightGundam01.png  Fate/Grand Order EN: 866,770,168. Fate/Grand Order JP: 688,739,705. reportquote

BenMaluco 6 hours ago#40 Even if it was (because it isn’t), performance definitely isn’t so a new generation is 100% needed. reportquote

WTGHookshot 6 hours ago#41 john7281 posted... WTGHookshot posted... john7281 posted...  show hidden quote(s) Maybe games have always been meant to be an escape from realism for YOU, but not for everyone. Sometimes, they are used for educational purposes. Sometimes, they are used for purely entertainment. Sometimes, they are used to connect people (for instance, I would love to play a VR game in the vein of something like Second Life with fully realistic graphics and our characters actually look like us in the real world, so I could "hang out" with my friends that have moved away over the years). We don't all play games for the same reasons. The comment of games as a way to escape realism has been used by the gaming industry, not just the fans, since the 90's. That is where I got that comment from, I play games to have fun with the stories and friends, at least with multiplayer, I dont need an escape from realism myself. That is just one of the main things that have been said about games for the last 25-30 years. "One" of the main things. Not the only thing, which is what your post implied. You know what's also an escape from reality? Movies, TV, books, etc. Yet movies and TV have plenty of real life locations, real people acting, etc. Many books take place in our real world. The escape, in this sense, isn't escaping reality in general but our personal realities. For instance, watching an ex-special forces member set in our real world go out and rescue his daughter from sex traffickers IS the type of reality some people do have... but for your regular joe, that's not his reality. So, the escape isn't necessarily about escaping things being real or not, but escaping the bits of reality that we personally find mundane. Thanos was wrong. Mike Ehrmantraut, "The moral of the story is: I chose a half measure when I should have gone all the way ... No more half measures." reportquote

anonymous02135 6 hours ago#42 PayItForward posted... theyre not this reportquote

GHAOSTY 5 hours ago#43 Graphics for the next gen would look the same with higher resolution and frame rate. reportquote

GoIrish80 5 hours ago#44 No one ever says this every single generation, thanks. reportquote

infantfinite128 5 hours ago#45 I don't want a new console either. The graphics are fine enough. Smile! reportquote

Hop103 5 hours ago#46 Next gen should focus on framerate not graphics we don't need 8-16k, what do we need is minimum 60 FPS on ALL games, and smaller games to push 100 FPS (we don't even need 4K, lets just have games at 1080p at 80-150 FPS). "In the name of the future moon I shall punish you"-Chibi Moon (edited 5 hours ago)reportquote

MrDude1 5 hours ago#47 Hop103 posted... Next gen should focus on framerate not graphics we don't need 8-16k, what do we need is minimum 60 FPS on ALL games, and smaller games to push 100 FPS (we don't even need 4K, lets just have games at 1080p at 80-150 FPS). I love gaming in high frame rates. However, high frame rates and better animation don't show up on screen shots so it won't fly with the marketing department or executives of your fav aaa publisher. That's why high frame rates and better Animations are often lower priority to higher resolutions and lighting and colors Asus MX27AQ | Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8 Ghz E7400 | Zoltac GTX 1050 2GB VRAM | 4 GB DDR2 Mushkin RAM My PC sucks but I still want to play it reportquote

BeefEaster 5 hours ago#48 high end gaming PCs prove this isn't true I play with dolls: http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y153/BeefEaster/004_zpskcg7thdf.jpg reportquote

RollingCradle 5 hours ago#49 Someone says that every generation, and PC always proves them wrong as hell. reportquote

Korppi123 5 hours ago#50 MrDude1 posted... Hop103 posted... Next gen should focus on framerate not graphics we don't need 8-16k, what do we need is minimum 60 FPS on ALL games, and smaller games to push 100 FPS (we don't even need 4K, lets just have games at 1080p at 80-150 FPS). I love gaming in high frame rates. However, high frame rates and better animation don't show up on screen shots so it won't fly with the marketing department or executives of your fav aaa publisher. That's why high frame rates and better Animations are often lower priority to higher resolutions and lighting and colors What is the point of higher than 60 fps for other games but shooters? Especially when Tv refresh rates hover around 100-120hz? In shooters on pc its desireable even on like 60hz monitors to minimize pixel skipping- on consoles even thats debatable because of aim assist instead of free aim. Honestly no need to push over 60 frames on other games.. that why theres even technology like vsync and gsync, to cap frames onto your displays refresh rate and have perfect frame pacing- freeing up gpu power to go ham on visuals. (edited 5 hours ago)reportquote

1. Boards
2. PlayStation 4
3. Graphics are pretty much at their peak. We don't need a new console generation.
   
   1. Boards
   2. PlayStation 4
   3. Graphics are pretty much at their peak. We don't need a new console generation.

   ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)5 hours ago#51 BeefEaster posted... high end gaming PCs prove this isn't true No they don't. They aren't much different than PS4 graphics. reportquote

   BeefEaster 5 hours ago#52 ChunkersMcflush posted... BeefEaster posted... high end gaming PCs prove this isn't true No they don't. They aren't much different than PS4 graphics. that's objectively wrong but you can think that if you want I play with dolls: http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y153/BeefEaster/004_zpskcg7thdf.jpg reportquote

   Zack_Attackv1 4 hours ago#53 Incorrect. https://imgur.com/ja6QRcP reportquote

   ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)4 hours ago#54 BeefEaster posted... that's objectively wrong but you can think that if you want I Wrong. You can't back up your assertions. They don't have the massive jump from PS2 to PS3. It's just like the PS3 to PS4 small tiny jump. (edited 4 hours ago)reportquote

   ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)4 hours ago#55 Zack_Attackv1 posted... Incorrect. Nope. reportquote

   knightimex 4 hours ago#56 Games still struggle with frame rates. We need a new generation. 30fps games today are 60fps games tomorrow. GameFAQS discord: https://discord.gg/x9nT5DA Come in and relax! (edited 4 hours ago)reportquote

   BeefEaster 4 hours ago#57 ChunkersMcflush posted... BeefEaster posted... that's objectively wrong but you can think that if you want I Wrong. You can't back up your assertions. They don't have the massive jump from PS2 to PS3. It's just like the PS3 to PS4 small tiny jump. that's objectively wrong as well but you can think that if you want I play with dolls: http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y153/BeefEaster/004_zpskcg7thdf.jpg reportquote

   deprofundis442 4 hours ago#58 Degalon posted... Personally, I''m fuckin tired of "realistic" games. The harder they try, the worse they look. Are you "tired" of them, or do you just have a stick up your ass? http://functor.bandcamp.com http://cadavericlividity.bandcamp.com reportquote

   kingofjamaica 4 hours ago#59 They aren't at peak. Not even close. As for next-gen, give me current-gen visuals at 4K60, and I'll be a happy camper. At some point, you're going to have to talk to a tree and do what it says. - Arbor Day Rule, Grand List of RPG Cliches. reportquote

   ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)4 hours ago#60 knightimex posted... Games still struggle with frame rates. We need a new generation. 30fps games today are 60fps games tomorrow. 30fps is fine and perfectly playable. 60fps is just a bonus. reportquote

   ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)4 hours ago#61 BeefEaster posted... that's objectively wrong as well but you can think that if you want Nope. reportquote

   ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)4 hours ago#62 kingofjamaica posted... They aren't at peak. Not even close. As for next-gen, give me current-gen visuals at 4K60, and I'll be a happy camper. The graphical jumps get smaller and smaller. PS3 to PS4 was the tiniest jump we've seen. reportquote

   WTGHookshot 4 hours ago#63 ChunkersMcflush posted... BeefEaster posted... that's objectively wrong as well but you can think that if you want Nope. The onus is on you: prove it. Post videos, post pictures, give us an analytical breakdown of how he is wrong. If you can't do that, then you are just full of crap and no one should take you at all seriously. Thanos was wrong. Mike Ehrmantraut, "The moral of the story is: I chose a half measure when I should have gone all the way ... No more half measures." reportquote

   UltimagaWeapon 4 hours ago#64 Going back to the PS3 it does look ugly nowadays. Even if not with graphics there are still a lot of other areas games can grow technically. "Dive it to the Sky" - Kingdom Hearts reportquote

   MrDude1 4 hours ago#65 Korppi123 posted... MrDude1 posted... Hop103 posted...  show hidden quote(s) I love gaming in high frame rates. However, high frame rates and better animation don't show up on screen shots so it won't fly with the marketing department or executives of your fav aaa publisher. That's why high frame rates and better Animations are often lower priority to higher resolutions and lighting and colors What is the point of higher than 60 fps for other games but shooters? Especially when Tv refresh rates hover around 100-120hz? In shooters on pc its desireable even on like 60hz monitors to minimize pixel skipping- on consoles even thats debatable because of aim assist instead of free aim. Honestly no need to push over 60 frames on other games.. that why theres even technology like vsync and gsync, to cap frames onto your displays refresh rate and have perfect frame pacing- freeing up gpu power to go ham on visuals. The point is that I like higher frame rates. Many people play console games on gaming monitors. Asus MX27AQ | Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8 Ghz E7400 | Zoltac GTX 1050 2GB VRAM | 4 GB DDR2 Mushkin RAM My PC sucks but I still want to play it reportquote

   ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)4 hours ago#66 WTGHookshot posted... The onus is on you: prove it. Post videos, post pictures, give us an analytical breakdown of how he is wrong. If you can't do that, then you are just full of crap and no one should take you at all seriously. Sorry, I don't take contrarian trolls seriously. reportquote

   Korppi123 4 hours ago#67 ChunkersMcflush posted... BeefEaster posted... that's objectively wrong but you can think that if you want I Wrong. You can't back up your assertions. They don't have the massive jump from PS2 to PS3. It's just like the PS3 to PS4 small tiny jump. Have you ever looked at say like.. bf v ultra settings on a 4k hdr g-sync enabled monitor runnin at 60 fps? Compressed youtube video on a full hd screen doesnt count here. I have and it looks much better than anything on consoles. That said, Im happy with current visuals on consoles. That doesnt mean it shouldnt be upgraded, in two years you can squeeze in a very notable performance boost into a 400$ dollar console.  Allowing better a.i, physics and simulation in games on top of better performance. reportquote

   ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)4 hours ago#68 MrDude1 posted... The point is that I like higher frame rates. I'd like to get everything for free. Doesn't mean that'll happen. reportquote

   BeefEaster 4 hours ago#69 ChunkersMcflush posted... WTGHookshot posted... The onus is on you: prove it. Post videos, post pictures, give us an analytical breakdown of how he is wrong. If you can't do that, then you are just full of crap and no one should take you at all seriously. Sorry, I don't take contrarian trolls seriously. so you don't take yourself seriously? I play with dolls: http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y153/BeefEaster/004_zpskcg7thdf.jpg reportquote

   shibulator 4 hours ago#70 The peak is in game graphics being indistinguishable from real life at max fps the brain/eye can process. When death sleeps, it dreams of you reportquote

   kingofjamaica 4 hours ago#71 ChunkersMcflush posted... kingofjamaica posted... They aren't at peak. Not even close. As for next-gen, give me current-gen visuals at 4K60, and I'll be a happy camper. The graphical jumps get smaller and smaller. PS3 to PS4 was the tiniest jump we've seen. Because the jump in hardware power wasn't that big, and current-gen games are still made with PS4 and Xbox One S in mind even though we have the Pro and X. If we get a 12TF machine next-gen, with a not garbage-tier CPU, the jump in visuals will be ridiculous in AAA games. At some point, you're going to have to talk to a tree and do what it says. - Arbor Day Rule, Grand List of RPG Cliches. reportquote

   Hollywood nWo 4 hours ago#72 ChunkersMcflush posted... I remember when graphics made huge jumps with each generation. That seems to have stopped when the PS4 and Xbox One came out. The graphics don't have that huge leap that the PS1 to PS2 did or that the Nes to SNES did even.  All that you really see is extra dust particles, god rays and that's about it. I'd say that graphics are pretty much at their peak right now. I don't think it's really wise to invest in another console cycle, just focus on how games are for the rest of time. That would be the better choice because costs would actually go down on the games being made and we'll have more original games because developers will be familiar with the hardware and gaming engines if they don't try to come out with another system. If they come out with another system then costs will just keep rising and rising and there will barely any noticeable graphical differences. It just wouldn't be worth it. I honestly wouldn't mind if games stuck with PS2 graphics forever, I just want the games to be affordable to make and not make budgets rise. A fun game should be the most important thing when making a video game. I hope all of these big companies just stick with current hardware forever since graphics have already peaked. There's always room for improvement, not just graphically, but yes that too. Lol, we are a long way from graphics hitting their peak. Games and consoles are as "affordable" or more so compared to last gen, and even some earlier consoles and games. Stop with the lies or Doomsday scenarios to backup your point. (edited 4 hours ago)reportquote

   ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)4 hours ago#73 Korppi123 posted... Have you ever looked at say like.. bf v ultra settings on a 4k hdr g-sync enabled monitor runnin at 60 fps? Compressed youtube video on a full hd screen doesnt count here. I have and it looks much better than anything on consoles. That said, Im happy with current visuals on consoles. That doesnt mean it shouldnt be upgraded, in two years you can squeeze in a very notable performance boost into a 400$ dollar console.  Allowing better a.i, physics and simulation in games on top of better performance. Damn. You bought Battleflop V? reportquote

   ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)4 hours ago#74 kingofjamaica posted... Because the jump in hardware power wasn't that big, and current-gen games are still made with PS4 and Xbox One S in mind even though we have the Pro and X. If we get a 12TF machine next-gen, with a not garbage-tier CPU, the jump in visuals will be ridiculous in AAA games. Pro and Xone X is proof graphics are nearing their peak. Still not the jump from PS2 to PS3. reportquote

   Taizuku 4 hours ago#75 AceofSpades1700 posted... The leap from last gen to this gen is greater than people give it credit for. Some games this gen near photorealism. Ps3 games look crap in comparison. Yeah but I don't want photorealism, I want creative artstyles, and photorealism is basically the opposite of that. Come check out some dope beats n stuff! Soundcloud.com/anubisinc reportquote

   Korppi123 4 hours ago#76 ChunkersMcflush posted... Korppi123 posted... Have you ever looked at say like.. bf v ultra settings on a 4k hdr g-sync enabled monitor runnin at 60 fps? Compressed youtube video on a full hd screen doesnt count here. I have and it looks much better than anything on consoles. That said, Im happy with current visuals on consoles. That doesnt mean it shouldnt be upgraded, in two years you can squeeze in a very notable performance boost into a 400$ dollar console.  Allowing better a.i, physics and simulation in games on top of better performance. Damn. You bought Battleflop V? Yeah, its okay, mediocore shooter. But I mostly bought it because I wanted to see just what can be gotten out of my rig. It makes my pc cry for mercy xD reportquote

   MrDude1 4 hours ago#77 ChunkersMcflush posted... MrDude1 posted... The point is that I like higher frame rates. I'd like to get everything for free. Doesn't mean that'll happen. I know. That's why I am not interested in paying a few hundred dollars every so often for a new console. Asus MX27AQ | Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8 Ghz E7400 | Zoltac GTX 1050 2GB VRAM | 4 GB DDR2 Mushkin RAM My PC sucks but I still want to play it reportquote

   kingofjamaica 4 hours ago#78 ChunkersMcflush posted... kingofjamaica posted... Because the jump in hardware power wasn't that big, and current-gen games are still made with PS4 and Xbox One S in mind even though we have the Pro and X. If we get a 12TF machine next-gen, with a not garbage-tier CPU, the jump in visuals will be ridiculous in AAA games. Pro and Xone X is proof graphics are nearing their peak. Still not the jump from PS2 to PS3. Pro and X games are basically just PS4 and Xbox One S games at higher resolution. Almost none of them get actually meaningful visual updates, and those machines are still hamstrung by their shit CPUs. When developers are able to build from scratch with even better specs, you'll see much better looking games, or games that look the same but run much better. At some point, you're going to have to talk to a tree and do what it says. - Arbor Day Rule, Grand List of RPG Cliches. reportquote

   WTGHookshot 4 hours ago#79 BeefEaster posted... ChunkersMcflush posted... WTGHookshot posted...  show hidden quote(s) Sorry, I don't take contrarian trolls seriously. so you don't take yourself seriously? He doesn't. That's why he is just trolling with this topic. He doesn't mean any of it seriously. He just wants to watch people's reactions to it. In fact, he probably wants to see reactions like yours and mine... probably gets off from the attention. Thanos was wrong. Mike Ehrmantraut, "The moral of the story is: I chose a half measure when I should have gone all the way ... No more half measures." reportquote

   RollingCradle 4 hours ago#80 Thank god for VR, finally forcing devs to target 60fps on console. (edited 4 hours ago)reportquote

   antoinejones 4 hours ago#81 Wildspark posted... That’s not true. Games still don’t look 100% photorealistic so they’re not at the peak yet they may not be photorealistuic but theyre at the peak of what ppl can do with the current technology, or whats in the realm of possibility for $400 bucks. Proof being look at the difference between Ps3 an 4 games... I actually have to LOOK for things to notice them.. whereas PS1 and 2 is extremely noticeable the second you turn a game on, same for PS2 and 3 My first time and day in Jeuno and the first 6 hours of it is spent staring at a chocobo's butt. reportquote

   ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)4 hours ago#82 BeefEaster posted... ChunkersMcflush posted... WTGHookshot posted...  show hidden quote(s) Sorry, I don't take contrarian trolls seriously. so you don't take yourself seriously? Reported. reportquote

   ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)4 hours ago#83 WTGHookshot posted... He doesn't. That's why he is just trolling with this topic. He doesn't mean any of it seriously. He just wants to watch people's reactions to it. In fact, he probably wants to see reactions like yours and mine... probably gets off from the attention. Reported for flaming. reportquote

   RollingCradle 4 hours ago#84 I dunno, PS1 to PS2 was even huger leap than 2 to 3 I think? Besides its a lopsided comparison, were going from triangle tits Lara to fully formed tits Lara. After that where do you go, add a third boob? Maybe on PS5? (edited 4 hours ago)reportquote

   wiseguy100 4 hours ago#85 Graphics will always improve. I remember saying the same thing as you, back in the C64 days. (edited 4 hours ago)reportquote

   RollingCradle 4 hours ago#86 Kingsglaive graphics in 60fps would be nice. reportquote

   WTGHookshot 4 hours ago#87 ChunkersMcflush posted... WTGHookshot posted... He doesn't. That's why he is just trolling with this topic. He doesn't mean any of it seriously. He just wants to watch people's reactions to it. In fact, he probably wants to see reactions like yours and mine... probably gets off from the attention. Reported for flaming. Be my guest. Report me as much as your heart's desire. If this site would rather side with you acting as a troll, I have no need for this site. Thanos was wrong. Mike Ehrmantraut, "The moral of the story is: I chose a half measure when I should have gone all the way ... No more half measures." reportquote

   ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)4 hours ago#88 @WTGHookshot posted... Be my guest. Report me as much as your heart's desire. If this site would rather side with you acting as a troll, I have no need for this site. Every post that I see from you is always something contrarian. You just word it in a way so that you can escape violating the TOS. You know what you are doing and by you insulting me you've given me a reason to report you, and that response you just gave is grounds for reportation. Thanks. (edited 4 hours ago)reportquote

   deprofundis442 4 hours ago#89 ChunkersMcflush posted... WTGHookshot posted... He doesn't. That's why he is just trolling with this topic. He doesn't mean any of it seriously. He just wants to watch people's reactions to it. In fact, he probably wants to see reactions like yours and mine... probably gets off from the attention. Reported for flaming. Reported for announcing reporting. http://functor.bandcamp.com http://cadavericlividity.bandcamp.com reportquote

   ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)4 hours ago#90 WTGHookshot posted... The onus is on you: prove it. Post videos, post pictures, give us an analytical breakdown of how he is wrong. If you can't do that, then you are just full of crap and no one should take you at all seriously. Sorry, I don't take contrarian trolls seriously. reportquote

   Lsnake 4 hours ago#91 yadehtsiyadot posted... john7281 posted... Wildspark posted...  show hidden quote(s) I feel the start of the downfall of gaming WILL be when games look photo realistic. That's when level for graphics that should NEVER be touched on, not even in VR or AR. Personally the games are "realistic" looking are some of the absolutely worst games I've played and it IS because of the realism, games have always been meant to be as an escape from realism so I dont want realistic graphics in my game ever. This. Stylized all the way. Yeah. Dragon Quest XI was the most gorgeous game I've played this year. Bright, colorful graphics, crystal clear models and textures brimming with personality and life. Whereas RDR2 had gorgeous environments but surprisingly lackluster character/NPC models, and the game will just age faster. Stylised over realistic for me too. But new and better hardware will also make stylistic visuals better, the kind of quality we're seeing with Spyro, Dragon Quest, World of Final Fantasy, Ratchet and the upcoming Kingdom Hearts 3 shows the true beauty of what the hardware can do. Some of the moments from KH3 looks basically like the movies themselves. Anyway, with the kind of quality we're seeing now I'm in no rush with new generations. I'll of course get the PS5 at launch but I don't think it's needed quite yet. The Xbox One X didn't seem to convince anyone the PS4 Pro is outdated yet it's notably more powerful. Two possibilities exist: Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying. -Arthur C. Clarke reportquote

   WTGHookshot 4 hours ago#92 antoinejones posted... Wildspark posted... That’s not true. Games still don’t look 100% photorealistic so they’re not at the peak yet they may not be photorealistuic but theyre at the peak of what ppl can do with the current technology, or whats in the realm of possibility for $400 bucks. Proof being look at the difference between Ps3 an 4 games... I actually have to LOOK for things to notice them.. whereas PS1 and 2 is extremely noticeable the second you turn a game on, same for PS2 and 3 Most of that is due to purely polygonal count. And of course that's going to be the case. Let's say I take a watermelon and slice it into two equal halves and then take another watermelon and slice that one into four equal quadrants. Look at both watermelons: it's fairly easy to tell the differences between 2 large halves and 4 smaller quarters. But let's do the same again but now as 16 equal pieces, 64 equal pieces, 256 equal pieces, 2560 equal pieces, and so on and so forth. Eventually, you won't be able to tell much difference between it being cut into, say, 256 equal pieces and 2560 equal pieces, despite there being 10 times more pieces. That's pretty much the case with polygons... but that's just polygons. There are other things that can be improved that are a little more noticeable, like lighting effects, coloration, anti-aliasing, depth of field, rays, etc. A perfect example I can think of is water physics and wetness characteristics. Or heck weather (like rain/snow accumulation, materials becoming damp or cold or dried out, heat waves, etc.... There are a lot of things that can be improved visually, just they aren't as simple as "oh, more polygons!" Thanos was wrong. Mike Ehrmantraut, "The moral of the story is: I chose a half measure when I should have gone all the way ... No more half measures." reportquote

   ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)4 hours ago#93 @WTGHookshot posted... Most of that is due to purely polygonal count. And of course that's going to be the case. Let's say I take a watermelon and slice it into two equal halves and then take another watermelon and slice that one into four equal quadrants. Look at both watermelons: it's fairly easy to tell the differences between 2 large halves and 4 smaller quarters. But let's do the same again but now as 16 equal pieces, 64 equal pieces, 256 equal pieces, 2560 equal pieces, and so on and so forth. Eventually, you won't be able to tell much difference between it being cut into, say, 256 equal pieces and 2560 equal pieces, despite there being 10 times more pieces. That's pretty much the case with polygons... but that's just polygons. There are other things that can be improved that are a little more noticeable, like lighting effects, coloration, anti-aliasing, depth of field, rays, etc. A perfect example I can think of is water physics and wetness characteristics. Or heck weather (like rain/snow accumulation, materials becoming damp or cold or dried out, heat waves, etc.... There are a lot of things that can be improved visually, just they aren't as simple as "oh, more polygons!" Please leave my thread. I don't want you here anymore. reportquote

   WTGHookshot 4 hours ago#94 ChunkersMcflush posted... @WTGHookshot posted... Be my guest. Report me as much as your heart's desire. If this site would rather side with you acting as a troll, I have no need for this site. Every post that I see from you is always something contrarian. You just word it in a way so that you can escape violating the TOS. You know what you are doing and by you insulting me you've given me a reason to report you, and that response you just gave is grounds for reportation. Thanks. You are welcome. Like I said, be my guest in reporting me. Feel free to report this post as well, for all I care. I've stated my piece: if this is a site that will side with someone like you over siding with someone like me, then this isn't a site I want to be a part of anymore. Thanos was wrong. Mike Ehrmantraut, "The moral of the story is: I chose a half measure when I should have gone all the way ... No more half measures." reportquote

   WTGHookshot 3 hours ago#95 ChunkersMcflush posted... @WTGHookshot posted... Most of that is due to purely polygonal count. And of course that's going to be the case. Let's say I take a watermelon and slice it into two equal halves and then take another watermelon and slice that one into four equal quadrants. Look at both watermelons: it's fairly easy to tell the differences between 2 large halves and 4 smaller quarters. But let's do the same again but now as 16 equal pieces, 64 equal pieces, 256 equal pieces, 2560 equal pieces, and so on and so forth. Eventually, you won't be able to tell much difference between it being cut into, say, 256 equal pieces and 2560 equal pieces, despite there being 10 times more pieces. That's pretty much the case with polygons... but that's just polygons. There are other things that can be improved that are a little more noticeable, like lighting effects, coloration, anti-aliasing, depth of field, rays, etc. A perfect example I can think of is water physics and wetness characteristics. Or heck weather (like rain/snow accumulation, materials becoming damp or cold or dried out, heat waves, etc.... There are a lot of things that can be improved visually, just they aren't as simple as "oh, more polygons!" Please leave my thread. I don't want you here anymore. This thread is public domain. You can try commanding me all you want, but you do not have any authority on me posting (or not posting) in your topic. Thanos was wrong. Mike Ehrmantraut, "The moral of the story is: I chose a half measure when I should have gone all the way ... No more half measures." reportquote

   #96 (message deleted)

   RetroGamer9 3 hours ago#97 AceofSpades1700 posted... The leap from last gen to this gen is greater than people give it credit for. Some games this gen near photorealism. Ps3 games look crap in comparison. What a load of horseshit. Boot up Uncharted 1 on PS3... it’s a 2007 release and it holds its own against many PS4 games, especially cartoony garbage like Fortnite and Street Fighter V CECH-A00 reportquote

   Korppi123 3 hours ago#98 Lsnake posted... yadehtsiyadot posted... john7281 posted...  show hidden quote(s) This. Stylized all the way. Yeah. Dragon Quest XI was the most gorgeous game I've played this year. Bright, colorful graphics, crystal clear models and textures brimming with personality and life. Whereas RDR2 had gorgeous environments but surprisingly lackluster character/NPC models, and the game will just age faster. Stylised over realistic for me too. But new and better hardware will also make stylistic visuals better, the kind of quality we're seeing with Spyro, Dragon Quest, World of Final Fantasy, Ratchet and the upcoming Kingdom Hearts 3 shows the true beauty of what the hardware can do. Some of the moments from KH3 looks basically like the movies themselves. Anyway, with the kind of quality we're seeing now I'm in no rush with new generations. I'll of course get the PS5 at launch but I don't think it's needed quite yet. The Xbox One X didn't seem to convince anyone the PS4 Pro is outdated yet it's notably more powerful. I get that.  But look at mhw for example. Beautifull game not going for photo realism.  Imagine that, running on native 4k, 60 fps and ever so slightly better visuals with better rendering, filtering and view distance. But the best thing of all: 10 times shorter loading times. Then also possibilities to have better a.i on the monsters, better interactions with the world and its set pieces, more destructible envarionments, oh the possibilities. Why would someone not want to push towards this. Better hardware isnt just for photo realistic graphics, it allows for so much more. This is the state we are at now. How much consoles are lagging behind current tech. And thats a game developed with consoles in mind, for consoles. What they could do if they developed for a stronger system. (edited 3 hours ago)reportquote

   ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)3 hours ago#99 RetroGamer9 posted... What a load of horseshit. Boot up Uncharted 1 on PS3... it’s a 2007 release and it holds its own against many PS4 games, especially cartoony garbage like Fortnite and Street Fighter V This. reportquote

   antoinejones 3 hours ago#100 WTGHookshot posted... antoinejones posted... Wildspark posted...  show hidden quote(s) they may not be photorealistuic but theyre at the peak of what ppl can do with the current technology, or whats in the realm of possibility for $400 bucks. Proof being look at the difference between Ps3 an 4 games... I actually have to LOOK for things to notice them.. whereas PS1 and 2 is extremely noticeable the second you turn a game on, same for PS2 and 3 Most of that is due to purely polygonal count. And of course that's going to be the case. Let's say I take a watermelon and slice it into two equal halves and then take another watermelon and slice that one into four equal quadrants. Look at both watermelons: it's fairly easy to tell the differences between 2 large halves and 4 smaller quarters. But let's do the same again but now as 16 equal pieces, 64 equal pieces, 256 equal pieces, 2560 equal pieces, and so on and so forth. Eventually, you won't be able to tell much difference between it being cut into, say, 256 equal pieces and 2560 equal pieces, despite there being 10 times more pieces. That's pretty much the case with polygons... but that's just polygons. There are other things that can be improved that are a little more noticeable, like lighting effects, coloration, anti-aliasing, depth of field, rays, etc. A perfect example I can think of is water physics and wetness characteristics. Or heck weather (like rain/snow accumulation, materials becoming damp or cold or dried out, heat waves, etc.... There are a lot of things that can be improved visually, just they aren't as simple as "oh, more polygons!" oh youre absolutely right but all those examples you pointed out are things you have to "look hard to see" Uncharted for example I wont deny that getting wet ion the PS3 and the PS4 definitely look very different. But you wouldnt notice those things unless you were actually looking for them. Whereas Dante for Devil May Cry on Ps2, then PS4, you notice how much different and better (and realistic) he looks the second you look at him, you dont even have to be looking for it its just there and that noticeable. Same with Final Fantasy 7 on Ps1 and the remake, the difference in looks is so big a blind person would see them, THATS what we want in new gens, no one wants to pay you 400 bucks every 5 years just because you can make a person being wet look more realistic/accurate. Thats doesn't justify a whole 400 dollar repayment. Id pay 100 or 200 for that... but not 400 My first time and day in Jeuno and the first 6 hours of it is spent staring at a chocobo's butt. reportquote

   1. Boards
   2. PlayStation 4
   3. Graphics are pretty much at their peak. We don't need a new console generation.
      
      1. Boards
      2. PlayStation 4
      3. Graphics are pretty much at their peak. We don't need a new console generation.

      RetroGamer9 3 hours ago#101 ChunkersMcflush posted... RetroGamer9 posted... What a load of horseshit. Boot up Uncharted 1 on PS3... it’s a 2007 release and it holds its own against many PS4 games, especially cartoony garbage like Fortnite and Street Fighter V This. It’s true about not needing another Gen yet despite probably getting one anyway. If we continue to get new consoles with barely any upgrades, we will start to follow the trend of iPhones, where idiotic consumers will be hungry for the new model every so often which doesn’t offer any substantial upgrade at all. CECH-A00 reportquote

      ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)3 hours ago#102 RetroGamer9 posted... It’s true about not needing another Gen yet despite probably getting one anyway. If we continue to get new consoles with barely any upgrades, we will start to follow the trend of iPhones, where idiotic consumers will be hungry for the new model every so often which doesn’t offer any substantial upgrade at all. Exactly. I'm glad that you understand this too. reportquote

      WTGHookshot 3 hours ago#103 antoinejones posted... WTGHookshot posted... antoinejones posted...  show hidden quote(s) Most of that is due to purely polygonal count. And of course that's going to be the case. Let's say I take a watermelon and slice it into two equal halves and then take another watermelon and slice that one into four equal quadrants. Look at both watermelons: it's fairly easy to tell the differences between 2 large halves and 4 smaller quarters. But let's do the same again but now as 16 equal pieces, 64 equal pieces, 256 equal pieces, 2560 equal pieces, and so on and so forth. Eventually, you won't be able to tell much difference between it being cut into, say, 256 equal pieces and 2560 equal pieces, despite there being 10 times more pieces. That's pretty much the case with polygons... but that's just polygons. There are other things that can be improved that are a little more noticeable, like lighting effects, coloration, anti-aliasing, depth of field, rays, etc. A perfect example I can think of is water physics and wetness characteristics. Or heck weather (like rain/snow accumulation, materials becoming damp or cold or dried out, heat waves, etc.... There are a lot of things that can be improved visually, just they aren't as simple as "oh, more polygons!" oh youre absolutely right but all those examples you pointed out are things you have to "look hard to see" Uncharted for example I wont deny that getting wet ion the PS3 and the PS4 definitely look very different. But you wouldnt notice those things unless you were actually looking for them. Whereas Dante for Devil May Cry on Ps2, then PS4, you notice how much different and better (and realistic) he looks the second you look at him, you dont even have to be looking for it its just there and that noticeable. Same with Final Fantasy 7 on Ps1 and the remake, the difference in looks is so big a blind person would see them, THATS what we want in new gens, no one wants to pay you 400 bucks every 5 years just because you can make a person being wet look more realistic/accurate. Thats doesn't justify a whole 400 dollar repayment. Id pay 100 or 200 for that... but not 400 The issue is, that's the case with EVERY technological advancement. The difference between 250 MB of RAM and 1 GB of RAM is drastic, but the difference between 4 GB of RAM and 8 GB of RAM really isn't supremely noticeable by everyone, despite the fact both of those are roughly the same leap in terms of RAM (around 4x). The jump between this year's iPhone and next year's iPhone is going to feel a lot less than the last jump and the jump before that. Does that really mean that next year's iPhone should only be $200? Thanos was wrong. Mike Ehrmantraut, "The moral of the story is: I chose a half measure when I should have gone all the way ... No more half measures." reportquote

      CRIMSON-XIII 3 hours ago#104 Disagree VII Remake Hype reportquote

      #105 (message deleted)

      Minamo 3 hours ago#106 Until other developers can catch up to Rockstar at least in a linear environment, we don't need a new console generation. Hell, most Japanese games are still using flat ground with simple grass or rock textures. Simply throwing more power behind development is lazy and every generation is going to be such a minor difference (besides Rockstar, CD Projekt Red and arguably Ubisoft games) because devs won't be properly optimizing for the hardware. reportquote

      ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)3 hours ago#107 Minamo posted... Until other developers can catch up to Rockstar at least in a linear environment, we don't need a new console generation. Hell, most Japanese games are still using flat ground with simple grass or rock textures. Simply throwing more power behind development is lazy and every generation is going to be such a minor difference (besides Rockstar, CD Projekt Red and arguably Ubisoft games) because devs won't be properly optimizing for the hardware. Exactly. reportquote

      G_U_G 3 hours ago#108 AceofSpades1700 posted... The leap from last gen to this gen is greater than people give it credit for. Some games this gen near photorealism. Ps3 games look crap in comparison. They do look much better this gen but last gen was not bad. I remember hearing that same thing from people about the PS3 graphics. Talking about how great they were and it was almost near photorealistic. And many thought they would be by the time those consoles were 5 years old. Will be the same next gen because there is hardware that will blow away what we see on consoles now. Just have to get there in terms of consoles and the developers making the games. reportquote

      Flare1721 3 hours ago#109 Still a big jump from each gen. Next gen will still be a big jump. And if it makes things easier for devs in the long run I say keep making new consoles and new tech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJKGy-dEJO8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia4NXJeDJkk reportquote

      antoinejones 3 hours ago#110 WTGHookshot posted... The issue is, that's the case with EVERY technological advancement. The difference between 250 MB of RAM and 1 GB of RAM is drastic, but the difference between 4 GB of RAM and 8 GB of RAM really isn't supremely noticeable by everyone, despite the fact both of those are roughly the same leap in terms of RAM (around 4x). The jump between this year's iPhone and next year's iPhone is going to feel a lot less than the last jump and the jump before that. Does that really mean that next year's iPhone should only be $200? Two things there 1) Yes an Iphone barely improves every year (and theyre worse cause theyre coughing them out every year as opposed to every 5 years). The difference is if I choose not to get the new Ipone my current Iphone will still be able to utilize all the newest and latest apps for the next 10 years. With a console I cant play a Ps5 game on my PS4 unless they made a PS4 port so Im being "forced" to buy a new console, not the case with an Iphone. 2) Do what PC does... you know what I said Id pay 100 or 200 fr that upgrade but not 400? Thats because thats about what it would cost to upgrade the graphics card to get those new capabilities. which is gonna be MUCH cheaper than buying a WHOLE NEW PC with an updated graphics card to get the same new capabilities. So instead of making whole new consoles every 5 years that barely do anything new, make them up gradable so we can get those "barely anything new;' features for half the price of buying a whole new console would be. My first time and day in Jeuno and the first 6 hours of it is spent staring at a chocobo's butt. reportquote

      Korppi123 2 hours ago#111 antoinejones posted... WTGHookshot posted... The issue is, that's the case with EVERY technological advancement. The difference between 250 MB of RAM and 1 GB of RAM is drastic, but the difference between 4 GB of RAM and 8 GB of RAM really isn't supremely noticeable by everyone, despite the fact both of those are roughly the same leap in terms of RAM (around 4x). The jump between this year's iPhone and next year's iPhone is going to feel a lot less than the last jump and the jump before that. Does that really mean that next year's iPhone should only be $200? Two things there 1) Yes an Iphone barely improves every year (and theyre worse cause theyre coughing them out every year as opposed to every 5 years). The difference is if I choose not to get the new Ipone my current Iphone will still be able to utilize all the newest and latest apps for the next 10 years. With a console I cant play a Ps5 game on my PS4 unless they made a PS4 port so Im being "forced" to buy a new console, not the case with an Iphone. 2) Do what PC does... you know what I said Id pay 100 or 200 fr that upgrade but not 400? Thats because thats about what it would cost to upgrade the graphics card to get those new capabilities. which is gonna be MUCH cheaper than buying a WHOLE NEW PC with an updated graphics card to get the same new capabilities. So instead of making whole new consoles every 5 years that barely do anything new, make them up gradable so we can get those "barely anything new;' features for half the price of buying a whole new console would be. 1. They keep making games for older gen usually for like 2 years after the release of new gen. So you can have your 9-10 year cycle. 2. What kind of gpu are you buying with 100-200?? Youd get rx-570 4gb at best, sufficient for 1080p 60fps gaming. If rumours are true, ps5 offers gpu equivelant in performance of gtx1070ti, which benchmark almost twice as effective as rx570. With that 400-500$ youd pay for ps5 youll also get new cpu. All in all consoles are a lot more cost effective option for gaming, even if you buy a whole new one every gen. Excluding ps+ cost and more expensive games of course. Also no, there wont be upgradeable consoles, its one of consoles major point to have uniform hardware which devs optimize their games for. (edited 2 hours ago)reportquote

      snake_5036 2 hours ago#112 Graphics are fine but consoles definitely need beefier CPUs at least. There's still plenty of room to improve enemy AI. And there's a good argument for more RAM as well. You felt your sins weighing down on your neck. (edited 2 hours ago)reportquote

      Thierrymon 2 hours ago#113 Pharsti01 posted... Hmm, while im perfectly fine with the graphics as they are right now (or even last gen), theyre not really at their peak... at all. And besides, its not like hardware limits only how "shiny" things are. Think you could make enemies as smart as they are now if wed kept to old hardware? Or that youd be able to see 10 feet in front of your character without fog to help that draw distance XD? Its just not "graphics" at this point that matter. This poster gets it. Hardware power is not just about how good the games look. reportquote

      antoinejones 2 hours ago#114 Korppi123 posted... 1. They keep making games for older gen usually for like 2 years after the release of new gen. So you can have your 9-10 year cycle. yeah they continue making new games for the old console after the new one is released, but do they make ALL of them? No.. i.e where was the dumbed down Uncharted 4 PS3 port? So yes you HAVE to get a new console. Also the other proof that game graphics barely changed between this gen and last is... or how many PS1 games were re released for Ps2? How many PS2 gamrs make it to PS3? Yet PS4 has pretty much all the good Ps3 games released on it, further cementing the fact that theyre not all that different. My first time and day in Jeuno and the first 6 hours of it is spent staring at a chocobo's butt. reportquote

      RollingCradle 2 hours ago#115 Hah! TLOU looked like shit on PS3. compare to TLOUR, 60fps better textures etc. Seriously even if PS5 is basically UC4 in 60fps that's a huge leap. (edited 2 hours ago)reportquote

      Korppi123 2 hours ago#116 antoinejones posted... Korppi123 posted... 1. They keep making games for older gen usually for like 2 years after the release of new gen. So you can have your 9-10 year cycle. yeah they continue making new games for the old console after the new one is released, but do they make ALL of them? No.. i.e where was the dumbed down Uncharted 4 PS3 port? So yes you HAVE to get a new console. Also the other proof that game graphics barely changed between this gen and last is... or how many PS1 games were re released for Ps2? How many PS2 gamrs make it to PS3? Yet PS4 has pretty much all the good Ps3 games released on it, further cementing the fact that theyre not all that different. They make what they can onto older gen. Anyways, argument that 400 dollars every 7 years is outrageous and pc has it better, is ridiculous. Consoles are as cost effective gaming hardware there is, frankly its amazing they can even sell them at the price they sell them for. Ps1 was 32 bit, ps 2 bit 128 bit- thats freaking archaic today. Its not about increasing just bits anymore, you guys gotta get that into your thick heads.  Nvidia is making a.i programmed softwares that create photo realistic human faces on its own and here ps4 folks are crying that having to buy a new console every 7 years is too much and rather stand in the way of progress. For fucks sake. (edited 2 hours ago)reportquote

      RollingCradle 2 hours ago#117 It's kinda common sense that PS4 should be able to run PS3 games though. reportquote

      Vizhour 2 hours ago#118 Really 8gb ram and old cpu it's enough? You know this age almost all "high-budget" games have a good graphic but rarely to get 60 fps beside fps and sport thing and feel embarrassed when playing fast action/open world cause 30fps and still get framedrop reportquote

      End2011 2 hours ago#119 Get a PC and realize the power reportquote

      RollingCradle 2 hours ago#120 Yeah they cant even maintain 30fps on current hardware, seriously a shitty unplayable 30fps is not even sustainable. Of course new hardware is needed desperately. reportquote

      MrDude1 2 hours ago#121 Korppi123 posted... antoinejones posted... Korppi123 posted...  show hidden quote(s) yeah they continue making new games for the old console after the new one is released, but do they make ALL of them? No.. i.e where was the dumbed down Uncharted 4 PS3 port? So yes you HAVE to get a new console. Also the other proof that game graphics barely changed between this gen and last is... or how many PS1 games were re released for Ps2? How many PS2 gamrs make it to PS3? Yet PS4 has pretty much all the good Ps3 games released on it, further cementing the fact that theyre not all that different. They make what they can onto older gen. Anyways, argument that 400 dollars every 7 years is outrageous and pc has it better, is ridiculous. Consoles are as cost effective gaming hardware there is, frankly its amazing they can even sell them at the price they sell them for. $400 for a small marginal graphical upgrade is no good regardless of how many years. If $400 is an upgrade like ps2 to ps3. I am all for it. But because of diminishing returns, it won't be that big of an upgrade to ps5. I am going to pass on ps5 until at least 2023. Look at my sig. I am using like 2008 tech for my pc except for my gtx 1050. Grand theft auto v literally plays like a slideshow. I am holding out as long as I can on it before I build a new pc. Asus MX27AQ | Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8 Ghz E7400 | Zoltac GTX 1050 2GB VRAM | 4 GB DDR2 Mushkin RAM My PC sucks but I still want to play it (edited 2 hours ago)reportquote

      codman4 2 hours ago#122 I think developers needs to start looking at other ways of interacting in a game. Once graphics become truly realistic, there will be nothing else to work towards. Let's focus on gameplay, and how to interact with and view games. Yes, we have vr and motion controls, but 90% of games are controller in hand with a flat screen in front of you. Maybe one day we'll have games that react to you, rather than the other way around. Imagine a horror game that changes depending on your pulse. The controller reads how fast your heart is beating, and the faster it beats, the more nervous your character is. The more nervous they are, the more the world changes around them, or they're more suceptible to making a mistake. You have to keep your heart-rate down, otherwise you're going to trip over something and get caught. Just an idea, but so much more can be done. reportquote

      DarkWarl0rd 2 hours ago#123 ChunkersMcflush posted... I remember when graphics made huge jumps with each generation. That seems to have stopped when the PS4 and Xbox One came out. The graphics don't have that huge leap that the PS1 to PS2 did or that the Nes to SNES did even.  All that you really see is extra dust particles, god rays and that's about it. I'd say that graphics are pretty much at their peak right now. I don't think it's really wise to invest in another console cycle, just focus on how games are for the rest of time. That would be the better choice because costs would actually go down on the games being made and we'll have more original games because developers will be familiar with the hardware and gaming engines if they don't try to come out with another system. If they come out with another system then costs will just keep rising and rising and there will barely any noticeable graphical differences. It just wouldn't be worth it. I honestly wouldn't mind if games stuck with PS2 graphics forever, I just want the games to be affordable to make and not make budgets rise. A fun game should be the most important thing when making a video game. I hope all of these big companies just stick with current hardware forever since graphics have already peaked. >>Graphics are pretty much at their peak. We don't need a new console generation. But we do need a PS4 Pro v2.0 if your saying keep current gen, everyone needs a Pro 2.0 and sony need to eliminate the PS4 base + Pro. Simply because the Base is garbage and the Pro was outdated the moment it hit the stores. Needs a better GPU, CPU and really should have just shipped with 16gb ram. reportquote

      Korppi123 2 hours ago#124 MrDude1 posted... Korppi123 posted... antoinejones posted...  show hidden quote(s) They make what they can onto older gen. Anyways, argument that 400 dollars every 7 years is outrageous and pc has it better, is ridiculous. Consoles are as cost effective gaming hardware there is, frankly its amazing they can even sell them at the price they sell them for. $400 for a small marginal graphical upgrade is no good regardless of how many years. If $400 is an upgrade like ps2 to ps3. I am all for it. But because of diminishing returns, it won't be that big of an upgrade to ps5. I am going to pass on ps5 until at least 2023. Look at my sig. I am using like 2008 tech for my pc except for my gtx 1050. Grand theft auto v literally plays like a slideshow. I am holding out as long as I can on it before I build a new pc. I wouldnt call what has been speculated a minor upgrade to ps4. You can google it.  Heh, if you play with that rig, then you should be aware what kind of boost 9 years worth of advancements bring (Im assuming ps5 is gonna come 2021) (edited 2 hours ago)reportquote

      Korppi123 2 hours ago#125 codman4 posted... I think developers needs to start looking at other ways of interacting in a game. Once graphics become truly realistic, there will be nothing else to work towards. Let's focus on gameplay, and how to interact with and view games. Yes, we have vr and motion controls, but 90% of games are controller in hand with a flat screen in front of you. Maybe one day we'll have games that react to you, rather than the other way around. Imagine a horror game that changes depending on your pulse. The controller reads how fast your heart is beating, and the faster it beats, the more nervous your character is. The more nervous they are, the more the world changes around them, or they're more suceptible to making a mistake. You have to keep your heart-rate down, otherwise you're going to trip over something and get caught. Just an idea, but so much more can be done. And this requires more horsepower. reportquote

      deprofundis442 1 hour ago#126 ChunkersMcflush posted... Strike two. If you keep making baseball threats, I'm gonna get a booooner. http://functor.bandcamp.com http://cadavericlividity.bandcamp.com reportquote

      MrDude1 1 hour ago#127 Korppi123 posted... MrDude1 posted... Korppi123 posted...  show hidden quote(s) $400 for a small marginal graphical upgrade is no good regardless of how many years. If $400 is an upgrade like ps2 to ps3. I am all for it. But because of diminishing returns, it won't be that big of an upgrade to ps5. I am going to pass on ps5 until at least 2023. Look at my sig. I am using like 2008 tech for my pc except for my gtx 1050. Grand theft auto v literally plays like a slideshow. I am holding out as long as I can on it before I build a new pc. I wouldnt call what has been speculated a minor upgrade to ps4. You can google it.  Heh, if you play with that rig, then you should be aware what kind of boost 9 years worth of advancements bring (Im assuming ps5 is gonna come 2021) It's best to take a wait and see approach. I don't get excited about ps5 speculations and tech demos. It's just theory that doesn't mean anything without seeing games in action in real time rendering. Asus MX27AQ | Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8 Ghz E7400 | Zoltac GTX 1050 2GB VRAM | 4 GB DDR2 Mushkin RAM My PC sucks but I still want to play it reportquote

      Combo Master 1 hour ago#128 What is with people who have no idea about graphics and hardware limitations making these topics and getting a lot of responses? Combo Master reportquote

      elemental_rush 1 hour ago#129 Combo Master posted... What is with people who have no idea about graphics and hardware limitations making these topics and getting a lot of responses? exactly what i was thinking. what a shitty fucking topic breaking the internet. one post at a time reportquote

      deprofundis442 1 hour ago#130 Combo Master posted... What is with people who have no idea about graphics and hardware limitations making these topics and getting a lot of responses? Go make some interesting and thought provoking thread that everyone will ignore and leave us alone!! http://functor.bandcamp.com http://cadavericlividity.bandcamp.com reportquote

      foodeater4 1 hour ago#131 Doesn’t look peak to me reportquote

      peontom 1 hour ago#132 Graphics are always a bonus, but gameplay and creativity is a must. reportquote

      ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)1 hour ago#133 foodeater4 posted... Doesn’t look peak to me It is peak whether you like it or not. reportquote

      ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)1 hour ago#134 peontom posted... Graphics are always a bonus, but gameplay and creativity is a must. This. reportquote

      elemental_rush 1 hour ago#135 ChunkersMcflush posted... foodeater4 posted... Doesn’t look peak to me It is peak whether you like it or not. factually this is wrong breaking the internet. one post at a time reportquote

      ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)59 minutes ago#136 elemental_rush posted... factually this is wrong Incorrect. reportquote

      elemental_rush 58 minutes ago#137 ChunkersMcflush posted... elemental_rush posted... factually this is wrong Incorrect. exactly thanks for agreeing breaking the internet. one post at a time reportquote

      LostOdyssey17 56 minutes ago#138 Graphics, FPS and load times can still be greatly improved. I make more money than you. Sucks to suck. reportquote

      ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)50 minutes ago#139 elemental_rush posted... exactly thanks for agreeing That literally made no sense. reportquote

      ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)49 minutes ago#140 LostOdyssey17 posted... Graphics, FPS and load times can still be greatly improved. No. Graphics are at their peak. Load times have gotten worse in some cases. and FPS is fine at 30. reportquote

      elemental_rush 49 minutes ago#141 ChunkersMcflush posted... elemental_rush posted... exactly thanks for agreeing That literally made no sense. you say that a lot. things must not make sense to you a whole lot. breaking the internet. one post at a time reportquote

      ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)48 minutes ago#142 elemental_rush posted... you say that a lot. things must not make sense to you a whole lot. Stop stalking me. reportquote

      Matt_256 48 minutes ago#143 I think the PS4 (I have the Pro) still looks very presentable. I remember 6 years into the 360 lifespan I really started feeling it. Games looking rough, running rough, unable to hold a lot of NPCs on screen, screen tearing galore. Battlefield 3 did it for me, I got that game on the 360 and thought it was trash until I played it on my buddies high end PC. They were totally different games. That's when I was done with the 360 generation. Just flat textures everywhere, textures not loading, screen tearing, ridiculous frame drops. It was just so bad even in comparison to BC2. You could tell the tech was struggling with the newer engines coming out in games. I haven't had that feeling with my PS4 Pro yet. Sure, more advanced games can't or really struggle to maintain 60fps consistently but I'm still generally happy with it. I don't really care that the PS4 can't do Ray Tracing. I don't really feel like I'm being left in the dust yet. Sure, if another console gets released I'll buy it but I'm not in a rush yet. I can still easily get a few more years of enjoyment out of this thing. (edited 47 minutes ago)reportquote

      Every1hasAids 45 minutes ago#144 TC, you need to experience what graphics really look like. PC gaming is where it’s at. And consoles are and will forever be, behind. PC gamers already have a graphics card with 4- 24GB of DDR5. And CPUs are so ahead of its time, you can install a 32-Core processor that will last you years. If you want. There are also 6 and 8 cores available. And you can install 64GB of ram. Good for dual all that set up is good for dual 4K or 8K monitors.  And you think graphics on consoles are amazing 🤨.  Consoles today are running graphics are medium settings. Regardless if it is the Pro or the X. When I play on my Xbox One S, and look at the graphics, it’s like I’m playing on my Xbox 360. Favorite fighting game: Tekken Least favorite fighting game: Smash Bros. reportquote

      ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)44 minutes ago#145 Every1hasAids posted... TC, you need to experience what graphics really look like. PC gaming is where it’s at. And consoles are and will forever be, behind. PC gamers already have a graphics card with 4- 24GB of DDR5. And CPUs are so ahead of its time, you can install a 32-Core processor that will last you years. If you want. There are also 6 and 8 cores available. And you can install 64GB of ram. Good for dual all that set up is good for dual 4K or 8K monitors.  And you think graphics on consoles are amazing 🤨.  Consoles today are running graphics are medium settings. Regardless if it is the Pro or the X. When I play on my Xbox One S, and look at the graphics, it’s like I’m playing on my Xbox 360. Games look barely any different on PC. Just more particles and god rays on PC and 60FPS. Woo. Such a big jump. (edited 43 minutes ago)reportquote

      Degalon 43 minutes ago#146 Every1hasAids posted... TC, you need to experience what graphics really look like. PC gaming is where it’s at. And consoles are and will forever be, behind. PC gamers already have a graphics card with 4- 24GB of DDR5. And CPUs are so ahead of its time, you can install a 32-Core processor that will last you years. If you want. There are also 6 and 8 cores available. And you can install 64GB of ram. Good for dual all that set up is good for dual 4K or 8K monitors.  And you think graphics on consoles are amazing 🤨.  Consoles today are running graphics are medium settings. Regardless if it is the Pro or the X. When I play on my Xbox One S, and look at the graphics, it’s like I’m playing on my Xbox 360. On the other hand, keeping up with the tech like that is expensive as fuck. Part of the reason I stick to consoles, despite having a gaming computer, is I like not having to worry if my ps4 can run a new game.  Lot less technical problems playing on console. Plus, yaknow, tv and couch. GT/PSN: DEGALON Official Fuu of the Naruto Storm 3 Boards reportquote

      Shinobi120 39 minutes ago#147 I agree with posters such as Minamo. I also predict that AAA 3rd party support will get much worse on the next Xbox & Playstation consoles due to obscene development costs. And why's that? Because of people wanting more better power & graphics. And if 3rd party publishers starts targeting 4K assets, etc., expect that to happen. (edited 33 minutes ago)reportquote

      briguy 30 minutes ago#148 Sure, they can get more photo-realistic, but I'd wager that there are more people playing games that are satisfied with the level of graphics that are out right now.  I'd much rather devs focus on game mechanics and world design instead now. Fear is just interpretation. Feeds my motivation. Our time together is a bloodbath of serenity. reportquote

      ChunkersMcflush (Topic Creator)29 minutes ago#149 briguy posted... Sure, they can get more photo-realistic, but I'd wager that there are more people playing games that are satisfied with the level of graphics that are out right now.  I'd much rather devs focus on game mechanics and world design instead now. Same. reportquote

      Snuckie7 2 minutes ago#150 Graphics are pretty much at their peak People only say this when they don't know any better (i.e. console only gamers). Graphics have been "reaching their peak" since 3D graphics became a thing. They always still get better though. i7 3820 @ 4.5GHz | MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X | 8GB Samsung DDR3 2133 | PCP&C 600W reportquote

      1. Boards
      2. PlayStation 4 
      3. Graphics are pretty much at their peak. We don't need a new console generation.