Show us the quotes where John, Todd, and Phil said the leap this gen will be the smallest yet. I’m curious since Todd has said this could be a bigger leap than what we saw from Morrowind to Oblivion.
“the overhaul on our engine is probably the largest we’ve ever had, maybe even larger than Morrowind to Oblivion”
There is also a difference between discussing diminishing returns and the what you’ve been saying in this thread.
Last I don’t care what a bunch of people on a forum agree on. A large amount of people thought the world was flat, doesn’t mean they were right. That place is the last site I’d reference as justification for my opinion when it comes to game technology.
If you’re going to make a statement, then tell us why, what good is just stating somthing without any reason why you think it, how do you expect anyone to understand why you believe something?
However there is not a difference to what ive been saying and dimininishing returns, you cant have diminishing returns without the visual leap being smaller, “the returns” are the visual improvement in this case, and they are dimininishing (getting smaller), which is what Ive been talking about.
John carmack has been talking along these lines for a while, he has talked about at various oculus events and I think he did on the joe rogan podcast how the hardware leaps are getting harder and harder. Phil Spencer has talking about that this gen will be how games feel and more immersive world and that last gen games already look near photo realistic. Ive found the todd Howard video but forgive me for not wanting to scrubb through hours of phil Spencer and carmack content. Im pretty sure if you asked them if the visual leap in games is getting smaller with each forthcoming generation transition they would say it is.
@27.25 for todd Howard.
Ok? Good for you I guess… I dont really know why you are telling me this.
Its a shame we can find no points of agreement and this topic has to be so either “you’re correct or im correct”. Some people think the visual leap will be the same, larger or smaller.
The question is to me in 5yrs if we fire up RDR2 on our seriesXs take a stroll in the forest or in a town Im confident it wont feel primitive like how RDR1 feels now compared to RDR2. This is not discounting advancements in next gen that will no doubt happen, A fictional RDR3 exclusively for current gen I suspect will have a realtime dynamic lighting model, increased world geomentry and more advanced fluid and particle simulations but despite these advancement I cant see how a stroll through a town in RDR3 will have the same level of improvement from RDR1 to RDR2, it is an excellent example of dimininishing returns.
No one is arguing against diminishing returns. You are claiming we’re hitting the point of diminishing returns where large leaps aren’t going to happen and that is where the difference lies.
Also I mentioned not caring what people on another site think because you felt the need to introduce their opinions into the conversation. Why else would I comment on it?
This is a strange thread when they have hardware Raytracing in these console GPUs which is the largest leap since going from fixed function to programmable shaders
You dont have to post in it if you think its strange.
Im actually very pleased with the hardware of the next gen machines.
Also perhaps read a bit more of the thread, its not just about saying the leap is smaller visually, its also about how games will improve in other ways. People are just looking at the thread title and being really defensive without reading much of the actual thread.
Im playing more stutter free games on my Series X than on 360 or Xbox One, so this is already a greater leap than before for me. And if you think there is no great visual leap just look at Metro 2033, Exodus and the next gen patch of Exodus on your Series X.
No or less sutters is great, but its pretty apparent from this thread its not that simple, of course individual opinion is going to play a large part, but there is no real argument against dimininishing returns in visuals. As stuff gets more realistic the improvement is going to get smaller and smaller.
i personally would disagree. When stuff gets more realistic, having accurate lighting gets more important. And on 360 and One this was often very wrong, because computing correct realtime global illumination was too expensive for these machines.
Yes I agree lighting is very important, there was a huge jump in lighting from 360 to the one.
But my point is during last gen things started shedding the things which made it so obvious it was a videogame.
Forgive the low res PS3 shot, if u can find a better one i will upload.
You see the trees in RDR2 look pretty convincing, so improving forests next gen will be more subtle, the leap was big from the 360 to the one because things still looked really fake, even lacking the geometry required.
The visual leap is not immediately apparent in gifs or even in low bitrate videos (that includes Youtube), especially when displayed on non-4k screens or screens that are too small.
But on a large HDR 4K TV running at 60+ fps (framerate is temporal resolution, that’s visuals too!) the difference is pretty darn large. Especially since we’re only just getting started.
3 years in, exclusives will be melting eyeballs and they’ll be doing so running smoothly at 60fps.
Lol, if its the basis for my entire point it should be easy for you to quote me where I said this…but you haven’t…
Also you contradict yourself, its impossible to have dimininishing returns and have a similar visual leap of ps3 to ps4, that would be static returns.
The whole meaning of dimininishing returns in relation to visuals is that as things gets more realistic the smaller the visual improvements will be. However as Ive said many times there will still be improvements. Last gen games will age a lot better.
I’m not playing the semantics game with you, so stop. If you’re just going to continue to spin and twist words around to suit your agenda, this thread won’t be open much longer. The quote below is exactly what I’m describing, so quit the obtuse act already.
“In the PS4 gen devs got quite good in creating realistic objects and surfaces and if devs have already done a good job in imitating the core visual elements of things like wood, marble, metal,mud etc there isnt very far to go at improving these things or its gets increasingly more expensive and difficult for dimininishing improvements.”
Also it’s not a contradiction to say we’ll see ps3 to ps4 leaps even with diminishing returns. Diminishing returns has been a topic since the PS360 generation and yet we’ve still seen large leaps. Diminishing returns applies to many things and doesn’t have to apply to a game scene as a whole. For example poly counts won’t see similar leaps like we saw in the past, but that doesn’t mean character models won’t see massive leaps.
You’ve been entirely dismissive of any point that doesn’t align with your view, ignoring entire points because it doesn’t fit your agenda, and repeated the same stuff ad nauseum. We should be here to discuss the topic, not see you argue with everyone else because you think you, and only you, are right.
What are you talking about, the above paragraph does not mean what you say below
You are literally saying I said something completely different to what I actually said.
Its rather ironic that what you accuse me of in the paragraph below is what you are doing here.
Oh so now your saying “dimininishing returns” is not in the context of game visuals as a whole but breaking it down to individual visual components like lighting, polycount etc. Well it seems you just add new criteria to the discussion when its not going your way… In this thread and in general when people talk about dimininishing returns they are talking about visuals as a whole and not specific areas.
I disagree, i presented my points and if people say im wrong while ignoring my points then yes I will repeat them so maybe they aknoledge them. What agenda? I have my opinion and why I think it as do you.
Yes…I think what im saying is right…shocking I know…
And its not only me, todd bleeding Howard’s also shares my opinion. Did you see my Todd howard video by the way? You seemed rather interesting before I posted the video but after i posted it you said nothing of it.
Ive tried to make this conversation more constructive talking about other ways this generation may improve but it seems people are gravitated to this one point.
What you’ve been saying is exactly what I described. You didn’t need to say exactly what I described because what I posted was a description of your point, not an actual quote.
I don’t have an agenda, I even said earlier that I’m not saying anyone who’s disappointed in the graphics this gen so far is wrong for thinking that. Read and comprehend before accusing other people of things.
I’m not adding any criteria to the discussion. The entire topic of diminishing returns has never applied universally to every step of the rendering pipeline. If you can’t even understand that concept then there is no point in you even discussing this topic. The graphical make up of video games is FAR too complex and nuanced to just simplify it in a general or vague manner.
There’s a reason why that poly count picture you posted earlier was covering just poly counts and not textures, shaders, etc. This isn’t really that hard to understand.
No one is ignoring your points, that’s impossible with how many times you’ve repeated the same points by now. The issue you completely ignore counterpoints when it doesn’t suit your agenda or opinion. For example you completely ignored me asking you about the leap we could see with Hellblade.
It’s not about thinking you’re right. It’s about being so pigheaded and stubborn that you refuse to even comprehend what others are saying.
