Do you feel graphical differences between systems are being downplayed in Gen.8 vs Gen.7?

Tucker

“Do you happen to know how to fly this thing?”
#1
This started as a conversation in one of the Skype groups but eventually got a bit out of control for the groups intended purpose. This is transcribed segment contains my argument explaining why I think they are, but why it's totally understandable:


[07:16:11 PM] Jason Rose: Whether you find it important to you personally or not, tech, visuals, performance, FPS an resolution are objectively important. Always have been. Sorry for the late post.

It doesn't have to be one or the other -- visuals or fun -- it should be both.

[07:17:49 PM] Tyler "Tucker" Smith: I will always be the first to say, though, that graphics will never make the game, and a powerful graphics engine does not pleasing art-design make.

[07:55:45 PM] Jason Rose: Nope but they've always been an important facet and talking point. I find it surprising that people want to treat this generation differently than every other before it. By comparison, the visual differences this gen are actually under reported on compared to PS360s

[07:58:00 PM] Tyler "Tucker" Smith: It's not that the differences are under reported on, it's just that they're just basic changes due to the identical architecture that there's barely anything interesting to talk about. "Oh look, the resolution is different and everything else is the same" does not an in-depth story make.

[07:58:19 PM] Jason Rose: Yet again, by comparison, the differences are bigger in most respects than last gens. The criticism towards the PS3 for even the slightest deficiencies was deafening. There have been some pretty big differences between PS4 X1 and this time, they're downplayed instead.

[08:00:28 PM] Tyler "Tucker" Smith: Well, you also have to look at the acceptability threshold.

720/30p is pretty much baseline - below on either count becomes unacceptable as an experience on an HDTV
Above that is gravy.

So yeah, there are some big differeneces, but none of them break the experience on the lesser platform like what was happening in the early days of the PS3.

Did you notice how people cared less about the differences last gen before the HDTV boom?

The big thing now is percievable difference. Red Dead Redemption ran at 20% lower resolution on the PS3, but that was sub the magic 720 line. ACIV runs at 30% less resolution on the Xbox One, but it's still well above the magic 720 line.

To that point, a typical person with 20/20 vision cannot resolve the entire 2.07mp image of a 50" 1080p panel outside of about 6 1/2 feet.

When you consider the typical 8ft seating distance from a typical 50" panel, the appreciable differences between 1080p and 900p become less pronounces. In fact, depending on the nature of the scaler used, on the lower resolution unit, and the quality of the anti-aliasing used on the higher one, 900p could appear smoother to the end user.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
#2
my opinion on this is that graphics haven't mattered much since the gamecube/ps2 xbox era... outside of like .0001% of games that come out graphics ONLY serve the visuals... we NEEDED the bump from n64 to gamecube because draw distance, framerate and visabiltiy were serious concerns... since then it has all been graphical fidelity and nothing else... nearly every major game that we think is inconceivable on the wii u that appears on the ps4 could have been put on a gamecube.... the only difference being the level of detail...

that being said.. I am glad there was a jump to HD but it has become less and less important with each passing generation... the improvements n0ow that some people freak out about are laughable... the ps3 and 360 in 2005/2006 were capable of more than enough for the artists behind the games to put across their true vision... now the difference between console generations is like the difference between high and max settings on a pc game rather than the difference of the game being possible at all or not

and IMO that is a pathetic thing to be excited for...

tech just isn't the issue now... now the artists have to step up their game and the coders need to make it easier for them to do so... the tech has been there for almost 9 years

4k will never take off.... people will transition up to it over time because that is all the companies will make available to us... services will upgrade but most people wont even know when it has... it is different from the step up from sd to hd... because hd is enough... bluray never took off because nobody cares about the extra quality when netflix offered easier access

this numbers game is just dying out

things will need to be radically different for an improvement that actually matters... like VR so convincing your brain thinks it is real... and that is decades off
 

Tucker

“Do you happen to know how to fly this thing?”
#3
lol, same argument different trajectory taken there :p


I still buy the crap out of Blu-ray, though - especially for older movies. You haven't seen The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly until you've seen in on Blu-ray, I'm tellin' ya. The old film carries so much detail and the compression on streaming services loses the nuances. Modern digitally shot films look good, but they're like CD vs Vinyl - both are high quality, but one just has more character, and Blu-ray is the best way to bring that character to your home screen. Not that I don't still use Netflix... a lot.
 

Superfakerbros

ECE 2018
Moderator
#4
It goes both ways. There are those who feel it's a pretty big leap and those, like me, who feel it's a small leap. I say it's a small leap because I'm just not blown away. PS3/360 games still look good and, with a bit of extra polish, higher resolution textures, and better lighting, they could easily pass for next-gen games. That and, well, when I saw PS2/GC games for the first time, I could definitely see a big difference from the PS/N64. Same with every prior generation. Now, with the PS3/360 at launch, it wasn't quite so big but it became quickly noticeably after the first year or so, largely due to the huge leap and change in architecture. The 8th generation is easily the smallest leap in hardware we've ever seen in a gaming generation and, while the games look great and all, they don't make the best of PS3/360 games look outdated
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
#5
It goes both ways. There are those who feel it's a pretty big leap and those, like me, who feel it's a small leap. I say it's a small leap because I'm just not blown away. PS3/360 games still look good and, with a bit of extra polish, higher resolution textures, and better lighting, they could easily pass for next-gen games. That and, well, when I saw PS2/GC games for the first time, I could definitely see a big difference from the PS/N64. Same with every prior generation. Now, with the PS3/360 at launch, it wasn't quite so big but it became quickly noticeably after the first year or so, largely due to the huge leap and change in architecture. The 8th generation is easily the smallest leap in hardware we've ever seen in a gaming generation and, while the games look great and all, they don't make the best of PS3/360 games look outdated
Yes, this is exactly what I feel.

SNES to N64 was a killer improvement. I'll never forget the first time I saw Mario 64.

N64 t0 GC and PS to PS2 was huge.

GC to Wii and PS2 to PS3 it wasn't great as I expected.


GC to Wii probably was the most weak transition. But on the other hand, when you compare Sunshine to Galaxy, you can see how Wii gameplay improved from GC. That's why gameplay and quality games are better than just graphics.
 

Tucker

“Do you happen to know how to fly this thing?”
#6
The GC to Wii was a weak transition because the Wii is just an overclocked GC :p

The PS2 to PS3 gulf didn't really show off until much later in the generation, but the PS2 was by far and away the weakest hardware of Gen.6, so it came back as the most improved. The 360 was good pretty much out of the gate, but the original Xbox was a powerhouse, so the differences were smaller until later on (outside of resolution and AA, of course).
 

EvilTw1n

Even my henchmen think I'm crazy.
Moderator
#7
Huh. Totally missed this thread before. The things you discover on lunch break, I suppose.
Did you notice how people cared less about the differences last gen before the HDTV boom?

The big thing now is percievable difference. Red Dead Redemption ran at 20% lower resolution on the PS3, but that was sub the magic 720 line. ACIV runs at 30% less resolution on the Xbox One, but it's still well above the magic 720 line.

To that point, a typical person with 20/20 vision cannot resolve the entire 2.07mp image of a 50" 1080p panel outside of about 6 1/2 feet.

When you consider the typical 8ft seating distance from a typical 50" panel, the appreciable differences between 1080p and 900p become less pronounces. In fact, depending on the nature of the scaler used, on the lower resolution unit, and the quality of the anti-aliasing used on the higher one, 900p could appear smoother to the end user.
This reminds me of an article I always used to link to about 1080 vs. 720 HDTVs.
http://www.cnet.com/news/720p-vs-1080p-hdtvs-2009-update/

Is there a perceptible difference? Yes, on a very big screen, when you're very close to it. And perhaps if you're reading text/captions. That aside? The difference that is easily perceivable is nigh on negligible. Which is why I find it kind of funny if people say the PS4 is so much more powerful than the One based upon resolution alone for certain games.
my opinion on this is that graphics haven't mattered much since the gamecube/ps2 xbox era... outside of like .0001% of games that come out graphics ONLY serve the visuals... we NEEDED the bump from n64 to gamecube because draw distance, framerate and visabiltiy were serious concerns... since then it has all been graphical fidelity and nothing else... nearly every major game that we think is inconceivable on the wii u that appears on the ps4 could have been put on a gamecube.... the only difference being the level of detail...

that being said.. I am glad there was a jump to HD but it has become less and less important with each passing generation... the improvements n0ow that some people freak out about are laughable... the ps3 and 360 in 2005/2006 were capable of more than enough for the artists behind the games to put across their true vision... now the difference between console generations is like the difference between high and max settings on a pc game rather than the difference of the game being possible at all or not

and IMO that is a pathetic thing to be excited for...

tech just isn't the issue now... now the artists have to step up their game and the coders need to make it easier for them to do so... the tech has been there for almost 9 years
If I could RAP this 10 times, I would.
 
Top