-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Is this recent generational jump, the lowest ever(PS5/XSX/XSS)?
Sleepwalker
Member
Yes, yes it is.
But its not really about graphics, western developers either forgot how to innovate or are too busy injecting social commentary into their games and producing cookie cutter garbage in the gameplay department.
30vs60fps has nothing to do with that, fking lol.
Ray tracing is also a culprit, they wanted to advertise RT as a next gen feature but the hardware has shitty RT implementation. You could argue console games would look a lot better and run at higher resolutions without some shitty RT puddles. Cyberpunk Path tracing capable, they are not.
But its not really about graphics, western developers either forgot how to innovate or are too busy injecting social commentary into their games and producing cookie cutter garbage in the gameplay department.
30vs60fps has nothing to do with that, fking lol.
Ray tracing is also a culprit, they wanted to advertise RT as a next gen feature but the hardware has shitty RT implementation. You could argue console games would look a lot better and run at higher resolutions without some shitty RT puddles. Cyberpunk Path tracing capable, they are not.
Last edited:
analog_future
Banned
No worries, I can totally understand those that feel that jumps haven't been significant this gen.
But honestly I distinctly remember the same complaint being widespread for the first few years of last-gen, and the first few years of the gen before that.
I do feel that we're going to see games that absolutely blow us away in the years to come. Gears 6, The Last of Us Part III, and the like.
NightmareFarm
Member
Those complaints were that it wasn't as big of a leap as the gen beforehand which transitioned from SD to HD, one of the most transitional gens graphic wise actually. It's understandable since living up to that is a tall task. Whereas here there is literally no leap at all. Graphics evolved more in late 8th gen than it is now in early 9th gen, thats how little graphics have changed with the release of the 9th gen consoles.
Dont set yourself up for dissapointment. In the previous gens we saw next gen graphics right out of the gate with E3 and exclusives released in the first year within launch. 9th gen has had two and a half years so far, just the same 8th gen graphics. Even if we see a leap later on it will almost certainly be because the game is going to go back to fixed 30fps to achieve those visuals which would be worse imo at least as things are now we can bridge the 60fps gap and then enjoy a huge graphical leap when 10th gen consoles come out in 2027.
MikeM
Member
analog_future
Banned
Eh, again, I find games like Ratchet & Clank and what we've seen of Forza Motorsport and Hellblade II to already look plenty next-gen. And we'll undoubtedly see improvements past those games as the generation goes on, particularly with UE5 development well under way with a number of titles.
And I would be MORE than happy to see 30fps games this generation if the visuals justified the performance.
Like, you can't expect games to run at four times the resolution, twice the framerate, and also look exponentially better than last generation w/ path-traced ray tracing and the like from a $500 box. You'd need a console that's literally 20-30x more powerful than the 2013 base consoles to be able to accomplish that.
Last edited:
NightmareFarm
Member
Like I said, not going to risk getting banned so not going to prove why it isn't with a screenshot comparison like I did before. I do not see how Rift Apart is next gen in any way.
>And I would be MORE than happy to see 30fps games this generation if the visuals justified the performance.
To each our own. I'd rather if this gen we just focused on making 60fps a universal standard. Even story heavy games feel much better at 60fps to me, 30fps feels like its stuttering.
analog_future
Banned
Your last sentence illustrates that this generation has already redefined your requirements for visuals then, despite you saying "there is literally no leap at all" with this generation.
Luckily/unluckily it was always fine to me.
Sleepwalker
Member
Case in point, Gotham Knights was 30fps on consoles, didnt innovate or push graphics in any way despite the framerate.
Brain drain is why we are where we are.
Last edited:
Operations66
Member
The law of diminishing returns is at play.
Ev1L AuRoN
Member
Sony and Microsoft have telemetry on their consoles, they know damn well how important 60fps is for their base. It's not like 30fps is unplayable, but we don't want to go back to that world where 30fps is the standard.
Fbh
Member
In terms of design?
Yes absolutely, there barely was a proper next gen with the Ps4/X1 but this time there basically isn't one.
In terms of tech?
No. Games might not have taken a big jump if you look at screenshots but in motion they not only look nicer than last gen but they run at twice the framerate.
I find the jump just as big as from ps3 to ps4.
Yes absolutely, there barely was a proper next gen with the Ps4/X1 but this time there basically isn't one.
In terms of tech?
No. Games might not have taken a big jump if you look at screenshots but in motion they not only look nicer than last gen but they run at twice the framerate.
I find the jump just as big as from ps3 to ps4.
CitizenKratos
Member
I’d say it’s an equally large jump as the one from ps3 to ps4. A bigger one even. Particularly on the cpu side as we finally have most games at 60 fps.
Last edited:
fallingdove
Member
Not at all. Next to no loading is amazing and so much more meaningful than prettier graphics that won’t hold up 10 years from now.
YeulEmeralda
Member
Hardware is useless if you don't have the skill or budget to use it.
cash_longfellow
Member
99.623% based on my calculations.
Edit - it’s also the same people that claim a game that’s new has “ps3 graphics”.
Last edited:
Bernardougf
Gold Member
Im playing all my games at 60 fps so for me the jump was more than worth it...
But ...if I have to guess i would guess that the same people surprised and annoyed by the "small jump" from previous generations are the same people that would have been screaming their lungs out if we had the "big jump" but had to pay a premium for that (aka 700+ dollars consoles)
Technology and evolution costs money... specially after the pandemic, this generation should have been more expensive ... I wish and hope that the next one will be ... the time for 500 " fake premium" consoles are over or should be
But ...if I have to guess i would guess that the same people surprised and annoyed by the "small jump" from previous generations are the same people that would have been screaming their lungs out if we had the "big jump" but had to pay a premium for that (aka 700+ dollars consoles)
Technology and evolution costs money... specially after the pandemic, this generation should have been more expensive ... I wish and hope that the next one will be ... the time for 500 " fake premium" consoles are over or should be
Rickyiez
Member
This. If PS5 could run the Matrix demo at 4k 120fps smoothly then I will start to believe in diminishing return.
Rhazer Fusion
Member
Yeah, imo this generation does have the smallest generational leap in graphics so far with a few exceptions like the genuine exclusives which are few and far between. That could speak volumes about the visual and performance quality of this generation when so many people are seemingly begging for “Pro” versions of the current generation of consoles and even willing to pay exorbitant amounts of money for them.
Last edited:
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Detail needs to be consistent, if one part of the scene is rendered in crazy detail then every part needs to match it in order to make a coherent whole. Generally you don't see simply rendered characters in photo-realistic environments (or vice versa) because the weakest element tends to drag down the overall impression.
It needs to look correct in motion also, so animation needs to be done to a matching standard. Transitions need to be fluid, material in clothing needs to react like the real thing, etc.
This need for consistency applies across every scene and moment in the game. If one "level" looks amazing, but the next is done to much lower fidelity... people will notice!
The obvious consequence of this is that scale has a huge impact. If a hundred characters are needed, its probably not ok for them to all look alike. The human eye is very quick at spotting repeated patterns...
The point is that every element I've just listed has a cost in terms of manpower to create and data for the machine to interpret. What this means is that even when the amount of resources available massively increases, as the complexity of the elements rise, all the extra "power" ends up being distributed somewhat equally across the whole thing.
This dissipation into the whole is why we perceive diminishing returns.
If the canvas is small, (as in the scope is narrow -like some of the UE demo's mentioned in an earlier post) then you can apply the same amount of "paint" a lot thicker.
Take the Unreal Matrix Awakens demo for example: It looks amazing, but what you can do in it is fairly limited. Were you to try and build it out content wise from that level of presentation EVERYTHING you add would need to be of a matching standard or else it'd take away from the impact. Hitting that quality/fidelity level for each addition will not be easy, so the time/cost of implementing it would be extremely high.
And of course if it was expected to run on the same systems with the same memory and cpu/gpu power as the demo... that might demand compromises be made.
Just saying, I think some folks expectations are way too high. Going above what we have now is one hell of an ask from a logistical and economic standpoint.
It needs to look correct in motion also, so animation needs to be done to a matching standard. Transitions need to be fluid, material in clothing needs to react like the real thing, etc.
This need for consistency applies across every scene and moment in the game. If one "level" looks amazing, but the next is done to much lower fidelity... people will notice!
The obvious consequence of this is that scale has a huge impact. If a hundred characters are needed, its probably not ok for them to all look alike. The human eye is very quick at spotting repeated patterns...
The point is that every element I've just listed has a cost in terms of manpower to create and data for the machine to interpret. What this means is that even when the amount of resources available massively increases, as the complexity of the elements rise, all the extra "power" ends up being distributed somewhat equally across the whole thing.
This dissipation into the whole is why we perceive diminishing returns.
If the canvas is small, (as in the scope is narrow -like some of the UE demo's mentioned in an earlier post) then you can apply the same amount of "paint" a lot thicker.
Take the Unreal Matrix Awakens demo for example: It looks amazing, but what you can do in it is fairly limited. Were you to try and build it out content wise from that level of presentation EVERYTHING you add would need to be of a matching standard or else it'd take away from the impact. Hitting that quality/fidelity level for each addition will not be easy, so the time/cost of implementing it would be extremely high.
And of course if it was expected to run on the same systems with the same memory and cpu/gpu power as the demo... that might demand compromises be made.
Just saying, I think some folks expectations are way too high. Going above what we have now is one hell of an ask from a logistical and economic standpoint.
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
This is also why it's infuriating to see Sony studios not overhauling their engines to tale advantage of the SSD, like what was promises by Sony and Cerny.
If you're not going to improve RAM relative to other gens, and you're not going to use SSD to make up for it, and are going to give us the run around after spending $550 ...
Which is why it's further infuriating to see Ps5 gamers standards so low, defending the very companies that lied to us
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
Why should we care about Sony's logistics when every previous generation they had sufficient resources and money to put into making next gen graphics?
As far as scale ...who was asking for the scale of the world to be so much bigger than Miles?
As far as expectations ...I think it's fair for expectations to be a significant improvement over the cross gen Miles Morales.
It's not. That's the bottom line. It's not a real improvement over Miles because Sony under Herman Hilst and Jim Ryan are in cost saving mode, with none of Sonys studios overhauling their engines to take advantage of the big SSD promise. None have been improved to work in a similar way that Unreal 5 is to be able to achieve Matrix style leaps in lighting and assets.
Feels like we've been bamboozled all gen long. First it was cross gen bs and now its next gen games that are basically the same tech as what we've had for 3 years.
To see so many gamers throwing in the towel is disheartening
Shadowstar39
Member
4k is why. This got pushed real fast to sell new displays and the gpu tech hasn't advanced quick enough, plus companies price gouging mixed with inflation. It really should of went 1440p /60fps as the norm not 4k. Then 4k later or up scaling. The ps3 to ps4 went to 1080 standard from 720p, not 480x600.
Without insane high resolution, other graphics could be pushed more. Also physics and sound could be more highly focuses on. T
Apocryphon
Member
This generation is only just getting started:
Faster loading, more enemies on screen, more particle and alpha effects, and more 60fps games. Not the visual generational leap we may have become accustomed to but I’ll take it.
Faster loading, more enemies on screen, more particle and alpha effects, and more 60fps games. Not the visual generational leap we may have become accustomed to but I’ll take it.
PeteBull
Member
I guarantee u if ps5/xsx had 32 gigs of ram(its more of a vram really, for the most part, actually, since its shared between cpu/gpu and its not ddr4/5 ram but gddr6 so the kind u get in gpu's), and still only had this kind of weak gpu/cpu combo they do now- barely nothing would change.
U will have clear indicator with upcoming ps5pr0, it wont have 32gigs of ram, at most it will have 24 or maybe even less, but how good games gonna look is dependand on something else than vram/ram, aka gpu/cpu upgrade vs base ps5.
If u got too lil of it then it has big effect on games, but once u got enough then it doesnt matter.
More Vram is way more cost too, just look at recently launched rtx 4060ti with 8gigs, msrp 400$, and in a month 16gigs variant is launching, msrp 500$.
Fast ssd sony put into ps5 is godsent, but like always- u need that big cpu/gpu upgrade for actual better graphics, we did get at least 3x cpu upgrade over jaguar, the thing is- it was so weak even back at ps4 launch in 2013 so downclocked/less cashe r7 3700x seems like its very strong in comparision.
Gpu wise, especially if any RT is happening, both ps5 and xsx(not to mention xss that often has rt mode scratched off) suffer most, vs current topend PC rigs(cant be helped for now, those were 500$ machines back in 2020, gotta be patient and wait for ps5pr0).
sendit
Member
.....game over try again
kyussman
Member
I honestly wasn't expecting some huge graphics upgrade this gen even with the extra power,I was expecting games designed in exciting new ways to take advantage of those much bragged about SSD's......but that hasn't happened either......instead everyones decided remaking old ass games is the future of gaming!
But then you have games like Jedi pushing under 720p at times on PS5 and still running like crap.
darrylgorn
Member
Yes. And the console makers don't care, because sales are higher than ever.
LoveCake
Member
The leaps will only get smaller over the years.
The reason we have the current situation, where there really doesn't seem as much of a gap is the continuation of cross-gen releases, until the majority of games are only released for PS5 & Xbox Series X we won't see the true benefits.
The reason we have the current situation, where there really doesn't seem as much of a gap is the continuation of cross-gen releases, until the majority of games are only released for PS5 & Xbox Series X we won't see the true benefits.
kruis
Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
Even if you get a 4090, you won't see a generational jump, since the games running on it will still be designed for the lowest common denominator. The power is there for a generational jump, but the reality is that you'll just get a slightly prettier and smoother running version of the same games PS5/XSX owners are playing. You can increase the framerate to 120fps, you can play the game in true 4K but your $2000 graphics card will not magically turn a crossgen UE4 game into an next gen UE5 game using Lumen, Nanite, Direct Storage and full raytracing.
Last edited:
Mobilemofo
Member
Most console gamers can't be arsed Feckin about with PCs. I myself spent 20 years building Pcs etc. Also, for the price of a 4090, I'd expect a some serious next level shit.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Facts. It's a narcissism and talent problem.
hinch7
Member
Not entirely true. There are some exceptions like Cyperpunks 2077 Overdrive setting on PC. And other games that use Pathtracing. Thats just not possible with this generation of consoles.
I recently completed Portal RTX and it was fairly enjoyable experience revisiting it with updated graphics and full raytracing.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Its impossible to ignore the consequences though. Do you want games to continually take longer to make and cost more at retail?
Just doing the same thing as before at a higher level of detail is an effective increase in scale! That's the point.
This is just silly. You cannot expect a team to completely change engines between franchise entries, especially when there's absolutely no reason to take that sort of risk.
Seems to me like you've bamboozled yourself! Just going from 30 to 60fps as an expectation performance-wise is a huge jump in itself. Sure if somebody, somewhere was willing to deliver a product with frame-times like PS2 Shadow Of The Colossus you'd expect the visuals to be literally jaw-dropping. But objectively speaking how well would that be received by the gaming public?
Gorgon
Member
I mostly agree. Even on PC a lot of people are using native 1440p monitors. And when using 4K TVs games are basically doing 1440p as the rendering baseline that is then dynamically upscaled to 4K using DLSS or FSR. Unfortunately, in consoles, native rendering many times dips below 1440p with dynamic upscalling. And outside of direct comparions side by side like in a Digital Foundry comparions, in gameplay you you'd be hard-pressed to notice the difference.
A good example is Skyrim's latest edition in PS5 and XSX. On the former, Skyrim runs natively at 4K, but framerate occasionaly dips below the targeted 60 fps to keep that locked 4K native resolution going. On the XSX, the game uses dynamic upscalling, thus lowering the native rendering resolution below 4K at times, but with the benefit of having a virtually stable & locked 60 fps. During actual gameplay the upscaling is hardly noticeable when it occurs. And as far as I'm concerned, I'll take the locked and stable 60 fps with dynamic upscaling any day of the week.
I used to be in the camp that 30 fps was "just fine" outside of Shooters, Racing games, Fighting games, etc, and that getting some extra eye-candy was worth the 30 fps. I changed my mind. Honestly, even in something like Hellblade the difference in gameplay is night and day. Playing at 60 fps is just SO much better. Pardon my french, but 30 fps is shit that needs to go, unconditionally. 30 fps "mode" is just unaceptable these days, especially because games don't really look much better on "quality" mode anyway. Most optional ray-tracing in console games, for example, is really doing nothing worth the performance hit. It's a text book case of diminishing returns. 60 fps, on the other hand, makes a huge difference in gameplay, virtually always, and should be the baseline.
They are basically low-mid end PCs, and that's already taking into account the console-specific engineered optimizations. People shouldn't expect miracles from 500$ boxes. Yes, games will eventually look better as the generation goes especially if you throw hundreds of millions of dollars into development, but people need to keep their expectations grounded.
Thaedolus
Member
Honestly, it feels very modestly upgraded from last gen. I’m looking at FFXVI being this flagship next gen game, first PS5 game I’ll buy since TLOU remake, and I’m like…that’s it? This is next gen? I mean it doesn’t look bad but it’s not exactly blowing me away. And here I am still sinking 100+ hours into TotK on ancient tablet hardware.
Buggy Loop
Member
I keep saying it but peoples put their heads in the sand. We’ve reached the limits of rasterization or close to it imo. The next step is « believable » lighting and shadows, because while I’m sure you think it looks fine as it is now, your brain detects that something is off and « videogamey ».
It’s gonna be a hit on performances, but we have to go towards real time path tracing.
Lumen will already shake things up with it’s software RT (hardware RT in matrix demo). It’s a step in the right direction and when games are developed natively with RT tech rather than slap an effect on it like most games on PC, it’ll blow peoples’ minds in the leap in graphics.
Also, peoples will not like this but, AI has to come in. Devs are overwhelmed by traditional methods to create assets and the expectations of always making crazy good graphics, there’s very few studios who have that kind of workforce and budget. AI will also speed up physics by huge margins compared to traditional brute force methods.
Game physics predicted by AI thousands of times faster than traditional methods
AI texture upscale on the fly
Automatic lipsync based on language
Life-like faces animations and models
AI driven animation
Next gen consoles will have to be strong in ML and RT. There’s no escaping it. Otherwise you’ll see an even lower generational jump than this one.
It’s gonna be a hit on performances, but we have to go towards real time path tracing.
Lumen will already shake things up with it’s software RT (hardware RT in matrix demo). It’s a step in the right direction and when games are developed natively with RT tech rather than slap an effect on it like most games on PC, it’ll blow peoples’ minds in the leap in graphics.
Also, peoples will not like this but, AI has to come in. Devs are overwhelmed by traditional methods to create assets and the expectations of always making crazy good graphics, there’s very few studios who have that kind of workforce and budget. AI will also speed up physics by huge margins compared to traditional brute force methods.
Game physics predicted by AI thousands of times faster than traditional methods
AI texture upscale on the fly
Automatic lipsync based on language
Life-like faces animations and models
AI driven animation
Next gen consoles will have to be strong in ML and RT. There’s no escaping it. Otherwise you’ll see an even lower generational jump than this one.
