Did anyone actually notice a difference in graphics between the PS3 and PS4...

Did anyone actually notice a difference in graphics between the PS3 and PS4? It really is getting harder and harder to notice.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=cVTCreOWwzQ
youtube.com/watch?v=TMYso30L9zI
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

graphics could have stopped improving with the gamecube/ps2 era and I would be okay with that

I also noticed how PS3 is where the no games meme started and it eventually moved to the PS4.

Notice how PS1/2 have Ape Escape trilogy while the other two dont have any AE platformer, i wonder what could this mean.

the PS4 can only handle PS3 games at 60fps, of course there wouldn't be a jump

pc could run ps3 games at 4k 5 years ago

are you retarded?

...

600 looks the best

You have to be retarded to think there is nothing more to graphics than the amount of polygons objects have.

Easily noticeable.

>implying video games exist

A single screen of data at minimum resolution (640x480), is 307,200 pixels. Open up a new picture in MSPaint, set its size to 640x480, fill it with all black, save it, and check its file size. That's 4.01KB.

Now change one pixel to a non-black color and save it again. That's 4.02KB.

Assuming you control that pixel with the arrow keys, and all the game is is moving that pixel in the 640x480 space, that's a total of 307,200 possible locations. 307,200 * 4.02 = 1,234,944KB.

That's 1.2 GIGABYTES.

The average sprite in an NES "game" is supposedly eight pixels tall.

That's OVER NINE GIGABYTES, for a single non-animated sprite moving in a featureless black void.

Of course, there are steps a designer could take to shrink the size of the game, mostly by decreasing the freedom of the moving pixels; still, that all goes to shit when you factor in ANOTHER sprite. This results in what is known as a 'combinatorical explosion' where the number of bytes necessary to hold every position exceeds the number of protons in the local galactic cluster.

Video games will not be possible in practice until computers occupy something other than space and are made of something other than matter.

This is wise.

Particle effects and lighting. Seriously. It's getting hard to push higher poly counts without crippling the GPU, but lighting and particle effects are new tricks the current run of console GPUs can handle nicely.

it also ties into resolution.

a 6000 poly model looks like shit at 4k.

hell it looks like shit at 1080p.

Particle effects still haven't surpassed Crysis and lighting hasn't improved any outside of EA games for the most part.

GTAV has better lighting than 99% of next-gen games and that came out before these new consoles.

It means that no one gives a fuck about Ape Escape anymore, sadly. Shame, really; the first game was insanely creative, and the second and third entries really had some good magic going too. More to the point, outside of Nintendo the mascot platformer is a dead franchise.

Daily reminder that this image expresses nothing because the original model was created at 6000 triangles and the 60k is just that with subdivisions, adding no additional detail

>outside of Nintendo the mascot platformer is a dead franchise.
are you retarded?

ratchet, kratos, master chief, gearsofwar. littlebigplanet

That 60000 triangle model wasn't modeled by hand. It's just the 6000 triangle model artificially smoothed out

Infamous SS relied on it pretty heavily, as did Killzone Shadow Fall. I don't have an Xbone, but I'd bet your bottom dollar that the new Halo features some of the lighting and particle effect tricks we saw in those Sony titles. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm primarily a PC gamer too, but at the launch E3, that was what they were talking about mostly.

I wish more devs had this mentality

I only cared about the cute loli cunnies and the spats.

Yes, current technology hit the wall, at this point only entirely new way of rendering images can bring graphics on the next level, and console devs sure as fuck aren't interested in innovating

Can you show me an example of particles in KZ? I'm not saying next-gen games don't use new tricks, just saying that last-gen isn't far away.

Black Flag is one of the most impressive games of current memory and it was last-gen too.

>Wii resolution
>xBox resolution
>PS resolution
>PC resolution

Accurate

As you get older, you'll eventually learn to keep your "clever" thoughts to yourself

What am I looking at here?

>Did anyone actually notice a difference in graphics between the PS3 and PS4? It really is getting harder and harder to notice.
You can't be serious

>people still post and believe this image

MC and GoW are First and third-person shooters. LBP is hardly emblematic of the platform, Kratos hasn't had a current gen release, and the remastered R&C didn't do too well to invigorate the film it was promoting. Besides, no one immediately thinks of Ratchet when you ask someone about the PS4, though you may have a point with Halo being emblematic of the platform.

looks like a ps3 game

Only thing I could find on short notice, but it does apply. There was a lot of things like it in there beyond that too.

Witcher 2 on Xbox has similar graphics and is better in some ways, like in the use of AO.

Tomb Raider 2013 and Metro is comparable also.

>looks like a bad nonfactual opinion

Actually EA did use a new rendering method for Battlefront called "photogrammetry" which involves scanning props n shit for vidya games.

Rather than using resources to make one model with ten times the triangles that looks slightly better, use the resources to make ten models with 6000 triangles that still look good

ten 6,000-triangle models as opposed to one 60,000-triangle model, making the case that it'd be smarter to use all the extra processing power to have average-looking gaem with more gaem than a very technically nice-looking gaem with less gaem.

First thing I could find. They use similar things throughout the game, mostly dust flares and lighting on the space station chapter.
youtube.com/watch?v=cVTCreOWwzQ

This image has been debunked years ago

Can confirm, work for video games. This is our biggest secret.

Why are you saying silly things on the internet

>new
Are you fucking kidding me? Oblivion used that.

That's cool.

This comparison makes _zero_ sense. All those extra polygons mean extra vertices which means more normals to use in the calculation of lighting, which means smoother and higher resolution shading.

Whoever made this pictures knows absolutely nothing about 3d rendering.

Oh I see. Yeah, that would be pretty cool if games did that. Graphics are already good enough.

Yes, PS3 games look like shit compared to PS4. Sure a good PC will be better especially if you can push 4K, but 1080p with AA is still so much better than 720p or sub-720p without AA as was the standard on the PS3.

>Actually EA did use a new rendering method for Battlefront called "photogrammetry" which involves scanning props n shit for vidya games

youtube.com/watch?v=TMYso30L9zI

It is. There was a lot of meat on the bones of Shadow Fall, so I'm pretty excited for that Horizon: Zero Dawn game. Heard it got pushed back to February of next year, but I can wait.

>Witcher 2 on Xbox has similar graphics
>720p
>constant tearing
>25fps
>ultra shitty AA

That's neat. It really shows, especially in the rocks and stuff.

Resolution and AA isn't graphics you retard.

Main differences I'm noticing are better lighting and more shit on the screen. Draw distances are usually better too.

After a google search, I found no results that stated Oblivion used photogrammetry. And by new, I meant new for vidya games, since it hasn't been used by a triple A company for many many years.

What are you trying to say? None of those two games used photogrammetry

Someone post the debunk image

I actually liked Shadowfall. Sure it did not reinvent the wheel in terms of shooters but it had excellent visuals (especially for a launch title) and it was an okay game overall. Definitely not worth buying a PS4 for but if you like console shooters and you can get it for

That isn't rendering, that's asset creation.

Get your eyes checked, or quit playing bargain bin trash.

Yes it is retard

Witcher 2 on 360 looks like shit, if you stick around long enough I'll boot it up via Xbone BC and post some screenshots.

How much of the previous games do I need to know? Or can I get away with a passing understanding of the setting?

I'm kinda keen on Shadow Fall because it looks damn pretty and I've a raging boner for sci-fi shooters.

i dont wear my glasses when playing vidya so i cant tell

even if its the same game with same shaders and 3d models. the resolution doesnt chage a damn thing,

is like playing in a bigger tv

My bad, haven't took 3D Art since first semester college.

get a load of this guy

at least jap games run at 15+ fps.

not hentai 3d games obviously. they ar emade to run like shit on every hardware

You don't need to know anything about the previous games, it takes like like 100 years after the first game if I remember correctly and has little to do with the previous installments.

To what?
Making super disappointing games like Battlefront, or stuff with shit combat like W3 and UC4

>Did anyone actually notice a difference in graphics between the PS3 and PS4

The jump to PS4 from PS3 is literally just high res textures and better lighting.

I thought the jump from PS2 to PS3 was weak years ago. This one is even weaker.

implying there was a gpu in 2010-2011 that could do 4k@30fps minimum
nigga is u srs?

OH WOW THIS LOOKS JUST LIKE UNCHARTED 4

I maintain that if graphics had stagnated at a PS2/GC/Xbox level, gaming would be in a much better position than it is today. Anyone that cares about graphics in any way is a cancerous blight on this industry.

Resolution and AA totally don't matter!

(Let's just ignore the fact that Witcher 2's 360 assets are also complete trash)

I know you're being sarcastic, but aside from the humans, there is hardly any difference between that and U4.

These are PS3 games.

And I'm the one being sarcastic

you're a fucking dumbass

This is a PS4 game.

We've pretty much maxed out (within reason) anything that you should care about with respect to geometry and textures. Even going past 4K is pointless now because the differences in resolution don't matter.

What matters now is getting engines to decently render light and make it look pretty, instead of a grey washed out mass.

Enjoy being BTFO. note how the texture quality is exactly the same. Like I said, aside the humans, it's almost the same.

They look exactly the same outside of characters!

Also Witcher 2 on 360 has a load screen every 5 seconds. Every single door.

>hurr let's bring up load times to try and change the argument so I wont be so BTFO
pretty pathetic desu. If you can't win the argument, just stop posting, you only make yourself look like even more of a sperg lord.

What are you even comparing on the left there?

Kill yourself

not in the models, but in the lighting and textures maybe

See and cry your consolecuck heart out.

U4's wooden door texture.

A-MAZE-ING

I noticed that the lighting was a bit better on this generation of consoles.

I meant the source you retard

I cant wait until the year 2050, when video-game graphics are basically as good as they can possibly get, and game devs can turn all their attention to improving the important parts of games!

Also, they can spend like 30 years making the best fucking games ever imaginable, because they wont fall behind in graphics.

If you take more than like 3 years to make a game these days, it comes out looking bad graphically compared to other games.

Imagine the kind of games we will see, when the average game is developed for 8+ years.

Nowadays, lighting and art style are what make games look good.

The image posted in the thread of U4.

There's more to graphics than triangle count. There's rendering resolution, framerate, texture resolution, lighting and shadow techniques, physics simulations, audio quality, animation quality, particle effects, map size, object count, etc. Even if OP's image wasn't a misguided attempt to make a statement, there is still a ton of progress to be made on graphical fidelity for real-time rendering.

And yes, I have noticed a difference between PS3 and PS4. Just compare FF13 and FF15, the difference is night and day.

>what is resolution

Oh, you're talking about that pre-release screenshot with ultra heavy depth of field enabled, confusing that with texture quality, got it, you are a retard.

this is only a dream, once the graphics limit sets in, there will always be new goals to reach, for example at this moment it is VR headset, then it will come all the way when you dont know if you are either dreaming, in real life, or in a game

Post actual U4 wooden door then. With or without DoF enabled, the result will be the same, it'll just be less blurry on the contours, since DoF doesn't change the textures. Dumbass.

>If you take more than like 3 years to make a game these days, it comes out looking bad graphically compared to other games.

Isnt that shit pre-rendered???

one might say you know what you are talking about, but actually you spewed alot of irrelevant bullshits to sound smarter
>audio quality
>map size
>object count

Here's a door

>I don't know how DoF works

...

>audio quality
There is more an improvement to simulation than graphics, you are right, but there is a ton of work that can be done to improve how sounds are affected in a simulated environment. Similar to raytracing for lighting, you could apply the same kind of processing for audio to get something that sounds much better than something just playing directly off a triggered action.

>map size
>object count
These are self-explanatory, not sure why you are so asspained about it.

...