I couldn't agree more.
7th Generation isn't over yet and Ps3/360 sales are outdated.
-
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 something wrong with me? I'm not impressed by this generation.
- Thread starter Fredrik
- Start date
7th Generation isn't over yet and Ps3/360 sales are outdated.
quote them, they're ungodly huge, not everyone is on mobile.
If people want to seem them in real size they can click them.
Don't try to hack your way with using notions you don't have and I won't have problems with your argumentation.
dr guildo
Member
My argumentation was based on that demonstration :
Now, if you tell me that it's not how diminishing returns operates in videogames graphics, I'm ok, and I thank you in advance for the real explanation, always in the videogame context, not the economic one of course...
My argumentation was based on that demonstration :
Now, if you tell me that it's not how diminishing returns operates in videogames graphics, I'm ok, and I thank you in advance for the real explanation, always in the videogame context, not the economic one of course...
It's not simply because graphics do not begin and end with triangle counts. This picture demonstrates nothing except how a single untextured bust is rendered.
There is no environment, other character models, there is no overhead considerations of the hardware they use (since it's a static 1 frame render), no dynamic lighting to account for.
This image represents almost nothing about games.
My argumentation was based on that demonstration :
Now, if you tell me that it's not how diminishing returns operates, I'm ok, and I thank you in advance for the real explanation...
You want everything spoonfed to you or something?
here's the link you can go there and get your own conclusion.
It's not about number of polygon output, it's about budget and ROI.
The Wow factor, "OMG IT'S LIKE REAL LIFE" or how good it looks is not at all interesting when you're talking about diminishing returns.
The important part is ROI.
On top of that you pic is absolutely inaccurate in how the gfx part of a 3D model is done too, heck it doesn't have the amount of effort put in making the model (which would be the important information if we're talking DR in 3D gfx).
dr guildo
Member
Yeah, I agree, that's why I was talking about shaders and light more than poly and IQ in my argumentation.
The Abominable Snowman
Member
My argumentation was based on that demonstration :
Now, if you tell me that it's not how diminishing returns operates in videogames graphics, I'm ok, and I thank you in advance for the real explanation, always in the videogame context, not the economic one of course...
That's a terrible thing to bring to this thread. That does not account for textures, motion, shading, or anything. And its a terrible model.
I will say this: The "Meh, I'm skipping this generation because its not impressive" rancor in 2013/14 is far less than the same rancor in 2004/2005.
My favorite - "LOL Xbox 360 can't even run Crysis! LOL!!!!"
dr guildo
Member
I know your link, Of course this is an eco context in its right definition, you learn nothing to anyone, and you try to look smarter than, but in fact, you are not capable to transpose that economic rule in a videogame graphics context in a raw manner, by conserving the global idea of that rule. That's where you fail...
dr guildo
Member
I agree, once again, please, read my argument in previous page. I just think that people think there isn't big gap because they discern the problem backwards, they look back (last gen), when in fact, we have to look ahead (the target : real life).
I personally feel like we've seen it all before.
During the last generation, gameplay looked a certain way and cutscenes often looked another but now (ie Infamous) that line is blurred and we're now playing with graphics that look like cutscenes which is GREAT but it doesn't feel "new".
I think the big thing this generation will be art direction and atmosphere. The reason Infamous looks so good is not because of the technical achievements but how amazing the lighting is and how the design is handled overall. And similarly, TLOU. The game wasn't technically beautiful but the art direction was amazing. I think that's where the big jump is going to be. Games looking artistically unique with the technical aspects being a bit less important.
During the last generation, gameplay looked a certain way and cutscenes often looked another but now (ie Infamous) that line is blurred and we're now playing with graphics that look like cutscenes which is GREAT but it doesn't feel "new".
I think the big thing this generation will be art direction and atmosphere. The reason Infamous looks so good is not because of the technical achievements but how amazing the lighting is and how the design is handled overall. And similarly, TLOU. The game wasn't technically beautiful but the art direction was amazing. I think that's where the big jump is going to be. Games looking artistically unique with the technical aspects being a bit less important.
You are the one being obviously dumb on this one,
for your pic to be even close to the same you would have to have the same lighting and everything but just higher polycount.
That's just for you pic.
In a video game context, it have nothing to do with how the game ends up looking but how it would end up selling.
It's like arguing that evolution is wrong because it creates information and that's against some law of physic.
It's stupid, if you do not define properly your various elements you end up in this kind of dead end.
Define what is "investment", "production" and the rest in your case, or you're just misusing a term you've heard elsewhere and try to pass it off as something else.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
They didn't stop, they're playing games on their smartphones. Almost every older adult (50s-60s) I know that owns a smart phone is playing something on it. That's where the simple to pick up and play games have gone. Of course modern gamers despise the format, but what they don't realize is that this simple stuff is exactly what gaming was like in the beginning.
TalentBurke
Member
I had no idea that the playstation one destroyed the N64 so bad. Daaaaaaaaamn lol
Well it did well in the US.....and that's about it.
I don't think real life is the target. I think that people simple are not bothering to actually look at what is coming out vs what was last gen.
Also, i am going to go ahead and argue that some people here are too young to remember the ps2 -> ps3 gen leap. This sort of "well the new games don't look that good" happens literally every single gen.
Coffeeling
Member
Yup. It was amusing to read gamespot forums in the mid-2000's. People calling exactly the kinds of games they started on "non-games".
@ guido and the people arguing with him:
Stop the dickwaving contest, please? I don't think I've seen anything productive to come out of it, it's just "you're dumb" times infinity. Besides which squabbling over whether it's graphics implementation or budget that's suffering from diminishing returns seems hilarious because they're both subject to it.
It's more like the N64 destroyed itself. Same with early-gen 360/PS3, and then post-2008 Nintendo just dropped the Wii like a rock and let it die. Strange things.
dr guildo
Member
Ah ok, so you problem is that I don't call a dog, a dog... ?!
Ok, I'm fine, let's move on...
It's not about how far we are from last gen, it's about how close we get to real life.
This I'll never get personally, and it was happening here too IIRC.
Heck wasn't there a special tier for nongame status in Japan or something or am I remembering wrong...
Graphic implementation you can argue that it's less noticeable since there's so many ways in which gains in productivity made things that were hard to do before so trivial.
Heck just look at what kind of stuffs you can do with CS now that required so much heavy lifting before.
As far as games goes, it's way easier to do what you could do before with less resources.
Yes or we end up with some meaningless talk that means nothing.
And no it's not about how far we are from real life because really bring someone who doesn't about games in general and show them your infamous shots he won't see that much difference with your other shots while he'll instantly see the difference from real life (just the interface is enough anyway).
dr guildo
Member
Haha, you fail once again, my comparison with real life is to make Infamous2 irrelevant and to show how far it is from real life in comparison to ISS. And indeed, it works pretty well, because no one would dare to put Infamous2 and ISS on the same level when it comes to touch reality. By doing this, it becomes more obvious to figure out the large gap between the two generation. And that's why my argument is rightful.
Edit : but as Coffeeling said, I'll stop the dickwaving with you here, 'cause you quickly understand but I must explain long
I personally don't believe in "graphics" making a generation anymore.
Thinking back, of course, graphics enables levels of immersion as technology advances. And it will play a huge part as time goes by.
But all things considered, it's the stories and gameplay, music etc. which also played a huge part.
So to say, "argh, graphics are stagnating" is not the equivalent of a generation stagnating.
Thinking back, of course, graphics enables levels of immersion as technology advances. And it will play a huge part as time goes by.
But all things considered, it's the stories and gameplay, music etc. which also played a huge part.
So to say, "argh, graphics are stagnating" is not the equivalent of a generation stagnating.
Melchiah
Member
The Wii, which was the main focus of my post, isn't really selling anymore though.
My argumentation was based on that demonstration :
Now, if you tell me that it's not how diminishing returns operates in videogames graphics, I'm ok, and I thank you in advance for the real explanation, always in the videogame context, not the economic one of course...
Here's a better version of the image.
And another:
They did stop. The specific people 'I'm talking about in my post do not play games now. I was not speaking generally.
Userbase? As in implying 260m+ "users" as in implying that not a single person ever buys more than 1 console?
Something I also have wondered about is failure rates. Does a person who ends up with a new console through a manufacturer replacement count as a "sale"? Normally this wouldn't be an issue but the failure rate of the PS360 -with emphasis on the suffix- was extremely high to the point that it would likely have a meaningful impact on the final gen numbers as well.
Melchiah
Member
That would go for the previous generations as well. The majority of DC owners most certainly bought another system, for example. However, there's no data about how many customers owned multiple systems, which is why it's pretty pointless to debate about it.
The same goes for failure rates. And the PS3's failure rates were nowhere near the RROD numbers. My own PS3 got the YLOD after nearly five years of use, and I bought the slim model as a result.
BumblebeeCody
Member
I don't think this is even about graphics. But I guess people on here think it's an important point.
MightyHedgehog
Member
IMO, that tells you a lot about the modern gamer who, for some reason, overvalues the technical visual end of gaming and that focus helps lead us to having the limited and shitty selection of titles featuring unambitious gameplay that we have.