PS5 and Series X reached their graphical peak (Mid gen upgrades do not count)

[Forgeafrontier]

 After seeing the new final fantasy 16 gameplay I am starting to feel the PS5 has reached its limit graphically, if there was any game that was gonna show dramatic improvements it was that game and now we are seeing footage of it and looks worse than Horizon 2 (that game I think showed the full potential of the PS5). I think any graphical improvements with the PS5 tech going forward will be very minor. If we are getting big graphical leaps in this current generation it is likely going to be engine level upgrades. I think insomniac is the only studio that can make a huge upgrade. I don't know what type of magicians insomniac has got over there but they manage to blow people away with every project they get. I know not all their games are perfect (I really am not a spiderman ps4 guy) but they are the kings in the graphics department.

None of this is bad and I am not complaining, games these days are starting look on par if not better than Pre rendered cinematics.

[ZinogreVolt]

This generation is largely a pretty incremental upgrade over the last, which is partly why we've seen cross-gen releases last much longer than usual. SSDs are valuable for load times, but they don't actually do anything for raw enhancement of asset quality, and raytracing is too taxing on hardware to really be worth a whole lot. We've also just hit a developmental breaking point for devs, where going for even bigger and even prettier games just isn't worth it relative to the cost. Budgets already ballooned like crazy starting with the PS3/X360 gen, and the unnecessary increase in scope and visual fidelity are the two biggest culprits for why that's the case. There's also the fact that great-looking visuals aren't really all that impressive by itself anymore. The leap between PS4/XB1 and now, at least on the surface level, is nothing compared to the monumental leap between something like the N64/PS1 and GC/PS2.

[Forgeafrontier]

37 minutes ago, ZinogreVolt said:

This generation is largely a pretty incremental upgrade over the last, which is partly why we've seen cross-gen releases last much longer than usual. SSDs are valuable for load times, but they don't actually do anything for raw enhancement of asset quality, and raytracing is too taxing on hardware to really be worth a whole lot. We've also just hit a developmental breaking point for devs, where going for even bigger and even prettier games just isn't worth it relative to the cost. Budgets already ballooned like crazy starting with the PS3/X360 gen, and the unnecessary increase in scope and visual fidelity are the two biggest culprits for why that's the case. There's also the fact that great-looking visuals aren't really all that impressive by itself anymore. The leap between PS4/XB1 and now, at least on the surface level, is nothing compared to the monumental leap between something like the N64/PS1 and GC/PS2.

I can see where you are coming from but I am still not fully sure that making a game look pretty would take more of a budget, especially considering the engine is doing 90 percent of the work (the engine development is what I think you are reffering to by to expensive), you should look at unreal 5.1 tech demos if you want to know just how good video games graphics are starting to look. think what is time intensive is the art style because that requires actual artistic vision a lot more than just increasing texture quality and lighting. Again I don't think its bad if graphical enhancements stay the same because games are already looking pre rendered movies now.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

On 3/4/2023 at 5:21 PM, Forgeafrontier said:

On 3/4/2023 at 4:38 PM, ZinogreVolt said:

This generation is largely a pretty incremental upgrade over the last, which is partly why we've seen cross-gen releases last much longer than usual. SSDs are valuable for load times, but they don't actually do anything for raw enhancement of asset quality, and raytracing is too taxing on hardware to really be worth a whole lot. We've also just hit a developmental breaking point for devs, where going for even bigger and even prettier games just isn't worth it relative to the cost. Budgets already ballooned like crazy starting with the PS3/X360 gen, and the unnecessary increase in scope and visual fidelity are the two biggest culprits for why that's the case. There's also the fact that great-looking visuals aren't really all that impressive by itself anymore. The leap between PS4/XB1 and now, at least on the surface level, is nothing compared to the monumental leap between something like the N64/PS1 and GC/PS2.

Expand  

I can see where you are coming from but I am still not fully sure that making a game look pretty would take more of a budget, especially considering the engine is doing 90 percent of the work (the engine development is what I think you are reffering to by to expensive),

Given the industry's obsession with more fidelity, beyond the point of practicality, trying to make games looks "better" does indeed pump up the finances of making the games.

Even worse, it's to the point where they have started to charge some games to $70.00.

This is in no small part, due to companies wanting to make games look better, but going about it the wrong way.

[Tornado]

It's kind of hard to stake this claim when the overwhelming majority of games being released on the systems are still being held back by hardware that was shitty in 2013.

[Sonicka]

The jumps are getting smaller and smaller for sure (at least on the a surface level to the casual user), but I don't think the system has reached its 'graphical peak' just yet (but it depends under what measure of graphical peak you mean - pure photorealism? stylised arthouse? Is the framerate and performance factored into this as well? etc...).

Regardless, it's been the same song and dance through recent console cycles and only at the end of a consoles lifespan do you tend to get the most technically impressive games that take full advantage of its hardware... before it's abandoned for new tech. This is understandable, but it also sucks IMO (and must be a ball ache for developers to relearn their job all over again I'm sure). So whatever starts out or is cross gen ported to often doesn't feel hugely different because this is brand new hardware that developers are learning to utilise. 

It's why I personally don't bother investing in newer consoles until later in its lifespan - for one it's the price, for two there usually just isn't anything particularly interesting until much later on. Besides there is the availability of cross gen games that are still (thankfully) available on hardware that I already own, and frankly are not inferior to a degree that makes it worth upgrading IMO. 

PS5 likely won't "peak" until the PS6 rears it's head, and the same conversation will rear it's head again. 

This is why I also don't think using Horizon II is a particularly good example to be completely honest - this is a game built for PS4 and enhanced on PS5. Between playing this on my Pro and my friends PS5 I honestly couldn't tell much difference between the two (there are differences of course - but it's a testament to the dev team in how well this looks and performs as a PS4 swansong). I expect now they are shifting gears to solely focus on the PS5 that we'll begin to see these new technical feats that the previous gen apparently can't accomplish - especially with their upcoming (and controversial) 'PS5 only' DLC expansion.