I believe returns are increasing, not diminishing

Henry

Banned
Next-gen like BIA are simply beautiful.

Contrary to Nintendo's idea of diminishing returns, are they increasing?

3D on the PSx was simply horrible. On PS2/Xbox, leaps better but still bad. Now we get high res, clarity, we begin to get truly beautiful 3D for the first time.

And, we had to deal with a resolution increas soaking up power! Next gen not dealing with this should allow for much more improvement than we got this time.

So twenty years after the diminishing returns philosiphy was first seen by me in regards to get this, the SNES, by a VG&CE editor, returns continue to increase.
 
When people say diminishing I dont think they necessarilly mean graphical improvement. What we see as an improvement in each generation is mostly a raise in polycount, resolution and textures. With other words we msotly experience improvement on the game's "skin" until we reach to a point where we wont be seeinng much difference in gaming experieence.
Take Gran Turismo 1 and 4 for example. GT4 improved on every aspect. Its probably the game for every car lover. But take GT4 and GT1 and the biggest difference is the game's "skin". Polygon increase,more detailed texture, better resolution on GT1. It doesnt make that much of a difference. Same goes for Wipeout. Wipeout XL was a lot better than Wipeout. It was a real sequel. Wip3out didnt offer anything exceptional even in the graphical aspect, and Wipeout Fusion was mostly a prettier Wipeout. It wasnt the immersing experience I was expecting from a next gen console.
Tekken5 is a SUPERB fighting game. Yet, playing Tekken3 on my Tekken5 disk doesnt feel like a hell of a different experience. Tekken5 is a "bettered" improved Tekken. Technology didnt offer anything new on gameplay except from more polycounts, better textures and better resolution.
Many of us are relying our hopes now on AI and physics.
 
Speaking of the technical side of the diminishing returns thing, the one place where I think it rings truest, is with regards to resolution.
240 lines looks far better than 160, 480 quite a bit better than 240 and 720 only somewhat better than 480.
Of course it depends on the subject matter. Text and fine line drawings will benefit more from higher resolution, but a typical AAed frame from a videogame should look fine in 480p.
At least I think there are aspects of graphics that we should focus on getting right, before power is used on increasing resolution.
There are far more pressing issues such as better textures, various bump mapping techniques and really good robust AA that should get priority over mere resolution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry said:
Next-gen like BIA are simply beautiful.

Contrary to Nintendo's idea of diminishing returns, are they increasing?

IIRC, Nintendo's idea of "diminishing returns" is related to the number of new customers attracted : they believe that a smaller price point combined with a new input method will do more for growing the industry than the large increase in graphics proposed by MS and Sony.

They think that, if, for example, 20% of the customers of the PS2/GC/XBox generation were decided by graphics compared to the previous generation, this number may very well drop to 5% for the new batch of consoles.

The DS is an example of how they may have a point, but
1) its overwhelming success is Japan mostly (it's also successful in Europe and US, but not nearly near the level of Japanese success)
2) although underpowered compared to the competition (PSP) it still represents an enormous bump over the hardware it replaces
3) rules for the handheld market and the home market are very different

So we will see. I believe their theories will prove true to some amount in Japan, and that the Wii will be moderately successful (a bit more than the Cube) in Europe and US, unless 3rd party support is very strong for genres appealing to the Western audience, in which case it may end up very successful in the Western world too.
 
Squeak said:
Speaking of the technical side of the diminishing returns thing, the one place where I think it rings truest, is with regards to resolution.
240 lines looks far better than 160, 480 quite a bit better than 240 and 720 only somewhat better than 480.
Of course it depends on the subject matter. Text and fine line drawings will benefit more from higher resolution, but a typical AAed frame from a videogame should look fine in 480p.
At least I think there are aspects of graphics that we should focus on getting right, before power is used on increasing resolution.
There are far more pressing issues such as better textures, various bump mapping techniques and really good robust AA that should get priority over mere resolution.

I think theres definately a point in what your saying.
This generation of consoles(yes, PS3 and 360 is it a first!?) focus on both inreasing rez aswell as performance per pixel aswell the pressure of adding 4*AA ALSO to the mix.

So i think and we have had this up before that in future titles or even current, developers surely could take a "path" between 720P and SD.
If that is what it takes for that developer/s to achieve the best result, say 4*AA and 2 times the shading power per pixel.

Just a thought.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nesh said:
When people say diminishing I dont think they necessarilly mean graphical improvement. What we see as an improvement in each generation is mostly a raise in polycount, resolution and textures. With other words we msotly experience improvement on the game's "skin" until we reach to a point where we wont be seeinng much difference in gaming experieence.
Take Gran Turismo 1 and 4 for example. GT4 improved on every aspect. Its probably the game for every car lover. But take GT4 and GT1 and the biggest difference is the game's "skin". Polygon increase,more detailed texture, better resolution on GT1. It doesnt make that much of a difference.

I don't want to appear argumentative, but Gran Turismo series is a very poor example for your argument.

The progress from 1 to 4 have brought fundemental changes to the series. First we have the upgrade to constant 60fps for framerate and player input. Graphically this makes things look smoother, but the real impact is on the control side. A higher input value means more sensistive controls, increased reaction times. For a racing game played at great speed, framerate and reaction time are very important.

The second improvement is with the physics model. There must be something like 10x the complexity in the physics model now. This brings many positive attributes to the game. It allows the game to differentiate between front-wheel drive, four-wheel drive and rear-wheel drive. It allows the game to differentitate between different types of road surface and different types of tyre compound and how cars of different weights would respond.

These two changes make playing GT4 and huge departure from GT1, virtually unrecognisable.

The last change is the steering wheel interface. For a serious game like GT the steering wheel is the way it was designed to be played. This completes the package.

You can now take a non-games player, sit them in a racing seat and they can master GT4 very quickly. This is not something you could do with GT1. Their real world driving experience will now translate very quickly to playing GT4. If the objective was to make a statisfying simulation game then we can see that GT4 has moved much closure to that objective than the first game in the series.

The fact that it looks prettier helps the whole process but the underlying changes are not about pretty pictures.
 
Call me insane, but i believe this whole issue is based on personal views. In the end, someone will see a game and think it looks magnificent, while someone will think the same game looks average. By the same token, some people will see the difference between last generation and this next one as huge, while some people will think that the previous jump (between PS1 and PS2) was much bigger than this one.

It's all personal. Some people think we're victims of diminishing returns, while others will think the opposite...

Personally i think that while there's a lot of room of improvement over the PS2 generation, the jump to the PS3 generation will not be as big in my eyes as the one between PS1 and PS2.
 
Nick Laslett said:
I don't want to appear argumentative, but Gran Turismo series is a very poor example for your argument.

The progress from 1 to 4 have brought fundemental changes to the series. First we have the upgrade to constant 60fps for framerate and player input. Graphically this makes things look smoother, but the real impact is on the control side. A higher input value means more sensistive controls, increased reaction times. For a racing game played at great speed, framerate and reaction time are very important.

The second improvement is with the physics model. There must be something like 10x the complexity in the physics model now. This brings many positive attributes to the game. It allows the game to differentiate between front-wheel drive, four-wheel drive and rear-wheel drive. It allows the game to differentitate between different types of road surface and different types of tyre compound and how cars of different weights would respond.

These two changes make playing GT4 and huge departure from GT1, virtually unrecognisable.

The last change is the steering wheel interface. For a serious game like GT the steering wheel is the way it was designed to be played. This completes the package.

You can now take a non-games player, sit them in a racing seat and they can master GT4 very quickly. This is not something you could do with GT1. Their real world driving experience will now translate very quickly to playing GT4. If the objective was to make a statisfying simulation game then we can see that GT4 has moved much closure to that objective than the first game in the series.

The fact that it looks prettier helps the whole process but the underlying changes are not about pretty pictures.
Well cant disagree with what you said actually. Not saying the difference in controls due to improved physics and framrate isnt noticable.Just pointing out it's not like a difference of night and day. The biggest difference was on the graphics.

I didnt consider the steering wheel either since I am comparing how the game feels generally as an overal experience with the Dual Shock and since I thought the subject was directed mostly towards Physics, AI, and graphics than state of the art peripherals.

Lets see how the new generation will improve the next GT though since framerate will still remain at 60fps. I think destructible cars and enviroments will make the biggest difference this time. IF implemented.

What I visualise is something like a real rally conditions. Where every bump, stone, dirt, water affect realistically the car than just predetermining certain handling on certain surfaces.

To understand an example of this....Imagine you are driving a very short car (Ferrari, Integra, Laborgini?) and run over a big pool of water. If this happens in real life and 1/3 of the car sinks to water while running fast, the spinning wheels make the water hit the car under it from the opposite direction. You lose control and feel as if your car is beeing pushed back by the water.

Another example, you drive an evolution through mud. When you enter the mud your car doesnt feel slippery. As the wheels gather mud the car feels more slippery while your steering becomes tighter. Now if you enter asphalt your car still is slippery but gets less and less according to your speed on the road as you are getting rid of the gathered mud on the wheels.

Also these conditions like rocks on the ground, continuous drifting and braking can create huge forces on suspension or heat up the brakes, causing various problems on the car.

It will also be great if tires brake realistically and affect handling just like a real car.
 
Henry said:
Next-gen like BIA are simply beautiful.

Contrary to Nintendo's idea of diminishing returns, are they increasing?

The simple answer is no they aren't, not even close. SNES/Megadrive to N64/PS went from 2D to basic 3D which was an absolutely mamoth step that nobody in there right mind could fail to notice. N64/PS to GC/PS2/XBx went from basic blocky pixelated/blured 3D to smooth curved realistic 3D, the difference was night and day (though still not as big as the one before). Even if this new generation improved to an equal degree technically (which I doubt it will) the improvement will still be harder to notice, especially for the majority of gamers, and that's what is meant by diminishing returns. The simple fact is, as we get closer to a perfect recreation of real life it becomes harder and harder to distinguish between each improvement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Teasy said:
The simple answer is no they aren't, not even close. SNES/Megadrive to N64/PS went from 2D to basic 3D which was an absolutely mamoth step that nobody in there right mind could fail to notice. N64/PS to GC/PS2/XBx went from basic blocky pixelated/blured 3D to smooth curved realistic 3D, the difference was night and day (though still not as big as the one before). Even if this new generation improved to an equal degree technically (which I doubt it will) the improvement will still be harder to notice, especially for the majority of gamers, and that's what is meant by diminishing returns. The simple fact is, as we get closer to a perfect recreation of real life it becomes harder and harder to distinguish between each improvement.

Agreed. Only when a new display system will be available to the masses and used to videogames, a new huge jump will be made.
One simple aspect to notice is that our display systems (TVs) are increasing in resolution, and even those are falling victim of diminishing returns as it will be harder to see the difference between 720p and 1080p than huge jumps we had in the past (b/w to colour, and from 480i to 720p). At one point, the resolution will be so high that our eyes won't be able to see the difference from the TV to reality. And as we get closer, each jump will be less noticeable than the past one. Of course display size matters a lot here.
When images are fed straight to our brains, then the next huge jump will occur.
I don't think 3D displays will take off as people will still want to be sitting on their sofas while playing games or movies, and not run around their holographic display in the middle of the room.
 
Back
Top