Well I will not dispute the fact that new consoles would push the PC developers to move to direct x10.1 /11 only engines. They have not for multiple reasons, one being I guess the user base in the PC realms.
[...]
I like history, looking back can teach us a lot of things, but this time is different.
You misinterpreted my intentions with that post. I was just specifying what people generally mean when they say "a generational leap in graphics" as that was a point of discussion.
Some said the current high end pc games on ultra settings are good enough for next gen.
Many others disagreed, myself included.
Those first users then said "well why not? they looke pretty don´t they? Better then current gen console games don´t they? 60fps, 1080p, aniso, highres textures are a big deal already"
Then I posted a video of Zelda with highres textures, 60fps at 1080p, which despite looking better, didn't look as good as a ps2 game, even though the resolution was way superior then any actual ps2 game.
"Well so what is it that you need to call something a generation leap then?"
There comes my post, a generation leap is like the difference from snes to n64, or from psone to ps2, or ps2 to 360. It isn´t updated effects and textures. Is a whole new set of how games are made. The pipeline for developing the game, its assets and then simulating gameplay and rendering the graphics is considerably different from gen to gen.
Now if you read the beginning of my post you will see that I admit that this gen could very well be different. I don´t believe so, but it could. I know that just because things have always been a sertain way they absolutely have to happen again this gen again.
The part about BF3 make me wary as it definitely rings with what some call diminishing returns, it costs that much (processing) to have better lightning and your post make it sounds that is not enough.
I agree with everything you said about there not being much room for exotic designs this gen. Still not impossible, but Highly unlikely. Still, this has also been the longest generation so far, and even with off the shelves hardware, there is plenty of room for change, specially when you consider the aditional bonus boost in capability consoles get by allowing closer to the metal programing and more focused optimisation. DX10 and 11 also introduced many different paradigms that have been used very superficially so far. And in my opinion BF3 is an example of this.
I understand all the graphical improvements of that game, yet it isn´t close to what could be done in the same hardware with more development time and no cmomitment to run the game on consoles, even if downgraded.
Most of the first games on the 360 saw very moderate improvements from past gen games, so much so uninformed people called it the xbox 1.5. Well I´m sure this will happen again this gen, and maybe even for longer, but eventually completely new approaches to rendering will emerge and show things simply impossible on a 360. But that will take time.
using history again, think of Half Life 2, or Far Cry. Those were incredible games from a technical standpoint. They were the games that showed what the newer pc hardware could do. Yet both were brought to xbox, heavily paired down, but they were. And after 360 ps3 came and became established consoles, hl2 and FC got to look very dated.
In my opinion that is what is going to happen to BF3.
