| Welcome to the PGRF gaming community! Everyone here is very friendly, so don't hesitate to say hi and engage in some video game discussion with all of us! From retro to modern, there's no discrimination here. If you have any questions, feel free to ask the moderators and administrators! Have fun. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free! Join our community! |
| Law of Diminishing Returns? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 30 2013, 11:23 PM (590 Views) | |
| RockmanDash12 | Nov 30 2013, 11:23 PM Post #1 |
Anime Fan, Handheld Lover, VN Nut
  ![]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v633/PDorr3/forum/endingpip.png)
|
Link to post on my Blog: http://rockmandashreviews.blogspot.com/2013/11/law-of-diminishing-returns.html With a new console generation, is the expectation of a huge graphics jump. This time… that’s not really the case, which begs the question… Are we hitting the Law of Diminishing Returns on consoles? The Law of Diminishing Returns can be seen in almost everything, when you spend or improve so much that the gains become smaller and smaller. This is usually a topic of debate, and with every topic of debate, there are 2 sides to the issue, and I’ll try to present both sides equally. I’ll start with why people believe we hit the wall with the advent of the PS4 and Xbox One. It’s quite hard to tell the difference between some of the games and improvements for games like BF4 and AC4 are kind of minor. Unless you have a direct comparison, it can be hard to tell the difference between the games. Spec wise, none of the new consoles are really running in new resolutions: some games on the PS3 and 360 can run in native 1080p, so why is it impressive that the new consoles can? 720p ->1080p is a much smaller jump than from SD -> HD. Another argument is more fundamental: the fact that games are expensive to make. Polygon making, texture designing, etc., it’s an expensive and hard thing to do. To make better looking games, they will have to put more effort than ever, and that was the case even with last generation. Next is the other side of the argument, why we haven’t hit the law of diminishing returns on the new generation of consoles. The new consoles have a bunch of new stuff that you can easily see, with higher quality textures, better lighting, and just more effects in general that the older consoles couldn’t do and it really looks snazzy. Look at Forza 5 vs Forza 4, there’s a huge difference in that. The problem with these comparisons is that they are comparing games based on the same engine, and games that are built ground up for the new consoles, look so much better. Another aspect, is this generation is much easier to develop for, so in the future, we might see games that absolutely blows away the current gen stuff while not being that much more expensive. Development will be complicated, but with the easier to use tools, it might be easier than ever to make great looking games and it’ll help alleviate the bubble in graphics we have now. Now that I’ve presented both sides of the argument, what do I think? I think it’s a Yes and a No. I believe that there’s a lot to go, but for most games on consoles we see, we essentially have but every mobile computing gaming platform has a long time before we get anywhere near this theoretical wall. It’s really a case by case issue: games look great now no matter how you look at it, and some games will make use of the new technologies, but others it’ll be really hard to tell. Nintendo has a good idea when they release a console with old technology: it’s cheaper and easier to develop for, and games still look great. Even last generation, with the advent of HD, the launch titles looked quite similar to their PS2 counterparts. Games will look better, that’s a fact. But some will look much much better, while others will look pretty similar. 2D games like platformers and Puzzle games hit a wall long time ago, you won’t find any improvement there… but for more graphically intensive games like shooters and racers, it’s quite a big difference. What do you think? I'd like to see other people's opinions on this topic matter. |
Video Game, Anime and Tech Fan 
| |
 |
 
|
| Tr3vor | Dec 1 2013, 02:58 PM Post #2 |
This character does not exist
|
I'll wait a few years to judge. When the PS3 and 360 came out they hardly looked better than the xbox and PS2. Things went uphill in a couple years. The XB1 and PS4's GPUs are probably more than twice as fast as the ps3's and 360s. |
|
Youtube: Tr3vor42532: http://www.youtube.com/user/Tr3vor42532 | |
|
|
|
| thewhitepenny | Dec 1 2013, 03:51 PM Post #3 |
Level 8
|
I have to say yes... and no... I honestly believe we havent seen anything yet as far as the capabilities of this generation. However I do beleive the diminishing returns can more so be seen with the lack of new IPs. Rehashing better looking versions of the same old shit is whats slowing things down so much. Look... I love the IPs we have seen over the last 20 years getting repeated with sequals year after year...but we need another Renaissance in video game inventiveness. Its just sad seeing resident evil 6... sooo many metal gear games. . And dont get me started on mario... We need new ideas!! |
  Currently Playing: Counter Strike Source, Dungeon Explorer (SEGA CD), Vay (SEGA CD) | |
|
|
|
| tri4ceofpowr | Dec 1 2013, 06:48 PM Post #4 |
Existentialist
|
I agree, I think it pretty much boils down to this. My idea of 'next gen' isn't defined by the ways in which one interacts with the game via Wii U or motion controls. Instead, I believe that games of this new generation are characterized by the thing you can do in the games - augmented gaming experiences with fewer player restrictions. |
|
Xbox Live : tri4ceofpowr PSN: zeldafreak4life Nintendo 3DS Friend Code : 1633-4279-2188 YouTube: Gamingretrospective Twitter: GRetrospective  
| |
|
|
|
| hooflung128 | Dec 1 2013, 07:50 PM Post #5 |
Level 7
|
There is a misunderstanding with the law of diminishing returns many gamer's make. Right now game developers are trying to figure out how to make a game pushes the boundaries of realism and surrealism while trying to make it cost effective. Software development is software development and there are many types of developers just like their are many types of teachers, doctors, firefighters, police persons etc. The two types of developers I work with the most are usually divided into two categories but each type can be of each category. The first type of developer I work with is a person who is competent at the domain knowledge (whatever the program is supposed to do) and can use high level constructs to write code. This type doesn't care about deep dives into the technology. The more established framework the better. All this type of person needs is a task to accomplish and a deadline to light a fire under their butts. The drawback to this type of programmer is that they are there first and foremost for a paycheck which may be self-realized or company-realized (you may want warm bodies instead of a chef). The second type of developer is a person who is competent at the domain knowledge but also has a passion at the underlying technology with a rich pursuit of the dirty bits. This developer is the person that on their time or the companies will do deep dives into the foundation and look at the naughty bits. This person would rather write or re-factor a framework for a task than to use something that was established on a brittle foundation. The draw back to this type of developer is that you have to make sure the avenue they take is realistic in the big picture. There is a reason I am talking about developers in such a manor right now and I'll get to that point in a moment. There are historically two types of positions on a team (I'll omit the sub categories such as junior and senior). The first is the software engineer (the latter word somethings used interchangeably with developer) and the software architect. The engineers are the worker bees and the architects are the queens. So your project manager (or game producer) has the vision and they deal with the architechs to make sure something can happen. The architect brings the laws from the mountain on high and gives them the commandments (usually establishing a framework or explaining how to get started in an existing one) and the engineers work on their tasks. These days many developers, game or enterprise (ie finance) use Agile Methodologies (usually SCRUM or Extreme Programming). My company uses Scrum (financial software) and so does EVE Online's developers CCP (also maker of Dust 514 on the PS3) and many more. This generation has seen many great games but as graphics have improved we've seen more progression in gimmicks (Wii Mote and Social Media and hand held integration) than in game mechanics. In fact you usually have to look into indie games to get those finessed quirky game modes that once were a staple of long dead genres. Now some may shake their head when they read this but I think this in part due to companies bottom line as well as a reliance of programmer type 1 as a whole. Everyone can agree, generally, that the PSWii360 generation lasted far, far too long. I 100% agree. While we definitely got some great games what I think you should look at is that games were built around the same engines. What that means is that companies have the option of hiring less architects and more engineers at a lower pay rate (and many are contractors at that). What we get are mechanics that are no brainers in the engine the games run in. But they typically are formulaic. You might get graphic enhancements by the Engine creators (third or first party) and a lot of integration work done by the ants. The engine makers (usually architects and usually type 2s of the highest order) are the queens in this system. But I don't really want to blame the game companies too much as they've only had so many tools at their disposal and a lot of management on how to get us interested in the next big thing. In fact, there has been a lot of good come out of the system. And I don't want to sound like this is how every game development company is structured but I bet you many of the corporate offices are. The indy game scene is very, very much like the start up web 2.0 company scene in that they take a lot of risks and work in opposition to the man's way for their own mental well being. So with all that... what the heck does this have to do with diminishing returns? Architect resources. Now that their aren't 3 competing technologies at the code level (lets forget about the eSRAM on the Xbone for amoment or the PPC core still in the Wii U these are not huge barriers) between two manufacturers at the console level you will have less architect resources doing port work (even if it is outsourced) and more time worrying about game mechanics and code variations on engines that now do not need a lot of custom code to get the frames per second up on one platform vs another. The visuals may seem today and even tomorrow as diminishing returns (just look at Battlefield 3 vs 4) but I suspect games will get more creative and less 'run of the mill' as we grow tired of the same ol' same ol'. This revolution will come from architechs able to bring out new and exciting algorithms using General Purpose Computing found in all the GPGPU's in this new generation of consoles which has caught up with the PC again in terms of feature parity (speed is another discussion). They can at an industry level once again start to give the engineers more tools to work with and work in concert with the game producers to not just iterate but to inovate. What I really am saying is that we need to give the game companies time to breath. Rome wasn't made in a day even though Ryse can be beaten in one. Enjoy the games today and be exited for the games of tomorrow. Edited by hooflung128, Dec 1 2013, 07:53 PM.
|
Youtube page | My HeatWare rating.  | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · General Gaming · Next Topic » |
12:03 PM Jul 13