What level of graphics and technology are you expecting for the PS4?

[Fon]

For me, an Elder Scrolls, RPG game and any sandbox title to look like this



Facial animation to be like this



Although I think that my expectations are a bit too high.

[Sufi]

I sure as hell do not want that head bobble, I don't walk like a dumb troll.

[Dave-The-Rave]

I want something that will make me say "WOW"...and tbh, Im not sure the next gen will make me do that.

[itachi73378]

The crysis mod video is what I want from open world games

[Sufi]

I like the graphics but I don't like that all of these games are moving towards showing everything less colorful and darker.

More realistic of course but bleh...takes out the fantasy element. Though I can get used to it.

[Fon]

I want something that will make me say "WOW"...and tbh, Im not sure the next gen will make me do that.

That's what I'm afraid of.

[itachi73378]

That's what I'm afraid of.

We are quickly approaching the stage of 'diminishing returns' so I guess it will be hard for any game to wow you.

[Inzane2050]

High quality motion blur
Tessellation
Real-time radiocity implemented
Space Screen Directional Occlusion
Space Screen Occlusion grass shaders
High Quality DoF
Tessellated 3D physics and particle effects.
High quality Textures
Improved Foliage (both grass and trees)
60 frames per second for most games
720p and up
x8 MSAA
Vastly improved physics

Also I want that awesome hair and fur rendering of Unreal's

[Lethal_NFS]

I want something that makes me say "whoa, hey! How you doin?"

[itachi73378]

High quality motion blur
Tessellation
Real-time radiocity implemented
Space Screen Directional Occlusion
Space Screen Occlusion grass shaders
High Quality DoF
Tessellated 3D physics and particle effects.
High quality Textures
Improved Foliage (both grass and trees)
60 frames per second for most games
1080p
x4 MSAA
Vastly improved physics

Also I want that awesome hair and fur rendering of Unreal's

Fixed
On a high resolution like 1080p it's more efficient to use 4x AA IF ANY AT ALL to save processing power for other effects.

[Dave-The-Rave]

The games that go for realism won't wow me, what will wow me is when technology starts to get to the stage that it can run something that looks like a Pixar movie in realtime. I've always found different art styles much more impressive than realism, that is why UNCHARTED looks so good. IMO

[itachi73378]

The games that go for realism won't wow me, what will wow me is when technology starts to get to the stage that it can run something that looks like a Pixar movie in realtime. I've always found different art styles much more impressive than realism, that is why UNCHARTED looks so good. IMO

This! I feel a bit sad that recently the trend has shifted to simulating realism.

[Equinoqs]

I just want some fun, original games. Graphics are fine where they are, and technology seems to be at the point where it increases price more than quality.

[Ixion]

[Rapture]

At the very least I'm expecting graphical levels akin to the Samaritan Tech Demo combined with the physics, AI, scale, and animations already seen in games such as GTA4, Crysis, and Red Faction Guerrilla.

[Yuuichi]

Pretty much for graphics as other said but tech

-64 vs 64 players like BF3 PC with BF3 PC graphics. Those big maps feel empty with 24 people
-Cross game chat
-The ability to play MY music to any game. Serious I would not think it is that hard.
-500gb MINIMUM HD in the system, and no not SSD cause that would be way to much.
-Backwards compatibility
-Two more USB po

[Sajuuk Khar]

yeah exactly, cause as we move towards higher resolutions we wont need AA because the pixel density will render it pointless. At 1080p probably even 2x aa would be fine.

[reasonable_doubt]

I want graphics that doesn't = to 4 hrs game play (repetition included) or watch a fucking pixar movie (I can go to the theatre for that).

Press 'X' if u agree
press 'Y' if u want me to make some eggs while dodging helicopter gunshot.

[btbam]

I don't care what graphics look like honestly. I'd rather have something artisitcally sound than something thats photo-realistic. I actually enjoyed the look of Prince of Persia game. It had interesting art direction, and i personally believe this is much more interesting to look at then something that looks like real life. I wish more games had better art direction

prince-of-persia.jpg

[Rapture]

I don't care what graphics look like honestly. I'd rather have something artisitcally sound than something thats photo-realistic. I actually enjoyed the look of Prince of Persia game. It had interesting art direction, and i personally believe this is much more interesting to look at then something that looks like real life. I wish more games had better art direction

prince-of-persia.jpg

I agree, though let's not forget that better hardware can just as easily benefit those types of games over ones attempting to look photo-realistic. I've been playing WindWaker via emulation recently, and it's in 1080p with mip-mapping and AA. It's looks insanely crisp and lively, absolutely unbelievable. If you play the game on an actual Gamecube though it looks hideous in comparison.

With better hardware, all games can benefit from longer draw distance, AA, anthropic filtering, etc. (this isn't necessarily directed at you, I'm just building from your post)

[chumdiddy]

I actually have an odd prediction for the next generation of console:

I have said since the Wii was so successful that it proves you no longer need to multiply the capability of your new machine by 30x (about what has happened each gen since SNES/Genesis-PS1). What this does is lowers cost for the console maker and lowers cost for the user. Also, when based on similar architecture as the last gen, it allows for even more savings and ease of use for developers.
This is important because the stronger the machine is the more people expect in a game and, especially good developers, WANT to deliver as much as possible. What that tends to have done in each generation is lengthen the time between titles, make titles more expensive and therefor limit the risk developers will take with a game because they dont want to spend $30 million on a title that bombs nobody buys. They will stick to what sells and the market will continue to be flooded with the same 8 franchises and 4 genres.

So, I think this next gen will see Nintendo get up to PS3/360 power or slightly more (as we already know) and the PS3/360 stick to the same architecture of their previous machines with hardware upgrades being pretty low (in the 5-10x the previous gen instead of 30x area) but MAJOR upgrades in the software. Both will have a much cleaner OS and both machines will be easier to develop for.

Companies know that consumers will not pay the kind of cash it would take to get a console that is 30x as strong as this gen and the companies themselves wont risk biting that loss, either. So, the new console will be slightly more expensive than their operating cost of the current gen and this limits their risk, the cost to consumer and avoids the bottomless pit of time that devs would spend creating games.

We have had less games this gen than any gen before it because of the reasons I mentioned. I mean, look at a game like "The Last Guardian" or "Twisted Metal". I know both devs are perfectionists but both also admit to have been working on the titles since the console was released in some capacity. Its going on 6 years for one and about 5 for the other.
To be even more blunt, look at a franchise like Call of Duty. The Tech is there and has been the start of this gen. Just take either outings from IW or Treyarch and realize that they have one COD game a year because they always have one team working on one. If they didnt, a cookie cutter franchise like COD would be a two year development cycle for ONE game because it already is, we just dont feel it because they timed it so one team has a game one year and the other the next.
Development cycles are out of hand and so are prices. I dont see how Sony or MS could push it as far as they have been without one simply overtaking the other completely. MS can afford to make a console of whatever strength and offer it at a MAJOR loss because of their other software division profits that is unrelated to the Xbox. Sony is an electronics company. Playstation is only as strong as sales are because they cant subsidize it with other streams of income.

Hence, not a huge leap graphic wise. I essentially see a PS4 with some variation of the Cell, be it multiple Cells or a legit Milti-Cell ship but essentially the same architecture and a slightly upgraded GPU that will be about as strong as the strongest PC GPU out right now at this very moment. However, the OS will be changed to allow more memory usage in games and options.
The next Xbox will be what the 360 is......a glorified PC and it will run a version of Windows (prolly 9). Its power will also be based on current architecture but upgraded to around the amount of PS3 will be (again, roughly 10x).

The global economy just cant support a true tech leap like we have seen previously, IMHO. Not on the Manufacture side, Developer side or consumer side.

[Ixion]

I actually have an odd prediction for the next generation of console:

I have said since the Wii was so successful that it proves you no longer need to multiply the capability of your new machine by 30x (about what has happened each gen since SNES/Genesis-PS1). What this does is lowers cost for the console maker and lowers cost for the user. Also, when based on similar architecture as the last gen, it allows for even more savings and ease of use for developers.
This is important because the stronger the machine is the more people expect in a game and, especially good developers, WANT to deliver as much as possible. What that tends to have done in each generation is lengthen the time between titles, make titles more expensive and therefor limit the risk developers will take with a game because they dont want to spend $30 million on a title that bombs nobody buys. They will stick to what sells and the market will continue to be flooded with the same 8 franchises and 4 genres.

So, I think this next gen will see Nintendo get up to PS3/360 power or slightly more (as we already know) and the PS3/360 stick to the same architecture of their previous machines with hardware upgrades being pretty low (in the 5-10x the previous gen instead of 30x area) but MAJOR upgrades in the software. Both will have a much cleaner OS and both machines will be easier to develop for.

Companies know that consumers will not pay the kind of cash it would take to get a console that is 30x as strong as this gen and the companies themselves wont risk biting that loss, either. So, the new console will be slightly more expensive than their operating cost of the current gen and this limits their risk, the cost to consumer and avoids the bottomless pit of time that devs would spend creating games.

We have had less games this gen than any gen before it because of the reasons I mentioned. I mean, look at a game like "The Last Guardian" or "Twisted Metal". I know both devs are perfectionists but both also admit to have been working on the titles since the console was released in some capacity. Its going on 6 years for one and about 5 for the other.
To be even more blunt, look at a franchise like Call of Duty. The Tech is there and has been the start of this gen. Just take either outings from IW or Treyarch and realize that they have one COD game a year because they always have one team working on one. If they didnt, a cookie cutter franchise like COD would be a two year development cycle for ONE game because it already is, we just dont feel it because they timed it so one team has a game one year and the other the next.
Development cycles are out of hand and so are prices. I dont see how Sony or MS could push it as far as they have been without one simply overtaking the other completely. MS can afford to make a console of whatever strength and offer it at a MAJOR loss because of their other software division profits that is unrelated to the Xbox. Sony is an electronics company. Playstation is only as strong as sales are because they cant subsidize it with other streams of income.

Hence, not a huge leap graphic wise. I essentially see a PS4 with some variation of the Cell, be it multiple Cells or a legit Milti-Cell ship but essentially the same architecture and a slightly upgraded GPU that will be about as strong as the strongest PC GPU out right now at this very moment. However, the OS will be changed to allow more memory usage in games and options.
The next Xbox will be what the 360 is......a glorified PC and it will run a version of Windows (prolly 9). Its power will also be based on current architecture but upgraded to around the amount of PS3 will be (again, roughly 10x).

The global economy just cant support a true tech leap like we have seen previously, IMHO. Not on the Manufacture side, Developer side or consumer side.

Very well written stuff.

As a hardcore gamer, it's tough figuring out what would be better for us. A console that's 30X more powerful will have more potential to deliver boundery-breaking experiences, which hardcore gamers certainly care about. But at the same time, such a console will require longer development times and only allow for safe, big-budget projects, which hardcore gamers wouldn't be thrilled about.

I think you might be right. A moderate hardware upgrade could be the best thing at this point.

[tigerty2]

i would not mind if sony put in memory sticks desktop have like 4 slots 8 or 16gb max but ship out new ps4 with the min to run the system and up grade if you want to just like the hard drive. you may even swap out grafix card you can make it more powerful and its not costing the company

[Cyn]

The reason I would rather wait another couple of years for the next-gen to roll round is that's when the truly next-gen graphics cards will be out and more importantly they'll be both stable (won't run ultra hot) and cheap enough to put in a console. The PS4 simply cannot be as expensive as the PS3 was at launch.

Ideally I want graphics that are better than anything out at the moment on PC to be standard across even the run-of-the-mill games and for the high end studio's like Sony's in house teams to truly blow us away with CGI like visuals. 6 or 7 years ago could you imagine how good Uncharted looks?

The most important thing for me is for every single game to be 60fps and absolute standard 720p, none of this sub-HD bullshit, for 90% of games to be 1080 standard and some games to push beyond that as the ultra-HD TV's gain market share.

I think the enormous difference in memory will make the biggest immediate difference and then over the years when it becomes more of a premium we will see how devs can make the hardware purr. It's also important for Sony to not go and create a whole new architecture that devs will need to go and learn from scratch all over again, or else the PS will be disadvantaged yet again. The architecture should remain similar to the PS3.

[Two4DaMoney]

I'm not sure what I want next gen. I do know what price I want to pay. $399.99 before tax.