Are we hitting a graphical plateau?

We have a large selection of games this generation that are damn near photorealistic, and the latest PC games look only marginally better than the best we see on consoles.The transistion to HD gaming has really made me wonder how much better they can possibly make games look.I'm starting to understand why microsoft is saying that we won't see another new xbox until 2014 at the earliest, I mean nobody wants to shell out another 400 bucks for "slightly improved" graphics. Do you think that the cycles between newer console releases will continue to get longer and longer or am I just some doofus who doesn't know anything?

I agree with you here man.

You should see System Wars though. People are saying that they want a new console by 2011. :lol:

I thought we hit a graphical plateau when I saw the cut scenes in Final Fantasy nine. I think graphics will continue to get better and better as the years go by, they have always been getting better and with new technologies they will continue to grow. I think it is the same for movies as well, the special effects in Spider man blew my mind when I saw and then Avatar blew my mind with its effects.

You're not a doofus. You're right though, the graphics have now reached the level of almost reality itself. I have heard future of gaming is in virtual reality. Check out this article. I'm serious don't just overlook this article because you feel don't feel like clicking the link. Click it, it will give you an idea of what the future of gaming will be.http://www.cracked.com/article_15243_next-25-years-video-games.html

I thought we hit a graphical plateau when I saw the cut scenes in Final Fantasy nine. I think graphics will continue to get better and better as the years go by, they have always been getting better and with new technologies they will continue to grow. I think it is the same for movies as well, the special effects in Spider man blew my mind when I saw and then Avatar blew my mind with its effects.

jaredcsimpson

You're not a doofus. You're right though, the graphics have now reached the level of almost reality itself. I have heard future of gaming is in virtual reality. Check out this article. I'm serious don't just overlook this article because you feel don't feel like clicking the link. Click it, it will give you an idea of what the future of gaming will be. http://www.cracked.com/article_15243_next-25-years-video-games.html

Frame rates can always be improved, and this in a way helps games look more photo realistic.

I think you're absolutely right about longer lifespans for consoles, firmware updates really help this along. If we are approaching "photo realistic" environments in our games there are other areas to improve on, draw-distance, enemy & NPC AI, dynamic environment changes such as weather or damage to structures, etc. Also, if we have the ability to create any environment we wish which would be indistinguishable from reality, then things like the art direction of a game world become more defining. We may well be approaching a graphical plateau(in immediate environments)but I think game design & development still has a lot of avenues to pursue.

But it's a very good question!!

Just saw Avatar. i have never seen a MOVIE that looks that good (visual effects and cinematography are matchless).... so, no there will ALWAYS be room for improvement.

There's always plenty of room for improvement. Just look at Pixar movies...current-gen console graphics are nowhere near that.

Also in regards to PC games...at this point nobody wants to make big-budget PC exclusives which means nobody is going to target super hi-spec PC's. Most big-budget games that come to the PC are on consoles, which means they're mostly limited to console specs.

I agree with you here man.

You should see System Wars though. People are saying that they want a new console by 2011. :lol:

MadVybz

Graphic wise i absolutely agree, im playing games last 6 months i thought 5 years ago were never possible. Just last month my girl friend was asking me what movie it was i was watching (assassin's creed's II cut-scene), for the untrained and unspoiled eye i think it comes very close to the real-deal. I think that gamers that say that it's far from photo-realistic are the ones that have been absolutely spoiled with the latest cutting edge graphics.

As far as development of new consoles goes, i'm not that much hoping on even better graphics. If you've read the above i think you can understand why. The only progress i would really like to see is the amount of content/story/gameplay/usable extra's/overall game-length. What i mean by this is i would like to see the newer consoles to have more power, RAM, memory so that game developers around the world can just give us games that either last longer or which are just broader, bigger and longer. I miss the Final Fantasy multi cd-box where you had to change the cd every now and then because the content of the game back then was not enough to fit on a single disk, that's what i wanna see happening now again. So bigger environments and longer life are for me the things im looking for in new consoles, cos graphics are as close to where they need to be with the consoles we have now, though i wouldn't say no to even better :P.

GT, Forza and a bunch of sports games I can't name because I don't play attention to sports games are probably the only games aiming for photorealism nowadays. Most games tend to look like graphic novels, anime or just kid's cartoons.

Also, graphics on the console side seem to be progressing as quickly as ever. Sure, there isn't the gap between PC and console games there was in the past, but as Teufelhuhn stated, that's more of an issue of the PC market than contemporary hardware.

I think the cycle should lengthen because of the fact that additional power is still being squeezed out of hardware and because current gen system have just hit the launch prices of last gen systems (and the overwhelming majority of gamers didn't pick up last gen systems at their launch prices).

if sega hits that market again, we could see a new console fairly soon.

anytime you start thinking we're at some plateau, just consider how much better looking the various preview/trailer graphics are for games like Mass Effect 2. There's still a long way to go as far as in game graphics.

[QUOTE="MadVybz"]

I agree with you here man.

You should see System Wars though. People are saying that they want a new console by 2011. :lol:

kidcool189

If you ask me, it seems that people are just in too much of a rush. Gaming experiences are the best they have ever been, and developers have yet to adjust to the learning curve (fully) of using the hardware that they have available. I'm also thinking about Sony here - having another console generation start soon could be a trouble spot for them, since they're still selling at a loss (last time I checked).

NASA built a supercomputer inorder to run Crysis in max settings at max resolution on a super screen. We are no where near perfection. As others have said, the big push should not be towards better graphics, but improved physics and AI. When every single NPC has their own personality and life, then we've reached a peak. Although in terms of virtual reality, I wouldn't mind playing a game like the one in the movie eXistenZ.jjtiebuckle

That was a joke story by Gameinformer. However, I agree that AI and physics should get just as much emphasis as graphics.

I think it will evolve until it looks like real life then we will work on memory space and other technical problems. Then it will be so cheap to make it will be practically free. Maybe our kids will say "Dude that looks totally like umm like umm not real life like yeah umm..."

In terms of photorealism, thanks to motion capture and body/facial scanning, we've nearly reached to that point with games like COD Modern Warfare, Killzone 2, Uncharted and Fight Night.

In terms of graphical fidelity, it's still a lonnggggg way to go.

The real question is, how many graphics buffs actually bother to look down at the ground and zoom in to notice the details? I guess it depends on the gamer.

well crysis and crysis 2, on pc mind you, make pretty much anything consoles have look pretty bare....especially crysis 2.....but i do agree that graphics probably wont get much better. maybe better tessalation and aa and stuff like that...better shadows(read new stalker game) no console can keep up with pc graphics right now, and i would love to see a console come out that is really close if not the same.....i can see how the graphics curve is leveling out, but not stopped. because of this, a console in the next year or two would be pretty comperable with pc, and would likely stay that way for a long time.

3) CPU tech has slowed considerably in the last few years compared to 10 years ago.wurd

I believe that graphics will continue to get better as time progresses. However, I am quite happy with my vintage systems....so realistic graphics really don't mean that much to me. As long as the games are fun, Atari 2600 graphics are sufficient for me. :P

I think we are going to essentially hit a graphical plateau either now or soon. The closer the graphics get to "real", the less room for improvement they have. Any improvements from here on out will be more subtle and not as eye-popping as they seemed in the past.

Animations can still be perfected and more included even though its the same action. eg a roll (not a barrell roll) is usually the same animation but including more based on specific srroundings and situations would be amazing.

Graphics will continue to improve and theres no question about that. I mean Crysis 2 is an improvemt over crysis isnt it?

As far as consoles go, I dont think the next gen machines will see such a drastic increase in graphical capability compared to say... the leap from ps2 to ps3. Instead I think that there will be more of an emphasis on creating bigger, more expansive and interavctive gaming wolrds than there has been in the past.

And as for virtual reality being the future... I think we should let them sort the present out first

[QUOTE="wurd"]3) CPU tech has slowed considerably in the last few years compared to 10 years ago.Teufelhuhn

Yes CPU advancement has slowed considerably due to limits in the current technology. It's estimated that around 10GHz is the maximum anyone can squeeze from the current tech due to physical limitations. If you're aware of Moore's law then you'll know CPU advancement has slowed and can no longer keep up with this theory. This is why the manufacutres have had to look at alternatives ie multiple cores and although this is beneficial in the short term doesn't address the problem.

Just looking at the ground textures in probably 98% of all games just shows that there is still a lot more to do.

[QUOTE="wurd"]3) CPU tech has slowed considerably in the last few years compared to 10 years ago.Teufelhuhn

I wouldn't say it's slowed...it's just gone in a different direction, and it's taken most developers a bit of time to get to used to it. It used to be that Intel or whoever just cranked up the clock speed and all of our code automatically ran quicker. Then we started going parallel, and had to massively restructure things so that they would scale with more cores. There's definitely been a lot of progress, especially in console games.

Well yeah, also more powerfull cpu means a bigger cooler to support it which also means more noise due to need of faster and bigger fasns!! Cpus are hitting their limits latelly!! We have not seen quadcore cpus that go beyond 3,4ghz without overclocking!! I think its time to change direction and the future cpus need new cooling systems!!

Although graphics can certainly improve, the question is, do we really want them to? I mean, these ARE games, not movies. I personally like my games not looking like real life. It allows them to be exciting and imaginative. Every game that has tried for realism has been criticized of having bland, monotone grey/brown graphics.

Also, if producing these ultra-realistic graphics upped the price of a game to $90, would you buy them still?

Ask this question again when games have Pixar-level graphics.

Not really. There's always room for improvement. But creativity and art direction trump graphics all the time and until they reach a plateau, gamers shouldn't really worry.

I think your spot on UT, I can't see a need for another console anytime soon. With Uncharted 2, Halo ODST, both the PS3 & 360's graphics are getting better and better as the developers get more used to the machines, and today's games are so life like how much more is really necessary? I'll be happy with my consoles as long as they are running, I'm in no hurry for a new generation.

Yes CPU advancement has slowed considerably due to limits in the current technology. It's estimated that around 10GHz is the maximum anyone can squeeze from the current tech due to physical limitations. If you're aware of Moore's law then you'll know CPU advancement has slowed and can no longer keep up with this theory. This is why the manufacutres have had to look at alternatives ie multiple cores and although this is beneficial in the short term doesn't address the problem.

wurd

I'm absolutely fine with delaying the next generation of consoles as long as possible.

However, a graphical plateau? Not for a long while. Eventually, games will look like "Avatar" does now, it's inevitable.

Just think, back then people woulda saw some atari games and actually go "WOAH THINGS CANT GET BETTER THAN THIS!". Decades later and stuff is beyond dreams. Perhaps when it starts bordering between actual realism, like everything looks just as crisp and clear as it does through your own eyes, is when people should start worrying.

[QUOTE="wurd"]

Yes CPU advancement has slowed considerably due to limits in the current technology. It's estimated that around 10GHz is the maximum anyone can squeeze from the current tech due to physical limitations. If you're aware of Moore's law then you'll know CPU advancement has slowed and can no longer keep up with this theory. This is why the manufacutres have had to look at alternatives ie multiple cores and although this is beneficial in the short term doesn't address the problem.

Teufelhuhn

No it's not false, its pretty common knowledge, I just spent 2 years studying them. I''m not saying it's stopped simply slowed compared to the massive leaps seen 15 years ago where a new processor would be out of date in 2 years.