Are graphics plateuing?

Do you think graphics are plateuing. Do you think there the WoW factor when a next console comes out if not as big as it used to be. A couple of last generation games stand up extremly well to next generation games (on a SD TV). Like ninja guiden for the orginal X-box. This is all assuming your playing on a SD TV

No, graphics aren't plateuing, to me anyways. I just made a thread 30 mins ago discussing how graphics are increasing here:

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26322055

Somewhat. They's plateauing in terms of immediate flashiness, stuff you see in pics. What we're gonna start seeing now is huge advancements in stuff like physics, animation and AI.

And it's starting to happen now. GTA4 will be showing off the Euphoria engine for their physics and animation, which everyone and their mother will start using.

I don't think so....In terms of raw "as realistic as possible" yes thanks to crysis, but artistic direction won't change.

Or something.

nope, not yet but getting close. But really to only reason lots of games look so good is the complete lack of physics in many games. try playing gears, bioshock, moha, with next to no physis outside or or 2 pre set objects and then go and play crysis, stalker hl2, dark messiah etc and you will see how bad the physics in many games are.

no physics = easy to make everything look pretty. if crysis had gears level of physics everyone would be playing in on very high settings.

nope, not yet but getting close. But really to only reason lots of games look so good is the complete lack of physics in many games. try playing gears, bioshock, moha, with next to no physis outside or or 2 pre set objects and then go and play crysis, stalker hl2, dark messiah etc and you will see how bad the physics in many games are.

no physics = easy to make everything look pretty. if crysis had gears level of physics everyone would be playing in on very high settings.

imprezawrx500

It's why games like CoD4 and UT3 are so easy to max out on PCs while maintaining high FPS.

I think we'll get as far as Advent Children quality visuals but even then, we may have the uncanny valley effect going.

Personally I never want to see photorealism in games. Imagine playing through a 10 hour shooter campaign, you'd probably have nightmares.
Tiefster

The PS2/Xbox/GCN generation, I believe, was the last generation where we can expect improvement in graphics to also improve gameplay. Now, all the improvement we'll see are in the details.

What needs to improve now is interactivity, and so far, only Crysis has demonstrated real interactivity.

Consoles have, for this gen anyway, PC's can still advance.

But as for overall, no. Graphics will never stop getting better, thats the nature of technology and advancement.

No. There is still a long way to go in terms of processing physics, light, animations, textures, etc.JiveT

Not really on consoles though, PC leads the way in tech.

No. There is still a long way to go in terms of processing physics, light, animations, textures, etc.JiveT

Well, if you consider graphics from a theoretical standpoint, then yes, there is still a long way to go. However, when talked about relative to gameplay, then graphics have effectively plateaued. Better shading, animation, or textures won't improve gameplay anymore than the current generation already has. Better physics will, but physics isn't part of graphics technology. Even though physics does have an impact on graphics, physics itself is a different line of development altogether.

The maximum size I can make a map in crysis

I can only get to around 34x34 km before the editor crashes from lack of memory though :(

[QUOTE="JiveT"]No. There is still a long way to go in terms of processing physics, light, animations, textures, etc.mjarantilla

Well, if you consider graphics from a theoretical standpoint, then yes, there is still a long way to go. However, when talked about relative to gameplay, then graphics have effectively plateaued. Better shading, animation, or textures won't improve gameplay anymore than the current generation already has. Better physics will, but physics isn't part of graphics technology. Even though physics does have an impact on graphics, physics itself is a different line of development altogether.

I disagree, I don't think your looking at the big picture.

In the era of the Atari 2800 I bet people used to say the same thing. But look at the difference from then until now.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="JiveT"]No. There is still a long way to go in terms of processing physics, light, animations, textures, etc.tenaka2

Well, if you consider graphics from a theoretical standpoint, then yes, there is still a long way to go. However, when talked about relative to gameplay, then graphics have effectively plateaued. Better shading, animation, or textures won't improve gameplay anymore than the current generation already has. Better physics will, but physics isn't part of graphics technology. Even though physics does have an impact on graphics, physics itself is a different line of development altogether.

I disagree, I don't think your looking at the big picture.

In the era of the Atari 2800 I bet people used to say the same thing. But look at the difference from then until now.

I hope to GOD you're joking.

Nobody said anything about graphics plateauting relative to gameplay but even if that was the argument it would still be wrong. You can't say that every possible avenue of gameplay can be displayed effectively with today's graphics. It's ridiculous.JiveT

So tell me how increasing draw distance, poly count, texture resolution, rendered resolution, or shader accuracy will make for better gameplay.

I hope to GOD you're joking.

mjarantilla

No I'm really not, your perception is flawed. You're blinkered by your inability to look forward and imagine how things can be in the future.

I'm using the past as a reference to the future, I see no need for the advancement of graphics to suddenly halt, history has proven otherwise.

Personal incredulity is not a solid base for a belief.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]I hope to GOD you're joking.tenaka2

No I'm really not, your perception is flawed. You're blinkered by your inability to look forward and imagine how things can be in the future.

I'm using the past as a reference to the future, I see no need for the advancement of graphics to suddenly halt, history has proven otherwise.

Personal incredulity is not a solid base for a belief.

No, actually, you're the one not seeing the big picture. You're the one drawing parallels where none exist. Comparing our situation to the Atari 2600? Really? Are you that ignorant?

Frankly, I don't see how someone can be so naive as to think that the line of graphics advancement has a linear rate of ascendance. It's fairly obvious that the closer we get to 100% visual fidelity with real-time graphics technology, the slower and more difficult our progress towards that final milestone will be. It's called diminishing returns, lad.

You seem to forget that graphics technology is purely about improving visuals and nothing else. The last, perhaps the only big graphics leap was the leap from 2D to 3D. After that, subsequent improvements have been less and less spectacular and less and less important to the end products themselves (the games).

TBH I dont think we'll see "OMG Is that RL or ingame?... :o" gaming graphics untill were old enough to ride the bus for free... this is mainly because at the moment the top CGi editors see it as impossible, notice how CGI hasnt taken any huge steps since the 80's?... I watched an interview a while pack whilst studdieng for my course at uni that manipulating real world lighting and whether mechanics and movement in an ingame environment is near impossible.

For me they already have, a while back. But then I am into games across the board, from my nes - to my xbox 360.

Graphical changes these days don't have a much of a "WOW" factor - more of a "meh" factor. I like graphics as much as anyone, but its not what makes a game, and I think the leaps are (naturally) going to slow down.

Light, shadow, and enhanced animations are, i guess going to be the way forward

[QUOTE="tenaka2"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]I hope to GOD you're joking.mjarantilla

No I'm really not, your perception is flawed. You're blinkered by your inability to look forward and imagine how things can be in the future.

I'm using the past as a reference to the future, I see no need for the advancement of graphics to suddenly halt, history has proven otherwise.

Personal incredulity is not a solid base for a belief.

No, actually, you're the one not seeing the big picture. You're the one drawing parallels where none exist. Comparing our situation to the Atari 2600? Really? Are you that ignorant?

Frankly, I don't see how someone can be so naive as to think that the line of graphics advancement has a linear rate of ascendance. It's fairly obvious that the closer we get to 100% visual fidelity with real-time graphics technology, the slower and more difficult our progress towards that final milestone will be. It's called diminishing returns, lad.

You seem to forget that graphics technology is purely about improving visuals and nothing else. The last, perhaps the only big graphics leap was the leap from 2D to 3D. After that, subsequent improvements have been less and less spectacular and less and less important to the end products themselves (the games).

Personal insults, arrogance and condescension cannot help your flawed argument.

Are you suggesting that you have disproved Moore's Law because you lack imagination?

What you have created here is commonly known as 'An argument of ignorance'

Enjoy

Texture wise yes, but every other aspect has a LONG way to go.

1) Render massive Worlds with massive ammmounts of people

2) Animation

3) Special Effects

4) Lighting

ect ect, are still way off.

For me they already have, a while back. But then I am into games across the board, from my nes - to my xbox 360.

Graphical changes these days don't have a much of a "WOW" factor - more of a "meh" factor. I like graphics as much as anyone, but its not what makes a game, and I think the leaps are (naturally) going to slow down.

Light, shadow, and enhanced animations are, i guess going to be the way forward

angryfodder

I dont realy buy a new console because of the increase in graphics anymore. I buy it more because i have to since games for the last gen stopes.

Do you think graphics are plateuing. Do you think there the WoW factor when a next console comes out if not as big as it used to be. A couple of last generation games stand up extremly well to next generation games (on a SD TV). Like ninja guiden for the orginal X-box. This is all assuming your playing on a SD TV

EmperorZeruel

Yep. It's a result of the multiplatform competition scenario we are in. There's not really been a situation in console history where the competition has been so fierce over such a large audience. As a result of uncertainty over victory and not wanting to settle for profiting off of half an audience, a lot of devs are going multiplatform instead of hedging their bets. Designing a game as a multiplatoform means it will not be as good as if it were developed for a single platform. That's why we're seeing first party games as defining what a console is capable of. The truth is, both systems's architectures are vastly different and not to mention the time constraint on games, what with devs having to dedicate a certain large portion of their development time to porting and optimising the port.

In previous gens, a clearly superior console has emerged very quickly and developers have placed their bets on that console resulting in major breakthroughs occuring on that console. This gen, we've got the Xbox 360 and PS3 competing very well with each other resulting inthe uncertainty scenario described above.

[QUOTE="angryfodder"]

For me they already have, a while back. But then I am into games across the board, from my nes - to my xbox 360.

Graphical changes these days don't have a much of a "WOW" factor - more of a "meh" factor. I like graphics as much as anyone, but its not what makes a game, and I think the leaps are (naturally) going to slow down.

Light, shadow, and enhanced animations are, i guess going to be the way forward

EmperorZeruel

I dont realy buy a new console because of the increase in graphics anymore. I buy it more because i have to since games for the last gen stopes.

This was for the orginal x-box which was last generation and it looks like a game your see on the 360

wow, of course graphics haven't plateaued yet. They are not photorealistic. Graphics this gen are pretty much exactly the same as last gen, only more detailed.

There will be a day where graphics will hit the roof of how much better than reality you can get and still detect it in the human eye etc. That will be a strange day because video games have a certain "look" to them that sets them apart from movies, etc. When that distinction is gone, gaming will never be the same

Texture wise yes, but every other aspect has a LONG way to go.

1) Render massive Worlds with massive ammmounts of people

2) Animation

3) Special Effects

4) Lighting

ect ect, are still way off.

Meu2k7

1) In theoretical terms, yes, but in practical terms, no. There is no practical need to actually RENDER a whole world simultaneously. Draw distances have already reached, what, ten miles? Can you really distinguish individual people at that distance? Would you really need to render people in full detail at those distances?

2) Again, in theoretical terms, yes, but in practical terms, no. Animations need only be as diverse as the control mechanisms and game environment need them to be. Anything beyond that is pretty much unnecessary, because they will almost never be used. That said, this is the area that is perhaps most open to speculation, because animations can be used in open-ended worlds to make them more lifelike. (God how Oblivion failed at this....)

3) This is another area where you have a point, but what sort of special effects are you talking about? Fire? Smoke? Dust? Plastic deformation?

4) Lighting is "close enough" by now, I imagine, although hardware has not quite caught up to the demands put forth by the software (Crysis on Very High).