Are graphics starting to cap? PC vs console next gen ...

OK, next gen, consoles are going to have 1080p (native rendering resolution, not output which they have now), AA, AF, lots of RAM, high resolution textures, etc. Graphics are starting to cap - and the fact that a three year old game is considered to be the best looking one is a strong testimony to that proposition.

Increasing numbers just for the sake of it is not exactly progress. For example, 1080p resolution approaches the perceptual limits of the human eye. You might as well go 1000000p and it wouldn't look any different to the average person (same as with digital cameras which increase in resolution only as a marketing gimmick).

Of course, it would still be possible for the more flexible PC platform to take the lead, but at what cost? Will it be justified spending insane amounts of money for gaining only a marginal advantage when consoles will be able to achieve almost the same results at only the fraction of the cost?

Currently the most advanced games are reaching the level of graphics first Toy Story had. Now compare that movie to the newest Pixar productions. Seen the huge quality jump? That's still ahead of us.

Plus the most prominent PC genre is strategy, which is characterized by it's huge scale and because of that there's still insane ammount of improvement to be made detail wise in those games

A native rendering resolution of 1080p when current consoles cannot even do 720p as standard? :shock:Hexagon_777

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]A native rendering resolution of 1080p when current consoles cannot even do 720p as standard? :shock:ohthemanatee

Games like Call of Duty, Metal Gear Solid 4 and Halo 3 have failed to reach a 720p resolution from what I know.

Graphics will never cap.

However generational leaps will keep getting smaller, last to current being the last biggest one. And i think thats wholly to do with costs, nothing to do with peaked or unavailable tech.

How have they capped?

Tings will still progressively improve.

I think graphics are starting to cap within the eyes of the gamers. I get the feeling more and more people would rather have tighter/unique gameplay, than flashy graphics.

What is "caping" the PC games are the consoles. Because big budget game have to go to consoles to make profit, the engines, textures, set-pieces are all being made with the consoles limitations in mind, caping the PC potential.

Even the Crysis 2 is going multiplat... you bet that crysis 2 will have a lower or the same system requirements than the original Crysis.

All generation the PC started breaking away from consoles at the 3rd year, where started making engines and games that wouldn't be suported by the old consoles, paving way for the next gen console. But because this generation of consoles will be longer what is happen is that PC hardware continues at the same speed of progress while game continued frozen on console compatible engines and assets.

The reason so few DX10 and DX11 games are available is the same, developers doesn't have incentive to invest on this technology enough since consoles can only reproduce similar to dx9.

Until the next gen console are announced you will not see any PC gaming using the full potential of hardware avaible now like the i7 or HD5870.

Until 2012 expect very few dx10 optimized games... and almost dry season of dx11.

I think graphics are starting to cap within the eyes of the gamers. I get the feeling more and more people would rather have tighter/unique gameplay, than flashy graphics.

Heirren

open world rendering still lacking

physics always need more juice

most games are using textures optimized for 720p

animations still lacking

dinamic particles effects almost non existent

When graphics have the scope of Google Earth with 3D photorealistic detail down to the centimeter and "live" ecosystems, then we could say graphics have capped. That said...... probably not in my lifetime.

I thought it was largely accepted that Crysis is the best looking game and it's three years old. So - no progress for three years, which is not a small timeframe. And even Crysis 2 may not look better because its meant for consoles - i.e. no point spending resources to improve on its predecessor on the PC (ok, blame consoles for the stall :)).

I am NOT saying that graphics can not look better. I'm saying that we are closing in on a quality/cost ratio which will be hard to surpass. Imagine that you have the technology to run Pixar-like graphics in real time. Now imagine how much it would cost to develop a game using that technology. Because, the overall quality of graphics will be dependent mostly on its weakest aspect, in order to take advantage of such technology you will have to hire artists to do ultra high quality textures, animations, models, etc. and that will cost a lot of money.

What is "caping" the PC games are the consoles. Because big budget game have to go to consoles to make profit, the engines, textures, set-pieces are all being made with the consoles limitations in mind, caping the PC potential.

Even the Crysis 2 is going multiplat... you bet that crysis 2 will have a lower or the same system requirements than the original Crysis.

ropumar

Could I point to you some big budget, PC exclusive games which are not going bonkers with their graphics? The considerations are the same that make other developers to go multiplatform - the desire your product to be accessible to more people.

I thought it was largely accepted that Crysis is the best looking game and it's three years old. So - no progress for three years, which is not a small timeframe. And even Crysis 2 may not look better because its meant for consoles - i.e. no point spending resources to improve on its predecessor on the PC (ok, blame consoles for the stall :)).

I am NOT saying that graphics can not look better. I'm saying that we are closing in on a quality/cost ratio which will be hard to surpass. Imagine that you have the technology to run Pixar-like graphics in real time. Now imagine how much it would cost to develop a game using that technology. Because, the overall quality of graphics will be dependent mostly on its weakest aspect, in order to take advantage of such technology you will have to hire artists to do ultra high quality textures, animations, models, etc. and that will cost a lot of money.

KiZZo1

its the law of diminishing returns. huge amounts of money will need to be spend to see smaller and smaller improvements in graphics.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

I think graphics are starting to cap within the eyes of the gamers. I get the feeling more and more people would rather have tighter/unique gameplay, than flashy graphics.

ropumar

open world rendering still lacking

physics always need more juice

most games are using textures optimized for 720p

animations still lacking

dinamic particles effects almost non existent

I'm not disagreeing with you--I just think the "wow" for graphics isn't what it used to be. Perhaps with the next batch of consoles, given the extended life cycles of the current ones, will be an enormous leap in visual quality. 3D Avatarish visuals.

Remember playing snes and just seeing screens and video clips of Mario 64 and Wave Race? That was a graphical leap.

There are definitely diminishing returns involved. There still is a pretty large gap between current PCs and consoles, but next gen the noticeable difference will probably be much smaller.

most games, even on consoles, look..."real." Nex-gen, it should only get...more "real", right? Thus I believe with most going the realistic route, looks, gaming will be ruined. I believe there will no longer be a huge difference and companies will have to look for gimmicks to keep people in. Fuhgeddabouditt

Gimmick or not, I want one of this for the near term.....

OK, next gen, consoles are going to have 1080p (native rendering resolution, not output which they have now), AA, AF, lots of RAM, high resolution textures, etc.

KiZZo1

A lot of assumptions there, people expected that from this gen, Sony hype.

Anyway we are not at a cap, we are at a cost cap.

The technology is still improving but it is too expensive to utilize. Expensive games go cross platform; and cross platform games tend to be lowest common denominator limited.

Console gamers assume because everything is being limited to run on their platforms that we have hit a limit.

OK, to be honest I just thought of one thing that probably has the best prospect for technological evolution - modelling humans. NPCs have improved a lot, but they might still use some work till they crawl out of the uncanny valley. Heavy Rain's (and other games) close-up models are pretty good, but their animations are the weak point (especially facial ones, because they are extremely intricate).

Otherwise, if we speak for inanimate objects, I personnaly don't think that anything can wow me in technological terms. Artistically - of course yes and that's where developers should go.

There are definitely diminishing returns involved. There still is a pretty large gap between current PCs and consoles, but next gen the noticeable difference will probably be much smaller.

Juken7

[QUOTE="KiZZo1"]

OK, next gen, consoles are going to have 1080p (native rendering resolution, not output which they have now), AA, AF, lots of RAM, high resolution textures, etc.

A lot of assumptions there, people expected that from this gen, Sony hype.

Anyway we are not at a cap, we are at a cost cap.

The technology is still improving but it is too expensive to utilize. Expensive games go cross platform; and cross platform games tend to be lowest common denominator limited.

Console gamers assume because everything is being limited to run on their platforms that we have hit a limit.

OK, next gen, consoles are going to have 1080p (native rendering resolution, not output which they have now), AA, AF, lots of RAM, high resolution textures, etc. Graphics are starting to cap - and the fact that a three year old game is considered to be the best looking one is a strong testimony to that proposition.

Increasing numbers just for the sake of it is not exactly progress. For example, 1080p resolution approaches the perceptual limits of the human eye. You might as well go 1000000p and it wouldn't look any different to the average person (same as with digital cameras which increase in resolution only as a marketing gimmick).

Of course, it would still be possible for the more flexible PC platform to take the lead, but at what cost? Will it be justified spending insane amounts of money for gaining only a marginal advantage when consoles will be able to achieve almost the same results at only the fraction of the cost?

KiZZo1

I can't stand when people post pics of Crysis, as if it is the be-all-end-all of graphics. Imo, it isn't even a very large leap. Crysis is perhaps proof that we are nearing the end of the current state of gaming, as far as the way they are presented to the eye, but nothing more than that.

As a console gamer, I see the PC game with the best graphics came out 3 years ago, and neither multiplat nor PC exclusive has beaten it. So don't get your why you bring consoles into it. I agree with your "cost cap" point but going off on a tangent against console gamers seems random.locopatho

The explanation as to why games haven't surpassed Crysis was given with my reference to this generation being cost capped. High tech games are expensive; and expensive games go cross platform. I brought consoles into it because when a game goes cross platform it has to be designed to run on all target platforms, this is called targeting the lowest common denominator specification.

Cross platform games have to be designed with console capability in mind, this has created the illusion of graphics hitting a cap; despite PC capability moving forward.

No... they are nowhere NEAR capped... theres more to it than textures, until they can build a working human body out of every NPC, with clothes seperate with pure physic based paperdolling... not to mention a running liquid system through the body. Graphics will never be capped.... still in the todler stages I would say.Birdy09

^^^^^THIS^^^^^...These HD graphics are in the very begining. We are years away from "caping" the limit.

This gen started in Nov. 2005 and this was the best lookin console game.

I dunno, what was the best looking PC game in Nov. 2005 ?

I can't stand when people post pics of Crysis, as if it is the be-all-end-all of graphics. Imo, it isn't even a very large leap. Crysis is perhaps proof that we are nearing the end of the current state of gaming, as far as the way they are presented to the eye, but nothing more than that.

Heirren

The current gen consoles touted to deliver games on 720p but except for a few, most are not even 720p. You should be more concerned that the next gen consoles actually have more RAM or even the ability to upgrade your RAM size.mirgamer

Most console games are 720p

Upgradable RAM - not in consoles. Unified architecture is one of their features.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

I can't stand when people post pics of Crysis, as if it is the be-all-end-all of graphics. Imo, it isn't even a very large leap. Crysis is perhaps proof that we are nearing the end of the current state of gaming, as far as the way they are presented to the eye, but nothing more than that.

Vandalvideo

I guess what I mean to say is that I believe a completely new way of controlling and viewing "video games" will happen before/instead-of an "anything is possible graphically" kind of thing.

[QUOTE="Juken7"]

There are definitely diminishing returns involved. There still is a pretty large gap between current PCs and consoles, but next gen the noticeable difference will probably be much smaller.

Vandalvideo

Just my own observations looking at the graphical leap each new generation provided.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Juken7"]

There are definitely diminishing returns involved. There still is a pretty large gap between current PCs and consoles, but next gen the noticeable difference will probably be much smaller.

Juken7

Just my own observations looking at the graphical leap each new generation provided.

Which was more siginifigant that PS1 to PS2.... there was alot more enphasis on Definition, Bloom/HRD/Lighting, Physics and much better Textures... the jump has been very siginifigant...Birdy09

I'm not talking about the technical side of it, just the leap as judged by my eyes. Any I agree that PS2 to PS3 was still a huge leap, but I think PS1 to PS2 was a larger difference. I just don't think PS3 to PS4 will be as huge as either of those (it will be a technically massive leap, just not as huge visually), but I'll be happy if I'm wrong.

Visually graphics will cap.

The second a console is released, a new piece of PC hardware is released that makes the console look like a toy. Of course it probably costs 3x more, but the point is PC hardware is always improving.

nah gameplay + content will always hold graphics back from being capped

this is even more punctuated on consoles where devs can't just spend as much time as they want on the gameplay and content parts of a game and let the hardware do all the graphics work, console devs will always have limited room to work with

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]A native rendering resolution of 1080p when current consoles cannot even do 720p as standard? :shock:ohthemanatee