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

[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 think your specs are waay of for next gen consoles. While they undoubtly will be more powerfull than most modern consoles, they probably will still remain the same routine (Strong CPU medium GPU, weak RAM capacity and heavliy optimised software), after all, no one will be wanting to stand at E3 and presenting the ps4 with a 599$ price tag... right kaz? :P

consoles are holdng back pc graphics.

consoles are holdng back pc graphics.

yoyofroyoyoyo

You have to cut them some slack in this case, even if you remove consoles as a factor; games would still be held back by the cost of development. Granted stuff not reliant on cost would still be better, but every game cannot pump the $20 million budget that Crysis got and remain exclusive to just one platform.

PC graphics will always evolve and set the benchmark for consoles to follow.

[QUOTE="Birdy09"] 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...Juken7

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.

[QUOTE="yoyofroyoyoyo"]

consoles are holdng back pc graphics.

AnnoyedDragon

You have to cut them some slack in this case, even if you remove consoles as a factor; games would still be held back by the cost of development. Granted stuff not reliant on cost would still be better, but every game cannot pump the $20 million budget that Crysis got and remain exclusive to just one platform.

There's plenty of room for improvement as I've noticed with KZ2 and Crysis. 3D models and physics can can still be improved in complexity rather than just slapping a texture map on a flat surface:

next gen might be 3D, we will see.

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

Far From it This is NOT A REAL PERSON

That is a 3D test for Image Metrics Same people who Made This for Bungie

THE REAL ONE this one its a Real Person

I seen Even more relistic then that from them il say in the next 10 years we wont know 3D to a actual person

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

AdrianWerner

hope it doesnt go that way,pixar graphics have gotten better since Toy story but they also all been crap since toy story which is IMO their only good film

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

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

YoJim8obaJoe

hope it doesnt go that way,pixar graphics have gotten better since Toy story but they also all been crap since toy story which is IMO their only good film

Far From it This is NOT A REAL PERSON

That is a 3D test for Image Metrics Same people who Made This for Bungie

THE REAL ONE this one its a Real Person

I seen Even more relistic then that from them il say in the next 10 years we wont know 3D to a actual person

marcos27pr

When I'm playing a game, and it starts to rain in game, and I can make a stream of water in the mud with my hands, Ill admit cappage.

It will never be capped until we get life like visuals, physics, etc and also manage to incorporate a formula for entropy in the universe, which will never happen :P

...at least not soon.

[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.

Theres a large gap between pc's an consoles? Really? From a raw power standpoint maybe but from a visual standpoint I would have to disagree. Most multiplats are using the exact same assets with the only diffrence being image quality settings. Yes there are some excpetions of some multiplats using higher res textures and whatnot but those are the minority. I do however agree with you as the gap closing. This generation of consoles has held up much better then any of the previous ones. And excpet the next gen of consoles to be far superior then any current pc hardware available now.

And excpet the next gen of consoles to be far superior then any current pc hardware available now.TheSterls

Just wondering what are you basing this on and what kind of capabilities do you expect the next gen consoles will have?

. I do however agree with you as the gap closing. This generation of consoles has held up much better then any of the previous ones.

TheSterls

Theres a large gap between pc's an consoles? Really? From a raw power standpoint maybe but from a visual standpoint I would have to disagree. Most multiplats are using the exact same assets with the only diffrence being image quality settings. Yes there are some excpetions of some multiplats using higher res textures and whatnot but those are the minority. I do however agree with you as the gap closing. This generation of consoles has held up much better then any of the previous ones. And excpet the next gen of consoles to be far superior then any current pc hardware available now.

TheSterls

Yes, there is a massive gap now between the PC and console my anti-PC console fanboy friend.

The reason its not that apparent to most of us is because unfortunately, the games on the PC are often console ports and hardly take advantage of the platform's power. You may get some slightly higher resolution textures, higher framerate, etc, but that's about it. You already know sadly that the industry caters for the consoles, not the PC. So when the PC gets a game, they will just port it to the system. The PC currently is already at "next-gen" console levels, you just cannot see it because the industry does not care to use its power. The PC has to tap its feet while it waits for the consoles to catch up. The PC now makes the 360/PS3 look absolutely dated, but you just can't see it most of the time. The PC sadly has to ride on the coattails of the consoles. I hear that Unreal Engine 4 won't come until the next-gen of consoles do, and yet PCs today can probably already handle it.

Who knows if the next-gen consoles will only be a small leap, like from the Gamecube to Wii?

Graphics aren't starting to cap, the consoles are starting to cap graphics. If the PC was dominant and everyone focused on it, you'd see graphics and tech take a huge leap right now. But we have to wait for the consoles to do it first since they rule the industry.

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

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

. I do however agree with you as the gap closing. This generation of consoles has held up much better then any of the previous ones.

AdrianWerner

The pc won't ever be the prominent platform because it isn't a stable enough platform. Performance fluctuates too much. If it was the prime game machine, developers would have to hold back game performance anyways to some sort of standard because of the way games are advertised. There's no way that an ad could show an incredible looking game, build hype, and then have quite a few people be disappointed when they buy the game and it looks nothing like what they were told. It's unfortunate, but true.

The pc won't ever be the prominent platform because it isn't a stable enough platform. Performance fluctuates too much. If it was the prime game machine, developers would have to hold back game performance anyways to some sort of standard because of the way games are advertised. There's no way that an ad could show an incredible looking game, build hype, and then have quite a few people be disappointed when they buy the game and it looks nothing like what they were told. It's unfortunate, but true.

Heirren

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

The pc won't ever be the prominent platform because it isn't a stable enough platform. Performance fluctuates too much. If it was the prime game machine, developers would have to hold back game performance anyways to some sort of standard because of the way games are advertised. There's no way that an ad could show an incredible looking game, build hype, and then have quite a few people be disappointed when they buy the game and it looks nothing like what they were told. It's unfortunate, but true.

04dcarraher

Yes, I know. You were saying how it was unfortunate that the pc platform is held back because of consoles. What I said was meant to show you that the pc won't ever be the premiere gaming platform because the hardware moves to fast. This is why there are committees for things like DVD, Blu Ray, and HDTV standards. If every four months, resolutions on tvs or blu rays increased, consumers would never buy into them.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]Theres a large gap between pc's an consoles? Really? From a raw power standpoint maybe but from a visual standpoint I would have to disagree. Most multiplats are using the exact same assets with the only diffrence being image quality settings. Yes there are some excpetions of some multiplats using higher res textures and whatnot but those are the minority. I do however agree with you as the gap closing. This generation of consoles has held up much better then any of the previous ones. And excpet the next gen of consoles to be far superior then any current pc hardware available now.

ninjakamster1

Yes, there is a massive gap now between the PC and console my anti-PC console fanboy friend.

The reason its not that apparent to most of us is because unfortunately, the games on the PC are often console ports and hardly take advantage of the platform's power. You may get some slightly higher resolution textures, higher framerate, etc, but that's about it. You already know sadly that the industry caters for the consoles, not the PC. So when the PC gets a game, they will just port it to the system. The PC currently is already at "next-gen" console levels, you just cannot see it because the industry does not care to use its power. The PC has to tap its feet while it waits for the consoles to catch up. The PC now makes the 360/PS3 look absolutely dated, but you just can't see it most of the time. The PC sadly has to ride on the coattails of the consoles. I hear that Unreal Engine 4 won't come until the next-gen of consoles do, and yet PCs today can probably already handle it.

Who knows if the next-gen consoles will only be a small leap, like from the Gamecube to Wii?

Graphics aren't starting to cap, the consoles are starting to cap graphics. If the PC was dominant and everyone focused on it, you'd see graphics and tech take a huge leap right now. But we have to wait for the consoles to do it first since they rule the industry.

Oddly enough, what you just said is sort of why the ps3 is "failing" to some degree. The xbox360 is a far more popular machine, as sales show, and it just makes sense from a money standpoint to make the game based on the 360 hardware. If it was the other way around, the ps3 would have mounds of games that have visuals of the Uncharted 2 quality.

well this is what the best current in-game tech has to offer. muscleserge

But that's rendered outside of in-game.

The only thing capping graphics is the technology used to render them at the moment. Believe me, if the 360 and PS3 had ATI 4870 GPUs in them, graphics across the board would increase dramatically making current games on consoles look like arse.

Oddly enough, what you just said is sort of why the ps3 is "failing" to some degree. The xbox360 is a far more popular machine, as sales show, and it just makes sense from a money standpoint to make the game based on the 360 hardware. If it was the other way around, the ps3 would have mounds of games that have visuals of the Uncharted 2 quality.

Heirren

Way more to it then just how the game looks but if your saying games are reaching the point where they are failing to look much better then you are correct. The reason for this isn't because we are at the graphics cap or approaching it, it's just slowing down because we don't have the hardware for it to improve at a faster rate. Game developers could put years of development into a game and have it look 90% as realistic as the outside world but what's the point when there is no hardware for it to run on? What's the point when the physics, AI are way below the graphics in terms of quality?

Who wants a photo realistic game anyways? Sure they'd make good simulators but we live in the real world already. I like graphics how they are now just not the things coupled with it like the physics and stupid AI's and questionable animations that look off. Graphics aren't in need of improving as much as the other things with it are.

Thats not true about console always outdoing Pc's best, Pc graphics has always blew consoles out of the water in previous generations.People keep forgetting that console tech is derived from computer hardware from a year or two before they are released. 04dcarraher

you're forgetting that neither PS1 nor PS2 tech was derived from PC

When PS1, or Nintendo's 64 the start in 3d graphics Pc had graphics cards, that outdid what they could do and it continued on even with this current generation of consoles. I

04dcarraher

Same thing (altough on smaller scale) happened with PS2. Nothing in 2000 on PC could compare graphicaly to titles like Bouncer. With PS2 it didn't took as long to surpass it, but it still did have advantage at launch

I would have to say that some developers are holding back on themselves. Even when a developer makes a multiplat game with a PC version, they might not try to utilize the potential of the hardware of 2009/2010, even IF the game is optimized (I'm saying IF because i am having some troubles seeing a justification for higher requirements despite the fact that console hardware doesn't magically change each year)

So yeah, i guess i could say that graphics are starting to cap.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

Thats not true about console always outdoing Pc's best, Pc graphics has always blew consoles out of the water in previous generations.People keep forgetting that console tech is derived from computer hardware from a year or two before they are released. AdrianWerner

you're forgetting that neither PS1 nor PS2 tech was derived from PC

When PS1, or Nintendo's 64 the start in 3d graphics Pc had graphics cards, that outdid what they could do and it continued on even with this current generation of consoles. I

04dcarraher

Same thing (altough on smaller scale) happened with PS2. Nothing in 2000 on PC could compare graphicaly to titles like Bouncer. With PS2 it didn't took as long to surpass it, but it still did have advantage at launch

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

AdrianWerner

You've seen Company of Heroes, World in Conflict or Dawn of War 2? Those games are getting gorgeus and realy complex.

Company of Heroes came out in 2006 and it had fully destructible and interactive enviroments (Like Bad Company style, shoot a wall, destroy a wall) that are only being aproached right now by games like Bad Company 2, advanced squad AI (taking cover etc.)...

Technicaly, if you look at it, its preaty much identical to Bad Company 2 in effects, witch is preaty crazy considering its a 4 year old RTS game on the PC.

Perhaps they have capped. Nintendo, one of the most premiere game developers in the world, essentially said To Hell With Graphics. Ironically enough, Nintendo, using the weakest tech, produced Mario Galaxy which is a better looking game than most of whats on the ps3 and 360.

People have been saying graphics are "just about to hit a wall" for literally the past decade.

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

nd even then Pc hardaware was ahead of them. 04dcarraher

No, it was far behind PSX tech.Even if Sony used some parts of other tech, that was technology that wasn't used on PCs, let alone used for long periods of time. It was ahead of PC tech from that period

Your forgetting that in 1994 3d graphics were on par or a tad bettwethen PS1 even thou expensive. 04dcarraher

You have some serious memory issues. go look up 1994 PC games on mobygames.com. Back then PC still used primarly sprite based 3D graphics instead of polygons like PSX does. Whatever genre you pick, be it action ,racing, rpg...all of them were very primitive graphicaly compared to their PSX counterparts in

and by 1996/1997 PC 3d graphics was leagues ahead and costs were managable.04dcarraher

They became popular then and that's when PCs surpassed PSX...two years after the console launched

then by 2000 Nvidia and ATI were already ahead with their Geforce 2 and ATI Rage cards .04dcarraher

How were they ahead? One could argue about GF2 power, but the fact remains that the games didn't make use of it. You could have bought twenty GeForces 2, it still wouldn't give you graphica on par with PS2 in 2000

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

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

chaplainDMK

You've seen Company of Heroes, World in Conflict or Dawn of War 2? Those games are getting gorgeus and realy complex.

Company of Heroes came out in 2006 and it had fully destructible and interactive enviroments (Like Bad Company style, shoot a wall, destroy a wall) that are only being aproached right now by games like Bad Company 2, advanced squad AI (taking cover etc.)...

Technicaly, if you look at it, its preaty much identical to Bad Company 2 in effects, witch is preaty crazy considering its a 4 year old RTS game on the PC.

Also..screw CoH...you want something truly impressive? Silent Storm...fully descructible and interactive enviorements, bump mapping, normal mapping, physics, rag dolls...all of that in 2003, before even FPSes started to do all that :)

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

No, it was far behind PSX tech.Even if Sony used some parts of other tech, that was technology that wasn't used on PCs, let alone used for long periods of time. It was ahead of PC tech from that period

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]Your forgetting that in 1994 3d graphics were on par or a tad bettwethen PS1 even thou expensive. AdrianWerner

You have some serious memory issues. go look up 1994 PC games on mobygames.com. Back then PC still used primarly sprite based 3D graphics instead of polygons like PSX does. Whatever genre you pick, be it action ,racing, rpg...all of them were very primitive graphicaly compared to their PSX counterparts in

and by 1996/1997 PC 3d graphics was leagues ahead and costs were managable.04dcarraher

They became popular then and that's when PCs surpassed PSX...two years after the console launched

then by 2000 Nvidia and ATI were already ahead with their Geforce 2 and ATI Rage cards .04dcarraher

How were they ahead? One could argue about GF2 power, but the fact remains that the games didn't make use of it. You could have bought twenty GeForces 2, it still wouldn't give you graphica on par with PS2 in 2000

But that's rendered outside of in-game.The only thing capping graphics is the technology used to render them at the moment. Believe me, if the 360 and PS3 had ATI 4870 GPUs in them, graphics across the board would increase dramatically making current games on consoles look like arse.Mystic-G

If you seriously think that PS1 out did Pc 3d graphics/cards when it first came out?

04dcarraher

Yes and everyone who was a gamer back then will agree with me. PC graphics of 1994 was pathetic compared to PSX. PlayStation was generation ahead of PC graphics at least. Go and look at actual games and their graphics. You might throw all the numbers you want around, but the fact remains that the actual PC games looked like utter crap compared to PSX ones at launch.

You seem to not be able to tell the difference between hardware and software. It doesn't matter what kind of hardware you can have if games don't take any advantage of it. Before Voodoo you could have bought a GPU, but it didn't matter when 95% of games didn't support it and those that did simply used it just to filter the textures. PSX launched with full blown advanced 3D games. Back then PCs hardly did real 3D at all. Those were Doom times, era with flat untextured 3D worlds and sprites instead of polygons

He's right, Playstation was ahead of the pc in terms of 3d for a little bit. I could be wrong, but I want to say that it wasn't until Tomb Raider came out that the pc got that Voodoo 3Dfx stuff. I think I am wrong, but there was definitly one game in particular that lifted the bar. Then I remember the N64 taking over for a very short period of time.

Perhaps they have capped. Nintendo, one of the most premiere game developers in the world, essentially said To Hell With Graphics. Ironically enough, Nintendo, using the weakest tech, produced Mario Galaxy which is a better looking game than most of whats on the ps3 and 360.

Heirren