Are we reaching the Law of Diminishing Returns? (Graphically)

What is Next Gen going to bring?

Even more Shinyness?

Would we even notice?

Deja vu for the 100th time, they say this every generation ...

Hows about , when they do achieve Photo-realism ... or get to the point where they use real actors and objects or whatever , there will the LARGE-SCALE improvement ... Destructability, living/growing objects , 10000s player worlds with no loading or streaming....

It will never end.

No. I am not yet fighting enemies that rival the Balrog in LOTR The fellowship of the ring. I also think that some peoples visions are beyond any beauty we can find in actuallity. You only have to watch the FF film and other animated films.

Every 18 months processing power doubles. So when next gen rolls around... We should see 2-3 times better looking games.

It seems Dev's are lagging this gen. Hope they pick it up. Only a hand full of really great games have been released so far.

Law of diminishing returns:

Marginal utility derived from each successive unit of commodity consumed keeps on falling as the consumer consumes more and more units of the commodity.

I have an economic exam on Wednesday:D

Hopefully next gen will bring about the abandonment of graphic-whore-ness and will instead focus on gameplay more, since graphics will have already reached a photo-realistic level.Kritical_Strike

[QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"]Hopefully next gen will bring about the abandonment of graphic-whore-ness and will instead focus on gameplay more, since graphics will have already reached a photo-realistic level.Zerostatic0

Look closely at my original post, read thoroughly next time, graphics WILL reach that level next gen (very close at least), 10 years from now we'll be in the next-gen.

imho we definately are. there is still noticable improvement but the difference is getting smaller and smaller. theres still a long way to go before we get photo realism but the jumps to get there are less and less noticable imho. alof of this does come down to opinion though.

for example lets look at halo 1 v halo 3. im leaving 2 out of this as that game pushed the xbox 1 too its limits and was towards the end of its life. both H1 and 3 are relatively at the beginning of their consoles respective lives so are a more fair comparison. now the 360 is supposed to be 10X more powerful than the xbox 1 overall. however if u were to compare a pic of halo1 to halo 3, imho at least, the game does not look 10X better. im sure on a technical level its even bigger than 10X more sophisticed in the visual department but, just putting 2 pics side be side, it doesent look it. 5X better looking, id give it that, probably even 6X better looking. but not 10X imho.

imho this is going to get more noticable as time goes by. technically the jumps will still be huge but too just look at the games, the improvements wont be as noticable imho.

I don't want photo-realism to be a staple of video games, stylized graphics will always be tops on my books.

And trust me you don't want photo-realism any time soon, the ratings on M games will move to R and R games will move to AO ;) Trust me photo-realism in gaming cames with some nice pros but some even bigger cons.

I want 4d graphx, where is my 4d graphx.amorbis1001

4-D graphics are a myth. I don't understand what developers/gamers are thinking when they discuss video games existing in four dimensions. The human brain is only capable of visualizing three-dimensional objects. Einstein, of course, suggested that time itself should be considered the fourth dimension, but it is only temporal in nature. It's not a spatial dimension.

Are you saying that you want the three spatial dimensions and the fourth temporal dimension in games? If so, we've already had this in games for quite some time.

If you're saying that you want four spatial dimensions in your games, this would be a waste of time for developers because, although it is possible to perceive the "shadow" or "footprint" of a four-dimensional figure, you wouldn't be able to perceive them as a whole.

Hopefully next gen will bring about the abandonment of graphic-whore-ness and will instead focus on gameplay more, since graphics will have already reached a photo-realistic level.Kritical_Strike

When did that happen?

I think the graphical leap from generation to generation is going to drop dramatically. We are already at the point where graphics look fairly lifelike if that is what a developer is aiming for. Of course, most developers have a certain artistic style they like to use that isn't totally realistic...perhaps because it makes games more fun.

I believe we are at the point where the leaps will be in the smaller details that make WORLDS more realistic. Things like AI, lighting, particle effects, water and fire effects, weather, etc...all require massive processing power and physics calculations to be as real as possible. Even now, most of these things are small or "faked" to appear realistic. Examples like lighting effects that appear real but are nothing compared to real time ray tracing, or how most AI in games today people think is realistic but really it is still very scripted. Or having fully destructive or changeable worlds.

While I think graphics in terms of polygons and textures are already close to the max potential, once games start using these more advanced physics it won't be as noticeable as graphics, but it will change the way people play and interact with games.

If you want to see the future of real-time 3D animation, simply look at pre-rendered 3D animation.

A decade ago pre-rendered animation gave us Toy Story. Today, real-time animation gives us about the same (but lower resolution.)

In another decade, we might get to Final Fantasy: Spirits Within levels of quality in real-time animation. Then we really will have hit the wall of Diminishing Returns, becayse FF:SW is one of the few pieces of computer-rendered art that successfully avoids the Uncanny Valley in which real-time 3D is currently mired.

Put simply, once we bridge the Uncanny Valley, it'll be over. Graphics will no longer be able to advance in any meaningful way; the only advancements will come from increased scale.

Every year, the returns are diminshed relative to the required cost of investment. Dev costs are raising exponentially. Especially as enhanced AI and physics play a larger and larger role.

Deja vu for the 100th time, they say this every generation ...

Hows about , when they do achieve Photo-realism ... or get to the point where they use real actors and objects or whatever , there will the LARGE-SCALE improvement ... Destructability, living/growing objects , 10000s player worlds with no loading or streaming....

It will never end.

Meu2k7

Yes it will. For many developers who cannot afford the exponential rise in costs to hire more artists, more engineers, more physics and mathematics geinuses, future generations will see more and more vanilla in the marketplace. Less innovative games...more games with "tried-and-true" formulas. More sequels and less new IPs. Just too much financial risk will be involved soon (heck, even now in some cases).

IMO.

What we're going to start noticing more and more isn't necessarily graphics, but physics. The inclusion of physics will start becoming much more complex and deep, so our interaction with the gaming environment will also become much more varied and realistic. That'll be true next-gen, not how great it looks in pictures.Zeliard9

I agree with this to a certain extent, but I believe implementing more realistic physics into games will prove to be much more challenging than that of realistic visuals. As a science, we still do not fully understand how the physical world works. There is a great deal of work to be done in physics as a science before we can ever hope to include realistic physics in games. In other words, you must understand how something works before you can authentically duplicate it.

A hungry consumer pays 3 bucks for a big mac. Then he eats another. Now he is full. A third big mac still costs 3 dollars however since he is no longer hungry a big mac isn't worth 3 dollars to him. He might only buy the third one if it costs a dollar. that is diminishing returns.

The diminishing returns part would have to do with the TVs. Buying a more powerful machine you'd expect better graphics however if the TV definition is keeping up with the console power then you get diminishing returns from additional power in the system.

Deja vu for the 100th time, they say this every generation ...

Hows about , when they do achieve Photo-realism ... or get to the point where they use real actors and objects or whatever , there will the LARGE-SCALE improvement ... Destructability, living/growing objects , 10000s player worlds with no loading or streaming....

It will never end.

Meu2k7

The nextgeneration will hopefullybring us graphics like this.

[QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"]Hopefully next gen will bring about the abandonment of graphic-whore-ness and will instead focus on gameplay more, since graphics will have already reached a photo-realistic level.readingfc_1

When did that happen?

Next gen, as in Ps4 and Xbox720.

Why don't people read? -_____-

as a general rule...next gen graphics will look similar to the CGI currently seen in todays games.cobrax75

Nah. It's getting to the point now where most cut-scenes are rendered with in-game engines. Next gen is gonna look more like current feature film standard CG.

[QUOTE="readingfc_1"]

[QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"]Hopefully next gen will bring about the abandonment of graphic-whore-ness and will instead focus on gameplay more, since graphics will have already reached a photo-realistic level.Kritical_Strike

When did that happen?

Next gen, as in Ps4 and Xbox720.

Why don't people read? -_____-

When will they come out??

All of you have failed miserably with respect to the TC's question. He wasn't asking if the next-gen systems will have better graphics, he was asking about diminishing returns. Maybe most of you just don't know what that means, so I will elaborate.

Diminishing Returns is when the power of something jumps significantly, but the result is relatively insignificant.

Example: You have a car with a 100HP engine and can go 100MPH. You double it to 200HP and can now go to 150MPH. You double it again to 400HP and can now go 175MPH.

Each time you double the engine's power, there is a less and less return on top speed.

This generation has introduced the last few key elements of visual fidelity. This includes HDR, advanced particle systems & shaders, significant geometry, physics, & high resolution.

That being said, work still needs to be done in the areas of antialiasing, advanced physics, postprocessing, & pixel fillrate. These issues will be addressed next-gen, and at that point Diminishing Returns will begin to affect hardware. At that point, we will need to take the hardware and boost it an order of magnitude to see any major difference in fidelity.

Having said that, Nintendo obviously believed we reached diminishing returns with the Gamecube.

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

Deja vu for the 100th time, they say this every generation ...

Hows about , when they do achieve Photo-realism ... or get to the point where they use real actors and objects or whatever , there will the LARGE-SCALE improvement ... Destructability, living/growing objects , 10000s player worlds with no loading or streaming....

It will never end.

Dreams-Visions

Yes it will. For many developers who cannot afford the exponential rise in costs to hire more artists, more engineers, more physics and mathematics geinuses, future generations will see more and more vanilla in the marketplace. Less innovative games...more games with "tried-and-true" formulas. More sequels and less new IPs. Just too much financial risk will be involved soon (heck, even now in some cases).

IMO.

All of you have failed miserably with respect to the TC's question. He wasn't asking if the next-gen systems will have better graphics, he was asking about diminishing returns. Maybe most of you just don't know what that means, so I will elaborate.

Diminishing Returns is when the power of something jumps significantly, but the result is relatively insignificant.

Example: You have a car with a 100HP engine and can go 100MPH. You double it to 200HP and can now go to 150MPH. You double it again to 400HP and can now go 175MPH.

Each time you double the engine's power, there is a less and less return on top speed.

This generation has introduced the last few key elements of visual fidelity. This includes HDR, advanced particle systems & shaders, significant geometry, physics, & high resolution.

That being said, work still needs to be done in the areas of antialiasing, advanced physics, postprocessing, & pixel fillrate. These issues will be addressed next-gen, and at that point Diminishing Returns will begin to affect hardware. At that point, we will need to take the hardware and boost it an order of magnitude to see any major difference in fidelity.

Having said that, Nintendo obviously believed we reached diminishing returns with the Gamecube.

MrEpyx

this is exactly what I'm stating,

With each coming gen graphical power is increased but it's impact lessens due to the law of Diminishing Returns.

There is still a lot to improve, especially in the scale and interactivity of the games. I mean battles with thousands of units, on a battlefield which allows you to do anything you could do in real-life. And there is still a long way to go with polygons, textures, lighting etc.EntwineX

This is obvious, But I beg to ask the question, It all looks the same now IMO

HDR, AA, AF, Bump Mapping ,Detailed Textures, Etc.

Will people even care or noticed about the Next Gen Graphical Jump?

The impact seems to be less and less.

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

Deja vu for the 100th time, they say this every generation ...

Hows about , when they do achieve Photo-realism ... or get to the point where they use real actors and objects or whatever , there will the LARGE-SCALE improvement ... Destructability, living/growing objects , 10000s player worlds with no loading or streaming....

It will never end.

UnnDunn

Yes it will. For many developers who cannot afford the exponential rise in costs to hire more artists, more engineers, more physics and mathematics geinuses, future generations will see more and more vanilla in the marketplace. Less innovative games...more games with "tried-and-true" formulas. More sequels and less new IPs. Just too much financial risk will be involved soon (heck, even now in some cases).

IMO.

I hear you. But we'll see. We know for a fact that nextGen dev costs are amazingly high now. Middlewear helps, but it does not solve the problem. Games cost substantially more to make now.

The Matrix.ken_gamer

winnar

[QUOTE="UnnDunn"][QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

Deja vu for the 100th time, they say this every generation ...

Hows about , when they do achieve Photo-realism ... or get to the point where they use real actors and objects or whatever , there will the LARGE-SCALE improvement ... Destructability, living/growing objects , 10000s player worlds with no loading or streaming....

It will never end.

Dreams-Visions

Yes it will. For many developers who cannot afford the exponential rise in costs to hire more artists, more engineers, more physics and mathematics geinuses, future generations will see more and more vanilla in the marketplace. Less innovative games...more games with "tried-and-true" formulas. More sequels and less new IPs. Just too much financial risk will be involved soon (heck, even now in some cases).

IMO.

I hear you. But we'll see. We know for a fact that nextGen dev costs are amazingly high now. Middlewear helps, but it does not solve the problem. Games cost substantially more to make now.

If the cost rises to astronomical proportions most/some games will ultimately turn into 2-4 hours experiences.

and will be really really really shiny.

How much shiner before it gets to a point where the difference is neglible ?

Hell most of the top games this gen look all the same IMO.

Its all up to the manufacturers. With the success of the Wii we might see everyone trying to make their console as cheap as possible while sacrificing power. Or we could see the opposite, where we see another PS3-esque product, only one that completely destroys the (console) competition in terms of graphics and power.

Also it depends on how easy it is to develop for the next-gen systems. MS had it right this gen with XNA and a console that waseasy to develop for. Many of the new graphical features seem like an afterthought to many developers,and many are just blooming the **** out of their games and calling it next-gen. Hopefully with a next generation of systems we'll see easier to develop for consoles, so rather than having more games where everything is just bloomed to hell, we'll see more games like Halo 3, which would look like ass had it not been for its great lighting.

Finally it depends on what the focus will be for the nex gen of graphics. Every gen seems to havea handful offocuses that may or may not affect the graphics. For example last gen we saw a huge focus on physics and (at least in the early part of the generation) a huge focus on textures. As much as I hate to use Halo as an example again, look at the difference between Halo CE's textures and Halo 2's. Halo 2 looks like its a generation ahead of Halo CE. This gen the focus so-far has been on lighting and mood, as we've seen from the various filters on games like KZ2 and MGS4. Also animations have been significantly improving throughout this generation.

The question though is what will be the next big "selling point" for games? Is it going to be realistic AI? Physics? Animations? No load times? All of those are going to have a significant effect on graphics and could hold back graphical improvementsin order toachieve realism elsewhere(see: Forza 2). So while we may see a huge increase in power for the next gen consoles we may not see the improvement in graphics as those resources are focused elsewhere. The Wii has proven people can live with last gen's graphics, so its entirely plausible that we're going to see a greater focus on AI or someothernon-graphicalpart of games.