Do you want graphics to improve from this gen?

I'd be VERY dissapointed if graphics just 'stopped getting better' next gen. Graphics should always be evolving.

That's not really my main concern about the next generation, but I'm sure everyone wants graphics to improve. :?

I would like network code to improve before graphics.

They better improve, thats the only reason to upgrade, if they want to innovate and not improve make it a side project on the current system. You are likely asking this question because of the wii approach this generation, for nintendo it worked, gamecube had a bad rep and they needed something to make consumers come back, but this generation it won't. If they try to just gimmick it up next gen I'll stick with 360, ps3 and wii until they warm up to the idea to making improvements to their systems.

i wanna them to improve but i dun wanna be confused between the game graphics and the real life either, it is always good to see better graphics but i still wanna them games graphics not near real graphics and that's when we need to stop improving them.

No, it would be too costly. Videogames in the US haven't really risen in price, while the cost of development has significantly. Unless they're going to charge $80 per game (like they are in Japan), I would say no, it would hurt the market.

We still have a loooooong way to go in terms of not only detail, but also resolutions, framerate and things like AA and AF.

i wanna them to improve but i dun wanna be confused between the game graphics and the real life either, it is always good to see better graphics but i still wanna them games graphics not near real graphics and that's when we need to stop improving them.

2mrw

We still have a loooooong way to go in terms of not only detail, but also resolutions, framerate and things like AA and AF.

CAPGOD

Technology costs are what is killing the games industry, so no.

Graphically speaking I would prefer to see cleaner/sharper looking games, which comes down to asset compression rather than expensive technologies.

Cross platform focus of most games has led to some smudgy visuals, textures and filters that make sense on consoles but not PC.

I always want graphics to improve.

jakehouston88

.......................................

What kind of answer is this??? Graphics are good enough??

If Graphics can improve even more then it's never "good enough".

If it's possible, why would anyone choose not to up the graphics and stay the way it is???

.......................................

What kind of answer is this??? Graphics are good enough??

If Graphics can improve even more then it's never "good enough".

If it's possible, why would anyone choose not to up the graphics and stay the way it is???

TC put care instead of want... I have been fine since 6th gen BTW.

[QUOTE="Legendaryscmt"]

I'd rather have my games running at 60 FPS with 1,000 enemies on screen without framerate issues more than a graphics update.

Trmpt

no it doesnt..... you could have a game, lets say Geometry Wars, with a 1000 enemy triangles on screen at once and run at 60 fps..... and then run it at a lower resolution, with no AA..... is that an upgrade in quality of graphics?

He is simply saying, he'd be happywith todays graphics if the systems they were on, could run them all at 60fps w/ 1000 enemies on screen. That doesn't mean that any single enemy has to look any better than any enemy in a game currently.

Also, on topic, yes I want better visuals than this gen.... why not? And if the rest of you would be honest, then you would admit that you want better visuals too. You think that saying no, makes you special or cool for some reason?

So if most of you don't care about having better graphics, then why are there a hundred threads per day around here.... that end up being many many pages long, hmmmm?? WIth all of you fighting over "WHOZ DA GRAFIX K1NG"

Technology costs are what is killing the games industry, so no.

Graphically speaking I would prefer to see cleaner/sharper looking games, which comes down to asset compression rather than expensive technologies.

Cross platform focus of most games has led to some smudgy visuals, textures and filters that make sense on consoles but not PC.

AnnoyedDragon

We are at a pivotal time in terms of technology - Blu-ray is becoming more affordable, and with higher capacity discs also in development we could basically run with the format for the next 10 years, if not longer. In terms of graphics cards, if you look at some tech demos of what new-ish PC cards can achieve right now, you'll see that they're basically already a generational leap above what we have in PS3 and 360 - if developers actually developed for those cards exclusively and harnessed their power that is.

And with a good CPU backing that up, like a scaled-up Cell, or a beefed up Xenos, you could probably announce a truly next-gen machine for launch in 2012 and sell it at a price not much higher than what we have now. But of course, the hardware manufacturers will always want some sort of very expensive proprietary CPU and GPU. In the end it's all sort of pointless, as it always just comes back to the old Nvidia versus ATi war. So it's not so much the tech costs killing it, it's the overblown manufacturer's planning and competitive nature that is.

And btw, I think you have it the wrong way round with regards to sharper visuals. The hardware governs 'sharpness' through rendering resolution, anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering - things which need raw computational power. Not compression.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

Technology costs are what is killing the games industry, so no.

Graphically speaking I would prefer to see cleaner/sharper looking games, which comes down to asset compression rather than expensive technologies.

Cross platform focus of most games has led to some smudgy visuals, textures and filters that make sense on consoles but not PC.

CAPGOD

We are at a pivotal time in terms of technology - Blu-ray is becoming more affordable, and with higher capacity discs also in development we could basically run with the format for the next 10 years, if not longer. In terms of graphics cards, if you look at some tech demos of what new-ish PC cards can achieve right now, you'll see that they're basically already a generational leap above what we have in PS3 and 360 - if developers actually developed for those cards exclusively and harnessed their power that is.

And with a good CPU backing that up, like a scaled-up Cell, or a beefed up Xenos, you could probably announce a truly next-gen machine for launch in 2012 and sell it at a price not much higher than what we have now. But of course, the hardware manufacturers will always want some sort of very expensive proprietary CPU and GPU. In the end it's all sort of pointless, as it always just comes back to the old Nvidia versus ATi war. So it's not so much the tech costs killing it, it's the overblown manufacturer's planning and competitive nature that is.

And btw, I think you have it the wrong way round with regards to sharper visuals. The hardware governs 'sharpness' through rendering resolution, anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering - things which need raw computational power. Not compression.

The thing is caramack said the PS3 version of rage will have better looking textures because of less compression.

Yes. I hate bloom. I hate it, I hate it, I hate it. Almost every game is infected with it. That's one advantage of a PC is I can adjust settings and therefore turn off settings I don't like.

The thing is caramack said the PS3 version of rage will have better looking textures because of less compression.

Threebabycows

Yes. I hate bloom. I hate it, I hate it, I hate it. Almost every game is infected with it. That's one advantage of a PC is I can adjust settings and therefore turn off settings I don't like.

organic_machine

[QUOTE="Threebabycows"]

The thing is caramack said the PS3 version of rage will have better looking textures because of less compression.

killab2oo5

Yes. I hate bloom. I hate it, I hate it, I hate it. Almost every game is infected with it. That's one advantage of a PC is I can adjust settings and therefore turn off settings I don't like.

organic_machine

Halo 3 uses HDR...

[QUOTE="CAPGOD"]

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

Technology costs are what is killing the games industry, so no.

Graphically speaking I would prefer to see cleaner/sharper looking games, which comes down to asset compression rather than expensive technologies.

Cross platform focus of most games has led to some smudgy visuals, textures and filters that make sense on consoles but not PC.

Threebabycows

We are at a pivotal time in terms of technology - Blu-ray is becoming more affordable, and with higher capacity discs also in development we could basically run with the format for the next 10 years, if not longer. In terms of graphics cards, if you look at some tech demos of what new-ish PC cards can achieve right now, you'll see that they're basically already a generational leap above what we have in PS3 and 360 - if developers actually developed for those cards exclusively and harnessed their power that is.

And with a good CPU backing that up, like a scaled-up Cell, or a beefed up Xenos, you could probably announce a truly next-gen machine for launch in 2012 and sell it at a price not much higher than what we have now. But of course, the hardware manufacturers will always want some sort of very expensive proprietary CPU and GPU. In the end it's all sort of pointless, as it always just comes back to the old Nvidia versus ATi war. So it's not so much the tech costs killing it, it's the overblown manufacturer's planning and competitive nature that is.

And btw, I think you have it the wrong way round with regards to sharper visuals. The hardware governs 'sharpness' through rendering resolution, anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering - things which need raw computational power. Not compression.

The thing is caramack said the PS3 version of rage will have better looking textures because of less compression.

That is only because Rage's engine is using megatexturing - basically texture quality is controlled by how big your storage is and how fast it can be read. 25GB of Rage's ultra high-res textures is gonna be at the mercy of compression a lot more than other game's textures. It's a cool concept - but only about three games are using megatexturing at the moment and it eats disc space. So for the 99.9% of other traditionally developed games, more RAM and better hardware capable of lots of anisotropic filtering will suffice.

We are at a pivotal time in terms of technology - Blu-ray is becoming more affordable, and with higher capacity discs also in development we could basically run with the format for the next 10 years, if not longer. In terms of graphics cards, if you look at some tech demos of what new-ish PC cards can achieve right now, you'll see that they're basically already a generational leap above what we have in PS3 and 360 - if developers actually developed for those cards exclusively and harnessed their power that is.

And with a good CPU backing that up, like a scaled-up Cell, or a beefed up Xenos, you could probably announce a truly next-gen machine for launch in 2012 and sell it at a price not much higher than what we have now. But of course, the hardware manufacturers will always want some sort of very expensive proprietary CPU and GPU. In the end it's all sort of pointless, as it always just comes back to the old Nvidia versus ATi war. So it's not so much the tech costs killing it, it's the overblown manufacturer's planning and competitive nature that is.

CAPGOD

Perhaps it is because it is late and I am tired right now, but I am not sure what you are trying to say. What I was referring to is the higher development costs that come with using increasingly more complex graphics. Today's are $15-$30 million typically for a AAA-AAAA title, if next gen goes as planned it is estimated to double to $30-$60 million.

These high costs are turning the games industry into a creatively stagnant environment were only the financial elite are able to operate, in other words killing what makes gaming great for most people. So as far as I'm concerned all this talk about technology that may be used is irrelevant, if Sony and Microsoft has any sense they would pull a Wii to save themselves. Otherwise they had best think of a new way to compete fast, because they are already struggling to get exclusives with today's costs as it is.

And btw, I think you have it the wrong way round with regards to sharper visuals. The hardware governs 'sharpness' through rendering resolution, anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering - things which need raw computational power. Not compression.

CAPGOD

I disagree, I can jack all those up as high as I want but I am still just polishing up the same foundations. My comment regarding compression was referring to the compression of art assets like textures and such, in other words by less compression I was referring to better quality textures that are designed to take advantage of more than console Vram into account.

There are a variety of options I can turn on to clean up a games visuals, but it won't de-muddy a low quality texture.

Anyway night all.

How much more you want?:P

I think this generation is still much young to say anything at all. Compare the launch of the PSone to it's mid-life and it's end.

Perhaps it is because it is late and I am tired right now, but I am not sure what you are trying to say. What I was referring to is the higher development costs that come with using increasingly more complex graphics. Today's are $15-$30 million typically for a AAA-AAAA title, if next gen goes as planned it is estimated to double to $30-$60 million.

These high costs are turning the games industry into a creatively stagnant environment were only the financial elite are able to operate, in other words killing what makes gaming great for most people. So as far as I'm concerned all this talk about technology that may be used is irrelevant, if Sony and Microsoft has any sense they would pull a Wii to save themselves. Otherwise they had best think of a new way to compete fast, because they are already struggling to get exclusives with today's costs as it is.AnnoyedDragon

Ah, I though you were referring to the costs of components such as the CPU, graphics card etc.

[QUOTE="CAPGOD"]

And btw, I think you have it the wrong way round with regards to sharper visuals. The hardware governs 'sharpness' through rendering resolution, anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering - things which need raw computational power. Not compression.

AnnoyedDragon

I disagree, I can jack all those up as high as I want but I am still just polishing up the same foundations. My comment regarding compression was referring to the compression of art assets like textures and such, in other words by less compression I was referring to better quality textures that are designed to take advantage of more than console Vram into account.

There are a variety of options I can turn on to clean up a games visuals, but it won't de-muddy a low quality texture.

Anyway night all.

This is only a problem because many games for PC are ported from consoles, where the assets are already low quality and are created with a low RAM budget in mind. Having very high-resolution textures does not necessarily mean that you will need to compress them to fit on a DVD - there are quite a few games with stunning quality textures which fit on a DVD just fine without compromising quality. So as long as there is enough VRAM present to get the texture on screen, we can expect even sharper results by letting high res, AA and AF take care of the rest. With the advent of Blu-ray, compression to the extent at which it harms quality will become a non-issue anyway,

Idk why people seperate graphics from gameplay. They are tied together. Better more powerful hardware means you can do more types of gameplay and do crazy things the previous systems couldnt do. I.e Dead rising 360 vs. Dead rising wii.

Idk why people seperate graphics from gameplay. They are tied together. Better more powerful hardware means you can do more types of gameplay and do crazy things the previous systems couldnt do. I.e Dead rising 360 vs. Dead rising wii.

VendettaRed07

Idk why people seperate graphics from gameplay. They are tied together. Better more powerful hardware means you can do more types of gameplay and do crazy things the previous systems couldnt do. I.e Dead rising 360 vs. Dead rising wii.

VendettaRed07

Idk why people seperate graphics from gameplay. They are tied together. Better more powerful hardware means you can do more types of gameplay and do crazy things the previous systems couldnt do. I.e Dead rising 360 vs. Dead rising wii.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

Technology costs are what is killing the games industry, so no.

Graphically speaking I would prefer to see cleaner/sharper looking games, which comes down to asset compression rather than expensive technologies.

Cross platform focus of most games has led to some smudgy visuals, textures and filters that make sense on consoles but not PC.

CAPGOD

We are at a pivotal time in terms of technology - Blu-ray is becoming more affordable, and with higher capacity discs also in development we could basically run with the format for the next 10 years, if not longer. In terms of graphics cards, if you look at some tech demos of what new-ish PC cards can achieve right now, you'll see that they're basically already a generational leap above what we have in PS3 and 360 - if developers actually developed for those cards exclusively and harnessed their power that is.

And with a good CPU backing that up, like a scaled-up Cell, or a beefed up Xenos, you could probably announce a truly next-gen machine for launch in 2012 and sell it at a price not much higher than what we have now. But of course, the hardware manufacturers will always want some sort of very expensive proprietary CPU and GPU. In the end it's all sort of pointless, as it always just comes back to the old Nvidia versus ATi war. So it's not so much the tech costs killing it, it's the overblown manufacturer's planning and competitive nature that is.

And btw, I think you have it the wrong way round with regards to sharper visuals. The hardware governs 'sharpness' through rendering resolution, anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering - things which need raw computational power. Not compression.

It's not about the cost of the hardware, it's about the cost of utilizing the hardware to it's fullest potential. Having to hire more and more people to make a game, but the costs of games remaining the same.

[QUOTE="VendettaRed07"] [QUOTE="Im_single"][QUOTE="VendettaRed07"]

Idk why people seperate graphics from gameplay. They are tied together. Better more powerful hardware means you can do more types of gameplay and do crazy things the previous systems couldnt do. I.e Dead rising 360 vs. Dead rising wii.

SparkyProtocol

It's just not financially feasible to move beyond this point. Yes, hardware does account for more than graphics. And no, better hardware wouldn't be a bad thing. But the industry really can't afford to move beyond this point. In fact, the industry can't really afford HD. Of course, perhaps HD has to happen with everything moving to HD, but its really damaging overall.

If you want graphics to improve beyond this, be ready to pay $100 or more per game, or see the death of the industry.

It's just not financially feasible to move beyond this point. Yes, hardware does account for more than graphics. And no, better hardware wouldn't be a bad thing. But the industry really can't afford to move beyond this point. In fact, the industry can't really afford HD. Of course, perhaps HD has to happen with everything moving to HD, but its really damaging overall.

If you want graphics to improve beyond this, be ready to pay $100 or more per game, or see the death of the industry.

ceruxx

you mean the death of the consoles. the pc is still kicking with $50 games that are beyond anything else

Halo 3 uses HDR...

Threebabycows

[QUOTE="SparkyProtocol"][QUOTE="VendettaRed07"] Not to mention hardware contributes to AI, Physics, environmental interaction, amount of enemies on screen, draw distance, frame rate and more. If you think those things don't affect your gameplay then you're dead wrong.ceruxx

It's just not financially feasible to move beyond this point. Yes, hardware does account for more than graphics. And no, better hardware wouldn't be a bad thing. But the industry really can't afford to move beyond this point. In fact, the industry can't really afford HD. Of course, perhaps HD has to happen with everything moving to HD, but its really damaging overall.

If you want graphics to improve beyond this, be ready to pay $100 or more per game, or see the death of the industry.

I'd prefer for graphics to only have a slight bump up next gen, and for most of the technical improvement being in other areas like AI, the number of players in online games, the size of games, etc.Head_of_games

it alredy is DX11 IS COMING OUT BABYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

[QUOTE="Head_of_games"]I'd prefer for graphics to only have a slight bump up next gen, and for most of the technical improvement being in other areas like AI, the number of players in online games, the size of games, etc.SparkyProtocol

[QUOTE="SparkyProtocol"][QUOTE="Head_of_games"]I'd prefer for graphics to only have a slight bump up next gen, and for most of the technical improvement being in other areas like AI, the number of players in online games, the size of games, etc.Head_of_games

Why not.

Well it would be nice for sure but also the cost of making games has skyrocketed and most devs have chosen to just upgrade visuals and strip a lot of other things out of the game (havent played a decent Madden franchise since 05 - 06 ). So if I had a choice I would say upgrade visuals a little but also put all the options and game modes back in them so we have huge games with current gen visuals. I mean look at oblivion, is an AWESOME game indeed but also is much smaller in scope than morrowind.

Yes, ofcourse I do. But graphics really never changes the gameplay now in days. I would be fine if there is no more improvement this gen.

I could careless about graphics.

I seriously don't want graphics to improve becausethen development costs will increase and so will console costs so really I'd prefer everyone stays with PS3 level graphics and doe'snt improve at all in a graphics perspective but they should improvephysics and thats all I want.