Support NeoGAF

[Jubenhimer]

8th generation of consoles is an interesting beast. While it was a step up over what was offered by the previous generation, it was possibly the first time in gaming history that the leap wasn't big enough to warrant instant adoption. Sure, facial expressions are more detailed which means we no longer have to excessively rely on pre-rendered cutscenes as much, and Open World games no longer have to sacrifice visual detail for their massive scale. But generally speaking, not much from current generation looks or even feels light years better than what 7th gen could put out vs say, going from the PS1 to the PS2. The main improvements this gen have more to do with improvements made to RAM, architecture, and development tools than fancy processors.

I'd say the cracks of this started forming last generation. 7th generation ushered in the HD era, and was the biggest leap in technology we've had yet. But it showed there was still a large market for 6th era visuals as well. HD didn't become standard until later in the gen, and 6th generation was when 3D games really started to become fully realized, so it was good enough for a lot of more casual consumers. Just look what was out that generation. The DS and PSP were the most successful handhelds have ever been despite vastly weaker hardware (DS especially), the PS2 was still selling very well, even through most of the generation, and the best selling home console at the time, was an enhanced GameCube with a TV remote known as the Wii.

Even the HD twins themselves were elongated. 7th Generation had the longest lifespan of any console generation to date (8-9 years vs. the 5-6 of its predecessors), and even then, the PS3 and 360 still kept getting plenty of great games, including many AAA releases, even 3 years into current generation. 7th generation was the point where graphics were really becoming good enough for a lot of people, and adoption rates of next gen-level tech are growing slower and slower. That, and with consoles and AAA games getting increasingly expensive to develop, consumers are becoming less and less wowed by each new generation leap. Even now with current gen consoles fully in the spotlight, the best thing you can say about them is that they can finally do Open World games proper justice. There's still plenty of 7th gen era games that with a few improvements, can look presentable as current gen titles, it's a big reason why publishers still keep re-releasing games from that era and even 6th generation games on current systems. Hell, just look at some of the most popular titles this gen. Minecraft, Fortnite, Overwatch, Rocket League, Celeste, Shovel Knight, Sonic Mania. All games that don't really have bleeding edge graphics, but are able to win over the hearts of gamers with gameplay and visual style alone.

Things are only going to get worse next gen IMO. While there will always be improvements made in graphics, how big of a leap next gen will actually be is looking pretty questionable. Even when PS5 and Xbox Scarlet arrive, will most people really sit and say "Oh yeah, I really need to upgrade right away!" Not really I don't think, many gamers and developers will still be fine rocking 8th gen consoles for quite a while before they abandon them, likely even longer than they did with 7th generation. At the moment, current consoles have more than enough power for everyone but the AAA developers who need to keep pushing the envelope. Even the comparatively under-powered Nintendo Switch is still good enough to run the majority of modern games and remasters at lower settings. I feel major improvements going forward will be focused more on AI, physics, etc. and even then, that tech will still be too expensive to be adopted by anybody but the AAA crowd for quite a while. So what I'm trying to say is, are generational leaps becoming less and less important these days?

 

[Vawn]

Well, we've definitely passed the point of diminishing returns.

The fact that many people cannot decide if they're impressed by a game's visuals until they watch a Digital Foundry breakdown is proof of this.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Yes, very much so. Hardware has become less and less important ever since arcades. They were purpose-built $1000+ machines that only played one game. The fact that I can play 1000+ games on a $150 handheld demonstrates that the market cares more about other things.

The indie market wouldn't exist if most people still cared about graphics and hardware power.

 

[Mr Nash]

For me, yes. I just don't get wow'ed by visuals the way I used to. Artistic direction can still turn heads for me, though. The only area where I'll give a bit of a nod to being curious where increased visual fidelity goes is when it comes to VR. Other than that, I'm more interested in gameplay and overall art.

 

[Catphish]

Not for me.

Photo-realistic VR experience, or gtfo

 

[ethomaz]

I’m very happy I’m not.

VR on actuations hardware looks like shit... needs more power.

 

[AV]

In standard games, absolutely. We'll still see improvements, obviously, but if people are looking at something like RDR2, GoW, Forza etc. and thinking "gee, that sure is ugly" then they've lost all hope.

The biggest leaps are going to be VR. VR is impressive enough as it is but there's so much room for improvement in terms of visual fidelity. Just think what we're going to be seeing in 5, 10, 15 years.

 

[Afro Republican]

Well yes, our own resident Microsoft dev Hunert Smoke broke it down. The only way to fix diminishing returns is if console manufacturers give developers tools that DON't allow them to make full use of the hardware. That way games will never reach the maximum of what hardware will do, and then we can finally have all games be 60fps.

Also 30fps never really existed, it's because Sony and Microsoft are so incompetent that 30fps even exists, the human eye can only see 30fps.

I uh... yeah...

But seriously though, how can you guys say their are diminishing returns when toy story 1 still has better image quality than most games out now and we still can't have 60fps across the board? Most of our lighting is still mostly baked, we are nowhere close to diminishing returns in graphics.

 

[Psajdak]

Not until 60fps becomes standard.

 

[Starlight Lotice]

Yes. To be honest, the PS4 enticed me because of the social features it offered over the PS3 such as the Screenshot and Recording feature and integrating your gameplay over streaming.

I think it will be more focused on Social Media/Online in the future and less about the graphics. We have reached a satisfactory point there.

 

[Jubenhimer]

But seriously though, how can you guys say their are diminishing returns when toy story 1 still has better image quality than most games out now and we still can't have 60fps across the board? Most of our lighting is still mostly baked, we are nowhere close to diminishing returns in graphics.

Of course graphics still have a lot of room for improvement, not arguing otherwise. Here's the thing though, how many more generations is it going to take before most consumers and developers stop caring? The amount of games next gen that would really need next gen specs is probably going to be far less than the games that can run on toasters. I think we're at a point now where while more powerful hardware is nice, it's not absolutely needed for many developers, especially the indie scene how already have more than enough across all three platforms to work with.

Not until 60fps becomes standard.

I also disagree with the idea that 60fps HAS to be the standard. Sure it's nice to have, but again, not many games absolutely need it. It's also a choice by developers a lot of times as well, since some think their game would feel better at 30fps vs. 60. Point is, it's not always about hardware limitations, it's also about what the developers feel is best for the game, and sometimes that means a lower frame-rate. I'm fine with it, I think 60 FPS and 30 FPS both have their place.

 

[Afro Republican]

Of course graphics still have a lot of room for improvement, not arguing otherwise. Here's the thing though, how many more generations is it going to take before most consumers and developers stop caring? The amount of games next gen that would really need next gen specs is probably going to be far less than the games that can run on toasters. I think we're at a point now where while more powerful hardware is nice, it's not absolutely needed for many developers, especially the indie scene how already have more than enough across all three platforms to work with.



I also disagree with the idea that 60fps HAS to be the standard. Sure it's nice to have, but again, not many games absolutely need it. It's also a choice by developers a lot of times as well, since some think their game would feel better at 30fps vs. 60. Point is, it's not always about hardware limitations, it's also about what the developers feel is best for the game, and sometimes that means a lower frame-rate. I'm fine with it, I think 60 FPS and 30 FPS both have their place.

By the time consoles fully MEET Toy Story 2 (not pass) in every category computers and movie tech will be so far ahead diminishing returns won't even be possib.e

Consoles were just set back by crap APU's since 2013, and we are only just now getting new consoles that have a real leap in graphics on paper.

 

[Zog]

I am just tired of people whining about resolution and framerate.

 

[Jubenhimer]

By the time consoles fully MEET Toy Story 2 (not pass) in every category computers and movie tech will be so far ahead diminishing returns won't even be possib.e

Consoles were just set back by crap APU's since 2013, and we are only just now getting new consoles that have a real leap in graphics on paper.

I'd also like to add that diminishing returns isn't about pushing the limits of realism. Sure, we still probably have a long way to go before we hit Pixar visuals, or the Uncanny Valley. But are many people interested in reaching that point, let alone pushing past that? In all honestly, good graphics are important. But at the end of the day, most people still want their video games to, well... look like video games. That is, they still want something that has a sense of recognizable computery-ness. There's a reason even more realistic looking games like Final Fantasy, Mortal Kombat, GoW, Metal Gear Solid, and Kingdom Hearts all still look good regardless of hardware they're running on. They make use of the hardware, while still being recognizable as video games. IMO, truly good looking games are ones that have the ability to continue to look good even on older hardware.

 

[J4K]

This same kind of thread happens every generation. Every. Single. One.

I mean I remember people trying to defend the Wii saying this kind of shit -- "graphics don't really matter anymore anyway everything looks good."

The answers is always no. No we have not reached that point.

Even if we start to say things like "graphics are good enough" we're still in need of more powerful CPUs to make larger more complicated worlds work. And even if we say "graphics are good enough" we're still in need of vastly more powerful GPU hardware to enable the look we expect to work at the frame rates and resolutions that work best for Virtual Reality.

Hardware still matters. And even as we offload things to the cloud in the near future, the hardware will still be vastly important, even if it's not sitting in your living room.

 

[MightySquirrel]

IF we had RDR2 graphics with proper AA and 60 fps locked without any drops, than I'd say we're close to where it's good enough for me.

 

[Jubenhimer]

This same kind of thread happens every generation. Every. Single. One.

I mean I remember people trying to defend the Wii saying this kind of shit -- "graphics don't really matter anymore anyway everything looks good."

The answers is always no. No we have not reached that point.

Even if we start to say things like "graphics are good enough" we're still in need of more powerful CPUs to make larger more complicated worlds work. And even if we say "graphics are good enough" we're still in need of vastly more powerful GPU hardware to enable the look we expect to work at the frame rates and resolutions that work best for Virtual Reality.

Hardware still matters. And even as we offload things to the cloud in the near future, the hardware will still be vastly important, even if it's not sitting in your living room.

Of course, hardware will always matter as there will always be a need by people to push the limits of technology to create incredible things. I'm not saying hardware is no longer important at all. My argument however, is that the amount of games that would really need more powerful hardware is growing fewer and fewer in numbers. Even in the current generation, the only genre that really benefits greatly from current specs is open world games. What I'm saying is that we're at a point where not many games really feel restricted by hardware limitations. All three of the current consoles plus even low-spec PCs have more than enough power for just about any type of game that isn't a AAA open world title or VR. You also have to consider that more powerful the hardware you try to push, the more money and resources you need. And with AAA development costs already being insane, very few developers will really try and make the most of that.

New hardware and technology will always have a place, but they're no longer the end-all-be-all necessity of game development.

 

[Afro Republican]

I'd also like to add that diminishing returns isn't about pushing the limits of realism. Sure, we still probably have a long way to go before we hit Pixar visuals, or the Uncanny Valley. But are many people interested in reaching that point, let alone pushing past that? In all honestly, good graphics are important. But at the end of the day, most people still want their video games to, well... look like video games. That is, they still want something that has a sense of recognizable computery-ness. There's a reason even more realistic looking games like Final Fantasy, Mortal Kombat, GoW, Metal Gear Solid, and Kingdom Hearts all still look good regardless of hardware they're running on. They make use of the hardware, while still being recognizable as video games. IMO, truly good looking games are ones that have the ability to continue to look good even on older hardware.

We have video game looking animated movies in the mid 200's that are still 400x better looking than what we have now with tons of effects, high-image quality, great frame-rate, top animations and detailed textures.

You seem to be thinking video games can't get better without being realistic. You only think that because cinematic games got popular over the years, but that's doesn't mean what you think it does.

 

[DeepEnigma]

No. They will always be pushing new boundaries with graphics tech, as they should.

I think the next-gen systems are going show off more in that department than what people think/expect.

 

[Mr Hyde]

For me, yes. I´ve stopped caring about Graphics to a degree. Some of the games I´ve played on PS4 looks absolutely stunning and I don´t really need it to look prettier. I also tend to favor art design and Visual style over realistic Graphics. Breath of the Wild for example is more gorgeous than Horizon, although Horizon looked pretty fucking great. I can see myself going the other way around and go full retro in the future, since new hardware is beginning to get less and less exciting with times.

I also get more and more annoyed over the constant need of more Power as it has gotten the AAA-side of gaming completely fucked. Developing a game takes forever, especially if it´s a new IP, and some of the games are incomplete, lacks content, riddled with mtx and dlc, game studios goes bankrupt etc etc. But hey, at least the games looks nice.

 

[Jubenhimer]

You seem to be thinking video games can't get better without being realistic. You only think that because cinematic games got popular over the years, but that's doesn't mean what you think it does.

No, I don't. Even with cartoony games not looking as good as animated movies, they still look good to most people, even going all the way back to 6th gen. Can games look better? Of course, games can always look better. But we're at the point where a lot of games with visuals on par with previous generations don't look bad or feel unplayable. It's a big reason why most publishers continue to remaster games from all the way back to the 6th generation.

Basically, we'll continue to see advancements in graphics and processing. But we'll probably never see a leap as gigantic as going from PS1 to PS2 again. Both because of consumer satisfaction and the sheer costs of making games that push powerful specs these days.

 

[120v]

market wise i'd say no, still a demand to go further. sony and MS staked a huge marketshare on that with their gen refreshes and it probably paid of per their estimations

of course putting all eggs in the horsepower race isn't a winning move, you need to innovate and adapt in other ways, and diminishing returns are creeping their way in but looking ahead ten years, which the ps5 and nextbox and to a certain extent switch 2 will need to ride out, current gen baselines won't cut it. imagine playing elder scrolls 6, GTA6, ect on 2013 base hardware... i don't think it'd go over well

 

[Zog]

With the success of the Switch we see once again (NES, PS1, PS2, Wii, GB Line, DS Line) that graphics and power just aren't that important to many people. I also think that many people have no problem going back to the older games regardless of graphics.

Modern games also have an illness that hasn't yet been cured (they are built around DLC and MTX's) and that just pushes more people to retro and indie games.

 

[Afro Republican]

No, I don't. Even with cartoony games not looking as good as animated movies, they still look good to most people,

This isn't true. People will buy sports games in mass because of incremental upgrades, so significant upgrades are attractive to most people.

I don't know where some of you guys get that there are diminishing returns. Graphics are much more of an issue now than 20 years ago. When next generations starts you'll clearly change your mind on this.

 

[Afro Republican]

With the success of the Switch we see once again (NES, PS1, PS2, Wii, GB Line, DS Line) that graphics and power just aren't that important to many people. I also think that many people have no problem going back to the older games regardless of graphics.

Modern games also have an illness that hasn't yet been cured (they are built around DLC and MTX's) and that just pushes more people to retro and indie games.

Or maybe they got the Switch for other reasons and you're statement is absurd? Especially regarding the consoles this gen?

 

[Zog]

Or maybe they got the Switch for other reasons and you're statement is absurd? Especially regarding the consoles this gen?

What other reason?

 

[Xenon]

As long as games still have noticeable object pop in , no.

 

[Kenpachii]

Visually there is lots to gain even for hollywood and there CGI cartoon movies. We are very much at the early stage of it.

However for gameplay reasons of limitations, we passed the stage already where every single game type of completely possible now on any platform really probably even mobile phones. It's all down to the creative teams and the budget that comes with it.

 

[Vawn]

Right now 90% of games already aren't even attempting to push current consoles to the limit. Not because they can't, but because to produce the type of software that pushes the hardware like Red Dead or God of War costs an absurd amount of money. Honestly, this was true last generation as well.

The hardware increase of PS5, etc won't matter much for the vast majority of software simply because those developers/publishers cannot afford to make those types of games.

 

[Jubenhimer]

This isn't true. People will buy sports games in mass because of incremental upgrades, so significant upgrades are attractive to most people..

I mean yes, there's always genres and games that sell on and benefit from increased power. But as I mentioned, the number of games that really need those specs are far fewer now than what they used to be. Sports sims and Open World games always need to keep up with advancements in tech. But Platformers? Fighting games? Arcade Sports? Even Shooters? All of those genres for example can look and run perfectly fine on low-end hardware.

I don't know where some of you guys get that there are diminishing returns. Graphics are much more of an issue now than 20 years ago. When next generations starts you'll clearly change your mind on this.

If people are mentioning diminishing returns every generation, that's probably because it's a very real issue. Again, Graphics can always get better, games can always get bigger. We still have a lot of room for improvement. But that's not what people mean when they refer to diminishing returns. What people are actually talking about, is the amount of people who really need to be on top of the latest in graphics, as well as the number of games and genres that really need more powerful hardware. Those are what's actually diminishing, not hardware itself. As I mentioned, even visuals from all the way back on the PS2 can be good enough with touch ups on modern hardware. Add this to the fact that AAA games cost more and more to make each generation, leading to fewer quantity of them each gen, and we're at a point where cutting edge hardware is no longer a necessity.

Even next generation, when the capabilities of those systems are revealed, I'm willing to bet the reactions will be more "Oh, that's pretty neat" instead of "ZOMG, look at those next gen graphics!" like past generations.

 

[Danjin44]

When I was younger I was really impressed with "realistic" graphics but as I got older interesting art direction what makes bigger impression on me these days. I mean in E3 the game that impressed me visually was this.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Graphics and power are getting better and better, MS and Sony know it better than anyone.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Games are already too expensive to make and produce. That's why they all have DLC and microtransactions.

Remember when Miyamoto said during the Wii U era:

When it comes to the scale of software development, Wii U with HD graphics requires about twice the human resources than before."​

​

"We may have underestimated the scale of this change and as a result, the overall software development took more time than originally anticipated just as we tried to polish the software at the completion phase of development... ​

The previous gen (Wii/DS), pundits mocked Nintendo when they said they weren't ready to go HD. But Nintendo struggling to move to HD is the canary in the coalmine for all the small and mid-sized devs who completely vanished in the transition from Sixth gen (PS2/Xbox/etc) to 7th gen. They died.

A game that takes advantage of more powerful hardware is becoming exponentially more expensive to make. If VR takes off, that'll help put things back into balance as people will be willing to buy more expensive tech to get a better experience.

 

[LittleBusters]

Honestly it's all about the games. I wish Sega would bring remastered Zillion & Zillion II: The Triformation to modern platforms.
Zillion:

Zillion 2:

Loved these games.

 

[Jubenhimer]

Games are already too expensive to make and produce. That's why they all have DLC and microtransactions.

Remember when Miyamoto said during the Wii U era:

When it comes to the scale of software development, Wii U with HD graphics requires about twice the human resources than before."​

​

"We may have underestimated the scale of this change and as a result, the overall software development took more time than originally anticipated just as we tried to polish the software at the completion phase of development... ​

The previous gen (Wii/DS), pundits mocked Nintendo when they said they weren't ready to go HD. But Nintendo struggling to move to HD is the canary in the coalmine for all the small and mid-sized devs who completely vanished in the transition from Sixth gen (PS2/Xbox/etc) to 7th gen. They died.

A game that takes advantage of more powerful hardware is becoming exponentially more expensive to make. If VR takes off, that'll help put things back into balance as people will be willing to buy more expensive tech to get a better experience.

It's true that HD development has really ballooned AAA game budgets. That said though, I don't think small and mid-sized games are dead now. A large reason why HD development was so difficult back then was because HD consoles at the time were running overly complex, proprietary processors. It was especially bad for the PS3, who's convoluted Cell chip made the system a nightmare to program for, and also caused many early games on the system to somehow look worse than their 360 counterparts despite being a more powerful system.

Rising audience standards will always mean AAA games will continue to grow in budgets. But I think it's disingenuous to say games as a whole are harder and more expensive to make. In reality, they're actually easier and cheaper to make than ever thanks to a variety of factors. First is that all 3 consoles are now using cheap, PC-based hardware, inheriting all the development tools simplicity that comes with it. Second, modern game engines like UE4 and Unity are so easy and flexible to use that what would've taken 40-70 people on 6th or 7th gen consoles for games, can now only take around a couple dozen people at most in the same amount of time, while also looking better in the process. And with console storefronts now more mature than they were in the 7th generation, Mid-budget games and indies are in full force on modern consoles and PCs.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

It's true that HD development has really ballooned AAA game budgets. That said though, I don't think small and mid-sized games are dead now. A large reason why HD development was so difficult back then was because HD consoles at the time were running overly complex, proprietary processors. It was especially bad for the PS3, who's convoluted Cell chip made the system a nightmare to program for, and also caused many early games on the system to somehow look worse than their 360 counterparts despite being a more powerful system.

Rising audience standards will always mean AAA games will continue to grow in budgets. But I think it's disingenuous to say games as a whole are harder and more expensive to make. In reality, they're actually easier and cheaper to make than ever thanks to a variety of factors. First is that all 3 consoles are now using cheap, PC-based hardware, inheriting all the development tools simplicity that comes with it. Second, modern game engines like UE4 and Unity are so easy and flexible to use that what would've taken 40-70 people on 6th or 7th gen consoles for games, can now only take around a couple dozen people at most in the same amount of time, while also looking better in the process. And with console storefronts now more mature than they were in the 7th generation, Mid-budget games and indies are in full force on modern consoles and PCs.

Regarding the bolded: they're not dead. Quite the opposite. Indies are thriving and making fortunes and unseating the big AAA publishers at every turn. They're nipping at the heels of mid-tier development studios when only a decade ago the best indie could offer was Castle Crashers and World of Goo.

This indicates graphics and hardware matter so much less than they used to. The overall market cares less and less about graphics, yet to achieve the next increase in graphics it requires a budget exponentially larger than the market can bear. I believe gaming is large enough to support big-budget games for a very long time, perhaps indefinitely. However, the market has spoken. Raw hardware power will continue to vastly outpace graphics due to the increasing costs of producing games at this level. And I don't believe that the development of procedural generation and texture generation and so forth will staunch the bleeding one bit. They said procedural generation of maps would help cut down on game development last generation and look where we are now.

 

[Kenpachii]

Games are already too expensive to make and produce. That's why they all have DLC and microtransactions.

Remember when Miyamoto said during the Wii U era:

When it comes to the scale of software development, Wii U with HD graphics requires about twice the human resources than before."​

​

"We may have underestimated the scale of this change and as a result, the overall software development took more time than originally anticipated just as we tried to polish the software at the completion phase of development... ​

The previous gen (Wii/DS), pundits mocked Nintendo when they said they weren't ready to go HD. But Nintendo struggling to move to HD is the canary in the coalmine for all the small and mid-sized devs who completely vanished in the transition from Sixth gen (PS2/Xbox/etc) to 7th gen. They died.

A game that takes advantage of more powerful hardware is becoming exponentially more expensive to make. If VR takes off, that'll help put things back into balance as people will be willing to buy more expensive tech to get a better experience.

VR isn't helping doing anything for those devs, mobile did.

PC kickstarter and mobile took over the DS crowd that simple had no budget to move to full fletched console games creation that 3DS / PSP where aiming for to compete as they know it.

miyamoto is also full of shit when it comes to these things.

Sorry but if you don't see how sony struggled in the PSP area / ps3 area and vita area and microsoft with xbox / xbox 360 + PC for rising development budgets, and his own devs + game studio increases for every gen you must be absolutely special or simple completely blind or whatever.

Then to make it even worse, release a console that is expensive, has a shit tier architecture with a trash tier wonky CPU that nobody even cared for to support even if they tried, then it doesn't even support the basic engines that people use with that to make it even more special and hard to develop for.

Then had the whole wii/ds area to prepare with loads of money to spend and expand rapidly, so zero excuses on this front. Not like they where making high budget high effort titles to start with or spend any meaningful money for titles in that current gen.

Yea that guy should never ever lead any company. Totally clueless.

 

[Jubenhimer]

Regarding the bolded: they're not dead. Quite the opposite. Indies are thriving and making fortunes and unseating the big AAA publishers at every turn. They're nipping at the heels of mid-tier development studios when only a decade ago the best indie could offer was Castle Crashers and World of Goo.

Exactly, Some gamers still seem to think that game development is stuck in 2008, where the middle ground between AAA and indie was virtually non-existent on HD systems because of how difficult they were to develop for. Today, this isn't the case, all major platforms are incredibly easy to program for, and modern engines allow indies to make games and graphics they could only dream of doing on 7th gen consoles, at only a fraction of the cost and team size of a AAA production.

It's a big reason why indies are so popular on consoles these days. They can now be good enough to fill the gaps left by no AAA releases, which grow fewer in numbers each year as those games continue to get more and more expensive to produce. The Switch especially benefits from indies and mid-budget games since it gets far fewer AAA titles than the other two.

Sorry but if you don't see how sony struggled in the PSP area / ps3 area and vita area and microsoft with xbox / xbox 360 + PC for rising development budgets, and his own devs + game studio increases for every gen you must be absolutely special or simple completely blind or whatever.

Then to make it even worse, release a console that is expensive, has a shit tier architecture with a trash tier wonky CPU that nobody even cared for to support even if they tried, would help people to make games for your platform because it doesn't even support the basic engines that people use.

Then had the whole wii/ds area to prepare with loads of money to expand also, so zero excuses on this front. Not like they where making high budget high effort titles to start with.

This as well. Nintendo's struggles with HD development during the Wii U days all begin and end with the Wii U itself. That console was an outdated mess architecturally, and in an era where consoles have moved to a more PC-like direction, was completely tone-deaf to where game development actually was going.

Fortunately, Nintendo learned from that disaster with the Switch, which combines PC-quality development tools and hardware, in an efficient and affordable mobile package. It's the most well engineered platform Nintendo had put out in years.

 

[Lightsbane]

They were never that important for me. Still play Saturn games, still love them.

And Genesis games aged even better. Obviously.

 

[Airbus Jr]

You said graphics are not important but one think for sure I won't be playing games like TES VI and Cyberpunk 2077 on PS4 /Xbox One

 

[The Scientist]

I hope not, I still love being amazed by incredible visuals. I wish I could relive seeing super Mario world for the first time, or e3 2005. Love me some amazing art combined with amazing tech.

 

[-MD-]

Gears of War in 2006 was the last time I was impressed by visuals, I was a teenager at the time.

Art style matters more than graphics at this point.

 

[Golgo 13]

This question is asked ad nauseam every generation since 8-bit, probably earlier.

The answer as always is....

Wait...

For...

It....

Wait...

For... it....

No!

we have not and never will reach the graphical ceiling.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

Again this?? Seriously? POWER MATTERS. But power is just a mean. A mean to have better games for what matters the most is GAMES. It has always been this way and will always be.

On other note, I don't understand this notion about a minor leap from past gen. GOW, RDR2 or Horizon Zero Dawn look futuristic games compared to whatever made last gen.

By the way, we also need power for VR and thats the field which room for improvement is way bigger. Next gen we will get AMAZING games, both flat and VR. They will crush what we got now, for sure.

 

[Grinchy]

This is the 2nd gen in a row where I wished that graphics would stop improving and the extra hardware power was used instead for fluid dynamics and destructibilty. That’s when we usher in previously impossible new gameplay.

 

[Coalponfire]

With the Xbox One X and 4K TV I feel perfectly set for at least a few years. I know new consoles are releasing within the next two years but I’m less excited then just about any point in recent memory. I’m sure this may change once the hype machine gets fully rolling but we shall see.

 

[Jubenhimer]

This question is asked ad nauseam every generation since 8-bit, probably earlier.

The answer as always is....

Wait...

For...

It....

Wait...

For... it....

No!

we have not and never will reach the graphical ceiling.

Again this?? Seriously? POWER MATTERS. But power is just a mean. A mean to have better games for what matters the most is GAMES. It has always been this way and will always be.

Again, I'm not saying power isn't important, graphics can always improve, there's always room for improvement. What I am saying is that we're now at a point where while graphics should improve, the number of games and developers who need more and more powerful hardware grows fewer and fewer in numbers. Games today can look pretty good, even on low-end specs, and AAA development costs means pushing for more and more powerful hardware gets too expensive for those who can't afford it.

On other note, I don't understand this notion about a minor leap from past gen. GOW, RDR2 or Horizon Zero Dawn look futuristic games compared to whatever made last gen.

8th gen is certainly a big enough leap to be considered a new console generation don't get me wrong. But it being as big of a leap as going from PS2 to PS3? Not really, IMO. Plenty of 7th gen games can still pass as 8th gen titles with some touch ups, which is a large reason why we see a lot of 7th generation remasters.

 

[EDMIX]

the deep lolz....no.

When we reach that point is when someone can walk in the room and not realize for minutes they are looking at a game and not a live action movie.

We reached that point where we have AI that actual behave like humans and react like humans. Where we have worlds where 99% of the buildings can be entered and explored willingly or forcefully like in real life.

We are not there yet folks.

 

[Jubenhimer]

the deep lolz....no.

When we reach that point is when someone can walk in the room and not realize for minutes they are looking at a game and not a live action movie.

We reached that point where we have AI that actual behave like humans and react like humans. Where we have worlds where 99% of the buildings can be entered and explored willingly or forcefully like in real life.

We are not there yet folks.

Thing is, how many people are interested in reaching that point? As I said, most people still want video games, to look like video games. There's still a lot of room to push hardware, but the costs and resources necessary for that far outweigh the demand and financial return. They could always change in the next ten or so years, but even so, I don't think people care about graphics not looking like a Video game.

Don't get me wrong, pushing technology is important, and I'm glad gaming hardware continues to get better. But the industry has fragmented a lot since last generation, and we're not at the point where graphics and hardware for a lot of people are good enough.

 

[EDMIX]

Thing is, how many people are interested in reaching that point? As I said, most people still want video games, to look like video games. There's still a lot of room to push hardware, but the costs and resources necessary for that far outweigh the demand and financial return. They could always change in the next ten or so years, but even so, I don't think people care about graphics not looking like a Video game.

Don't get me wrong, pushing technology is important, and I'm glad gaming hardware continues to get better. But the industry has fragmented a lot since last generation, and we're not at the point where graphics and hardware for a lot of people are good enough.

huh? "most people still want video games, to look like video games" ummm ok, not asking for your personal subjective opinion on what you like bud, simply that the topic of reaching a point where "graphics and hardware power are less important" will come at a time where such a concept is easily achieved and with life like results. "Video game" isn't a look, its something you interact and do and yes folks want realism in their games as to all the games that seem that art direction. So no, MOST do not want video games to look like "video games" as in the way they look currently. Thats like someone wanting Red Dead 2 to the way it does, but dear god please don't make it look any more life like, as if Rockstar had a magic button to make it look even more real, someone would say "wow buddy, I want it to look more ugly please, less real and more fake, yup" /s

"but the costs and resources necessary for that far outweigh the demand and financial return." lol ummm ok, you don't get the point of the thread or? We are talking about a time where that isn't the case..... as in, a time where that was already achieved and its the norm.

"we're not at the point where graphics and hardware for a lot of people are good enough" Well yes....sorta the point of my post...