semiconscious
Member
according to my tired ol' eyes, graphics've definitely peaked, & there are no glasses in existence that can fix this...
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Do you think that graphics in gaming has sort of hit a wall?
- Thread starter pramod
- Start date
daveonezero
Banned
If you watch the people remaking Jurassic’s park you see that it is more about the lighting and animation.
Kikorin
Member
Basically yes. I mean, is obvious that there's a huge gap between games like Gears of War 1 and 5 or The Last of Us 1 (PS3) and The Last of Us 2, but is not remotely comparable to the difference we had in past generations. I started with Game Boy -> Mega Drive -> PS1 -> PC -> GameCube -> Xbox 360/PS3. Everytime the generational jump has been insane and mind blown, now I see impressive things, but I can't say we are close to these times.
I remember that when I had Xbox 360/PS3/Wii, playing Wii games was somehow difficult because felt really outdated from a tech perspective, but now I play Switch games and "next-gen" games without problems, I don't feel like there are generations between them.
I remember that when I had Xbox 360/PS3/Wii, playing Wii games was somehow difficult because felt really outdated from a tech perspective, but now I play Switch games and "next-gen" games without problems, I don't feel like there are generations between them.
Last edited:
Starbuck2907
Member
No. Most games can’t even maintain 60fps without a $$$ graphics card or settings turned down. Combine that with budget, time, and engine constraints, and there is a lot left to go.
Last edited:
SlimeGooGoo
Party Gooper
I blame design by committee.
Corporations now just want to follow trends and play it safe, they want to normalize design to make it as dumb and simplified as they can.
Much like modern music, they have normalized mediocrity.
darrylgorn
Member
I might be a pessimist here but there's more deterministic elements at play when it comes to creativity, as far as I'm concerned.
Like music and visual media (and pretty much anything), there's only so much we can create to begin with. We inevitably hit a barrier because we reach the limits of what the human brain can concoct.
Last edited:
MiguelItUp
Member
Nah, I always kind of figured this gen would be less of a noticeable bump in graphics and more so an improvement on fidelity, lighting, etc. That's essentially what's happening, and I think it's impressive as hell. Especially the latest in UE5.
alabtrosMyster
Banned
You are right, they need to push for path tracing, better effects, etc. Polygons and textures are close enough by now.
SlimeGooGoo
Party Gooper
Most corporations aren't even trying to begin with.
Look at Zelda BotW, for instance.
All it took was a developer eager to shake things up and try different things to come up with something fresh.
Nintendo fosters a mentality of innovation, that's why they're usually the first to come up with different ideas that no one thought as viable (dual screen console, Wii motion controls, etc)
Those that do not even attempt to innovate will naturally never come up with anything new.
Most corporations just want to make things easier for themselves, so that they can put less effort, take less risks while profiting more so that they can please investors before consumers.
Balducci30
Member
Yes. Purely graphically I feel like the last time I was truly wowed was maybe early ps4? And at that point I was just like - games can just look this way and I’ll be fine with it.
But now, even the best looking games aren’t mind blowing to me. Even last of us 2 didn’t blow me away graphically when it came out - the animations were awesome, but I was never as taken aback as I used to get with technological jumps. Ratchet and horizon look great but still - they don’t wow me like games used to.
VR, does wow me similarly. But also I think we faked all the stuff we’re doing real time now - and we faked it pretty well? Also we haven’t come far at all in certain area like water physics and shit
But now, even the best looking games aren’t mind blowing to me. Even last of us 2 didn’t blow me away graphically when it came out - the animations were awesome, but I was never as taken aback as I used to get with technological jumps. Ratchet and horizon look great but still - they don’t wow me like games used to.
VR, does wow me similarly. But also I think we faked all the stuff we’re doing real time now - and we faked it pretty well? Also we haven’t come far at all in certain area like water physics and shit
BouncyFrag
Member
I’m happy as a clam playing GoW Ragnarok. It looks so good. I imagine things will me impress me the same next gen, but it’s a high bar and I don’t mind.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I don't think the RT will be fully realized in this console gen. At most we'll get low rez + frame rate RT modes and high rez + frame rate non RT modes.
It's probably gonna take another generation for RT + high performance / resolution to become common practice.
Balducci30
Member
Slowly yes.
Yeah, I know ray tracing and so on.. but to be honest, raster techniques and shaders are so fucking good, that the gap between raster and RT is not that huge.
Uncharted 4 still looks amazing and it's 2016 game without any ray tracing... Death Stranding characters look almost real. There is not THAT MUCH better they can get. Obviously they will lkook a lot better but we are in 95% already.
OBVIOSULY Tlou2 and Part1 both look better than uc4 but I wanted to find the older game to show that .... hey... it is fucking 2016 game !!!
I know it's backed... but so what? It looks better baked than similar in real-time.
So if anything, games will look at least that good but fully real time like Metro Exodus.
Some games 6 YEARS later.... yeah. Look better. but much better?
Thing is whenever people post these naughty dog cutscenes - it doesn’t look like that when you’re actually playing. It looks like an approximation of that but not really THAT - maybe it’s LOD’s or whatever, maybe nanite will fix this? But these games look crazy in the cutscenes - and have fairly seamless transitions to gameplay - but when you’re playing you see it just doesn’t look the same quality. I don’t know why that is
Rhazer Fusion
Member
I don’t think we will know until cross generation truly ends and developers can truly implement the power of the architecture. The Matrix demo imo is still leagues above literally everything I’ve seen on PS5 and XSX, so that probably indicates that there is definitely potential in the hardware.
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
Pic 1 and 4 are from in gameplay
Rendered Tangent
Banned
If you look at the recent Matrix demo and imagine something that detailed running at ultra settings, 4k 120fps, with cutting edge ray tracing, which allows you to go into every building without loading screens, that has destructible environments similar to that of Red Faction, and it is used to create a GTA type sandbox or a The Division style looter shooter, I'd be very impressed...and the truth is to get something running at that resolution etc...with tons of NPCs, isn't possible at this moment (as far as I'm aware).
So, no, I think there's still plenty of room for graphics to blow us away.
The question is when will it happen and how long till it's viable for the majority of people's hardware to run it?
So, no, I think there's still plenty of room for graphics to blow us away.
The question is when will it happen and how long till it's viable for the majority of people's hardware to run it?
Last edited:
Rendered Tangent
Banned
Definitely, I'm playing on performance mode and I think it's one of the most consistently stunning games I've ever played.
It really is beautiful at times.
Balducci30
Member
Yeah I mean it just looks way better in still shots then, or just if it’s a shot of the environment? At least for me, in motion, it doesn’t look like that, maybe it’s the character moving within the environment or other things - but the illusion of it looking THAT good feels broken when actually playing.
Edit: this isn’t to hate on uncharted I think 4 has some of the best graphics ever - it just feels like certain snippets give it the illusion of looking a step above as a whole vs how it actually looks
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Graphics are beyond just polygons
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
I don’t think it’s hit a wall, but the jumps are the smallest they’ve ever been.
Creativity however is dead among AAA games.
Creativity however is dead among AAA games.
Thirty7ven
Banned
It’s more about animation and art direction than ever. Density of detail overall.
Last edited:
Balducci30
Member
I mean let’s take this. 15 years ago was 2007. 15 years before that was 1992
This is 1992
That was the peak graphics of 1992, and it was only available in arcade at the time.
15 years later we had this:
Then 15 years later we have this:
The jump between the first two is a lot bigger imo.
Represent.
Represent(ative) of bad opinions
Are the people saying we've tapped out all high?
Like you really think graphics will NEVER improve past what we have now? Lmao.
Like you really think graphics will NEVER improve past what we have now? Lmao.
Lumpyoatmeal
Member
This my guy right here, on point, point.I mean let’s take this. 15 years ago was 2007. 15 years before that was 1992
This is 1992
That was the peak graphics of 1992, and it was only available in arcade at the time.
15 years later we had this:
Then 15 years later we have this:
The jump between the first two is a lot bigger imo.
Tchu-Espresso
likes mayo on everthing and can't dance
Path tracing is the next evolution but it is going to take another generation to see games hit consoles at decent frame rates.
Rat Rage
Member
I mean let’s take this. 15 years ago was 2007. 15 years before that was 1992
This is 1992
That was the peak graphics of 1992, and it was only available in arcade at the time.
15 years later we had this:
Virtua Racing is relaxing my mind, since there is less detail and therefore less things you have to visually comprehend.
The Horizon screenshot, in contrast, is over detailed and therefore way more stressful visually - there is too much detail. What's worse, almost everything has the same colors, which makes every detail blend together into a visual mess, just like a camouflage pattern. So much detail for nothing,. You can't even absorb all of it while playing, because humans have a limited amound of visual detail they can absorb at any given moment.
I don't think it looks any "better" than Virtua Racing, just different.
Balducci30
Member
Stylistically/artistically I understand that. And artistically we can always grow. But technology wise, detail wise - if you’re aiming to create a realistic type forest island, we just weren’t capable of that type of detail or realism during virtua racing days. But we are now, we have been able to get there for awhile… the more you push it detail wise the harder you have to look for the differences, the less impact that makes and it’s a question of do we really need more “detail” at this point. Or should other areas be focused on more
magnumpy
Member
We all know about the law of "diminishing returns", but I think gaming graphics is really suffering from this lately.
Sure, games are pushing more polygons than ever before, with even higher res textures, at much higher resolutions.
But somehow, games don't seem any more "real" to me. And I don't know even if they push 10x more polygons and 10x higher res textures from this point is going to make things much better.
As for resolution, I think we're already hitting the max of what human eyes can perceive.
For example all these people going ga-ga over new footage of SF6, and I'm just like, meh.
I don't know exactly why I feel this way, and what the solution might be. Maybe there has to be improvements in other areas rather than just # of polygons?
Maybe it's the animation, or the lighting, that's holding back the feeling of "true realism"?
IMO you're looking at things backwards. a better visual representation would be something like this:
dated videogame:
real life:
this should be the comparison, because "real life" is the goal of realtime computer graphics. or at least, as close of an approximation as is possible. obviously the approximation at present is somewhat coarse and inexact, but don't give up hope! great strides towards that goal are still possible
obv that will involve a lot more than scaling up polygon counts
pramod
Banned
Maybe not a literal wall, but more like a very very steep slope that just keeps getting steeper.
Umbral
Member
Considering that older games generally tend to be better in design and mechanics, I’m inclined to agree.
Rendered Tangent
Banned
To be fair though, it's also about the talent of developers.
Look at what Naughty Dog got out of the PS4, with games like Uncharted 4 and TLOU 2.
They still hold today, never mind when they came out.
A truly bespoke ps5 experience by ND would be as detailed and impressive as anything on pc because of their talent and, I assume, the robust nature of their game engine.
Last edited:
darrylgorn
Member
Eh.. aside from climbing, I'm not sure BOTW is the greatest example of creativity in the industry.
I agree with Wii and VR as recent examples though.
Still, you can see how the number of unique experiences become fewer over time.
The prevalence of over the shoulder third person games this year was a bit much but I'm not sure we can chalk that up entirely to corporate greed.
Last edited:
clampzyn
Member
Yea because they don't want to put too much risk, big coporations will just wait for someone to take the risk and if it work they'll just follow. I mean nobody wants to put their money on risk but someone's gonna do it but it ain't gonna be someone like Sony / MS first party devs.
Last edited:
SlimeGooGoo
Party Gooper
Seriously? This industry has been throwing around the same open world crap for more than a decade, just look at Ubisoft.
Nintendo on their first attempt get something 10x more interesting.
The sequel to Botw already has some new interesting ideas added on top.
It's all about WANTING and TRYING to do something different.
Because they're not even trying. It's all about maximizing profit now.
The only reason we had a lot of different games in the past was because people were throwing around all sorts of different ideas, regardless of whether they were profitable or not. Sometimes we would get some crappy games, sometimes some gems. Regardless, it's in the attempt that new things are born.
Now dev teams can't take risks anymore, it's all about what's more profitable and what the marketing team considers marketable, no "in-between" option.
Just look at Playstation games now, they all have the same presentation: third person, behind the back camera, cinematic with simplified interactions. In the past they had all sorts of games.
Indie developers could be doing things differently, they could be the ones bringing innovation to consumers.
But no, they *have* to release for the 25324502824th time yet another "retro-inspired" game with pixel art and chiptune sounds.
dcx4610
Member
Pretty much. Every now and then I do see a game that wows me though. Most recently, RIDE 4. I've shown several people the footage and they just think it's real life.
Still, that's also my problem with modern graphics. They are just trying to duplicate reality. While that's impressive technically, it's almost like drawing something with tracing paper. I miss 8 and 16-bit graphics because there was real artistry involved there and pixel art requires imagination and talented artists.
I just played Tron 2.0 for the first time (on PC) and honestly, the graphics in that game are more memorable than something like an Assassin's Creed just because it's doing something unique.
Still, that's also my problem with modern graphics. They are just trying to duplicate reality. While that's impressive technically, it's almost like drawing something with tracing paper. I miss 8 and 16-bit graphics because there was real artistry involved there and pixel art requires imagination and talented artists.
I just played Tron 2.0 for the first time (on PC) and honestly, the graphics in that game are more memorable than something like an Assassin's Creed just because it's doing something unique.
Shitty pixel art and chiptune sounds and gameplay and presentation with le quirky writing and characters. If the average indie game was on par with 90's Snes and Neo Geo games I'd be in heaven.
Johnny Concrete
Member
It’s still making huge leaps. Go watch Portal RTX gameplay, that’s what the future of realtime graphics looks like.
kungfuian
Member
VR/AR display technology has the potential to see the biggest jumps over the next few years. That tech is in it's infancy, so big jumps are coming.
For traditional games (and vr too), we still have a long way to go as far as Lighting (we are making steady progress toward path tracing but a few generations away), Animation (most animation sucks when compared to the real world, we need much more effort put toward implementing things like the motion matching in TLOU2), and Physics simulations (pretty endless really, we will need infinitely more power to better realize the properties of matter and interactions between different of types of materials).
I think the key to moving the needle forward will be even more sophisticated but simple to use AI driven game engines with AI powered animation and asset creation. When AI has matured and is properly leveraged, say in a hypothetical unreal engine 6-7, running on a next next gen hardware with dedicated AI hardware, we will see big jumps again!
And like some have said, once we have the power to make these things a reality (a least a few generations away) we will still need artists, directors, and teams with the vision to make something actually interesting (no different from today).
For traditional games (and vr too), we still have a long way to go as far as Lighting (we are making steady progress toward path tracing but a few generations away), Animation (most animation sucks when compared to the real world, we need much more effort put toward implementing things like the motion matching in TLOU2), and Physics simulations (pretty endless really, we will need infinitely more power to better realize the properties of matter and interactions between different of types of materials).
I think the key to moving the needle forward will be even more sophisticated but simple to use AI driven game engines with AI powered animation and asset creation. When AI has matured and is properly leveraged, say in a hypothetical unreal engine 6-7, running on a next next gen hardware with dedicated AI hardware, we will see big jumps again!
And like some have said, once we have the power to make these things a reality (a least a few generations away) we will still need artists, directors, and teams with the vision to make something actually interesting (no different from today).
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
It looks like that in motion. The game looks like that. It's like the highest of high RTGI but it's all baked in for the most part.
Characters of course have cutscenes versions but I never once saw the gameplay version as much inferior since you don't get so close.
I find it strange that taking a screenshot is an illusion of it looking better than it does. There are no enhancements. This illusion is graphics. I don't care if it's illusion or real time. The end result is what matters and every cgi/graphics is a play on what you can and can't see.
Anyway - I know what you mean. There are better and worse looking spots. better and worse camera angles. I take good screenshots, not screenshots of crap places
It seems "realistic" because they used the same old tricks: cloudy day that cuts every shadow/light; shaky camera; puddles. This is what "real mods" do everytime since GTA4, as soon as you add lighting and shadows, everything falls apart.
Considering this, Driveclub Bikes released 6 years before, seems more realistic than Ride