I've read a lot of discussions of what the next-generation of gaming will be like, and I wonder if we really can improve on gamings graphical capabilities. I've seen what the current consoles have to offer, and I don't know how much graphics can get much better from here.
Can Graphics get much better?
- Thread starter maconlon439
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ofcourse it can get better, but will it be affordable?
Current game budgets are already monstrous.
Current game budgets are already monstrous.
We might not necessarily see a huge spike in budget sizes. Think about it; extra processing power means that certain work arounds no longer need to be implemented. For example, rather than having baked-in shadows that take a long time to create, just have them rendered dynamically in the game world. Unreal Engine 4 is explicitly being designed to make it quicker and easier to build complex and great looking games.Casual Shinji said:
Star Citizen is being made on a crowdfunding budget, The Witcher 2 on $10 million and Xing by 4 people on pretty much no budget. Great graphics don't necessarily HAVE to be expensive, it seems.
That being said, I'd rather technical resources were spent on physics simulation and AI, rather than eye candy. Eye candy is nice, but I felt graphics had gotten more than good enough five years ago.
Absolutely they can get better, and they absolutely should. Having more graphical capability will only allow developers more freedom in what they want to design and create. It's like giving a painter a wider variety of colours to paint with. Certainly not every painter is going to use all of the given colours based on the ideas in their head and what they are trying to achieve with their work, but there's no harm in making them available for those who do.
I suppose there's a possibility some new technology will make rendering graphics way more efficient and cost effective, while at the same time vastly improving the graphics have today. But as it stands game budgets have only increased throughout each generation. And after a certain point the budget-to-profit, or whatever you call it, won't be sustainable. At least, not without racking up the price tag.ScrabbitRabbit said:
I may be paranoid, and hopefully proven wrong, but when I hear the phrase 'next generation graphics', all I can think of is of a crippling budget constricting developement.
That's true. I think we've hit the very limit of what devs can afford to spend, so if next-gen graphics do end up inflating budgets again, we may end up with games that look largely the same but just run better and have a bunch of fancy post-processing effects slapped on.Casual Shinji said:
There's more to new generation hardware and gaming than just visual appearance.
It's not just about graphics getting better, but current quality graphics running smoother in games with better gameplay and a large scope of things that are permissible with those graphics.
For example, the visual effects for Babylon 5 were created on Amiga computers (and Pentium PCs) in the early to mid 90's, but it would take many years and much more powerful hardware before that level of graphics would be accessible to gamers in an actual game with random, spontaneous gameplay and higher than TV frame rates and resolutions.
The level of graphics in the Autovista and Photo modes of Forza 4 and Gran Turismo 5 is spectacular, but we won't even see that level of graphics combined with 60fps gameplay for a couple of generations.
Forza Horizon needed to half the frame rate of Forza 4 (60fps to 30fps) to allow a similar level of graphics to be utilised with an open world environment with day/night cycles and dynamic light sources. With next generation hardware, those sacrifices won't be necessary even if the quality of graphics doesn't improve much.
I think to a certain extent, graphics have reached a plateau and we won't notice as much of an improvement in them as we have done in previous generations, but we will notice more quantity than quality, we will see things done in greater quantity with quality graphics that simply aren't possible with current generation hardware - even if it's just higher, consistent frame rates, persistent decals, debris and corpses and more realistic particle effects.
It's not just about graphics getting better, but current quality graphics running smoother in games with better gameplay and a large scope of things that are permissible with those graphics.
For example, the visual effects for Babylon 5 were created on Amiga computers (and Pentium PCs) in the early to mid 90's, but it would take many years and much more powerful hardware before that level of graphics would be accessible to gamers in an actual game with random, spontaneous gameplay and higher than TV frame rates and resolutions.
The level of graphics in the Autovista and Photo modes of Forza 4 and Gran Turismo 5 is spectacular, but we won't even see that level of graphics combined with 60fps gameplay for a couple of generations.
Forza Horizon needed to half the frame rate of Forza 4 (60fps to 30fps) to allow a similar level of graphics to be utilised with an open world environment with day/night cycles and dynamic light sources. With next generation hardware, those sacrifices won't be necessary even if the quality of graphics doesn't improve much.
I think to a certain extent, graphics have reached a plateau and we won't notice as much of an improvement in them as we have done in previous generations, but we will notice more quantity than quality, we will see things done in greater quantity with quality graphics that simply aren't possible with current generation hardware - even if it's just higher, consistent frame rates, persistent decals, debris and corpses and more realistic particle effects.
I'd like to see if the next generation finally makes the big leap over the uncanny valley and gives us realistic looking non-ugly non-plastic people. That combined with the next evolution of facial mo-cap like in LA Noire would be frickin' awesome.
It seems that rendering enclosed artificial environments has gotten almost to photorealistic level already, though there's some room left for improvement of natural environments.
Reflections are another thing that I'll expect to see come back in the next generation. Lots of shortcuts and workarounds have been used in this generation. Curved surfaces with a true reflection of what's in the world are pretty much impossible this generation. I'm not sure if the next generation will be able to offer real-time raytracing at a decent speed, but if so that would mean that you could make any surface as reflective as you want, and it would also mean better lighting and shadowing overall.
It seems that rendering enclosed artificial environments has gotten almost to photorealistic level already, though there's some room left for improvement of natural environments.
Reflections are another thing that I'll expect to see come back in the next generation. Lots of shortcuts and workarounds have been used in this generation. Curved surfaces with a true reflection of what's in the world are pretty much impossible this generation. I'm not sure if the next generation will be able to offer real-time raytracing at a decent speed, but if so that would mean that you could make any surface as reflective as you want, and it would also mean better lighting and shadowing overall.
I think better lighting and effect and more creative use of them would help make games more photo realistic. Movies have the same problems, if you have ever seen photos of movie sets and props you see that they look as tacky as hell. But how movies use lighting and smoke they look realistic on screen.
With jelly tits in Japanese games like Dead of Alive we have already reached the stage of uncanny valley.Swyftstar said:
definitely room to improve, Consoles are normally running sub hd resolutions and low draw distances no AA, no soft shadows, no tessalation or anything.
This sort of thing is very true. When people think of "graphics getting better" it's almost always viewed in terms of things getting more photorealistic, particularly in terms of what the people look like, but that's far from the only way in which visuals can be improved. Even if you somehow totally forget about alternate graphical styles beyond straight realism, there are plenty of visual aspects to a realistic style that could use improvement. Reflections, ligtht, shadows, weather effects, natural elements like water and fire, etc.XMark said:
There's also visual aspects like framerate, number of distinct and detailed visible objects/PCs/NPCs, objects properly interacting with the player/eachother, etc. that all fall under the visual appearance of a game which are very much tied to the power of s system but aren't clearly just "how much does this game look like a photograph."
I see people say this kind of stuff and all I can think is "I only ever notice resolution changes."themechanic said:
Seriously. I know what stuff like AA and soft shadows does, or is supposed to do, but when I turn my settings up in most games I just seem to get lower performance with no noticeable difference.
Really, I say that we need more input or budget or whatever into more unique aesthetics and some improved animation quality and sound assets. Really adds to the atmosphere in games.
Of course they can but the question is why would you want to do that terrible thing ?
In my opinion graphics are good where they are at the moment and that big budget AAA games should invest more money in gameplay and story aspects rather than just make their turd look like a polished turd. For example some good games that I enjoy are Borderlands 2 and Catherine and they both have sketched up graphics but I find their story and gameplay more enjoyable than the polished WOWZOMGZGODSGRAPHICS that is the latest Battlefield, Call of Duty, insert name of generic shooter with pretty graphics and almost nothing else going for it.
TLDR: No more graphics improvements. Go for story and gameplay instead.
In my opinion graphics are good where they are at the moment and that big budget AAA games should invest more money in gameplay and story aspects rather than just make their turd look like a polished turd. For example some good games that I enjoy are Borderlands 2 and Catherine and they both have sketched up graphics but I find their story and gameplay more enjoyable than the polished WOWZOMGZGODSGRAPHICS that is the latest Battlefield, Call of Duty, insert name of generic shooter with pretty graphics and almost nothing else going for it.
TLDR: No more graphics improvements. Go for story and gameplay instead.
Graphics can get better sure, but they'd eventually reach a point where the improvements wouldnt be that noticable
People need to learn that better hardware does not mean more realistic or prettier games. Better hardware allows for more than just looks. More memory and faster processors allow for more objects to be rendered on screen, better physics and better AI. It also allows for better shadowing effects, reflections and an overall sharper image.
One thing that annoys the hell out of me is that this current gen's obsession with HD when most of the games I've played on consoles are blurry, low res and have no anti aliasing. Improving hardware and resources help improve all of that.
In short, yes. Graphics can get much better, but not in the way that people seem to think.
One thing that annoys the hell out of me is that this current gen's obsession with HD when most of the games I've played on consoles are blurry, low res and have no anti aliasing. Improving hardware and resources help improve all of that.
In short, yes. Graphics can get much better, but not in the way that people seem to think.