Have we reached a point where graphics and hardware power are less important?

Recommended Videos

themistermanguy

Senior Member
Nov 22, 2013
677
7
23
Country
United States
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 light years better than what 7th gen could put out vs say, going from the PS1 to the PS2. In fact, a lot current gen games could be put on 7th gen level hardware and not loose too much in the process. 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, Rocket League, 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?
 

Squilookle

New member
Nov 6, 2008
3,584
0
0
Agreed. We reached that point in 2005 at the very latest when the 7th gen began. After those consoles, graphical improvement has been negligible. Graphical impact, however, has been dragging much needed effort on the more important parts of games downwards ever since
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
I don't really think graphics and power were ever that important as the weakest system like the PS2 won its generation. I do kinda think people underplay leaps from generation to generation as you can just look at this gen when games were releasing on both new and old consoles, the ports to the old systems were quite noticeably downgraded. Though I do think current-gen finally turned a major page by getting on the same page as the PC by using the same architecture (devs not having to jump through hoops to develop for PS3's cell) and FINALLY getting much needed RAM. The PS3 only had 256 MEGABYTES of RAM while the PS4 has over 4 GBs of RAM for devs to use for their games. With the same architecture and finally plenty of RAM, the consoles and PC are really really similar systems as you see a lot of games you'd only find on PCs in any other generation get console ports, even Kickstarted PC games find their way onto consoles now. Getting back to graphics, we've definitely reached diminishing returns as graphical quality increases. Lastly, games that aren't AAA games can have lesser graphics and still look damn good without having to push similar polygon numbers.

TheMisterManGuy said:
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.
That would be great if devs actually focused on that stuff but they won't just like every other gen. Improving stuff like AI is hard while upping the resolution and polygons is easy, thus the easy road will be taken just like it has always been. Even the RTS genre is pretty much stuck on what their current AI can do because they are dependent on fast single core processing for their AI and if you haven't noticed CPUs aren't really getting faster, they are getting more cores. RTS devs have yet to make progress with utilizing multiple cores for their AI logic yet. With regards to physics, sports games that should be highly physics-based are still basically animation-based for stuff like a baseball game determining where a batted ball will land.
 

Squilookle

New member
Nov 6, 2008
3,584
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
TheMisterManGuy said:
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.
That would be great if devs actually focused on that stuff but they won't just like every other gen. Improving stuff like AI is hard while upping the resolution and polygons is easy, thus the easy road will be taken just like it has always been.
That is most certainly NOT how it always has been. Graphics were just one of many ways games tried to one-up each other during say, the 90's. When a game trumped a rival in areas like AI, mission design, layout game length etc etc these were noticed. Not just by the gamers themselves who definitely appreciated it, but by journalists as well, who back then knew full well that graphics wasn't the be-all end all feature which sold games. Back then it wasn't, at lest...
 

themistermanguy

Senior Member
Nov 22, 2013
677
7
23
Country
United States
Phoenixmgs said:
I don't really think graphics and power were ever that important as the weakest system like the PS2 won its generation. I do kinda think people underplay leaps from generation to generation as you can just look at this gen when games were releasing on both new and old consoles, the ports to the old systems were quite noticeably downgraded. Though I do think current-gen finally turned a major page by getting on the same page as the PC by using the same architecture (devs not having to jump through hoops to develop for PS3's cell) and FINALLY getting much needed RAM. The PS3 only had 256 MEGABYTES of RAM while the PS4 has over 4 GBs of RAM for devs to use for their games. With the same architecture and finally plenty of RAM, the consoles and PC are really really similar systems as you see a lot of games you'd only find on PCs in any other generation get console ports, even Kickstarted PC games find their way onto consoles now. Getting back to graphics, we've definitely reached diminishing returns as graphical quality increases. Lastly, games that aren't AAA games can have lesser graphics and still look damn good without having to push similar polygon numbers.
I mean, 8th gen is still a big enough leap to pass as a new generation don't get me wrong. But the leap was possibly less impactful than any prior console leap. Looking at any past console generation, the leaps all played a part in creating new possibilities in game design. Going from 2D to 3D with the 5th generation allowed for new kinds of genres and gameplay styles thanks to polygons and 3D environments. Going from 5th gen to 6th gen allowed 3D games to become more cinematic, more refined, and generally better playing and feeling with more dynamic cameras and complex worlds. 6th to 7th allowed for the creation of the Open World genre, as well as more things happening on screen at once thanks to more CPU cores But this generation hasn't really brought anything new from a game design perspective to the table. The big improvements as I mentioned, all come from the aesthetic side of things. Better facial expressions and more detailed open worlds namely.

This generation marks a turning point where consoles are starting to move a way from focusing on pushing better graphics, and instead focusing on offering better development tools and architecture. As you mentioned, increasing the RAM and going with PC based hardware for consoles this gen has been a godsend for developers. This means that developers can smoothly port from PC, and the flexibility of today's engines also helps drive down development costs for games that don't need that much to make.

We're at a point now where all three of the current consoles have more than enough power for most non-AAA developers.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
20,519
5,335
118
While this generation wasn't a leap, it was a much more stable hop. Many graphics heavy games from the PS3/360 era suffered greatly from bad frame rates and aliasing. This gen most if not all of that has been smoothed out on top of the graphical advancements that we got. Overall this gen has done a much better job balancing graphics, performance, and gameplay.

Leaps in graphics and hardware power are less important, but I doubt the big publishers like EA and Activision are in a panic about this. They've never really sold their games on graphics anyway, just brand recognition. The diminishing returns issue isn't as much of a problem for pubishers and consumers as some people make it out to be.
Phoenixmgs said:
Improving stuff like AI is hard while upping the resolution and polygons is easy, thus the easy road will be taken just like it has always been.
Improving A.I. and making it "smarter" is something developers are probably already more than capable of, the problem is that it's likely not very fun to play against. If we're talking A.I. in action and stealth games, players need to be able to quickly recognize behaviour patterns, so things need to be kept relatively simple and easy to understand. And it needs to be dumb enough to give players an actual chance. I mean, in a stealth game with enemies that have proper responses and sense of awareness to the situation they're in, the player will likely be pretty powerless.
 

CritialGaming

New member
Mar 25, 2015
2,170
0
0
It's always interesting, because in theory graphics are as good as they ever need to be. Of course I remember saying that on Playstation 2, and every generation a game comes out that makes the new generation really stand out. The 360/PS3 era was a good jump, and maybe things didn't jump quite so high with this last generation. But new hardware still matters.

Even is graphics stay the same. Better hardware would allow developers to focus on performance. No more sub-30 fps on consoles, without a graphical jump the more powerful hardware could run the games at higher resolutions and at better frame rates.

That would be the best result and would certainly get me to adopt the next console. If I could get pc performance for all these great playstation exclusives, I would be happy as balls. Horizon Zero Dawn, God of War, Bloodborne, etc, if I could run them 4k 60+fps that would totally be worth a new console imo.
 

Mcgeezaks

The biggest boss
Dec 31, 2009
864
0
21
Sweden
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
I would like next gen to spend more focus on performance rather than resolutions, 30fps has been outdated for almost a decade for me. Hell, even 60fps is outdated for me but it's still a lot better than 30fps.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
15,526
4,295
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Marik2 said:
We need better AI.
We actually used to have quite good ai, look at the ai in unreal tournament.
 

Bad Jim

New member
Nov 1, 2010
1,763
0
0
CaitSeith said:
Marik2 said:
We need better AI.
Define "better".
That's probably 90% of the problem. If you develop a game and make it pretty, your marketing department can easily show the gaming world that it is pretty. If you make the AI smart, it's not so easy to show, and even good AI can be made to look stupid. Developers can do this stuff, but it's just a lot of work for nothing if it doesn't sell the product.

What we probably need is some kind of IQ test for AI so this stuff can be compared with reasonable accuracy. Eg

Pathing. An NPC needs to get somewhere.
[] - AI can get there in the absence of obstacles or difficult terrain.
[] - AI can navigate around simple obstacles. "Simple" means convex, and spaced far enough apart that the NPC can pass between them.
[] - AI has a pathfinding algorithm, so if a path exists, it can get there.
[] - Pathfinding knows all tricks that an average human might perform, like jumping up to or off ledges, using lifts, teleporters etc. Advanced stuff like bunny hopping, which an NPC probably shouldn't do, is not required.
[] - Pathfinding finds the fastest route, which is not necessarily the shortest. For example, it may be faster to run around a lake than to swim across it.
[] - A group of NPCs can make the same journey without all going in different directions or getting in each other's way.
[] - NPCs can get past other NPCs that are not hostile.
[] - AI make a journey at 95% the speed of an experienced human player or faster.

I'm too lazy to write the whole thing though.