Next gen game graphics are hugely unimpressive

[Windcaler]

So there has been a trend on The Escapist, and some other websites, where many detractors of the next gen consoles (the Xbox One and PS4) keep pointing out how similar the next generation games look to games in the current gen.

To those people the point of this argument is to say something along the lines of "it doesn't matter how powerful the xbox one or the PS4 are, just look at the games, the graphics don't look any different from current gen stuff so there's no point in spending money for a new console when we're not even seeing any significant upgrades."

This thread is me telling those people that they're right, to an extent, but the fact that they're right doesn't matter.

See, I agree that many of the next gen console games don't look hugely different or better graphically from the current generation of console games. Titanfall's graphics don't look hugely superior to Killzone 3, inFamous Second Son's graphics don't look hugely superior to inFamous 2's graphics. Thing is, there's a reason for that, it's because this are LAUNCH TITLES.

Launch titles for new consoles don't tend to have hugely visible differences from the previous console generation, because developers of those launch titles haven't had very long to build their games and learn to program for the new architecture of the next gen consoles. They don't know how to squeeze every drop of power out of the ram yet, they don't know the limitations of the graphics cards, they don't know how to optimize their games.

The launch titles for the previous generation of consoles, the xbox 360 and the ps3 didn't look vastly different from xbox and ps2 titles either. Take a look at something like Perfect Dark Zero for example. While Perfect Dark Zero has new lighting, shadows, and particle effects that weren't possible on the original xbox, these little improvements are barely noticeable. In all, Perfect Dark Zero doesn't look much better than something like Halo 2. Now compare Perfect Dark Zero to something that's come out in the last year or two and there's a greater difference between the Xbox 360 launch title, and the new xbox 360 title than there is between the xbox original title and xbox 360 launch title.

That's how it goes, launch titles don't show off the full capabilities of the hardware, they aren't indicative of the games we'll be getting even a year into the hardware cycle, and they definitely aren't showing the limitations, or even perceived limitations, of the hardware. So if you aren't impressed by the games launching on the Xbox One and PS4 that doesn't mean that there's no point to buying either console because there will be huge improvements, better textures, better lighting and shadows, better AI and a greater amount of AIs on screen at once, greater depth of field, more detailed animations, etc. you just have to wait a little for developers to catch up to the potential.

I think you misunderstand the point a lot of people make when they talk about the power behind a console. Generally people on the escapist aren't talking about power in terms of graphical fidelity. Theyre usually talking about processing power. The reason why this is important is because the lack of processing power makes games feel much more rigid and sluggish. A game that has enough processing power should feel smooth and responsive, not the opposite. To give an example compare the xbox 360 version of dark souls how many areas in the game such as blightown would drop to around 15 frames per second due to the hardware. However when ported to more powerful PCs the game doesn't experience that problem. To give a purely gameplay example having the console version of Battlefield 3 kept at around 30 fps feels sluggish and slower when compared to its PC counterpart at 60+ fps. I primarily play on PC and with my setup most games I play run around 60-80 fps but if I play a console games (that's generally locked at 30) such as the Last of us the experience is lessened for me due to what feels like sluggish gameplay

For what its worth, I agree that I don't think higher graphical fidelity means much anymore. In the transition of 8 bit to 16 bit we saw huge leaps in the amount of detail that games could give. However with every advance in graphical fidelity we've gotten less and less noticeable differences. To give an example I could take a picture from Battlefield 3 and one from Battlefield 4, put them next to each other, and I can tell theres a difference but I couldn't point out what the specific differences are

 

[JustOrdinary]

This is incorrect.

Super Mario 64 was a massive jump from the previous pixel 2D games.
Sonic adventure was a massive jump from "3D sonic blast". Power stone was a massive jump from the old timey virtua fighters.
Halo was a pretty big jump
The original resistance on the ps3 was a big jump too.



You're right about games looking better later in the console's life, but up until today, the initial jump has always been substantial. While launch titles have always been kinda few, nextgen just looks like ports with better lighting.

Obviously mechanically, they are vastly superior and in time we'll see much more in the coming days once developers are used to the tech. But right now, immediately, it's kinda meh so why get hyped at all for it?

 

[WouldYouKindly]

See, now if consoles had been working with standard PC architecture for the past generation, I think you'd have seen a fairly noticeable leap in graphical quality.

Diminishing returns anyway. Graphics should be the last thing to focus on when it comes to game design. I'm more interested in what kind of new open worlds or AI can be created on next-gen hardware.

If consoles worked on PC level standards.(Which PC doesn't have a set standard since so many people have computers that vary in age and capabilities)
Then consoles would be too expensive for people to buy, or have zero appeal because people would simply buy a computer.

ORLY?

Mine cost about 600 bucks, just a touch more than the next gen consoles and will play anything I want it to in a quality comparable to consoles.

I'm not talking about specs, I'm talking about how the computers inside the consoles operate, the architecture of the system in general, not what it has for resources. It's a reason why PC ports tended to take quite a bit of work. Suffice it to say, the way the PS3 and Xbox 360 work is vastly different from how PCs of the time worked. This made it more difficult to develop for these consoles while still planning a PC release.

If the architecture was similar, like it is between most if not all PCs, porting would be as smooth as adjusting the texture quality and the renderer. That's what I was talking about.

Finally, what makes a console a console is typically the streamlined nature of it's OS. At least, that's how it is for the new generation. They are using the exact same architecture as normal PCs now, so that's no longer special. When you buy a console, you're just buying a very limited PC.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

See, now if consoles had been working with standard PC architecture for the past generation, I think you'd have seen a fairly noticeable leap in graphical quality.

Diminishing returns anyway. Graphics should be the last thing to focus on when it comes to game design. I'm more interested in what kind of new open worlds or AI can be created on next-gen hardware.

So you'd be fine with things being text adventures or looking like Dwarf Fortress?

No, graphics have a place, like advertising has a place, much to my chagrin. The presentation of your work can vastly effect it's initial reception. After all, go find a short gameplay video of say, Bioshock Infinite. Then take a look at the most recent uberturd, Ride to Hell Retribution and tell me you'd buy the second one based on a preliminary on how the graphics look.

It's like why a dealership polishes all of it's cars. It's not necessary to their function, but it can really help the first impression they make. Good first impressions can improve sales vastly.

That being said, you don't stop buying new cars or hiring the right employees in order to pay for car polish, but it serves a purpose. Do it when it's in the budget. If it's not in the budget, take a look at the budget and see if it's even possible to allocate the necessary resources and still make something good with lacking graphics.

I disagree and agree. Nowhere did he say that graphics don't have a place, just that they shouldn't have as high of a priority as other things. You're right, though, in that graphics do have a place. They have a place somewhere there, but there are things that are far more important, one of those being aesthetics. Graphics will stop you from looking like Dwarf Fortress, yes, which is why they have their place, but aesthetics are what gives them their style, their flavor. A game can be graphically decent, even great, but it needs to have charm and beauty. How many people complain about games overusing brown and grey and such and such?

And then there's cases like Crytek with their Crysis series, which have always been held as a landmark for graphics. Didn't Crysis 3, and Crytek, get lambasted for having no substance? I wonder how many sales they've lost for that compared to the ones they've gained for simply pumping graphics to the max and forgetting everything else. I know they won't be getting mine.

Which brings me to the point. Aesthetics should be considered different from graphics. The latter is technical, the former is the soul. With this in mind, the guy you quoted is right. Graphics should be thought of as a backend priority. Perhaps not dead last, but more of a starting point that from then on is put on the back burner to make way for aesthetics, story, gameplay, scale, scope, AI, etc.

Graphics certainly never stopped Minecraft from becoming popular and were it not so late in the night, I'd bring up countless other games as well.

As I said, it effects initial reception, not necessarily success provided they put their work into the game. Dark Souls is not a very high graphical fidelity game. It is a good game nonetheless. Battlefield 3 is a very pretty game. If it weren't for the multiplayer, it'd be an absolutely horrible game.

I guess what I meant to say is that graphics are more important to the publisher than the developer, depending on the developer of course. They don't help the game necessarily, but they sure as hell make advertising it easier and more effective. Finally, graphics can greatly increase immersion. Farcry 3 for example. I really felt like I was stalking through the forest because it looked so real. I got immersed in it quite easily because they had opted for a high fidelity realistic graphical style. Not to say I can't get immersed in anything less than that, but I typically have a disconnect when talking to people because of the uncanny valley. I guess what I mean to say, is that if you're designing a game to be as immersive as possible, going for that style and pumping the graphics a bit is a great way to do it. More cartoony, aesthetical designs can really work too, but I wouldn't call most of them immersive games. In the very least, I have difficulty getting immersed in them. I like the characters, I like the setting, I like the atmosphere, but I will still realize I'm playing a game.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

I think it's important to acknowledge that with the upcoming, newest generation of 'console' hardware, we'll finally get proper HD - the same HD we got promised with the current generation, but only got, what, 480p or 576p blown up to 720p.

Actually... you can look up all the actual resolutions of console games right now. I went through, maybe, 500 of them and determined that definitely more than 70% run at 720p or greater on Xbox 360 (a little less on PS3). And none that I could find ran at 576 or 480p.

Does that statistic include all the little white lies? Like running the game @ 1280x704 or finding other ways of implementing black bars or cheat around the fact that both consoles didn't quite pack the punch?

If I remember correctly, Call of Duty: Black Ops ran at 1040x608, some (if not all recent) Halo games ran at 1152x640, and both got hush-hush upscaled to 720p (1280 x 720). So, while the output might have been 720p, the actual processed picture was at a (significantly) lower resolution, leading to the well-known crude blockiness of some contenders, and even that did not stop all of the lags, frame drops and other various performance issues brought along by anemic system specs barely fit to play in the HD league. You'll also find that a lot of visual fx was utterly absent from the PS3 releases, while the 360 versions maintained some chosen bits and pieces of fidelity the PC version of the same title featured by default (grass in Mafia II, lighting fx in Bulletstorm, etc.)...

...

...

Someone actually went through the effort to find the actual resolutions of the games they were playing, and, again, about 70% were running at 720p

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

visual fx were never contended, only the pure resolution. And, objectively, not "most" games run at less than 720p, most games on console actually DO run at 720p or more, but a good chunk of them do not. There's a difference.

Even Halo 4 runs at 720p.

Anyways, back on topic, like everyone else said, diminishing returns is in full effect here. We're reaching a point where visual fidelity is just getting impossible to improve without MASSIVE effort, yet producing results we can hardly see. Personally, I'm more looking forward to what games can be with the industry standard of horsepower going up will lead to in terms of open world games, and literally nothing else.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I'm still impressed with the visuals of games coming out today, so even if there isn't as big of a graphical leap next generation, I'm fine as long as the visual design is kosher.

 

[deadish]

Really? People don't see the difference?

For one the environments are a lot less claustrophobic, as they have more memory to store data and more power to display it.

 

[AngelOfBlueRoses]

See, now if consoles had been working with standard PC architecture for the past generation, I think you'd have seen a fairly noticeable leap in graphical quality.

Diminishing returns anyway. Graphics should be the last thing to focus on when it comes to game design. I'm more interested in what kind of new open worlds or AI can be created on next-gen hardware.

So you'd be fine with things being text adventures or looking like Dwarf Fortress?

No, graphics have a place, like advertising has a place, much to my chagrin. The presentation of your work can vastly effect it's initial reception. After all, go find a short gameplay video of say, Bioshock Infinite. Then take a look at the most recent uberturd, Ride to Hell Retribution and tell me you'd buy the second one based on a preliminary on how the graphics look.

It's like why a dealership polishes all of it's cars. It's not necessary to their function, but it can really help the first impression they make. Good first impressions can improve sales vastly.

That being said, you don't stop buying new cars or hiring the right employees in order to pay for car polish, but it serves a purpose. Do it when it's in the budget. If it's not in the budget, take a look at the budget and see if it's even possible to allocate the necessary resources and still make something good with lacking graphics.

I disagree and agree. Nowhere did he say that graphics don't have a place, just that they shouldn't have as high of a priority as other things. You're right, though, in that graphics do have a place. They have a place somewhere there, but there are things that are far more important, one of those being aesthetics. Graphics will stop you from looking like Dwarf Fortress, yes, which is why they have their place, but aesthetics are what gives them their style, their flavor. A game can be graphically decent, even great, but it needs to have charm and beauty. How many people complain about games overusing brown and grey and such and such?

And then there's cases like Crytek with their Crysis series, which have always been held as a landmark for graphics. Didn't Crysis 3, and Crytek, get lambasted for having no substance? I wonder how many sales they've lost for that compared to the ones they've gained for simply pumping graphics to the max and forgetting everything else. I know they won't be getting mine.

Which brings me to the point. Aesthetics should be considered different from graphics. The latter is technical, the former is the soul. With this in mind, the guy you quoted is right. Graphics should be thought of as a backend priority. Perhaps not dead last, but more of a starting point that from then on is put on the back burner to make way for aesthetics, story, gameplay, scale, scope, AI, etc.

Graphics certainly never stopped Minecraft from becoming popular and were it not so late in the night, I'd bring up countless other games as well.

As I said, it effects initial reception, not necessarily success provided they put their work into the game. Dark Souls is not a very high graphical fidelity game. It is a good game nonetheless. Battlefield 3 is a very pretty game. If it weren't for the multiplayer, it'd be an absolutely horrible game.

I guess what I meant to say is that graphics are more important to the publisher than the developer, depending on the developer of course. They don't help the game necessarily, but they sure as hell make advertising it easier and more effective. Finally, graphics can greatly increase immersion. Farcry 3 for example. I really felt like I was stalking through the forest because it looked so real. I got immersed in it quite easily because they had opted for a high fidelity realistic graphical style. Not to say I can't get immersed in anything less than that, but I typically have a disconnect when talking to people because of the uncanny valley. I guess what I mean to say, is that if you're designing a game to be as immersive as possible, going for that style and pumping the graphics a bit is a great way to do it. More cartoony, aesthetical designs can really work too, but I wouldn't call most of them immersive games. In the very least, I have difficulty getting immersed in them. I like the characters, I like the setting, I like the atmosphere, but I will still realize I'm playing a game.

And such things being important to publishers has contributed to the rising costs of development from bloated budgets. The first step is to waste a bunch of money making something as pretty as possible and then the second step is bragging to everyone about how pretty your game is. Graphics have their place, but we've - publishers, developers, and gamers - have placed far too much importance on them and we're getting too little in return at this point.

As for your point on immersion, I suppose it would help with some people, but I don't really see it as a -great- way to do it. To me, it just seems highly inefficient. Of course, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point as I'm not the kind of person who gets swept up in graphics, but rather atmosphere and setting.

 

[Saltyk]

I'd also point out diminishing returns as a culprit. There's only so much that an increase on polygons can do for models.

As this should illustrate.​

We'll notice less of an upgrade because it's not as drastic. Though, I do agree that later games will look better. I think the new consoles will also help upgrade other aspects, not necessarily related to graphics. Reducing loading times would be nice. Many games have very little in terms of loading times, but they still exist and in some they are pretty bad. Bringing all loading times down would be a nice little addition.

Uncharted has virtually none after the initial load, but that initial load is still very long.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

I'm not sure the graphics are as huge of a focus as what can be done while maintaining high graphics in this gen.
I.E. More detailed crowds, better draw distance, more details in the environment, less repeditive assets.

 

[Olas]

snip

While assassin's creed one was a great looking game, there is no way I can believe that you thought it was a movie, not unless you have really poor eyesight. If you get in close to pretty much any texture in Assassin's Creed it looks pretty bad, just like textures in any big open world game.

Also, exactly what kind of game wouldn't be improved by having better AI? Shooters? Improved by better AI. Stealth games? Improved by better AI. Survival horror games? Improved by better AI. Sports games? Improved by better AI.

The only games that wouldn't be improved by having smarter AI are games where there are no enemies.

Nowadays about half the time my dad sees me playing a game in the living room he asks me what movie I'm watching and I have to show him that I'm holding a controller.

You can argue that today's games still don't look photorealistic upon close inspection, but I'd argue that they look as close to photorealistic as there's really any need for them to in terms of actual enjoyment of the game. In fact I think we're long past the point where better graphics stopped being worth the investment in them.

In terms of AI I would say that you're generally right, but in many cases I think AI is more dependent on good programming and scripting than sheer processing power.

And as far as I'm concerned none of this is anywhere near as important as good aesthetics and good level design.

 

[Drago-Morph]

It's irritating to read through this thread and seeing all the people bemoaning the emphasis on graphical quality in the current game market because, being that this is the Escapist, a huge amount of those same people are PC gamers who would jump at the chance to talk about how much better the PC is because it has so "vastly superior" graphics.

 

[Glongpre]

I take it you guys didn't see the final fantasy 15 gameplay. The game looks phenomenal, that behemoth, dear god it looks real, and it is a close to launch title.

 

[twentyga]

They're okay to me. Nothing to write home about but definitely a step up from the current gen.

 

[Dragonbums]

ORLY?

Mine cost about 600 bucks, just a touch more than the next gen consoles and will play anything I want it to in a quality comparable to consoles.

Considering how most people wouldn't buy the PS3 at it's original launch price of $500.00 I'm pretty sure upping the price by another $100.00 is console suicide. People are fine with buying PC's at over 1k. They do a whole lot of other things than playing games. They can watch movies, handle a variety of programs, hold files, create/download music, be databases, etc.
Consoles do not do such things. They only play games as their first and foremost function. Everything else is secondary.

I'm not talking about specs, I'm talking about how the computers inside the consoles operate, the architecture of the system in general, not what it has for resources. It's a reason why PC ports tended to take quite a bit of work. Suffice it to say, the way the PS3 and Xbox 360 work is vastly different from how PCs of the time worked. This made it more difficult to develop for these consoles while still planning a PC release.

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought you meant the other way around.

 

[WindKnight]

Graphics rarely impress me for more than a few minutes. After that, my brain adjusts and I start focusing on things in game that are important to me. Mainly the story. I've never cared that I can see a single dribble of sweat running down a man's cheek for two seconds of gameplay, because odds are during those two seconds I'm going to be busy playing the game, not admiring the scenery. Graphics are pretty, but they've never been a selling point on consoles for me. Although I do enjoy going back and playing old games and going, "Wow, to think I used to think this was state-of-the-art." Final Fantasy VIII's intro is still amazing to me, but I swear it look a lot better when I was kid.

I'd like to add that technically spectacular graphics don't wow me so much as artistically spectacular graphics do. I'm not going to care about poly counts, resolution or FPS or whatever technique is used to make the visuals more detailed or precise. Give me something vibrant and/or interesting to look at, like Beyond Good and Evil, Blaz Blue, Eternal Sonata and The Walking Dead did.

 

[Strain42]

I disagree to some extent. Luigi's Mansion was a launch title for the GameCube and it's STILL a pretty impressive looking game.

I understand that graphics will inevitably get better as the system grows and developers become more adept at creating games for them, but still.

We've had impressive looking launch titles before.

 

[Joshimodo]

This generation, at the beginning.

This generation, towards the end.

This generation, launch title.

This generation, modern title.




Next gen graphics aren't looking mindblowing yet, but they are looking improved across the board. Once developers get the hang of optimising the performance we'll see a steady increase in visual fidelity, which is great. Yeah, we've likely hit diminishing returns on graphics, but it will certainly get better in time.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

I stopped notice a trend in "better" graphics somewhere between the Source Engine and Crisis. Since then it's all been more or less the same, some a little prettier (i think BF3 deserves a mentioning here).

And then i look at my most played games in the last years: Borderlands, Civ, Dota/LoL, BF3 and all dem action-adventurez like ME or DA.

Most of them look nice, but nothing special. And you know what? Idc, because if a game plays shit but looks nice, it's still shit.
I'd rather replay Dust: An Elysian Tail or Bastion a few dozen times than churn through one of these gritty-copy-pasta shooters. Blergh.

 

[stabnex]

And here anyone at all ever is thinking that Call of Duty of all things is going to benchmark a new standard when it releases with the Xbone? That right there is simply fail in the making. Either way I'm getting the PS4 early because they'll ship to my store before release. Sure the Xbone will too, but those will all stay on the sales floor.