The Great Graphics Race

[themyrmidon]

In the last Extra Credits something was said that really got on my nerves, that games today have reached a point graphically where they are validated as legitimate media, so we should sit back and work on them from other fronts.
To me, while that's true, it doesn't mean that we should abandon graphical advancement to the degree that I've heard many talk about. I don't think we should even let up at all, that graphical advancement should continue at or speed up its current pace. Am I wrong to not be satisfied with our current level of detail?

 

[ViaticalTarsier]

I know I'm not satified with or current graphics level. When games have 60fps, no draw distances, extreme details (down to the veins on a leaf type detail) and when animation of those graphics become lifelike then I'll become satisfied with our graphics situation.

So no, you're not wrong to be unsatisfied with the current level of detail.

 

[Carlston]

I'd be happy to drop back to 4 year ago graphics to have some GAME PLAY or a little fun factor.
We hit all we needed with graphics in say Metal Gear Solid 4, now how bout games that are fun to play and make me want to play them again more than just looking for lame make believe trophies.

NES games could do it...now we have boring buggy games, but hey I can see a zit on soild snakes butt pop in real time...woo hoo....

 

[HontooNoNeko]

The problem is that the vast majority of people can not afford the hardware necessary to properly render graphics beyond the current point. I think it would be best to keep graphics where they are now and wait until the graphics card market advances enough to provide hardware that is cheap enough and powerful enough to advance the current standard of graphical power.

 

[Tupolev]

Depends on what you're gunning for with graphics, what visual styles you're going for. Hyperrealism, for example, is something that still has much room for improvement, though some sorts of visual styles haven't really improved at all in the last few decades; some stylistic games from the 90's look gorgeous as ever.

 

[gigastar]

I stopped caring about graphical detail around when the 7th gen console race started.

No not because i bought a Wii, because i got a PSP and Monster Hunter Freedom 2.

 

[Kingsnake661]

I don't think the EC guys are saying, or implying that game makers stop worrying competely about graphics. You always should strive for improvement, but, that it doesn't have to be the DRIVING force behind game development.

And for along time, it was either the limiting factor, as in, "we can't DO that", or the main factor of a game. "Hey, look at what we can DO". To many games for too long have, IMO, gotten by with being pretty, with weak gameplay.

At this point in time, good graphics, are easy to come by. So maybe game compines don't have to worry so much about how a game looks, and can put more effort into the game it self.

It isn't an either or situation. You can still improve graphics, while at the same time focusing more of your attation to other details of a game. And, in doing so, IMO, they'll make better games. I think that was the point of the ep.

 

[Netrigan]

I think the point was that the graphical bottleneck is no longer the game engine, but the money needed to push graphics even further. It takes a lot of money to push the graphical envelop, which requires you have a developer with enough money and a franchise that can generate the level of sales to support it.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

We could work on draw distances...

I'd love to see levels sprawling out before me, rather than having enemies "pop up" about 50 feet away. A solid distance, but I've love to be able to snipe from longer distances in games like Fallout 3/New Vegas. As it is, the longest range I can get still doesn't feel like proper sniping.

 

[Irridium]

No, graphics should stop advancing for a bit. Things are fine now dammit. The more money you put into graphics, the less there is for other parts of the game, which leads to boring, mediocre games.

I'm in this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/6069-Death-to-Good-Graphics] school of thought.

This massive focus on graphics has done more harm then good. Yeah things look really pretty, but they're expensive, buggy, and uninspired. Plus most people can't even run the damn things.

 

[ewhac]

It's been barely 40 years since Evans & Sutherland first started thinking about visual simulation, back when wireframe vector displays were considered pretty damned astonishing. The original TRON was released roughly 30 years ago.

Today, graphics of that quality can be rendered on your [em]phone[/em].

It will happen, it will get cheap, and it will arrive far sooner than you think.

 

[PlaidHatter]

The problem is that any detail we add from this point will be practically imperceivable for the relative memory cost on your computer, the resolution of a TV or monitor, and the fiscal cost to develop said graphics. The more you fine tune your graphics, fewer systems will be able to run your game. The systems that can run your high-graphics game cost more money, meaning that fewer people own them. This means that you'll have to raise the price to make a return, which makes your game more expensive. It all just snowballs from there. Even then, the human eye is only physically capable of taking in a certain amount of detail.

The way I see it, all the forces I've mentioned will always be at an equilibrium. Graphics will improve when people have the money and incentive to buy better machines. It will come naturally with time, while other aspects need more direct attention for growth.

 

[Continuity]

In the last Extra Credits something was said that really got on my nerves, that games today have reached a point graphically where they are validated as legitimate media, so we should sit back and work on them from other fronts.
To me, while that's true, it doesn't mean that we should abandon graphical advancement to the degree that I've heard many talk about. I don't think we should even let up at all, that graphical advancement should continue at or speed up its current pace. Am I wrong to not be satisfied with our current level of detail?

You missed the point slightly. We've already plateaued, we've been at this point for about 5 years where as the preceding 15 years or so were characterised by a graphics arms race, graphics cards needed to be replaced yearly if you wanted to keep playing the newest games.. now you can buy a graphics card and it will be fine for several years.

The second point is that at the current level of graphical fidelity everything is possible, you only need so much resolution and so many polygons to be able to achieve your development goals. In other words we've reached the point of diminishing returns.

 

[Wolfram23]

In the last Extra Credits something was said that really got on my nerves, that games today have reached a point graphically where they are validated as legitimate media, so we should sit back and work on them from other fronts.
To me, while that's true, it doesn't mean that we should abandon graphical advancement to the degree that I've heard many talk about. I don't think we should even let up at all, that graphical advancement should continue at or speed up its current pace. Am I wrong to not be satisfied with our current level of detail?

You missed the point slightly. We've already plateaued, we've been at this point for about 5 years where as the preceding 15 years or so were characterised by a graphics arms race, graphics cards needed to be replaced yearly if you wanted to keep playing the newest games.. now you can buy a graphics card and it will be fine for several years.

The second point is that at the current level of graphical fidelity everything is possible, you only need so much resolution and so many polygons to be able to achieve your development goals. In other words we've reached the point of diminishing returns.

I definitely don't think we've plateaued. I can understand where that's coming from and I'd say we're nearing that point, but there's still games that make me go "whoa!" from the visuals - and beyond that, from the animations and interactive environments.

But what I understood from EC is that they're saying we've reached a point that making decent graphics is pretty easy, whereas in the past it was extremely painstaking and time consuming to make a game look nice. So since it's easier, devs can now focus on other aspects of game creation. I mean look how many games are made with Unreal 3 engine (which I hate when PC games have it!!) and they look great on consoles. I mean, BioShock, anyone?

But yeah, I'm a little bit of a graphics whore and I always eagerly look forward to the next game pushing the boundaries of my hardware.

 

[migo]

I'm definitely hoping that this console generation lasts a long time, and that with the PSP2 we end up having a huge market that is frozen in time as far as graphical capability goes. If devs are smart, they'll keep graphics at the DX9 level as well, and have an ever increasing PC market.

That large market means they can re-use graphical assets and start putting their R&D budget towards other gameplay aspects, like properly rendering speech and having AI communication for the next level in immersion.

 

[BENZOOKA]

.

On PC, 60 fps is not even a big deal. I play CS:S at a solid >150 fps, (with the cost of some graphics, sure) and it's deliciously smooth. You can still tell the slight difference from 100 fps, for example, quite easily. But practically anything around 60 fps to 100 fps is very pleasant to look at.

Another very important thing along fps is refresh rate. There used to be quality CRT's with 75 hz and 100 hz refresh rates. After you play a while with 100 hz or more, 60 hz gives you the feeling "why did we ever settle back to this. My eyes are melting. Very slowly, but still melting.".

The 3D phenomenon has brought back the need for higher refresh rates, and of course all the progress with LCD's allows that. There are even high-Hz monitors being made now, specifically gaming in mind. So 3D movies are one of the best things that has happened to gaming hardware in a long time.

And PC gaming didn't even use to have draw distances until they started porting console games to PC. But even now, on most games you can adjust the draw distance glider (usually on characters, objects, environment and details. All separately) to the very horizon, practically allowing you to see everything there is to see as it should be, assuming that the PC in question can handle that stress.

So all there is left for that vision would be the extreme details. You can occasionally see very high detail textures, and quality bumpmapping and lighting and such enforce those visual delicacies even more. It's just that high-quality textures take up a lot of space. And a lot of effort is required to make them. You'll usually end up not looking at every single rock, or comparing dents on wooden boards. But yes, it is an area that could be improved.

OT: Most of what I mentioned earlier must somehow relate to this, and also: Current level of detail is a subjective term. If you're talking about everything that the newest used DirectX version, 11, is cabable of (and we'll not see the full capabilities of it in a long time); then I'd say: Definitely Yes. It looks good enough, I'd say, and there's a whole lot about it we haven't seen it yet. And it is not yet even optimized to the full extents, so you can't get the maximum results with the minimum power yet.

On a more subjective level, I don't think there would need to be major improvements in the field of gaming graphics. I'm quite happy with the looks of a bunch of new titles, and in the end it's the gameplay that, most than anything else, defines how good a given game is.

And there hasn't even been any major graphics races going along in the past couple years. At least not to the extent there used to be.

But anywho, I'll still always like to see new and improved graphics and techniques and tricks. And anything that makes me think "wow, that looks cool". Luckily, this will be the case in the future as well. They aren't stopping with the advancement of graphics. So the definitive answer is a definite maybe.

 

[Aijou]

That large market means they can re-use graphical assets and start putting their R&D budget towards other gameplay aspects, like properly rendering speech and having AI communication for the next level in immersion.

QFT. I can't begin to count the number of visually stunning gaming experiences I've had lately that had been ruined by an enemy running into a wall for 10 seconds, or standing in plain sight getting shot. Whereas I don't think I've ever had a gaming experience ruined by graphical limitations.

Newer and better graphics are always impressive, but looking back at recent history, a game from 2004 (Say, Half Life 2) still looks pretty and impressive to me, and the graphical downgrade from more recent games isn't enough to detract from the experience. Compare this to the state of affairs back in 2004, a 6 year old game then (The then-visually-stunning Metal Gear Solid for example) Looks horrible in comparison to HL2.

It's simply not worth the effort any more. The rate of return is exponentially diminishing past a certain point, and the amount of money spent making an already great looking water ripple look that much greater isn't worth the dozens of equivilent man and render hours that could be spent making the actual game better.

As far as I'm concerned, if going back 3-4 years graphically means we get better and more games, than I'm all for it. Spend the extra time and money writing better procedural generation algoriths, better AI protocols, BY GOD please put some of it into better voice acting, and maybe, if you have the time, though I fear asking for so much, write a decent story once in a while.

I'd definately take all that over having a slightly shinier glean on my companion's neckbeard.

 

[BENZOOKA]

I'm definitely hoping that this console generation lasts a long time, and that with the PSP2 we end up having a huge market that is frozen in time as far as graphical capability goes. If devs are smart, they'll keep graphics at the DX9 level as well, and have an ever increasing PC market.

That large market means they can re-use graphical assets and start putting their R&D budget towards other gameplay aspects, like properly rendering speech and having AI communication for the next level in immersion.

DirectX 10 has been around for at least 5 years, if I recall right. And it was by no means a big step. A bit more like DX9 upgrading its way to DX9c. The next stop is DX11 and we're even already there with a bunch of titles. That hasn't stopped the PC gaming market to climb up 20 % in sales from 2009 to 2010.

And some people used to think the same thing with DX7, and then again with DX8(.1). Progress is a good thing, and it's not really something that stops other important things like audio quality and the level of AI. Those have taken huge steps as well and will continue to do so.

 

[No_Remainders]

I'd be happy to drop back to 4 year ago graphics to have some GAME PLAY or a little fun factor.

This is the one!

I know I'm not satified with or current graphics level. When games have 60fps, no draw distances, extreme details (down to the veins on a leaf type detail) and when animation of those graphics become lifelike then I'll become satisfied with our graphics situation.

Yeah, I'm gonna just put this out there. I'd like to point out that people are kinda being silly.

Take it this way, unless you want to be paying a hundred bucks a pop for a game, I would ignore everything that this guy said.
The better the graphics, the more money it will require to make, the more it requires to make (unless it's BlOps), the more they will need to charge for a copy.

I, personally, would rather not be paying more than I already am (I even think 40 euro a game is a bit expensive, and that's how much I pay at the cheapest for a new one, but I make sure not to buy any above that price) to play a video game.

 

[Xanadu84]

Well, while you are correct that graphics should continue to improve because, well, why not, I really didn't think that the extra credit was disagreeing with you. Or even presenting an idea in conflict with yours. As computers get more powerful, graphics will improve. Indie studios these days can make incredibly detailed games limited pretty much by the users hardware. Frankly, I think that the idea that energy that goes into graphics automatically comes out of gameplay is probably wrong: I think that sometimes, pretty games are also poorly designed. What I got from that Extra Punctuation is that especially now that games are so mainstream, and graphics has helped put them there, it's time to start focusing on other elements of play that are even more important then visuals. Whereas before, a developer might talk about the polygon count of their game as a main selling point, now we should keep improving that polygon count, but start talking about new and exciting mechanics of play. A graphically intense game lets me enjoy the graphical intensity, and that's all well and good, but a good design makes the whole damn game. Graphics are now at a point where graphics shouldn't prevent a developer from exploring any potential strategy. Just about all strategies are possible, and its time to explore more of those strategies, instead of adding more detail to game systems we already have.