What is the next "Big Leap" for Graphics and visuals?

[Soviet Heavy]

My money is on animation. You can make the most realistic looking model imaginable, and it will still fail to convince people of its authenticity if it doesn't move right. With people claiming we are going to reach the visual threshold for total realism within the next decade [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.821753-Epic-Photo-Realistic-Graphics-Will-Exist-Within-Ten-Years], what will be the next major step on the road to virtual reality?

This was always one of the things about Killzone 2 and 3 that impressed me. The way that enemies reacted to being shot was really neat. They would shake with the force of the bullet's impact.

 

[suntt123]

I don't think there are any "big leaps" left to be had. From here on I think the industry is just going to gradually iron out the kinks in their visuals, animations, etc.

Personally, I think the leap from last gen to this gen was almost negligible (graphically I mean, though we've only got trailers to go off of until most of the next gen games are released). Hopefully this means they'll focus more on unique and interesting gameplay.

Yeah, more complex character/environment movements/interactions would be interesting.

 

[tilmoph]

I've mentioned this elsewhere; I have no idea how in the hell top line graphics can be improved on. Artwork, what's being done with the graphics engine, that can always surpirse me, but from a "make it look even more realistic, add more details" standpoint, I have no idea. OP mentioned animation, and some games do have a problem with that, but by and large it's not really all that bad. You only really notice when something really wonky happens, like a throat punch winds gets delivered to a guys stomach.

In the same post I alluded to earlier, I learned that tech wise, there's some improvements that can be made, but the post explaining this was very long and waaaaaaay outside my ability to make sense of. I'm sure it was very well written and as basic as possible, so maybe in load shading whatever techy word things can be improved on, but I doubt that'll have much of an effect on the quality of what the player actually sees.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Personally, I think the leap from last gen to this gen was almost negligible (graphically I mean, though we've only got trailers to go off of until most of the next gen games are released). Hopefully this means they'll focus more on unique and interesting gameplay.

Well, yeah, that's because the hardware is still new and devs don't really know how to get the maximum potential out of it yet.

I mean, the leap from the Xbox to the Xbox 360 was negligible if you just look at the launch titles. Perfect Dark Zero doesn't look any better than Halo 2 does. But if you look at the games that are coming out now, versus the games at the end of the previous generation, the leap is HUGE. It'll be pretty much the same with this generation I expect.

You can't judge the hardware by what the launch titles look like.

My guess though, is that graphics are going to be less about "oh shiney textures" and much more about subtle things. Lighting, shadows, particle effects, draw distance, animations, frame rates, the number of AIs on screen at once, things like that. Things that most people won't outright notice but which make the game a lot more immersive.

 

[suntt123]

Well, yeah, that's because the hardware is still new and devs don't really know how to get the maximum potential out of it yet.

I mean, the leap from the Xbox to the Xbox 360 was negligible if you just look at the launch titles. Perfect Dark Zero doesn't look any better than Halo 2 does. But if you look at the games that are coming out now, versus the games at the end of the previous generation, the leap is HUGE. It'll be pretty much the same with this generation I expect.

You can't judge the hardware by what the launch titles look like.

My guess though, is that graphics are going to be less about "oh shiney textures" and much more about subtle things. Lighting, shadows, particle effects, draw distance, animations, frame rates, the number of AIs on screen at once, things like that. Things that most people won't outright notice but which make the game a lot more immersive.

Yeah, you're right and I agree.

However I really don't think there's much room more to improve upon from here on out.
Like I said, just little fixes and touch ups from now on, I think.

 

[The Madman]

Visually things are looking brilliant right now, the main problem tends to be texture resolution, pop-in, and most noticeable of all animation quality. Easily the most jarring effect in modern games tends to be the animation, making creatures and characters not only look but move like their real world counterparts is probably the biggest challenge nowadays.

But then that's also a problem middleware like Euphoria (Think GTA4) is meant to try and solve because the costs of actually animating every last detail of a humans movement for every conceivable scenario is just astronomical. How well it will work out however only time will tell!

 

[Smooth Operator]

Depends on the person in question I'd say, I've seen good graphics that were near photorealism and therefor jaw dropping moments in pure fidelity will not happen anymore.
Meanwhile I've also seen people spaz out over every new release because they are told the game looks really great, so their amazement will hinge on PR queues rather then impression.

Yes there will be leaps in technical fidelity, i.e. shit will actually be modeled and rendered in ever greater accuracy instead of flat textures resembling scenery covered by glares upon flares so you don't see how bad it actually is.
But the photography shock moment is coming, for those who don't know in ye olden days when only paintings and statues could depict something photorealism was deemed as the pinnacle of all art ever possible, then photography came along and made it so trivial everyone lost their shit as they realized just how irrelevant photorealism was to art and how much more important the presentation is.
And that is where the big leaps will come from, game worlds synergizing across visuals, phsyics, mechanics, setting and story, not one being overshot while the others forgotten (QTE-s being the absolute peak of it, superb visuals and everything else butchered).

 

[Pink Gregory]

I'd like to think that from now on it's refinement; better optimised engines, gradual easing out of clipping, physics etc.

Really, playing some of the games from, like, 2008 recently; I've been continually thinking 'Visual fidelity doesn't need to improve any more.'.

 

[Soopy]

I have been gaming on and off for the better part of 20yrs. The very first system I got was a NES on my 4th birthday. Ever since I have watched the new games roll out, and every this discussion would come up. In all that time, the sentiment hasn't changed. I think there is a lot of things that can happen to improve the visual quality of video games, the Advent of Physx and such are one such thing. While it has been around for some time, its not widely used but can really add to the atmosphere of a game. I look forward to seeing the different ways it is implemented in future.

I think the next big step in the visual component of gaming will be in the guise of the Occulus Rift or similar. HD gaming with 180 degree field of view.
I also think we will see more things like destruction physics using in games as the processing power gets better/more accessible.

Polygon count isn't the be all and end all fella's!

 

[Strazdas]

no big leaps, gradual improvements.
unless you are limited to graphics as defined by hardware limitation that changes only every 7 years consoles

 

[sanquin]

There's only a small leap left in graphics. From current ones to the stuff you see in Lotr or Avatar. It's not even close to the leap between PS2 and 3 though.

New innovation will go to the size of the world, distant object detail, resolution, animation, and physics I think.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

Higher resolutions (that's on its way), higher refresh rates (220 hz refresh should do it just nicely), and higher colour fidelity (come on 10 bit gaming graphics cards!) for the masses would go a long way.

 

[RevTibe]

I'd guess the next "leap" would be in physics simulation.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

Well, the big leap in graphics I'm waiting for involves streaming them and other sensory input such as smell, sound, touch feedback and stuff, directly into the brain and reading the controls directly from the brain, while shutting down the actual body.
Preferably without microwaving the brain if you die ingame or try to leave without permission.

On a slightly shorter term, I'm waiting for my Oculus to arrive.

 

[Gecko clown]

If there's one left to make I don't think we should take it. Triple A production costs are already through the roof with games like Tomb Raider selling 5 million copies and being considered failures. We shouldn't be demanding the latest and greatest in graphics, we should be demanding great gameplay and story.

 

[Arqus_Zed]

1) More maps. The biggest leap forward with the last generation was the use of normal mapping with dynamic lighting. The amount of polygons is one thing, but what really makes the difference is the mapping. For example, DOTA 2 uses four maps: a diffuse map, a normal map and then two other maps (8 channels combined) for things like specular, glossiness, glow effects, how metallic something is, etc. So, yeah, basically, more intricate shaders.

2) More FX and post-production filters. Kind of like in movies, more particles, dust, lighting effects, etc. Just activate/deactivate all the post-production on Deus Ex: Human Revolution and you'll see the difference. Now imagine that, but on Hollywood-scale. Of course, this asks a lot from you hardware.

3) Voxels (and doxels). These are already used in certain games, but mostly in limited environment purposes. With memory become larger and larger each generation, who knows, we might actually do some truly grand with this technique.

All things said and done, I don't think any of them will be as big a leap forward as the switch to polygons or the first use of normal mapping.

 

[Joccaren]

Water and lighting.
Both are getting close too.
Realistic water is something games have a massive problem with, and its a very visible problem. Cheap sprites for waterfalls and ocean waves, and to try and look like water going around a rock, or flooding into an object, are clearly distinguishable from the real thing. They look like cheap sprites. Properly animated volumetric water, that responded to everything according to the laws of Physics, would provide a large graphical jump that would be very noticable.
Additionally, realistic lighting. It has been done sometimes, but rarely, and never truly in full real time. The difference would be night and day once we have it, though its hard to imagine it with games as they are now. When a lit room in a videogame looks like its real life counterpart though, that'll be a very noticeable step forward.

 

[Shdwrnr]

I think the next big leap will be not in graphics but rather in simulation. Existing advances in particle models to simulate water, wind, and other environmental effects as well as modeling simulations for hair, skin, and movement are the next step. Visually, we can create incredible images but we're still scripting and animating them ourselves. When we can get models set up to simulate behaviors rather than trying to "make it look right" ourselves, the results will be well above and beyond what we see today.

 

[The_Echo]

The next big leap in visuals?

The leap from putting emphasis on graphical fidelity to putting emphasis on aesthetic quality.