What is the next "Big Leap" for Graphics and visuals?
- Thread starter Soviet Heavy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes.Boris Goodenough said:
Also, imagine all the zombie games.
All those smelly, rotting walking corpses...
It would be glorious.
Plus it might help with getting people used to certain smells for certain jobs.
Maybe our protagonists should look beaten to a bloody pulp after taking the beating that generally makes one look like they've been beaten to a bloody pulp, I suppose.
For all the realism/immersion people want, I don't think we're quite there until taking a lethal shot in CoD actually kills you. 100% immersion and all.
For all the realism/immersion people want, I don't think we're quite there until taking a lethal shot in CoD actually kills you. 100% immersion and all.
I would like it if next generation focused a bit on shading, because currently it just sucks. PS2/XBOX/Gamecube era games had better shading than games today.
Just when we finally got rid of jaggy character models we in turn got saddled with jaggy shadows.
Other than that, I think games look well enough now. Maybe they can touch up a few imperfections here and there (like shadows), but beyond that I'm not really in a hurry for a graphical overhaul.
Just when we finally got rid of jaggy character models we in turn got saddled with jaggy shadows.
Other than that, I think games look well enough now. Maybe they can touch up a few imperfections here and there (like shadows), but beyond that I'm not really in a hurry for a graphical overhaul.
I agree with this. At the end of the day, the main lack or realism now is indestructible elements in environments. Sure, we have the obligatory shootableRevTibe said:
I think that'll be the next major step - physics engines which just simulate gravity on point mass objects doesn't really cut it any more.
Eyes and the surrounding areas. They need to be improved, like in Metro last light, the close-up scenes of characters faces were amazing BUT because their eyes were dead (No iris movement).
Also we can already achieve realistic graphics but the cost is extreme resource demand and cost to make.
I work with 3D environments and making high quality terrain with details is resource heavy before packing things up and generating the necessary files for clients. And even then it is heavy. 1080p is not enough to allow high level realism.
Also the base will always suffer until monitors and other hardware can catch up with the graphics we can generate. 200hz and 60 fps is not enough to give the realism factor in itself, we need to be able to do focus and layer depth on screen in order to make realism.
Also we can already achieve realistic graphics but the cost is extreme resource demand and cost to make.
I work with 3D environments and making high quality terrain with details is resource heavy before packing things up and generating the necessary files for clients. And even then it is heavy. 1080p is not enough to allow high level realism.
Also the base will always suffer until monitors and other hardware can catch up with the graphics we can generate. 200hz and 60 fps is not enough to give the realism factor in itself, we need to be able to do focus and layer depth on screen in order to make realism.
People have managed to get raytracing working in realtime, at least for reflections... it requires an enormous amount of processing power just to implement it, but once you're over that hurdle you can increase the complexity almost without limit and not increase the computation load. Running around a city where every pane of glass correctly refracts and reflects light would look incredible.TheSniperFan said:
Using it for lighting is another story... Hollywood-level CGI can take hours or even days to draw a single frame, and that's using a render farm. There are quick-and-dirty solutions being worked on, but if you thought the texture streaming in Rage was bad, get ready to sit and wait while the engine chugs every single time a light source moves or changes. We may see a form of this implemented in the future, but without a huge increase in processing power or a totally new way of calculating it it's simply not feasible. Which is unfortunate as hell, because the reason optical illusions work is your brain expects light to behave a certain way, and when it doesn't it's blatantly obvious.
Mirror's Edge looks fantastic, but that's because all the lighting was precalculated and built into lightmaps, so it was completely static. Getting that level of visual fidelity in a fully realtime system would make any scene look amazing, whether it was designed to be photorealistic or fantastic.
Actually PDZ did look miles ahead of Halo 2 or any other previous generation game, motion blur, reflecting surfaces, the quality of the textures, the dynamic lights. PDZ may not look good now but it had a lot of stuff that simply werent present in the previous generation.Dirty Hipsters said:
OT: I really hope they start to focus on light, you can have a game like Minecraft look great if you have good light (not realistic looking but good looking)
Then there are those other things like texture quality and animations although I have a feeling that those are very expensive things to improve since a lot of it is created for a specific situation (things like Endorphin that use physics for animation in the Rockstar games is cool though since it can be used in multiple games)
My money is on actual 3D as opposed to the fake 3D we've seen in games, movies and television lately.
we can only hope.The_Echo said:
OT: my money's on a lack of a great leap. It'll just be polishing and refinement.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,802
- 3,383
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
I can't get my head around how people think motion blur is somehow good, or "next gen." Motion blur is just there to cover up the fact that the game's framerate sucks. When I'm playing a game and there's an option to turn off motion blur I do it immediately.josemlopes said:
And really? You want to tell me that this:
looks significantly better than this:
Hell, I would say that in some ways that screen shot of perfect dark zero looks worse than Halo 2. I mean look at the gun in the perfect dark screenshot, it looks jagged as all hell.
Yeah, there were definitely some improvements, like reflections, in Perfect Dark Zero, but it still does not look significantly better than Halo 2. Why? Because the development team still hadn't figured out all the fancy things they could do with their new tech, so even though the xbox 360 was much more powerful than the xbox, most of the new "features" were superficial at best, or were just poorly implemented.
And compare the reflections in Perfect Dark Zero to reflections in something like The Last of Us, and they're completely laughable.
Like I said, the leap from each generation to the next is almost negligible for the launch titles. It's what developers are working on a year after launch that tends to really begin showing off the possibilities that the new tech creates.
When comparing graphics never use a straight from gameplay screenshot against a rendered screenshot (by rendered I mean in-engine with everything in the right place and the AA pulled to the max). Even then, in here Halo 2 is running on PC, PDZ was console exclusive so resolution and AA are bound to sufferDirty Hipsters said:
See here:
Now, with the motion blur (and a lot of the other new features) the point isnt exactly that it did right but more the fact that it could do it (everything in PDZ is made of rubber and the motion blur is overdone).
Motion blur in games isnt a bad thing either, it just needs to be well implemented (see Project Gotham Racing 3/4 and Gears Of War 3), it works well to portray speed (used poorly it just blurs everything everytime you move).
And in the end I agree with you, I have to because thats how it is, the games evolve a lot during a generation but I will defend that the first batch of games in a system will showcase a lot of new straightforward features that could really be pulled off that nicely in the current generation (like the motion blur and reflective surfaces, even DOF). PDZ in my view is not as good in the eyes as Halo 2 but technicly its very ahead of it.