Can Graphics get much better?
- Thread starter maconlon439
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes, yes, for the love of God, YES!
People were asking this question last generation, and will be asking it in the next one.
I'm sick of my PC being graphically limited by game engines designed to run on the current consoles. Look at Crysis when it came out 5 years ago, look at Project C.A.R.S. today. There are levels of details today that console gamers wouldn't believe because of the limits they have lived with for the past 7 (way too long) years. Even when the new consoles come out they will already be outdated by the current PC tech, they will only alleviate the artificial constraint, not remove it.
The other part is that when so much effort needs to be put into the pixels by these underpowered boxes it leaves little left for physics, AI, and other advanced processing-intensive tasks that deepen gameplay.
Am I a PC graphics elitist? Absolutely. But when people say things along the lines of 'it can't get much better than it is right now' it really grinds my gears.
People were asking this question last generation, and will be asking it in the next one.
I'm sick of my PC being graphically limited by game engines designed to run on the current consoles. Look at Crysis when it came out 5 years ago, look at Project C.A.R.S. today. There are levels of details today that console gamers wouldn't believe because of the limits they have lived with for the past 7 (way too long) years. Even when the new consoles come out they will already be outdated by the current PC tech, they will only alleviate the artificial constraint, not remove it.
The other part is that when so much effort needs to be put into the pixels by these underpowered boxes it leaves little left for physics, AI, and other advanced processing-intensive tasks that deepen gameplay.
Am I a PC graphics elitist? Absolutely. But when people say things along the lines of 'it can't get much better than it is right now' it really grinds my gears.
introducing the Unity 4 Engine.
Implementation of this will cut down on game budgets whilst ensuring a better visual experience.
Silver Bullet? Maybe.
Implementation of this will cut down on game budgets whilst ensuring a better visual experience.
Silver Bullet? Maybe.
I'll just leave this here, but yes they can get better. But is it worth it? A dev has to pay the artists making modern day devs focus upon graphics over other components within games. I would rather they spend more time making a game more fun rather than looking pretty.
But I am still happy my computer is powerful enough to run this.
But I am still happy my computer is powerful enough to run this.
Yes, graphics can get much better due to the simple fact that technology evolves at a consistent rate.
However, the question of whether video game graphics will get significantly better is still up in the air. Below is a good video explaining why the perceived end-goal of the video game industry, photo-realism, just really isn't worth (or possible) achieving;
Long story short; our current technology is not up to snuff, asset creation would become monstrous, traditional animation would have to be replaced with perfected procedural animation, and gameplay would have to be restricted in order keep the illusion of photo-realism alive.
Granted, there are many steps between the technology of today and photo-realism, but the industry will eventually hit the dip in the uncanny valley and many game companies will question whether they want to venture beyond it.
However, the question of whether video game graphics will get significantly better is still up in the air. Below is a good video explaining why the perceived end-goal of the video game industry, photo-realism, just really isn't worth (or possible) achieving;
Errant Signal - Photorealism
Long story short; our current technology is not up to snuff, asset creation would become monstrous, traditional animation would have to be replaced with perfected procedural animation, and gameplay would have to be restricted in order keep the illusion of photo-realism alive.
Granted, there are many steps between the technology of today and photo-realism, but the industry will eventually hit the dip in the uncanny valley and many game companies will question whether they want to venture beyond it.
Of course they can. there is still SO MUCH MORE for improvement. imo, today's game graphics still look pretty crappy compared to a high budget movie with CGI. I don't think there is a limit to how good graphics could get, until they've completely modeled out each grain of sand but i think we're a far ways from running that in real time.
Even looking back on games that are just a few years old and you can see how quickly 3d graphics start to look old and outdated.
Even looking back on games that are just a few years old and you can see how quickly 3d graphics start to look old and outdated.
You're wondering how graphics will get better from current console graphics?
Uh.
Have you watched high-end PC gaming footage?
It can ALWAYS get better. Significantly better. Better until we actually can't distinguish between film and 3D modelling.
Uh.
Have you watched high-end PC gaming footage?
It can ALWAYS get better. Significantly better. Better until we actually can't distinguish between film and 3D modelling.
Graphics can only get to the point where one cannot tell the difference between a scene in a video game, and a scene from something live action. Do we want that? No. I'd much rather stay at the graphical level we have now, and improve on the quality of the games first. Until every AAA title game is actually good, then, then you have my permission to make better graphics.
Of course. At least for the next couple of years. I think it will get to the point where they can really only touch them up a bit and they won't have very noticeable leaps.
I would like to see this as well as cutting down load time and just more in the way of making the game as fun and error free and smooth as possible. Games like Fallout 3 were very fun but some of the bugs stopped me from playing at times. Putting more money into tech that has less lock-ups and the like. Not a tech person but I'm sure there is stuff you can invest in that would keep stuff like lock-ups to a minimum.Anthraxus said:
Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees
Of course they can get better. We haven't fully reached photo realism, so games will progress slowly towards perfection. I'd assume it would stop at actual photo realism, but that's probably a ways off.
Long answer: Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees
Of course they can get better. We haven't fully reached photo realism, so games will progress slowly towards perfection. I'd assume it would stop at actual photo realism, but that's probably a ways off.
Considering how much better graphics got just over this past generation, I'd say ya, they can get a lot better.
Yes they can, video game graphics don't look photorealistic yet. But why should they? Graphics have already reached a plateau. There isn't so much of a push for the best graphics anymore - and I genuinely think games are already showing some improvement for it.
How can I be properly immersed if I can see a slight jag on a powerline in the backgground when watching on my 95X42" monitor bank?Chester Rabbit said:
I disagree. I see a lot of clammoring for better graphics, and honestly, I think the big gaming companies are still fighting to deliver. If you want to talk indies, maybe, but even then.MammothBlade said:
Yes, they can come up with better graphics, but right now, I don't care. I'm pretty content with the graphics in most games. I just wish they approve the aesthetics. To me, Journey has the best graphics I've played this year, and I'd rather look at it rather than whatever is trying to sell the latest graphics card. If developers just want a new system to make things prettier, that just seems really lazy to me.
I'll give you complete immersion, 100m underwater chained to a pixellated cinder block...Zachary Amaranth said:
I haven't noticed much of a change in graphics over the past few years. Can't tell a 2009 game from one released in 2012. Perhaps that's because graphics hit a plateau with the current generation of consoles. I don't want this to become a PC vs. console thing, that's just how the system works at the moment.Zachary Amaranth said:
Games companies shouldn't prolapse themselves trying to deliver "next-gen" graphics.
Of course, I find it unlikely we're going to see any massive jumps like snes to 64/ps1 aside from when the holodeck is possible, but we're still moving forward. On the topic though, I would really like to mention the cinematics in Halo 4(the pre rendered ones that is, although it does look gorgeous), if you haven't watched it, do it, even if you're not a Halo fan, just watch it for the sheer graphical fidelity.
Spoilers for the Spartan Ops campaign here obviously.
343 have seriously done well here, don't look too closely and it does almost look real, especially the scenes with Hallsey and the non battle scenes. A fuck ton of detail, great facial expressions and lighting, the hair, and they've managed to avoid the uncanny valley to boot.
In game, if they can do what the real time graphics can achieve with a 360, I would love to see what they could do with a top end gaming PC.
Spoilers for the Spartan Ops campaign here obviously.
343 have seriously done well here, don't look too closely and it does almost look real, especially the scenes with Hallsey and the non battle scenes. A fuck ton of detail, great facial expressions and lighting, the hair, and they've managed to avoid the uncanny valley to boot.
In game, if they can do what the real time graphics can achieve with a 360, I would love to see what they could do with a top end gaming PC.