Can Graphics get much better?

[Xiroh86]

Yes, they can get better, but in all honesty I think graphics are the last thing devs should be focusing on right now. They should be trying to make games that have genuine replay-ability.

 

[Tjebbe]

I'm quite sure that when VGA was the best there was, there were people that thought it couldn't get any better.

When full 3d games were introduced (and everything suddenly had to be 3d), the quality of graphics went down initially, IMO. I suspect we'll have some similar change in the future, some radical new technique that we can't even fathom now, or that is now producing what seems like worse graphics but will end up being better once the magical breakthrough point has been reached (say, good quality procedurally generated stuff).

But even the current approaches leave much to be improved; we can always have higher resolutions (and maybe more importantly, less memory and computation needed for that so we don't have to have datacenter-style cooling in our systems).

 

[Ashadowpie]

of course it can, i bet people thought the same question when 8 bit was brand new. technology is evolving so bloody fast now i wont be surprised in 20 years we'll be having games like Dot.Hack Sigh. now that would be freakin cool!

imagin walking through a fantasy style magical forest or land? experiencing it almost like in real life?


amazing, but yes stupid too, just go outside and walk through a real forest, i know. but ....still, it would be freakin sweet.

 

[Mikejames]

Absolutely they can get better, and they absolutely should. Having more graphical capability will only allow developers more freedom in what they want to design and create.

Graphics can always improve, but they're not going to be what really progress the gaming industry.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'll give you complete immersion, 100m underwater chained to a pixellated cinder block...

Those waves are totally fake. And pixels? What is this, the 1800s?

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.

Games companies shouldn't prolapse themselves trying to deliver "next-gen" graphics.

I don't play much on PCs. My graphics card sucks, even, but I still see people lose their shit over the new graphics, or even variation between the two consoles (since "Real Gamers" TM don't support the Wii).

I don't know, I can see it still being an issue. They will spend a billion dollars if it gives them a .000001% improvement.

 

[an annoyed writer]

Graphics tech is pretty nice right about now. We've got all sorts of effects that make stuff look pretty, with normal maps, bump maps, spec maps, diffuse textures, advanced lighting ad shadowing, etc. However, we've gotten to a point where photorealism can be achieved easily, even on the relatively underpowered hardware of today's consoles. A look at Halo 4's cutscenes will often cause one to pause to register that the faces onscreen are in fact CGI, and it's not uncommon for someone to confuse a car from Forza with the real deal. Things can get better, but it's not the visual rendering engines that need to get better.

You see, when going for photorealism, part of that is that we recognize when an object behaves correctly when subjected to various stimuli. For example, the water in Halo's multiplayer maps looks pretty realistic when left alone. But when you subject it to, say, a forge object that should be capable of picking up water or retarding it, the illusion is broken. You can't dip a warthog in the water then pull it out with some water still in the seats and the bed. Likewise you cannot build a Rapture-esque underwater tunnel out of forge pieces due to the properties of water not being fully simulated. While Havok Physics is a start, if we want to get better visuals we need better physics. We also need art design that takes advantage of the new tech better than we have now.

That's my two cents.

 

[tsb247]

I'm sure graphics will get better. We still have a long way to go before we can emulate what we actually see in the real world on a computer screen with any real level of believability (With respect to the human form anyway). We still have to manage to cross, "Uncanny valley." You know, that whole, "It looks so perfect that it must be fake," thing...

We have achieved photo realism. That's great. The next step is to completely fool the brain into believing that it's real.

 

[janjotat]

I would rather they spend more time making a game more fun rather than looking pretty.

This. How about improving and expanding on gameplay, complexity/depth, more content ?

Better graphics are cool, but def not at the cost of hampering more important things.

It takes a lot of time and a lot of money to create good graphics. That is why indie studios generialy don't have very good graphics. You need to be AAA and have lots of money to do so. The better the graphics the more money unnecessary. I was saying devs should focus their attention more upon game play, complexity/depth, more content i.e. making it more fun.

I know, and I agreed with you. That's why I started with ...This.

The..How about part... wasn't directed at you.

And for that I am truly sorry.

 

[XMark]

One thing I've found is that the pre-rendered CGI cutscenes of one generation look about the same as the real-time graphics of the next generation. So I'm looking forward to games looking like the Diablo 3 intro sequence

 

[Rad Party God]

They definitely can get better (see current PC gaming), but I wheep at the thought of how much does a machine capable of such visuals is going to cost, without mentioning the cost of the games themselves.

 

[Luca72]

A recent return to Morrowind reminded me that graphical fidelity ain't got shit on a creative level designer. At the moment, graphics in AAA titles aren't that far off from photorealism when still, but as soon as things are moving they look like video game graphics again. That Halo 4 video has really shocking detail, but it doesn't draw me in any more than anything from Halo 1 because as soon as that woman starts talking she looks like an emotionless action figure. A highly detailed one, but still not a real person.

We might not necessarily see a huge spike in budget sizes. Think about it; extra processing power means that certain work arounds no longer need to be implemented. For example, rather than having baked-in shadows that take a long time to create, just have them rendered dynamically in the game world. Unreal Engine 4 is explicitly being designed to make it quicker and easier to build complex and great looking games.

This is what I'm hoping for. Rather than having to devote fifty artists to tasks that don't make the game any more enjoyable, it would be great if a lot of that can be handled by the engine alone. Physics simulations are much simpler to implement (and more resource friendly) than they were just a few years ago, and a big draw of the Unreal Engine 4 is it's real-time lighting and particle effects.

I'm personally holding out for realistic liquid physics, like in those Nvidia demos a few years back. Indie devs should have a field day with that.

 

[thesilentman]

Yes, the technology will, but no as most game designers these days can be replaced with chimps nowadays that will go a better job than them at game design.

A recent return to Morrowind reminded me that graphical fidelity ain't got shit on a creative level designer. At the moment, graphics in AAA titles aren't that far off from photorealism when still, but as soon as things are moving they look like video game graphics again. That Halo 4 video has really shocking detail, but it doesn't draw me in any more than anything from Halo 1 because as soon as that woman starts talking she looks like an emotionless action figure. A highly detailed one, but still not a real person.

We might not necessarily see a huge spike in budget sizes. Think about it; extra processing power means that certain work arounds no longer need to be implemented. For example, rather than having baked-in shadows that take a long time to create, just have them rendered dynamically in the game world. Unreal Engine 4 is explicitly being designed to make it quicker and easier to build complex and great looking games.

This is what I'm hoping for. Rather than having to devote fifty artists to tasks that don't make the game any more enjoyable, it would be great if a lot of that can be handled by the engine alone. Physics simulations are much simpler to implement (and more resource friendly) than they were just a few years ago, and a big draw of the Unreal Engine 4 is it's real-time lighting and particle effects.

I'm personally holding out for realistic liquid physics, like in those Nvidia demos a few years back. Indie devs should have a field day with that.

Listen to this guy. He has the vision of progress needed for the video games industry at this time.

 

[Nomanslander]

introducing the Unity 4 Engine.


Implementation of this will cut down on game budgets whilst ensuring a better visual experience.

Silver Bullet? Maybe.

Even though Unity is an up-and-coming good engine, I wouldn't say it's still lagging behind Unreal or Frostbite.

But then again, at least scripting is easy in Java, Unreal scripting sucks.

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

Possibly, but I'm not sure I care. I'm more worried about gameplay and story.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Are they as good as real life?

No?

Still room for improvement then.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Considering the way Crytek is complaining that 'Consoles are a "Massive Barrier" for Crysis 3 Development' I'm guess there is still a way to go before we hit the graphic ceiling.

 

[Eddie the head]

Are they as good as real life?

No?

Still room for improvement then.

Is that am Improvement though? Watching this video.



The guy makes some good points that photorealism is at best a pipe dream and at worse hampering artistic expression.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Are they as good as real life?

No?

Still room for improvement then.

Is that am Improvement though? Watching this video.



The guy makes some good points that photorealism is at best a pipe dream and at worse hampering artistic expression.

Oh I agree. I wasn't commenting on the merits of photorealism, just saying that if we really had a lot of time and money to waste, which it seems some people do, graphics can get better. But then again, I wonder if maybe 50 years in the future, current-gen graphics will look like Deus Ex looks to us. I don't think so, but seeing as that's all some game series have going for them, they'll try to get there anyway.

What would be better would be acheiving current-gen grpahics faster and cheaper.

 

[Electrogecko]

How about we take all the money that would be used for improving graphics (as well as some of the current expense) and move it to something that actually matters? How about instead of making people and things look real, we make them try to sound and act real?

All these games that are supposed to be the ones doing it the best (Skyrim, Mass Effect) still have completely binary (as in simple, don't get technical on me) conversations and robotic movement. Why not make characters use pronouns and adjectives like a normal person when asked a simple question?

How about we make the world more dynamic? How about we make those trees sway with the wind and lose leaves to the earth? How about we litter the world with the proper amount of rocks and pebbles and make it so we don't need to press the jump button to get over a tree stump?

I'm so sick of hearing about graphics. It makes me sick to me stomach. Halo 4 has some of the best graphics I've ever seen on my shitty standard definition TV, but the reason I think it looks good is because it has more color than all the mainstream FPS' of the last 2 years combined.

 

[EvilMaggot]

I've read a lot of discussions of what the next-generation of gaming will be like, and I wonder if we really can improve on gamings graphical capabilities. I've seen "what the current consoles" have to offer, and I don't know how much graphics can get much better from here.

have you seen what PC's can deliver ? Seen the UT4 tech video? the old UT3 tech video?(we still havent gotten to THAT yet because of limitations of consoles and hardware..)

Unreal Engine 3 Tech Demo.. what can be achieved on the CURRENT unreal 3 engine.. used in Batman Arkham Asylum and many other games... but there's limit on hardware(specially consoles how it looks atm)

Unreal Engine 4 Tech demo.. The scale and how many things at once this shows off.. the tiny little details.. again.. limits on hardware..on the current consoles and most likely the next ones aswell

and yes.. im a PC lover.. im not here to start a flamewar.. but any reasonable person knows for a FACT that the best graphic's is delivered on a PC..

OT:
Hell yeah they can! though before we improve any further on graphic's.. i want games with better gameplay, story, sounds, acting and so on.. i think Dishonored is one of the best games to come out this year and its not stunning at all visually, but the gameplay is just spot on (atleast for me it is ^^) and cant wait to get my hands on Far Cry 3, the gameplay looks AMAZING and fun! also.. not visually stunning (got a friend at gamestop.. playing through it as we speak.. so far 25+ hours on the first playthough.. not achieved 100% yet.. not even close..)