'Current graphics are good enough' - Facepalm

[ph0b0s123]

So whenever discussions about new generations of consoles come up, I see many people saying we don't need a new generation as now graphics are good enough, as good as they are ever going to get.

I could not see a more stark argument for the contrary from two ME2 trailers.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/trailers/5386-Mass-Effect-3-Take-Back-Earth-Trailer

VS

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/trailers/5429-Mass-Effect-3-Launch-Trailer

Have a watch I can wait....

Now there is nothing wrong with ME3's graphics and they are a step up from previous games. After watching the Take Back Earth trailer though, doesn't a part of you wish that ME's cut scene and in game graphics were as good as the pre-rendered cinematic? And that's the point, as long as pre rendered stuff looks better than in game engines there is always a drive to expect better.

Now of course graphics on their own a good game does not make. But when you have something like ME3 where you know the game play and story are going to be epic, why not have a desire for better graphics as well.

I completely reject that idea that there is not a whole lot further we have to go in getting better graphics. Of course there are can arguments about the cost of getting there etc, but that is not the same as we have gotten as far as we can. The only place this is maybe true is with platformer or cartoon character games like Mario and Rayman.

So I say roll on the next gen, as graphics have been stuck for some years now due to the long run of this generation.

One last point I will leave you with. Konami showed off it's new engine for the next Metal Gear solid game. Which are photos and which are real. Unsurprisingly you will have to wait for the next gen to see this in action. I for one can't wait.
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2012/03/konamis-fox-engine-uses-global-illumination-to-achieve-uber-real-rendering/

Edit: People need to get through their heads that I am not advocating pursuit of graphics at the price of game play. That would be stupid, hence why I caveatted that sentiment in my original post, now in bold.

 

[Fappy]

I agree that there is always room to improve, though there is an issue that becomes more and more prevalent the better the tech gets. Money. The more game graphics increase, the more the bar is raised. The more the bar is raised, the more money a developer/publisher must spend to compete in the AAA market. The better our games look the more Hollywood the game industry will get. That's my prognosis anyway.

 

[endtherapture]

Crysis/The Witcher 2 level graphics are the best we need.

Like literally nothing I've seen beats those games in terms of photorealism. Crysis 2 even look like a movie at some point.

We don't need better graphics than that.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

It's not just about the graphics. New hardware can improve everything. The number of people on screen, the size of worlds in free roaming games for example, the amount of features the game can have etc. Bioware had to cut the holster feature from ME3 because consoles lack the required RAM for it. I still don't know how that justifies the lack of holster on PC's but it's not important. The point is, there's more than just good graphics in a game, and that's why new hardware is preferable.

 

[Fappy]

It's not just about the graphics. New hardware can improve everything. The number of people on screen, the size of worlds in free roaming games for example, the amount of features the game can have etc. Bioware had to cut the holster feature from ME3 because consoles lack the required RAM for it. I still don't know how that justifies the lack of holster on PC's but it's not important. The point is, there's more than just good graphics in a game, and that's why new hardware is preferable.

Wait... you can't holster your weapon in ME3 due to lack of RAM.... WHAT!? Seriously?!

 

[WoW Killer]

I said this in another thread recently, but here it is again. Increasing technology on PCs and consoles doesn't just add new opportunities to big budget AAAs titles. It also opens new possibilities with higher level mediums like Flash, PyGame, game makers etc. Better tech won't just make the top end sparklier, it makes all the stuff that's not top end easier to develop and produce. So it's not just the big budget games that improve, it's all the smaller games and Indie releases too.

 

[GoaThief]

The same arguments have been made throughout gaming's history, in fact some of the older ones used to be, "Even if we actually wanted better graphics, is it even possible?". Graphics will continue to improve and I'm all for it, not much else to say really.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

It's not just about the graphics. New hardware can improve everything. The number of people on screen, the size of worlds in free roaming games for example, the amount of features the game can have etc. Bioware had to cut the holster feature from ME3 because consoles lack the required RAM for it. I still don't know how that justifies the lack of holster on PC's but it's not important. The point is, there's more than just good graphics in a game, and that's why new hardware is preferable.

It makes you wonder where all the Ram is going, since we still have low res textures, and this.

Da fuck?

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

It's not just about the graphics. New hardware can improve everything. The number of people on screen, the size of worlds in free roaming games for example, the amount of features the game can have etc. Bioware had to cut the holster feature from ME3 because consoles lack the required RAM for it. I still don't know how that justifies the lack of holster on PC's but it's not important. The point is, there's more than just good graphics in a game, and that's why new hardware is preferable.

Wait... you can't holster your weapon in ME3 due to lack of RAM.... WHAT!? Seriously?!

Yes. They've said that holster animations would require 3-4mb RAM, and consoles only have 512.

I suspect these new animations for rolling around and doing things with omni-blade made that particular animation impossible for consoles to handle. But it's partially the fault of UT3 engine as well. Mass Effect 3 on Frostbite 2 would probably be able to pull off more animations. Mass Effect always had dodgy animations. And now it seems even reload animations have taken a hit. They look kinda retarded.

We desperately need new generation of consoles. This is coming from a PC gamer.

 

[Neverhoodian]

To be perfectly honest, graphical fidelity has never been something I've paid much attention to. Yes it can be impressive to see the latest and greatest visuals, but when it all comes down to it the gameplay will always be far more important to me. I tend to gravitate more towards stylized visuals anyway, like Team Fortress 2.

Then again, this is coming from someone who grew up in the 90's during the SNES/N64/PS1 era of gaming. Just about any title from 2001 onwards looks impressive to me. Some of my favorite games look like this, after all:

Spoiler

It's not just about the graphics. New hardware can improve everything. The number of people on screen, the size of worlds in free roaming games for example, the amount of features the game can have etc. Bioware had to cut the holster feature from ME3 because consoles lack the required RAM for it. I still don't know how that justifies the lack of holster on PC's but it's not important. The point is, there's more than just good graphics in a game, and that's why new hardware is preferable.

I agree. I for one have been hoping for increased scale in games for a long time. For example, imagine a WWII flight game that accurately depicted bombing raids, with literally hundreds of planes in the air simultaneously instead of the dozen or so that are the norm for such games. I would gladly take a hit in graphical fidelity if it meant I could experience air combat on such a massive scale.

 

[Fappy]

It's not just about the graphics. New hardware can improve everything. The number of people on screen, the size of worlds in free roaming games for example, the amount of features the game can have etc. Bioware had to cut the holster feature from ME3 because consoles lack the required RAM for it. I still don't know how that justifies the lack of holster on PC's but it's not important. The point is, there's more than just good graphics in a game, and that's why new hardware is preferable.

Wait... you can't holster your weapon in ME3 due to lack of RAM.... WHAT!? Seriously?!

Yes. They've said that holster animations would require 3-4mb RAM, and consoles only have 512.

I suspect these new animations for rolling around and doing things with omni-blade made that particular animation impossible for consoles to handle. But it's partially the fault of UT3 engine as well. Mass Effect 3 on Frostbite 2 would probably be able to pull off more animations. Mass Effect always had dodgy animations. And now it seems even reload animations have taken a hit. They look kinda retarded.

We desperately need new generation of consoles. This is coming from a PC gamer.

I completely agree, no argument here at all. I was making a case against improved graphics above, NOT against improved hardware. The current consoles have been showing their age for quite awhile now. Skyrim is a good example.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I completely agree, no argument here at all. I was making a case against improved graphics above, NOT against improved hardware. The current consoles have been showing their age for quite awhile now. Skyrim is a good example.

Well as for the core graphics (polygons, lightning, textures etc.) I don't think we can even go much higher. I mean we could, but it wouldn't make any difference in my eyes. I wouldn't even care if we didn't improve upon those things. I'm more interested in improving animations, physics and the amount of stuff you can put in games. Models look amazing to me.

 

[Fappy]

I completely agree, no argument here at all. I was making a case against improved graphics above, NOT against improved hardware. The current consoles have been showing their age for quite awhile now. Skyrim is a good example.

Well as for the core graphics (polygons, lightning, textures etc.) I don't think we can even go much higher. I mean we could, but it wouldn't make any difference in my eyes. I wouldn't even care if we didn't improve upon those things. I'm more interested in improving animations, physics and the amount of stuff you can put in games. Models look amazing to me.

Honestly I think the Unreal Engine is just waaaaay out of date. Animations do look really good in some games, but I agree that they should be the focus going forward.

 

[hazabaza1]

I support doing whatever will end up with better PC parts getting cheaper sooner.

 

[Archer666]

Thats crap. We need to keep pushing the boundaries of graphics. Imagine if we had stopped at PS2 levels of graphics because nobody could see a way they can improve. Its crap. There's always room to improve and we need to keep at it!

 

[evilneko]

It's not just about the graphics. New hardware can improve everything. The number of people on screen, the size of worlds in free roaming games for example, the amount of features the game can have etc. Bioware had to cut the holster feature from ME3 because consoles lack the required RAM for it. I still don't know how that justifies the lack of holster on PC's but it's not important. The point is, there's more than just good graphics in a game, and that's why new hardware is preferable.

It makes you wonder where all the Ram is going, since we still have low res textures, and this.

Da fuck?

Shit I've seen better water in Minecraft.

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

Until we have a functioning holodeck, the graphics aren't good enough.

 

[ph0b0s123]

So whenever discussions about new generations of consoles come up, I see many people saying we don't need a new generation as now graphics are good enough, as good as they are ever going to get.

I could not see a more stark argument for the contrary from two ME2 trailers.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/trailers/5386-Mass-Effect-3-Take-Back-Earth-Trailer

VS

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/trailers/5429-Mass-Effect-3-Launch-Trailer

Have a watch I can wait....

Now there is nothing wrong with ME3's graphics and they are a step up from previous games. After watching the Take Back Earth trailer though, doesn't a part of you wish that ME's cut scene and in game graphics were as good as the pre-rendered cinematic? And that's the point, as long as pre rendered stuff looks better than in game engines there is always a drive to expect better.

Now of course graphics on their own a good game does not make. But when you have something like ME3 where you know the game play and story are going to be epic, why not have a desire for better graphics as well.

I completely reject that idea that there is not a whole lot further we have to go in getting better graphics. Of course there are can arguments about the cost of getting there etc, but that is not the same as we have gotten as far as we can. The only place this is maybe true is with platformer or cartoon character games like Mario and Rayman.

So I say roll on the next gen, as graphics have been stuck for some years now due to the long run of this generation.

One last point I will leave you with. Konami showed off it's new engine for the next Metal Gear solid game. Which are photos and which are real. Unsurprisingly you will have to wait for the next gen to see this in action. I for one can't wait.
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2012/03/konamis-fox-engine-uses-global-illumination-to-achieve-uber-real-rendering/

Shiny graphics do not a good game make. There's a reason Fallout: New Vegas sold far more copies than Crysis ever did, after all. Crysis may look better, but New Vegas was a better game overall[footnote]Provided you got it running, anyway[/footnote]. It had better story, better setting, more freedom oddly enough, and didn't require a supercomputer from the year 2834 to run it.

Already put that caveat in. I've highlighted it as you must have missed it first time round....

 

[ph0b0s123]

Crysis/The Witcher 2 level graphics are the best we need.

Like literally nothing I've seen beats those games in terms of photorealism. Crysis 2 even look like a movie at some point.

We don't need better graphics than that.

Again, fail. Are you seriously saying the graphics on those were as you as those in the Take back Earth trailer linked above? If so, opticians appointment for you....

 

[endtherapture]

Crysis/The Witcher 2 level graphics are the best we need.

Like literally nothing I've seen beats those games in terms of photorealism. Crysis 2 even look like a movie at some point.

We don't need better graphics than that.

Again, fail. Are you seriously saying the graphics on those were as you as those in the Take back Earth trailer linked above? If so, opticians appointment for you....

Bits of Crysis 2 look photorealistic at some points. As does Crysis 1. And the Witcher 2, I'm not sure if computers can even run it at ultra yet?

So yes, the graphics are at least as good as that trailer. Don't insult my eyesight.