'Current graphics are good enough' - Facepalm

[x EvilErmine x]

Well it really depends on the type of game

While I agree that a new console generation would spur innovation (which, it wouldn't do right away because companies would be developing and just sending out clone crap and filler for launch)

I think arguing for a new generation simply for graphics sake is shoddy, to say the least. So you can get photo-realistic graphics on a PC, does that make a game more enjoyable? Ooh, this tree is so realistic. We seem to be mistaking graphic capability for aesthetics, Crysis is a beautiful game, but is it more beautiful that Super Mario? I don't think so. Is Heavy Rain by graphic capability alone better than Fat Princess? No, of course not. We judge games on many different levels and a game can be beautiful without the highest polygon count.

Spoiler: I think these belong to you

I'd add to this that it depends a lot on the type of game too, for example games like Mass Effect are all about trying to achieve an epic cinematic experience so they are all about the fidelity of the graphics where as a game like say Tetris is more about strategy and quick thinking so flashy visuals would just be distracting.

Woohoo, when I saw the notification I thought it was going to be someone angrily arguing with me and that they'd have relations with my mother! You win an internetz for surprising me

Wowzers a whole internetz! Ohh shiny...I shall name him George...and he shall be the best internetz ever! )

 

[Chemical Alia]

The day I no longer have to rip normal maps is the day graphics are "good enough."

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I care more about fluid animations than super realistic textures. I don't know if that is lumped into "graphics" or not. I do prefer deeper games to better graphics also.

 

[renegade7]

Just because the hardware can support better graphics doesn't mean it's feasible to actually put in better graphics...rendering high detail 3d models with realistic textures and loads of polygons takes a long time, let alone making them move realistically and adding physics. So with better hardware, creating realistic models is only going to become more costly and time and labor intensive. So really, graphics are sort of reaching the point where they can't really get a whole lot better in terms of realism.

It's the reason that stylistic art direction is becoming more and more popular-it's way cheaper. For instance, compare the latest Call of Duty or Battlefield to something like the Scott Pilgrim XBLA game. You honestly want to tell me that CoD's multi million dollar "Triple-A" coating of brown and gray looks better?

 

[RagTagBand]

I won't personally think graphics are "Good enough" until it's on the other side of the uncanny valley, There is never any reason to stop pushing the boundaries of what we can do.

BUT I think it's time that graphical power took a back seat. Not get out of the car, fuck no, but there have been other immersion-sensitive things which have been in the back seat since the beginning and it's about damn time we let them bound forward in the same way graphics have.

Namely - Physics, Animation and AI

Not every developer is lagging behind in all three, one or two are (*cough* Bethesda *cough*), but most are still relying on more or less the same kinds of physics, animation and AI that have existed for almost a decade.

Back in 2002 games looked like this

10 years later, they look like this

But we can't say that the same tender love and attention has been given to Physics, Animation and AI. Games still use Canned animations, or simply "Ragdoll it", NPC's still routinely get stuck on shit, or run into enemy fire and the last major physics upgrade given to us has been destructible environments...but even then there has scarce been any improvement on that (other than the graphics bit) since the original red faction.

I'd like to see some time spent with the ignored three.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I don't really think graphics need improving, so much as we need to do more with what we have.

Better hardware let's devs do more things.

Take Skyrim and Fallout for instance. Now, I don't really know much about the tech side of it, but I'm sure better hardware would allow NPCs to be animated with more detail. More body language during conversations, better AI, better facial animations, better physics etc.

 

[El Dwarfio]

SNIP

I dont think it's nearly as bad as your making out - I mean your being really subjective in your idea of"current graphics"

Take ARMA 3 - It's pretty damn photo realistic - so photo realistic in fact, that many computers won be able to run it and consoles don't have a hope in hell of coming close to it.

I do't see any harm in graphical evolution stunting for a while in order to let the hardware catch p to it, unless yo believe that it is the graphical evolution that drives the hardware evolution.... but that is another debate entirely.

 

[GartarkMusik]

My only issue with this is that developers need to find a happy medium between graphics and everything else, otherwise the development costs are gonna go through the roof. That is something a blockbuster like COD can afford. A cool, risky indie game along the lines of Bastion can't. Moderation, bro.

 

[ChaplainOrion]

People who say that developers shouldn't keep well developing, obviously don't understand capitalism. It'd be cool if they started progressing internally instead of externally but by doing better graphics you'll have to get more space, and to get more space you'll have to figure out ways to improve that within the limits of the current gen. By advancing graphics they'd also advance everything else along with it.

 

[DirgeNovak]

I think this generation has the best complexity to make/visual quality ratio possible.
Games generally take a couple of years to make (which is very reasonable) and can look very, very good. Make a more powerful console and yes, the games will look prettier, but will be that much harder for developers to make, will take longer to make, will cost more money, and we'll have a smaller offer of games. That's why I really wouldn't mind not having new console announcements this year.

And besides, there are already too many games that suffer from the uncanny valley syndrome. Better technology will make this problem worse.

 

[OManoghue]

I've always preferred gameplay or story content to graphics, so if they plateaued and stayed the same for a few years I can't honestly say I'd complain.

 

[Jodah]

Improved graphics are always nice, I won't argue that. The problem is when the graphics budget starts cutting into the gameplay and story budgets. I'm of the opinion that a game needs at least two of those three things to even make it decent. If you only have graphics or story but neither of the other the game is better off as a movie. If you only have gameplay but no graphics or story the game will be a casual game at best. If two of the three are good enough they can minimize the damage of the missing third to make it a good game. Great games need to have all three.

 

[ThePS1Fan]

I think we need the next gen to increase the size of a game more so than how it looks. Some current gen engines can do really good things visually; CryEngine 3, Id Tech 5, Frostbite 2 ect. However we can still improve on the size on the environments and the overall length of games. That's where the next gen comes in, with better hardware larger areas at the current graphics levels could be rendered, less loading time and more flow from one area to another. This should be the first priority with the next console generation not better graphics.

 

[kiwi_poo]

The western world is in the middle of an economic crisis, the likes of which has not been seen since the Great Depression. Although I agree that console graphics could improve a bit more, maybe around what those Alienware things can pump out nowadays, but there is simply no one willing to make that investment, because no one is going to buy it.

You might say "But I know that a whole bunch of people will buy one!"
It won't be enough. Consoles are expensive to design, test, keep updated etc. and I think there are no longer enough people with enough disposable income to cover that.

I say: have one more generation, after the economic crisis is over. By then, we'll have the technology to make a great generation; (relatively) great graphics, far better processors, more memory etc. But after that, the limit, at least in terms of graphics, will have been reached and another generation will be (in my opinion, obviously) redundant.

 

[Something Amyss]

But they ARE good enough. The argument appears to be "they could be better," but so what? They can pretty much always be better. That doesn't make them not good enough.

 

[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....

No, it's a distinct fail on YOUR part. Do you know how much fucking money it would cost to make a full-length game with those kinds of graphics? Let alone purchasing the necessary hardware to run it in the first place?

GTA4 took like 100 million dollars to make, and that game's pretty fuck-ugly. We're reaching a point where the increasing costs of developing superior graphics are too much to overcome.

Developers should focus on gameplay, story, and mechanics before they focus on graphics, because those things are actually what MATTER. This is the same reason why "Citizen Kane" is and always will be better than "Avatar".

Cost. That does not mean it is not possible or that people should be satisfied with the current state of affairs. Cost is a reason we may not be getting there quickly, not a reason not to even try. So fail to you...

I want ME4 with visuals the same as in the Take Back Earth trailer.

Well, if you want Mass Effect 4 to come out in 2021 with a production cost of 10 billion dollars, then sure, you can have those shiny graphics.

Or, it can come out on a realistic budget, but be only 40 minutes long.

COST dictates everything in the industry, something you don't seem capable of understanding. The more studios pump into graphics, the more the depth and complexity of the game suffer as a result. Look at the difference between Deus Ex and DE: Human Revolution, for example.

Graphics do not a good game make. Developers should be focusing on developing their storytelling and refining their mechanics, not appeasing graphics whores.

Also, I'd like to know what sort of alien hardware you think will be available in the near future that would be able to render that type of graphics. You're being unrealistic on like 27 different levels here, so again I think the "fail" does in fact go to you.

Possible cost is not a reason to not even try. Happy your attitude was not prevalent when they were trying to get a man on the moon.

As to what alien hardware. Well how about a current PC, that's already at least 10 times (x50 according to Nvidia) more powerful than current consoles. That's where next gen consoles should be hitting. So how about we have games that use the already existing extra power modern hardware is capable of and then go from there. Is that too much to ask....

Also the new Deus EX being less complex is not down to them focusing on graphics, but rather them having to dumb it down for the current market...

 

[Kahunaburger]

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.

A multiplatform game with a large fanbase and 3 main games in the series and a fantastic reputation.

Vs

A new, shooter IP that was available on PC only.

There was more than graphics at work methinks.

I think it just goes to show that we don't need to throw money at graphics - we need to throw money at Obsidian.

 

[Burst6]

I don't know about you guys but for me, as long as graphics arent horrible, it doesn't matter.


Sure it was impressive seeing the amazing crysis graphics for the very first time, and i was happy when i upped the graphical settngs on witcher 2 game and the textures got sharper, but after i got immersed into the game, i started ignoring it.

Graphics are only impressive when i first look at them, but when i actually get into the game, i tend to ignore a higher resolution.


Awesome graphics are very expensive. Expensive games are generally more boring because publishers don't want to take the risk of making a game unique and having it bomb. Also if they focus too much on graphics, they'll focus less on the other parts of the game.

Focusing on graphics is asking for more samey games.


And really, unless the game has good aesthetic to go with the graphics, it's not going to be anything impressive to look at. It'll look like high resolution blandness.

 

[acturisme]

Even if current graphics are good enough. Current physics simulations aren't.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Yeah, I can't help but side with the group who want to at least slow down the march onwards.

I'm not anti investing in graphical breakthrus, but it will cost more in terms of tech, and also in terms of man hours.

Put how long it took to create a demon in Doom compared with one in Doom 3 for instance.

Every time a game tries to match Crysis and the like, it's throwing shedloads of cash at it, which is then making it a much bigger risk, which needs to sell more and more copies to break even.

On PC that's further complicated by differing specs, some people are put off buying a game that looks good as they'll just think 'well, I've got no chance of running that on my PC'.

I've used it before and I'm gonna break out WOW again. It's got awful graphics at a technical level, but it'll run on some fairly low powered machines, and because of that, it's the game of choice for many, put up against far shinier MMOs. However, what Blizzard did was get quality artists who created a style, and endless variety, making the place far more interesting than a fully rendered HD vision of perfection...in grey and brown.

Quite possibly it partly explains just why so many browser games are popular, too, distractions that are available to all, not just the Alienware elite.