'Current graphics are good enough' - Facepalm

[Signa]

Just remember kiddies, Super Mario World was a 512 KILOBYTE game. Yet I consider it to be the best strictly Mario game ever made. In 20 years, neither graphics nor technical prowess has developed a better game. There is just no need for a new console generation while devs are struggling to make better games. If anything, RAM is holding the current systems back far more than graphical fidelity.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Just remember kiddies, Super Mario World was a 512 KILOBYTE game. Yet I consider it to be the best strictly Mario game ever made. In 20 years, neither graphics nor technical prowess has developed a better game. There is just no need for a new console generation while devs are struggling to make better games. If anything, RAM is holding the current systems back far more than graphical fidelity.

Keywords here "I consider".

and anyway, Super Mario 64 owns that.


Yes, RAM is holding back some games (Skyrim). However, consider the graphics quality in Mass Effect 2.

What the hell was with that? Add grainy textures to cover up the aliasing issues? On my PC it looked like a 5 year old game. On Max.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

The quality of games overall, in me eyes, has declined since graphic quality has improved.

Wild ARMs, Super Metroid, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy 6, Grandia, Killer Instinct, LoZ: Link to the Past, Personas 3 & 4...good games. (I realize these choices are IMO - yours may vary) Coincidentally, games that didn't rely on graphic quality.

Look what we've got now and compare.

Please do not misunderstand me, graphics are nice...but not necessarily top priority. The old saying "Polish a turd; it's still a turd" comes to mind regarding this topic.

(captcha: vigaini contract. It shall be done, Lord Inglip!)

 

[JediMB]

On the hardware side, improvements should be continuous.

But for games, developers and consumers alike need to be aware of that there are many ways to make a game look good. Many levels of graphical advancement/detail and many different art styles. Not everything should look like it's made from the latest Unreal Engine.

Diversity; fuck yeah.

 

[crappingpegasus]

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?

that water looks pretty brutal.

although, you gotta assume some of these are compromises due to a short development time. a game on the scale of Mass Effect 3 really needs more than 2 years to be put together. sadly, EA likes money more than it likes a well developed game.

 

[Xan Krieger]

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?

I haven't seen water that bad since Face of Mankind. Personally I say tone down the graphics to allow for improvements in how well it runs. Some minor spoilers for Deus Ex Human Revolution follow

Spoiler

I was in Detroit during a riot and rather than face hundreds of protestors in the streets with my heavy rifle I found the rioting blocked off by police barricades which was hugely anti-climactic.

Basically some of the newer games sacrifice things like number of characters on screen for improving the looks of the few characters they do fit in the game. I figure if they could tone down the graphics a little then worlds could get bigger because older graphics use less room and they're far easier on the GPU. The OP says that graphics could improve more but my counter to that is you have a balance of graphics to other things on the disc. Higher end graphics take up more space which reduces the space for actual gameplay. Would you prefer prettier shorter games or less pretty longer games?

 

[Sexy Devil]

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?!

You might say that Shepard can't remember where his holster is. EHEHEHEHEHHE

But yeah, new hardware can improve everything. If we listened to people who said "the current generation is good enough" then we'd still be stuck with the NES.

 

[lacktheknack]

I'll put it this way:

Dwarf Fortress brings gaming computers to their knees. The FPS can easily fall to single-digits if you aren't careful, and the amount of complexity is several levels past mind-boggling.

This game thrashes my computer harder than Crysis.

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm153/Kobold_Lord/Riththad%20201/201Hematite25stateofthecamp.jpg

This game thrashes... my computer... harder than... Cry...sis...?

And I MUCH PREFER it this way. Graphics should be one of the last things the developer worries about unless the point of their game is to make a spectacle. But quite frankly, I want more complexity and CPU power dedicated to the game mechanics themselves.

 

[Awexsome]

Graphics aren't a priority for upgrading consoles anymore and for good reason. Current gen graphics are totally good enough. Even the difference of current top of the line PC graphics and say a PS3 or 360 is barely anything. Perhaps not for a small minority but the difference truely isn't enough to come out with a new console generation for graphics.

If the jump would be enough to have a significant update in game performance that would allow for more complex stuff then that would be why to upgrade. But it would have to be enough of an upgrade to last as many years as the 360 lasted and cost 300$ max.

 

[Nouw]

While I agree that we can always improve, I'm in no rush to see said improvements. I think there should be a bigger focus on making the game play better than making the game prettier. Yes technical things matter but I'm talking about going beyond the call of duty with graphics.

 

[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...

There's a difference between this "possible cost" thing you keep bringing up, and the realm of REALITY.

Go look at the pre-rendered cinematics for Final Fantasy 8. That game was released on the Playstation fucking ONE, and we STILL do not have games featuring that level of graphics/animation.

The difference between playing games with the graphics that YOU are suggesting and going to the moon is that one was distinctly possible in its day and the other is the raving of someone highly ignorant of technology rambling on a message board. I'll let you figure out which is which.

Also, if you think that the average gaming PC could run anything like what you're describing, I'd like to see you run Crysis on a DOS gaming computer from 1993. Because that would be more realistic than your nonsense.

Again, you are ignoring this point: GRAPHICS DON'T MAKE A GOOD GAME. Developers need to focus on improving animation and AI before they even think about upgrading graphics to the degree you're describing.

So much taking everything I said out of context. I did not say that those graphics would work on a current PC, but that there was a bunch of power out there that is already not being used, just with current hardware. I would like to see at least what we could do with that.

"GRAPHICS DON'T MAKE A GOOD GAME." Yes, That's why I put that into my start to this thread twice....

But whatever, you've got your opinion which is pretty defeatist and I've got mine.

 

[Don Savik]

Mass Defect is ugly at so many moments. Have you seen the facial animations? Probably the worst I've seen in a video game since I tried the demo for Iron Man 2 (oh god the horror). Wait a minute....this is the Modern Warfare dilemma!

Modern Warfare 1 looked amazing at the time, yes? So did Mass Effect 1 and kinda 2. But when they improved the lightning and setpieces and such in Modern Warfare 3, you noticed the FUGLY textures and down right terrible animations even more because they seemed so out of place with the other amazing looking things in the environment and it totally brought you out of the experience.

Its pretty lazy aesthetically compared to the first 2 games because most of it is recycled setting/textures and they don't try anything new.

You know what game looks fraking gorgeous to this day? Mirror's Edge.

Thats in game on medium settings and it looks better than most games that come out these days.

 

[Mr Pantomime]

Im more interested in furthering the power and capability of devices. Once we are at a point where a Dev doesnt have to worry about resource allocation and saving ram, I think game design will be a lot better. Render Distances from one end of the world to the other, as many NPCs as you want onscreen, building levels and areas however you want them. Even loading the entire game instantly. If a Dev doesnt have to work around the hardware, I think we will see much truer designs in a game.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Graphics aren't a priority for upgrading consoles anymore and for good reason. Current gen graphics are totally good enough. Even the difference of current top of the line PC graphics and say a PS3 or 360 is barely anything.

No, the current difference is not much because the PC is stuck with playing console ports or games built with consoles in mind. Now wonder there is not much of a difference.....

 

[Dys]

the thing is we are reaching the point where continuing to chase the graphical dream as it were is starting to get to a bad % increase in beauty verus cost ratio.

With games budgets sky-rocketing ANY good reason to hold us here for a while is actually a good one.

And while i am aware we can get much better (i play bf3 on pc, ofc i know lol) but in all honesty i think waiting is in our best interests.

While I believe that games should go for the graphical increase, soon the budget for making current-gen graphics will cause games to either be the new crysis or a retro game in comparison. There will be no middle ground.

that lack of middle ground is whats got many of us spooked.
You know why there were so many just amazing games on the ps2 (other than its lifespan ofc) it was good looking enough to create worlds, but not too expensive that you couldn't have these random high concept ideas that take off out of nowhere.

We lost it a little this gen and to see it go altogether. That would make me very sad.

Surely a lack of middle ground is a good thing. That would mean less 'half assed' games and more crysis (visual emphasis) and tf2 (less visual emphasis). Both are great games, I generally find the 'middle of the road' titles to be the most disappointing. Either fully commit or make a lower cost title!

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 hate gameplay, visuals and stable game clients[/footnote]. It had better story, better setting, more freedom oddly enough, and didn't require a supercomputer from the year 2834 to run it.

It takes a pretty impressive imagination to perceive crysis as a failure. It was more of a success than planned, and for a new ip/PC exclusive that's beyond amazing.

Graphics aren't a priority for upgrading consoles anymore and for good reason. Current gen graphics are totally good enough. Even the difference of current top of the line PC graphics and say a PS3 or 360 is barely anything. Perhaps not for a small minority but the difference truely isn't enough to come out with a new console generation for graphics.

Much in the same way the difference in explosive resistance of an abrahams main battle tank and a smart car is barely anything.

 

[Yopaz]

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.

This is my main reason for wanting a new generation too. The graphics we currently have on consoles is great and it's also important how it's used. Xenoblade for Wii looks great despite lack of power. However drop in framerate is one of the worst things that can happen when you play a game. Lacking hardware increases loading time, decreases area size and number of objects that can be interacted with (this includes enemies, allies and destructible objects).

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Bioware had to cut the holster feature from ME3 because consoles lack the required RAM for it.

Seriously?

Also: Dwarf Fortress.

 

[him over there]

We don't need to raise the average polygon count or whatever of graphics, what we need is to find a way to make current graphics more cost effective and accessible. Then the average of games as a whole can have better graphics. Also like everyone has said we need to improve far more than graphics, AI is beyond terrible right now.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

No the graphics are fine. All you are doing in this point in time is increasing the budget for games making them need to be safer and safer with their ridiculous amounts of money. We do need a new console gen but not for graphics we need a new console gen to stop the shit like Skyrim on the PS 3 version and to be able to make big scale games with better AI.

That is what we need and I know this opinion has been stated many times over the last three pages so I am by far not the only one not that I ever be the only one. Also, I am fairly sure one of those trailers is live action.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I'll put it this way:

Dwarf Fortress brings gaming computers to their knees. The FPS can easily fall to single-digits if you aren't careful, and the amount of complexity is several levels past mind-boggling.

This game thrashes my computer harder than Crysis.

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm153/Kobold_Lord/Riththad%20201/201Hematite25stateofthecamp.jpg

This game thrashes... my computer... harder than... Cry...sis...?

And I MUCH PREFER it this way. Graphics should be one of the last things the developer worries about unless the point of their game is to make a spectacle. But quite frankly, I want more complexity and CPU power dedicated to the game mechanics themselves.

Above: trufax. I don't want bloom effects. I want my dwarves to have teeth.