'Current graphics are good enough' - Facepalm

[predatorpulse7]

I'm somewhat of a graphics aficionado myself but I don't see this stuff improving in any meaningful way, we are nearing(if we aren't there yet) the absolute of what can be done in computer graphics. Some scenes in certain games approach photorealism.

What developers should be focusing on is the actual gameworld and GAMEPLAY. Make me feel like I am in a different world/setting and let me have fun while I'm at it. That is the biggest challenge facing a developer.

 

[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.....

Well who's fault is that? The consoles for existing and being a more appealing option to developers? Or the developers for not trying to build a game meant for PC?

True but not the point. You initial comment, if I am understanding it properly, was that this console generation is fine because PC's, which are supposed to be more powerful, are not delivering much difference.

My response is was that that is not a fair summation because the PC is not being able to show what it can do with it's current power due to the reasons we all know about, like popularity of consoles etc.

 

[Loonyyy]

Also, higher graphical fidelity increases costs AND (More importantly) production time. It's harder, and takes longer, to make the same gameplay area, for better graphics engines, than for simpler ones. This reduces the content that a developer can make for a game. Resulting in either, long, expensive developement (They don't do this, they'd be cutting their profits over time), or shorter games.

Higher graphical fidelity may be nice, but it IS a tradeoff for gameplay, variety, and content, which is hardly a good thing. Graphics are fine where they are, they're certainly not perfect, but who needs them to be? I'd rather convincing physics, AI, longer games, or any number of things more than a slightly more realistic set of graphics.

 

[Irridium]

I don't want them focusing on graphics because that shit is expensive as hell[/i].

There's a reason we don't see games with the same depth in their gameplay and story as Deus Ex, Planescape: Torment. Because doing so is just financially unfeasible. Upping the graphics would up the already high budgets, which would result in even smaller and less innovative games.

I'd much rather have them focus on upping the same old gameplay we've been using for most genres for about a decade now. Same with stories.

 

[MightyRabbit]

Much as I like swanky new graphics, when people are saying "the ones we have now are good enough" have become jaded by the graphical arms race, think things look pretty damn good as they are now and would like to be able to have a 20 hour single player campaign in a new, full price release be standard rather than a 6-8 hour game that can't afford to be any bigger because they spent all their cash making everything look nice.

I'd happily have all my new releases look like some stylised indie game or cheap old PS2 stuff if it meant I could have a longer, deeper, better crafted game at the end of it. As far as I can see, it's really more gamers getting fed up with the graphical arms race than actually saying nobody should develop graphic tech any further.

 

[Rastien]

I wonder wether we will hit an uncanny valley with enviromental graphics im assuming most escapists are familar with the uncanny valley concept for people? so i wonder if it will happen to enviroments...

And if graphics get to good could we capture someone and submerse them in this world some how and trick them into thinking they are alive matrix style

 

[Vegosiux]

You may say you don't want these graphics at the expense of gameplay, but that's a physical impossibility. Sorry.

When we say that we mean "We want the developers to focus on the gameplay instead, we are okay with better gameplay at the expense of graphics." We never claim to want both. Well those of us who use our brains.

 

[Vegosiux]

You may say you don't want these graphics at the expense of gameplay, but that's a physical impossibility. Sorry.

When we say that we mean "We want the developers to focus on the gameplay instead, we are okay with better gameplay at the expense of graphics." We never claim to want both. Well those of us who use our brains.

In an ideal world, this would be possible. As it is, it isn't happening. Yeah, both would be nice, but it's not happening. BYEEE!!!

Why yes, it is, if you know where to look. Just need to make it more mainstream. BYEEE!!!

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

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

Mirror's Edge image snip

Brofist. That game is the reason I bought a high-end gaming PC. It's not as photorealistic as Crysis or anything like that, but it brings its own unique aesthetic flavor to the table, and I love it for that.

I think game devs that aim for photorealism should take a slightly more stylized approach like DICE did with Mirror's Edge. It helps alleviate the whole "uncanny valley" situation, and ends up being aesthetically pleasing to more people.

Ah, it seems you guys share my preference of aesthetics over graphics.

There is a reason why I think Okami still looks heaps better than Crysis or Battlefield 3 (no, not kidding). While it isn't anything special on a technical level (i.e. graphics), even for the PS2, it's aesthetics are amazing and that will ensure that years from now, people will still think it looks good. Games like for example Yoshi's Story, Parappa The Rapper Wind Waker, Bioshock and indeed Mirror's Edge belong to the same category.

That doesn't mean that graphics technology shouldn't improve, but I'd prefer a quantitative approach, rather than a qualitative one. What I mean is: currently something like a street in a big city might be rendered with something akin to photorealism, but there are only a couple dozen people and cars on it. I'd like to see that same street, but choked with pedestrians and traffic, just like in a real big and busy city.

I'm sure something like that is still far off, but I can dream whatever I want.

 

[ph0b0s123]

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/

The fox engine works on the Ps3 and the Vita.

Where did you see that? The articles I saw said it was only something for next gen...

 

[ph0b0s123]

All those saying that making better graphics will be too expensive and hence we don't need newer hardware any-time soon for it.

Have you thought how much it is costing in coming up with ways to fit the graphics we already know how to produce into current consoles. If game play and game play mechanics are having to be sacrificed in order for the processing of the graphics they know how to do today, isn't that an argument for needing new consoles quickly?

So then they can put in both the graphics they know how to do now and the game play elements they would like without sacrificing things. And the mad optimisation / brainstorming of how to fit the graphics they want to into what is now quite old hardware probably is not cheap / a big part of the development resources as well.

 

[thunderbug]

i think the best way to answer this is to look at your fave games and think why they were your faves, i can almost guarantee that the graphics does not factor into your reason.

Good graphics are good, and help in immersion, but story/ gameplay/ characters will always be more relevant to what i consider a good game.

 

[Jailbird408]

Graphics are good enough as they are. My reccommendation is to focus on allowing more polygons, thereby allowing more fluid animations, or simply more.
Take the Katamari series. It started out on the PS2, and instead of making things look smooth, it made every object in the game have low polygon counts so you could roll up more than 3 things at a time.
When it made the leap to the 360, it had buckets full of processing power. They could have smoothed out the graphics, given it a HD sheen. But they didn't. They used that power to put in MORE things to roll up. You Katamari could get even bigger at an even faster rate. There was just no way that growing from the size of a fridge to the size of the earth could be done on the PS2's comparatively slow processor. And it probably couldn't have been done on the 360 if things didn't look like they were made of paper. But they were, so it was, and it was AWESOME.
You don't need things to look like Avatar to have a good game. You might need the processors behind Avatar, but you don't need them to be devoted to graphical output.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

Sorry but most of the posts in this thread sound pretty "13 year old COD player thinks he knows about games", with as much generalization as that sentence can muster.

"We need better graphics" do we really? Can you make out trees from people? Can you make out water from the floor? Do AAA games look bad to any reasonable standard? No! Graphics are fine.

I always read on this site that graphics are one of the least important but now it seems they are second to nothing.

I think we need a lot more gameplay elements and mechanics going on way before we get better graphics. How many of us can jump into just about any and automatically know how shit works? There hasn't been anything new in gameplay mechanics, beyond "you are the controller" (which was on the PS2) in years.

AI could do with a massive improvement, how many of us are sick to death of the dumb ass AI? Or to word it differently, how many of us have played resident evil 5? "oh, you took 1 hit and now your previously full life bar has a bit missing? Imma use this first aid spray on you!".

Hell what about improving your effect on the world? What about in assassins creed you can fail to assassinate people and if you fail enough the baddies get there way and you get better and better endings the more you kill? Or you are given assassinations and have to lay the blame on an innocent person and depending on if you accomplish that you get a different story?

All these are far more important than freaking graphics.

I second this. Yes, I know it's awesome to show off your new hardware and brag about who has a bigger p...olygon count, but really, all this obsession with graphics is starting to annoy me.

I'm jumping on the side with people who say "Quit it with the graphics, and use the harware and processing power on other gameplay elements if you have to 'keep pushing the boundaries' or whatever your sales pitch is."

I'll third/fourth this sentiment. Graphics are all nice and everything, but I've played some amazing looking games that were utter crap in the gameplay and story department. Oblivion comes to mind. I got so bored of that game so quickly, it was just sad.