What do you expect from next gen consoles in terms of graphics?

[Kuwka_Atcha_Ratcha]

people really stupid enough to believe graphics can't get any better. i remember people saying the same thing about ps2 just before it dropped. 'Theres no way ps2 is gonna be better than psone graphics wise..' yet it was.

 

[daze23]

people gonna finally see their hdtv running in it's native resolution

Spoiler

 

[courtdog]

people gonna finally see their hdtv running in it's native resolution

Spoiler

Wasn't that pic for sound? Only one console will have directional sound

 

[Liquid]

people really stupid enough to believe graphics can't get any better. i remember people saying the same thing about ps2 just before it dropped. 'Theres no way ps2 is gonna be better than psone graphics wise..' yet it was.

Nobody is saying that it wont happen, its just that we are at a wall right now.

Seriously I can't remember this long of a stretch in where games that were released almost 4 years ago hold their own...and in the case of the first Crysis 5+ years. That's unheard of, but I will let you dudes call it.

 

[yseJ]

I think u guys have a slight misunderstanding here

Im pretty sure we can all agree that computational power increases well faster than linearly. with that said, graphics isnt really a byproduct of pure computations...its not really a brute force algorithm which will get there earlier with more ops per second....

I think what liquid was getting at, is that we are at a kind of a wall that doesnt relate to computational power but is more at how much manpower it takes.

now Im not terribly versed at this so if I say something wrong, correct me. but a progression since late 90s to mid 2000s was visible- objects became multipoly, textures got higher and higher resolution. but at some point, making so many polygons will take an insane number of man hours, and to a lesser extent, so will high-res texturing.

making a graphically advanced game today is so much harder and resource-demanding than it was to make a modern graphically advanced game in 99...and Im talking strictly pc, cutting edge graphics.

personally, I think graphics will progress, but the progression will slow down drastically. we'll have very few cutting edge graphical games per several years.

 

[Kuwka_Atcha_Ratcha]

Nobody is saying that it wont happen, its just that we are at a wall right now.

Seriously I can't remember this long of a stretch in where games that were released almost 4 years ago hold their own...and in the case of the first Crysis 5+ years. That's unheard of, but I will let you dudes call it.

this is the most ridiculous thing ive ever read how are we at a wall? how are we at a wall when graphics and gaming engines are being developed all the time and theres even games that most pc's can't run. are you really trying to say theres no better looking game than crysis

 

[Kuwka_Atcha_Ratcha]

personally, I think graphics will progress, but the progression will slow down drastically. we'll have very few cutting edge graphical games per several years.

what are you basing this of? every generation of consoles there has been a giant leap and you think all of a sudden shop bout to slow down?

 

[Liquid]

this is the most ridiculous thing ive ever read how are we at a wall? how are we at a wall when graphics and gaming engines are being developed all the time and theres even games that most pc's can't run. are you really trying to say theres no better looking game than crysis

you don't play pc games. Before sleeping dogs there hasn't been a significant jump in quality that made people say WOW since Crysis. L.A. Noire was also pretty big, but that was more Rockstar trying something nobody else had before.

Even as crazy as BF3 appeared to be, it really wasnt a "WOW" moment. That game did have some ridiculous character animation tho.

 

[yseJ]

what are you basing this of? every generation of consoles there has been a giant leap and you think all of a sudden shop bout to slow down?

Im not talking about consoles here, first of all.
lets cut the crap and talk about real heavyweight here- the pc.

what Im basing it off, I thought I clearly stated. metro 2033 and crysis been at the top of the graphic ecosystem for several years at this point. while a part of it is due to less-than-optimal optimization (both the og crysis and metro suffer from it), the fact is difference between graphics of 2008 and 2012 is nowhere the difference between, say, 2000 and 2004

 

[yseJ]

also its easy to see that consoles, which really are a kind of a homeless welfare brother of the pc in terms of pure graphical power, also follow that model

lets just look at playstation

ps1 was introduced in north america in 1995
ps2 in 2000
ps3 in 2006
ps4 in 2013+

5 years between first two, 6 years between next two, 6+ years

xbox first one appeared in 01
360 appeared in 05
720 in 13+

theres more and more time between the consoles generations/iterations, for the technology is not changing as fast. 4-5 year periods are no longer necessary with the right hardware put in.

 

[Swagnificent]

I think u guys have a slight misunderstanding here

Im pretty sure we can all agree that computational power increases well faster than linearly. with that said, graphics isnt really a byproduct of pure computations...its not really a brute force algorithm which will get there earlier with more ops per second....

I think what liquid was getting at, is that we are at a kind of a wall that doesnt relate to computational power but is more at how much manpower it takes.

now Im not terribly versed at this so if I say something wrong, correct me. but a progression since late 90s to mid 2000s was visible- objects became multipoly, textures got higher and higher resolution. but at some point, making so many polygons will take an insane number of man hours, and to a lesser extent, so will high-res texturing.

making a graphically advanced game today is so much harder and resource-demanding than it was to make a modern graphically advanced game in 99...and Im talking strictly pc, cutting edge graphics.

personally, I think graphics will progress, but the progression will slow down drastically. we'll have very few cutting edge graphical games per several years.

I guess some people are just always pessimistic.

Once again you have NO EVIDENCE that games aren't advancing graphically. You keep talking about short term windows like from 08-12, but you ignore the fact that there hasn't been a new system developed during that period. What you seem to not understand is that PC gaming is NOT ubiquitous. If there isn't a pool of millions of potential buyers, then no one is gonna spend $100 million to develop a game that only 1-10,000 people might buy.

And even if PC gaming was ubiquitous, there isn't a uniform system in which a developer can work on so he can maximize the graphics. Developers are instead gonna build their games around systems which are the most widely used (that is the 7 year old consoles) and just port the games onto PC. It's the reason why games like Uncharted on PS3 still look as good as most games on high performance PCs. Sure most PC games look better, the key however is that the game wasn't built to maximize those specs. So its wrong to extrapolate that because PC games haven't progressed tremendously in terms of graphics in the last 5 years, that a wall has been hit in terms of graphics.

 

[Swagnificent]

also its easy to see that consoles, which really are a kind of a homeless welfare brother of the pc in terms of pure graphical power, also follow that model

lets just look at playstation

ps1 was introduced in north america in 1995
ps2 in 2000
ps3 in 2006
ps4 in 2013+

5 years between first two, 6 years between next two, 6+ years

xbox first one appeared in 01
360 appeared in 05
720 in 13+

theres more and more time between the consoles generations/iterations, for the technology is not changing as fast. 4-5 year periods are no longer necessary with the right hardware put in.

No. The reason they're choosing to release systems in 7 year periods rather than 5-6 year periods is due to BUSINESS reasons not technology. Playstation released a system valued at $900 for $600 in 06. They're simply trying to recoup some of that. Xbox has enjoyed such great success in the states that they are trying to ride that gravy train out as long as they can.

Moore's law hasn't run out or slowed down. Computing power continues its exponential rise. Sony and Microsoft could choose to not release their new systems till 2020 but that doesn't mean they did it because the technology hasn't progressed.

There are 3 guarantees in life. Death. Taxes. And computers continuing to advance exponentially.

 

[yseJ]

I guess some people are just always pessimistic.

Once again you have NO EVIDENCE that games aren't advancing graphically.

I never said they arent advancing graphically. I said they are not advancing AS FAST. the delta is getting smaller and smaller as we approach proverbial photorealism. the delta is getting increasingly expensive also to achieve less and less significant improvements.

I would love to see you argue the fact that the leap of top level graphics was much higher in same timeslices in the early to late 90s than it was in mid to late 2000s

. If there isn't a pool of millions of potential buyers, then no one is gonna spend $100 million to develop a game that only 1-10,000 people might buy.

what you dont understand is that no one will spend 300 million to develop a game even 100k people will buy, if they can spend much less. the cost is also a proverbial wall, whether you like it or not. the cost to do shyt halts the progress tremendously. HD technology was done in the early 90s. yet we hit the wall with tv signals until we could actually transmit those high bandwidth signals in digital format.

So its wrong to extrapolate that because PC games haven't progressed tremendously in terms of graphics in the last 5 years, that a wall has been hit in terms of graphics.

when we say wall, we mean both potential to do better and the cost, a ratio of both of them. we might not be hitting the 'actual' wall in technology, but if the technology to improve a games graphics is drastically more expensive, there is little point in it from business perspective.

 

[Swagnificent]

what are you basing this of? every generation of consoles there has been a giant leap and you think all of a sudden shop bout to slow down?

Some people are just always looking for bad news. The simple truth is that for all the people saying graphics have hit a wall. WATCH ANY fukkING NEW MOVIE. They are all using CGI that is rendering images that look stunningly real. The only reason we can't get those in video games right now is because of COST.

The movie industry is using farms of supercomputers working for weeks to render movies like Avatar or Life of Pi. Those real life graphics now cost millions of dollars and take weeks. However thanks for MOORE'S LAW, which has held true for the last 60 years, that computational power will be available on a $1,000 laptop in the mid-2020s.

The issue of whether graphics can get better is NOT a question of if, but of WHEN. All you clowns saying we've hit a wall need to read a fukking book rather than doing keyboard prognostication.

 

[Swagnificent]

I never said they arent advancing graphically. I said they are not advancing AS FAST. the delta is getting smaller and smaller as we approach proverbial photorealism. the delta is getting increasingly expensive also to achieve less and less significant improvements.

I would love to see you argue the fact that the leap of top level graphics was much higher in same timeslices in the early to late 90s than it was in mid to late 2000s


what you dont understand is that no one will spend 300 million to develop a game even 100k people will buy, if they can spend much less. the cost is also a proverbial wall, whether you like it or not. the cost to do shyt halts the progress tremendously. HD technology was done in the early 90s. yet we hit the wall with tv signals until we could actually transmit those high bandwidth signals in digital format.


when we say wall, we mean both potential to do better and the cost, a ratio of both of them. we might not be hitting the 'actual' wall in technology, but if the technology to improve a games graphics is drastically more expensive, there is little point in it from business perspective.

Sorry but I see no evidence of a wall. I'm not old enough to remember gaming in the early or mid-90s. All I know is that since 98, the rate of technological change has only ACCELERATED not decelerated. Its seems as though each new system only increases the speed of change rather than slow it down.

Second, you say that costs are getting too high. Well that may be true in the short term but don't costs go down eventually? Especially when we're talking about computation. Costs decrease EXPONENTIALLY. Its true that making a great game today for the next gen systems might cost $300 million and most developers will make the cost-benefit analysis that it isn't worth it. But eventually that game will be built. Most likely in 2-3 years. So your argument about costs only stands true for a SHORT period of time.

And lastly, the adoption of HD technology is a wrong analogy. No one has said the physical world is subject to Moore's law as well (at least not yet). Refer to my earlier post regarding cloud gaming. The adoption of HD technology required changing the physical infrastructure of our country. Computational technology for better graphics on the other hand doesn't require that. All it requires is the ability to flip those 0s and 1s even faster so that more information can be encoded per second.