I hope graphics get a lot better NEXT generation (2011-2012) and look like CG [Archive]

parallaxscroll

11-19-2008, 10:17 PM

The current Xbox 360 and PlayStation3 both offer decent graphics in HD resolutions, but not good enough. From everything I've seen so far, both consoles are like a beefed up Xbox1 in high-def. Not a massive generational leap from last gen.

Last-gen DC/PS2/GCN/Xbox was a massive leap in graphics from the PS1/N64 gen, by two orders of magnitude (100x) when you concider the polygon counts and framerates. This current gen is only, at most, 1 order of magnitude better in graphics overall, in total, when you consider the improvements to graphics plus high definition. If you take away HD resolution and only look at graphical complexity, 360/PS3 is definitally not even 10 times better than the last-gen Xbox.

One really must seperate HD resolution from graphics complexity. Example, you could play Quake 1 at 4000x2000 super HD, but does that mean it has better graphics than Gears of War 2 or Uncharted ? No of course not. Likewise, lets say there was a future game that has realtime gameplay graphics exactly as good as a Pixar CG movie, but is only rendered at native 480p resolution. Obviously the current 720p HD games on 360/PS3 would look inferior. That's what I mean by keeping HD resolution and actual graphics seperate.

So I hope that next-gen Xbox 720 and PlayStation4 can offer a real leap in actual graphics even if their rendered at the same 720p and 1080p resolutions that are possible today.

The CEO of CryTek seems to think that the next generation consoles will be out in 2011 or 2012, and offer CG-like graphics. He said that CryEngine 3 will arrive in 2012.

I can't wait!

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/20156/532/

CryEngine 3 will, Yerli explained, by available in 2012. Until then, gamers should get used to maximum effective gaming resolutions of 1920 x 1080 and 60 frames per second. After which we should expect to see real-time graphics on a par with the kind of CG you get in the latest Pixar animated movies.

The real surprise though was that Yerli went on to say that the arrival of CryEngine 3 and a renaissance of graphics programming will coincide with the release of both the Xbox 720 and PlayStation 4. To be precise he said they will "arrive in 2011 or 2012."

Obviously there are other things to concider. Small unimportant things such as gameplay. Hardware costs. Game development costs. etc. but who cares! This thread is all about being a graphics whore :P

kedawa

11-19-2008, 10:49 PM

CG will always look better. Always.
There's just no way for real time graphics to ever beat pre-rendered graphics.

It's all just going to look like incrementally improved Dreamcast graphics until things like realtime raytracing become feasible.

The real turning point will come when developers start using the same models for both graphics and physics.
Right now even the most 'realistic' games just use cubes and primitives for the physics and hit-detection, and render the graphics using more complex models and all sorts of visual trickery.

parallaxscroll

11-19-2008, 11:06 PM

CG will always look better. Always.
There's just no way for real time graphics to ever beat pre-rendered graphics.

It's all just going to look like incrementally improved Dreamcast graphics until things like realtime raytracing become feasible.

I disagree.

While high-end CG of any given time will always look better than realtime, realtime graphics can reach the level of lower-end CG of 10 to 15 years ago. It's already happened. There are many levels of CG just like there are many levels of realtime. There is low-end realtime like what the Nintendo DS does, and highend realtime like what you have with quad SLI or CrossFire PC rigs. Likewise there's lowend CG used in game intros, TV documentaries and highend CG used in feature films. Current PCs, and even 360/PS3 can produce realtime graphics better than most of the CG used in Saturn and PS1 intros.

Raytracing does not even need to be part of the picture. Most CG does not use raytracing. When it is used, it's used sparingly. Realtime does not need to have raytracing to look like CG.

The real turning point will come when developers start using the same models for both graphics and physics.
Right now even the most 'realistic' games just use cubes and primitives for the physics and hit-detection, and render the graphics using more complex models and all sorts of visual trickery.

I agree with you there.

djbeatmongrel

11-19-2008, 11:23 PM

otaku

11-19-2008, 11:31 PM

I used to not think that this generation was much of a step forward but now that I'm playing these consoles on HDTVs (big ones to) it is a very nice leap forward compared to playing on standard resolution tvs of small (or even large) sizes. Throw in the online play and dlc and this generation has been a nice move forward. I think we just need to further refine what we have-more games is the biggest thing this gen should at least last till 2012. CG I doubt but there is definetly room to improve as always

98PaceCar

11-19-2008, 11:33 PM

Who cares about graphics when so far this gen has been pretty stagnant in gameplay. I hate that most of the good innovative games are downloadable games and the real good timeless titles are few and far between this genereation. Why care about the graphics? A game can look great but if theres no substance behind it whats the point.

Also what else do you want from your games graphic capabilities? Mull it over Anthony1.

QFT. Give me something other than another in the long line of FPS games or yet another sequel to whatever series is being driven into the ground (Tony Hawk, Madden, Guitar Hero, etc).

Gameplay should always be the primary focus and if it happens to have good graphics as well, that's great. But a pretty game that sucks isn't worth playing no matter how good it looks.

ooXxXoo

11-19-2008, 11:48 PM

I remember in the old days, 16-bit games with great realistic graphics such as Mortal Kombat...I thought to myself it couldn't get any better than that then.....

XYXZYZ

11-19-2008, 11:59 PM

Someday, cheap disposable handheld video games will have the graphics capability of the most impressive Dreamworks movie of today, and I can hardly imagine the visuals presented by the dedicated entertainment consoles meant for the living room.

And I cannot wait to see what kind of barriers are broken, and envelopes pushed in the world of twisted pornographic shenanigans the Japanese developers dream up to apply this fantastic technology to.

swlovinist

11-20-2008, 12:02 AM

The problem is that gameplay has not evolved with the graphics. Until that happens, that actual games we play will just be a shiny version of what we are already playing

XYXZYZ

11-20-2008, 12:22 AM

The problem is that gameplay has not evolved with the graphics. Until that happens, that actual games we play will just be a shiny version of what we are already playing

Well, you've got to admit at the moment we seem to be moving away from the "FPS with a different skin" rut we had in the last generation. Stuff on the Wii and XBLA seem to be addressing the lack of diversity/innovation to some degree, but you know some big thing will come along and we'll fall into the same pattern again sooner or later.

swlovinist

11-20-2008, 12:36 AM

I think that I was just talking about the controller more than than the games. The games still seem traditionally imprisoned to the standard controller that has not been updated severely since the dual shock over 10 years ago. Obviously the Wii is the exception, but the technology is new and has recieved mixed reviews. Also, at a GDC a couple of years ago, developers were complaining that what really limits what games can be is not the graphics, but the programming of the controls, which I guess is primitave and limiting.

Berserker

11-20-2008, 09:15 AM

Obviously there are other things to concider. Small unimportant things such as gameplay. Hardware costs. Game development costs. etc. but who cares!

My hope is that in the coming years, the game industry will finally have the common sense to realize that while graphics are good, gamers want games. You want CG? Watch a goddamn Pixar movie. Seriously. I want to play some great new games.

megasdkirby

11-20-2008, 09:19 AM

Thing is, why aim for CG? Why not aim for realism? Make graphics so realistic that it can be confused with real life!

But I have to agree with Berserker. I want games, GOOD games. Original games.

JunkTheMagicDragon

11-20-2008, 09:38 AM

i don't really understand the prejudice toward good graphics, as if you can have good graphics or good gameplay, but not both. granted, a lot of 360/ps3 shovelware goes for the flash to make a quick buck, but in good games, improved graphics help sell the illusion.

take bioshock as an example... say it was released with ps1-era graphics. it would have still been a good game because of the story and gameplay, but would the world have been as engrossing, as alive? i'd argue that its art direction, which is given life by the graphics-pushing power of the pc/360/ps3 is a big part of what makes it so intriguing.

it's all just a part of the pie that makes up a great game. graphics, gameplay, controls, technical issues, sound, story/mission; they all play a part. sure, you can make up for deficencies in one with the others and still have a great game, but graphics don't necessarily hurt.

/incoherent rambling

Berserker

11-20-2008, 09:44 AM

Thing is, why aim for CG? Why not aim for realism? Make graphics so realistic that it can be confused with real life!

But I have to agree with Berserker. I want games, GOOD games. Original games.

Well, that's the ultimate goal. CG is the "realistic" goal; the one that seems possible within the next few years instead of the next few decades. And we'll get there. In time, we'll reach both goals.

The problem is that over the last decade or so, the game industry has largely become consumed with a sort of tunnel-vision of reaching that plateau as early as possible, and to the detriment of all else. So what we have now is a lumbering beast that's already in danger of collapsing under its own weight, but that's still not good enough for the graphics guys. They're still cheering More, more, Bigger, bigger, Pixar, Pixar.

They don't care about the costs, be it real-world development or lack of compelling gameplay, and they don't care if it might mean the death of the industry grasping for that chalice sooner than what makes sense in real-world terms. They want their Pixar, they want it now, damn the costs. Pretty singular, pretty clear.

Graphics have always been part of the equation. But it's now to the point where it's such a ridiculously dominant part of a now pretty-imbalanced equation. So that's why I say, hard though it may be, it's time for the industry to start ignoring the single-minded graphics guys for a while. They need to step back, reassess what they're really trying to do, and jump back in with a more balanced goal of making good games with good graphics and good gameplay.

And I think things are starting to head that way, but only time will tell.

j_factor

11-20-2008, 12:48 PM

I think that with the success of the Wii, and the big losses incurred from the Xbox 360 and PS3, next gen you may find that Microsoft and Sony are less concerned about providing a significant leap in graphics.

Iron Draggon

11-20-2008, 02:00 PM

well anything that requires me to upgrade all my hardware again is gonna be a no-go for me... I'm stopping with Vista & Direct X10... I just bought a bunch more hardware and software so I can set up my system to dual-boot Vista & XP... I'm not willing to sacrifice all my XP games that won't work properly in XP compatibility mode, and I'm sure as hell not building a whole new system just to play whatever else they come up with next... I'd be willing to install new Blu-Ray or some other form of HD drives, and add an HD monitor to be able to fully appreciate all my HD games, but that's as far as I'm gonna go... after that, I'm done... this generation cost me way too much money to upgrade for it... I should've just built a whole new system, because essentially that's what I had to do... the only thing I didn't upgrade was my CPU & mobo... and if I had known it would've been wiser to do so, I would've done that as well... I thought I was doing the right thing to save money by upgrading, but I was very wrong... all I did was cost myself alot more money! so never again... they can release whatever new OS they want, I'm done...

djbeatmongrel

11-20-2008, 07:03 PM

i don't really understand the prejudice toward good graphics, as if you can have good graphics or good gameplay, but not both. granted, a lot of 360/ps3 shovelware goes for the flash to make a quick buck, but in good games, improved graphics help sell the illusion.

I don't think anyone is arguing against the fact good graphics enhance a game but it seems that too many developers tend to forget to actually work on the game itself. When it comes down to it at the core its the game that matters the most, no the graphics.

It seems to have been a common problem during most of the history of videogames but it seems more prevailent now with people making an emphasis on the sole fact their game can run with no lag at 60 fps 1080p resolution getting pumped out of a hdmi port onto a beautiful 48" flat screen. When the game is mediocre these details will quickly be forgotten.

kedawa

11-20-2008, 08:10 PM

I wouldn't lump frame rate into the same category as other eye-candy.
Games with poor framerates are unbearable to play.

Rob2600

11-21-2008, 12:16 PM

One really must seperate HD resolution from graphics complexity. Example, you could play Quake 1 at 4000x2000 super HD, but does that mean it has better graphics than Gears of War 2 or Uncharted ? No of course not. Likewise, lets say there was a future game that has realtime gameplay graphics exactly as good as a Pixar CG movie, but is only rendered at native 480p resolution. Obviously the current 720p HD games on 360/PS3 would look inferior.

I agree. A movie being viewed on a standard definition TV (480i) looks more realistic than a PS3 game running at 720p.

If developers created a game on the PS3 that runs in 480i instead of 720p, could they use all that freed up processing power to create a video game that looks as realistic as a live-action movie?

kedawa

11-22-2008, 12:24 AM

Rob2600

11-22-2008, 01:57 AM

Not really, no.
The amount of detailed animation required for something to look truly realistic is more than any developer would take on.
Also, no console has the computational power to create real world detail in real time because of the amount of physics modelling that would be required to simulate reality.

I think with some really fancy lighting, texturing, and reflections, the PS3 could produce graphics in 480i that come close to a real 480i TV broadcast...if not humans, than definitely cars, robots, etc...in the hands of the right developer.

j_factor

11-22-2008, 02:04 AM

I don't think the PS3 hardware allows a game to be strictly 480i. 480p maybe, but not 480i.

Rob2600

11-22-2008, 02:13 AM

I don't think the PS3 hardware allows a game to be strictly 480i. 480p maybe, but not 480i.

Well, do you think a game running in 480p would free up enough of the PS3's processing power that developers could create an SDTV-realistic looking game? Again, if not humans, than maybe cars, airplanes, tanks, buildings, etc.?

j_factor

11-22-2008, 02:38 AM

No, but I don't know that it's an issue of processing power per se. I don't think the techniques really exist to make game/computer graphics actually look real. We can make things very detailed, very shiny, very textured, and with very fluid animation, but it just doesn't look the same. Even the absolute best prerendered CG animation sequences created on high-end workstations would never be mistaken for actual video footage. So an interactive game on a console is right out.

I do think you may be onto something with the idea that it could "do more" with a reduced resolution, but not as far as looking like a real video.

The 1 2 P

11-22-2008, 02:40 AM

While I like graphics as much as the next person, they will never be the deciding factor in my decision to buy a game. They have to actually have great gameplay as well. As for the whole "when will we get to CG level graphics" argument, I remember people(developers included) saying it would be achieved with the arrival of the PS2. And then they said it would be achieved with the 360/PS3. Now they can't make up their damn mind. I do like CG graphics but I don't need them to enjoy a fun playing game.

tomaitheous

11-22-2008, 03:50 AM

The problem is that gameplay has not evolved with the graphics. Until that happens, that actual games we play will just be a shiny version of what we are already playing

I disagree. I think it's the other way 'round. A lot of games from last generation weren't very engaging because of the graphics. I normally couldn't stand any sort of FPS game. Now that the graphics are so much more detailed and realistic, there's an incentive to play them - gives a much more believable feel and allure to the game environment that wasn't there before. Ever play a FPS on PS1? It's a terrible experience. PS2/360 was better but still boring and unrealistic looking. The difference between Call of Duty 4 or 5 and anything on last generation are miles a part. There also have been small, but necessary imo, tweaks to the general FPS gameplay. And this generation hasn't even ended yet, so I'm sure we'll see even more graphics enhancements.

OldSchoolGamer

11-22-2008, 05:32 AM

Fuck graphics, enough already. Don't get me wrong, back in the day it was graphics that swayed me towards AMIGA over PC but today the graphic level is good enough, personally I don't want graphic to ever be indistinguishable form reality, I like detail and atmosspere but I also like knowing I am playing A GAME, lately it seems all about graphics, screw that, I would prefer any and all future graphics funding, research etc instead be focused on AI, innovative gaming ideas, new concepts of gameplay, authentic and original game genres etc! I want to start playing a game, get totally sucked in and go WOW this is new, original and innovative! BETTER GRAPHICS WILL NOT ACHIEVE THIS....:-D

NoahsMyBro

11-22-2008, 08:40 AM

IMO, there is nothing new being discussed here. Every generation has had shovelware, and every generation has run into a rut, with many games lacking any sort of creativity. I'd be a little scared to try and list every Space Invaders or every Pac Man clone from the 2600-Intellivision era.

There will always be a successful game, followed by a hundred other games like it. During that timeframe, people will complain that nothing new or original is being developed.

When a publisher does release something new and different, it will either be successful, spawning lame copies of it, or else it will be less successful, and be forgotten or unnoticed by most people.

The only aspect of this discussion that I think hasn't been around since the beginning is the issue of sequels. Anything successful now will spawn sequels until all interest in the title is killed. I was surprised last night reading threads here about Tomb Raider (!!!) . I can't believe there are more Tomb Raider games. I mean, next I expect to see another Descent or Myst title. Let them go, already.

Getting back to the graphics - better graphics can be good, but don't necessarily matter. In some cases, a stylized, unnatural world is better for a game than video-realism. Mr. Driller, for example, would be completely different, and IMO worse, if the character looked like a real person, and the blocks looked like real concrete/dirt/whatever.

In any case, I'd agree that graphics are 'good enough', and slow incremental improvements are acceptable to me.

I'd also say, though, that gameplay HAS evolved. There were Space Invaders games, than maze games, platform games, than FPS games, RPGs, racing games, etc, music/rhythm games, etc... As a genre burns out, the industry does find a new hot genre and develop it. Whenever a genre takes hold, it evolves over time from a basic game to one with much more depth, until the genre is eventually exhausted. Even then new innovations come around occasionally: Space Invaders came out in what, 1977? Xevious seemed pretty fresh in the mid-1980's, and then Ikaruga splashed on to the scene with the black/white twist in the late-90's(early 200's?). So I'd argue that there ARE still gameplay innovations happening, and there isn't an excessive obsession with graphics on the part of the entire industry.

tomaitheous

11-22-2008, 04:06 PM

Graphic requirements or standard really depends on the type of game. You can't just use any old example of a game as to argue why better graphics aren't needed. That's absurd. And more detail, effects (partial, light, etc), , polygons, and higher res textures doesn't mean the game has to look anything like real life. I do put physics right up there with graphics for FPS and 3rd person shooters. I hate crappy and floaty physics in games. GTA is a prime example of games that sucked for last generation - graphics and physics. A big turn off for me.

kedawa

11-22-2008, 05:05 PM

Even some of the shittiest games out there have decent graphics, so I'd say it's time for developers to shift their priorities and fix the gameplay mechanics and shake out the bugs before worrying about superfluous graphical details.
On the other hand, I don't want the industry to go into Wii mode and start pumping out crap that looks like second rate Dreamcast games.

j_factor

11-22-2008, 09:24 PM

SegaAges

11-24-2008, 04:54 PM

Dude, I want graphics so real I feel like I am outside when I am not.

All of the technology is there, but nobody has thought of how to do it yet.

Photo-like dynamic digital media will reach far above and beyond just video games. All it is going to take is somebody thinking of 1 small thing that everybody missed and *poof*.

Right now it appears all we are doing is upping the polygon count.

Don't games still use the Vurtua Fighter 1 method of displaying everything (just put a buttload of polygons together to form a shape)?

I have an idea, and strange enough, it still has not been used yet today. I haven't told people, but it is a way to show real time, dynamic damage on vehicles, and could also be used to show things like dynamic broken bones and such.

There are many more applications than simply games for graphic power.

I have read very little about it, but from the little i read about ray tracing, it seems crazy, but i bet something else is going to be the thing that bring photo-realistic graphics.

Seriously, think of the game possibilities with those graphics. That would pwn hardcore. I mean, Gears of War with characters we can relate to better. Cliffy B chose a different person instead of the main dude for us to relate to, but seriously, all those dudes just look like bloated body builders. War games that look real. Resident evil with photo realistic graphics! C'Mon!

I always thought it would be cool with the way the zelda series works, would be if they did a zelda game during our time on our planet. You know, how gannon comes and somebody is chosen. Dude, that would be cool. Link vs gannon on top of some huge skyscraper would pwn!

metroid where mother brain makes you sh!t your pants because she is crazy. I mean, the better the graphics get, the more doors it opens, really. There is only so much you can do with the graphics being used right now.

kedawa

11-24-2008, 05:22 PM

You do it.

CDiablo

11-25-2008, 12:00 AM

Graphics Schamifics, its all about great gameplay. I dont care if it looks like real life or a C64 game, if it s fun its fun.

The 1 2 P

11-25-2008, 01:23 AM

If graphics get too realistic then some of you might try to make out with your tv when a pretty girl is onscreen instead of trying to kiss real pretty girls in real life.

OldSchoolGamer

11-25-2008, 04:29 AM

If graphics get too realistic then some of you might try to make out with your tv when a pretty girl is onscreen instead of trying to kiss real pretty girls in real life.

What is this "real life" you speak of? I don't follow...................

SegaAges

11-25-2008, 10:46 AM

If graphics get too realistic then some of you might try to make out with your tv when a pretty girl is onscreen instead of trying to kiss real pretty girls in real life.

wait, where is the party at?

kupomogli

04-02-2010, 07:36 AM

VGChartz posted that Edge played the demo to Crysis 2 and stated how amazing they thought the game looks. I wonder if by the the time Crysis 2 is released will the Cry Engine 3 be released for companies to start building their games with?

Here's the CryEngine 3 video released last year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Kvl31g77Z8

I don't think anyone here who plays next gen games would have any objection that all games could look like that in the near future.

jdc

04-02-2010, 08:53 AM

Graphics aren't good enough? Jesus, I set up a Dreamcast in my store on the day of it's launch and ran Soul Caliber. The general consensus from the regulars was that games simply COULDN'T get any better looking. This generation easily blows that Dreamcast away. I suggest that the original poster might run out and buy a new setup. Come over to my house and I can show you that actual gameplay footage is most often equal to the CG cutscenes. I never thought that I'd see that day. Namco has always had insane CG. Fire up Ridge Racer on either PS3 or 360 and the fantastic CG pales in comparison to the razor sharp gameplay graphics. Take a look at Lost Odysee. There are so many partical effects flying around the screen at any given time that you can't take them all in. Simply incredible compared to the effects that we were freaking out at in Final Fantasy 10 on the little ol' PS2. Remember being blown away by the facial textures in Shenmue? Check out Sed's facial detail in Lost Odysee. Simply incredible. You need to open your eyes and take another look.

Therealqtip

04-02-2010, 10:04 AM

How bout instead of me wasting another 300 bucks and waiting 2 years for the next gen console, they just keep updating the current consoles and say, "Fuck gimmicks" and stop being a graphic whore.

duffmanth

04-02-2010, 11:08 AM

I would agree that this generation of consoles isn't as big of a graphical leap from last gen as it was from the N64/PS1 to the PS2/Xbox/Cube gen. That being said though, there are some stellar looking games this gen, MGS4 and GOW3 would be at the top of my list. It's hard to say if in game graphics will ever equal CG? It's getting closer and closer with every new generation of consoles, but who really knows? But it's pretty hard to argue with games like the two I just mentioned that transition seamlessly from cut scenes to gameplay.

I find the best looking games this gen to be exclusives for the most part, but not all of the time. You look at MGS4, GOW3, Uncharted 1 & 2, Lost Odyssey, Halo 3, Gears 1 & 2, Killzone 2, Forza 2 & 3, etc, they're easily among the best, if not the best looking games out there right now. I think because so many games are cross platform now, that developers will make one great build of a particular game, then port that version to other platforms, that's maybe what is causing some games not to look and play as good as they should?

grolt

04-02-2010, 12:44 PM

Yeah, the last graphical leap that really wowed me was from the 32/64-bit era to Dreamcast. The previous eras were like a polygon work in progress. Now I think the graphical improvements are becoming so marginal that the focus for future consoles will be less on graphics but more on networking. We're already seeing this with the accessible play-it-with-your-family Wii controllers and the online networks dug out by XBL and PSN. Consoles today are allowing you to carve out a virtual identity with gamertags, achievements and the like, and I'd wager that's going to be more important than beefed up polygons and the like going forward.

Before, when you'd dump an old system it didn't matter too much. The only baggage you left behind were the games you had bought for the system, and even then you could still play them whenever. Now, though, moving forward, you'd have to jump ship on an identity, or the trophies aquired, or the friends lists made, just to get better graphics. There's just a lot less incentive to move forward, I think, when the current consoles have made such comfy virtual network with their systems.

When you can play a Final Fantasy game and the in-game graphics look BETTER than the CG (well, on the 360 at least, with all that compression artifacting), I think graphical improvement has since become a non-issue. It's about the network now.

nebrazca78

04-02-2010, 01:48 PM

Yeah, the last graphical leap that really wowed me was from the 32/64-bit era to Dreamcast.

Dreamcast was a big jump, it even looked better than PS2 until everyone figured out how to properly program for it. Mostly anti-aliasing issues but still. Personally I was just as wowed by the jump from PS2/Xbox1 to Xbox 360. If you look at games like Gears, Bioshock and Halo 3, the level of detail and polish is so much better than the previous generation. Some have argued that this is mostly beacuse 360 is HD, but I have played a few regular XBox games that were in 720p or 1080i. Honestly, it didn't really do much for them. It seemed like the extra processing power needed to do the higher resolution forced the programmers to drastically lower the overall detail of the game. I was also surprised (in reverse) that the PS3 graphics are rarely better than 360 graphics, and often inferior. Do PS3 programmers need more time to "figure things out" or did Sony just screw up royally when designing the PS3?

Before, when you'd dump an old system it didn't matter too much. The only baggage you left behind were the games you had bought for the system, and even then you could still play them whenever. Now, though, moving forward, you'd have to jump ship on an identity, or the trophies aquired, or the friends lists made, just to get better graphics. There's just a lot less incentive to move forward, I think, when the current consoles have made such comfy virtual network with their systems.

This is insightful but don't you think the system manufacturers will allow you to import your profile to the new system at some point?

When you can play a Final Fantasy game and the in-game graphics look BETTER than the CG (well, on the 360 at least, with all that compression artifacting), I think graphical improvement has since become a non-issue. It's about the network now.

There is still a ton of graphical improvement to be made. If you really look at the detail of todays games, all games have areas that can be improved drastically. The detail of the environments will be much less blocky. Things like grass, trees and water have a long way to go. It's easy these days to make water that looks cool but making it realistic is totally different. Even character models can be improved quite a bit. Have you ever noticed how games that have great character models tend to have less detailed environments and vice versa? The programmers will also have a much easier time keeping the frame rate at or above 60 fps constantly. I have not yet played a 360 game that can do this throughout the entire game.

The next generation will start to put all of these factors together and IMO the generation after that will be completely insane. I think most of us can agree that gameplay is the most important. A game with substandard graphics but great gameplay will still be fun. A game with great graphics and terrible gameplay just pisses you off. That said, there are tons of us out here who want the most amazing graphics possible, just not at the expense of gameplay.

.

duffmanth

04-02-2010, 02:55 PM

Dreamcast was a big jump, it even looked better than PS2 until everyone figured out how to properly program for it. Mostly anti-aliasing issues but still. Personally I was just as wowed by the jump from PS2/Xbox1 to Xbox 360. If you look at games like Gears, Bioshock and Halo 3, the level of detail and polish is so much better than the previous generation. Some have argued that this is mostly beacuse 360 is HD, but I have played a few regular XBox games that were in 720p or 1080i. Honestly, it didn't really do much for them. It seemed like the extra processing power needed to do the higher resolution forced the programmers to drastically lower the overall detail of the game. I was also surprised (in reverse) that the PS3 graphics are rarely better than 360 graphics, and often inferior. Do PS3 programmers need more time to "figure things out" or did Sony just screw up royally when designing the PS3?

This is insightful but don't you think the system manufacturers will allow you to import your profile to the new system at some point?

There is still a ton of graphical improvement to be made. If you really look at the detail of todays games, all games have areas that can be improved drastically. The detail of the environments will be much less blocky. Things like grass, trees and water have a long way to go. It's easy these days to make water that looks cool but making it realistic is totally different. Even character models can be improved quite a bit. Have you ever noticed how games that have great character models tend to have less detailed environments and vice versa? The programmers will also have a much easier time keeping the frame rate at or above 60 fps constantly. I have not yet played a 360 game that can do this throughout the entire game.

The next generation will start to put all of these factors together and IMO the generation after that will be completely insane. I think most of us can agree that gameplay is the most important. A game with substandard graphics but great gameplay will still be fun. A game with great graphics and terrible gameplay just pisses you off. That said, there are tons of us out here who want the most amazing graphics possible, just not at the expense of gameplay.

.

I don't think PS3 graphics are inferior to the 360's at all and vise versa. Like I mentioned before, I believe the best looking games this generation are exclusives for the most part. Just look at GOW3, MGS4, Halo 3, and Gears and you'll see what I mean. I'm guessing the reason some cross platform games look better on the 360 or the PS3 version looks no different than the 360 version, is because some developers choose to build the game for the 360 first, then do half ass ports to the PS3, Wii, and PC. If these developers actually took the time and built the game from the ground up for each individual platform, there might be very noticeable differences in the visuals? But this obviously isn't cost effective, so it'll probably never happen. Like I've been saying for years now, I think how good a game looks has as much to do with the skill of the developer as the power of the console.

The 1 2 P

04-02-2010, 07:06 PM

Before, when you'd dump an old system it didn't matter too much. The only baggage you left behind were the games you had bought for the system, and even then you could still play them whenever. Now, though, moving forward, you'd have to jump ship on an identity, or the trophies aquired, or the friends lists made, just to get better graphics. There's just a lot less incentive to move forward, I think, when the current consoles have made such comfy virtual network with their systems.

This is insightful but don't you think the system manufacturers will allow you to import your profile to the new system at some point?

Microsoft already did this very effortlessly by allowing original Xbox live accounts to migrate to new 360 live accounts. And considering how successful gamescore and achievements have been this gen(so successful that Sony jumped on the bandwagon with trophies) I seriously doubt that Microsoft isn't already planning on allowing current 360 owners to transfer their current gamerscore and achievements to their next system. The potential backlash of not doing so could be a death blow to Microsoft's console business....or lead to a bunch of online petitions:|

buzz_n64

04-03-2010, 02:00 AM

kupomogli

04-03-2010, 03:01 AM

Quit fucking asking for better, better graphics. 360's are keeling over, PS3's are being used as blu-ray players, and Wii's are getting used as aerobics machines. We are starting to get into the same rut that we were in, in the early 80's, a shit load of crappy games, no new systems in sight, and people not knowing what to buy. We still have a handful of ongoing good games, and I know we aren't going to have a video game crash, but maybe a slow mud slide. We just need better games, graphics are helpful, but can take a backseat any day to game play.

No ones asking, but there are always going to be people developing a better engine, and the CryEngine 3 is going to be released sometime so graphics will get better regardless. The graphics as they are now don't suck, but having better graphics never hurts.

Also. The CryEngine 3 is going to be used for developing PS3 and 360 titles. So it's not like we're going to have to purchase new consoles.