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

[parallaxscroll]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[otaku]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Rob2600]

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?