Do graphics really need to be any better than they are right now?

Robert1986

Robert1986

Robert1986

Soldato
Joined
17 Apr 2007
Posts
23,162
Location
stat city
I was just playing through MGS3 and was still an awe at how good it looks! I think todays graphics are as good as graphics need to be, look at GT5p, its life like! Not to mention crysis on the pc.

So, my question is. Would you be happy playing games in 10-20 years from now if they looked like they do today?
 
Yeah, What we need now is the graphics we're seeing now, For instance games as beautiful as Gears of War and Uncharted, Or as you said GT5 Prologue. But we need to see them in more expansive areas, with ZERO slow down and performance hits.

Busier environments and more interactive environments.

Graphics wise though, I'd be happy if they never got much better, Model wise.

Texture wise, Frames per Second Wise and supported Screen resolution wise, There's always room for improvement.
 
Robert1986 said:
I was just playing through MGS3 and was still an awe at how good it looks! I think todays graphics are as good as graphics need to be, look at GT5p, its life like! Not to mention crysis on the pc.

So, my question is. Would you be happy playing games in 10-20 years from now if they looked like they do today?
Click to expand...

Games are still far from realistic. Crysis still looks nothing like real-life :)
 
Craig321 said:
Crysis still looks nothing like real-life :)
Click to expand...

2ltq3wk.jpg
 
^^^^ good pics but thats an ideal, show me a parallel of a guy firing a gun real Vs Crysis and it'll look laughable.

They are getting there with environments but the minute details are still lacking. When it comes to organic detail we are MILES off perfection.

IMO what will be interesting is when you have an environment that runs perfectly and looks perfect with room to spare, processor wise, for a game on top, then we will see some truly impressive stuff appear.

Long way to go, real long way.

EDIT Also just read wannabedamned's post, graphics should not be considered based on a small arena but as a whole. Its easy for a game like gears or condemned to make what little they have to render look pretty, hell resident evil and final fantasy 7 has some fantastic visuals at the time, but it was pre rendering that allowed for these 'ahead of their time' visuals. Gears and many other modern titles use a similar system simply updated for modern games. Rather than pre rendered environments they are simply limited non-interactive arenas that look far vaster than they are.

The point is, if a modern PC/console can create a PERFECT copy of the mona lisa down to the finest detail but nothing else, is it graphically superior to a game with a REPRESENTATION of the mona lisa hung on walls all over a textured and interactive level? My answer would be no. You say you want to see gears graphics but on bigger levels? Well so would the developers, but the hardware just isnt there, gears only looks great because its limited. You think the guys who made saints row though "hey y'know we could use unreal 3 engine for this but lets go with some last gen renderware and tweak it", i think not.

Personally i think the GTA games are a great representation of the 'current-level' because the franchise is so gameplay and environment oriented that it doesnt need fantastic visuals, the visuals will be what is left over once the game works (something which many would say hindered San Andreas). So then fundementally we are only as far as our last GTA, and with the next one coming soon we will soon see how far graphically we have come.
 
Last edited:
Anyone remember the velociraptors from jurrassic park?
JPraptorPeople.gif

Came out, what, 14 years ago now, wasnt that before the internet-proper? Early days anyway. Dont know about you but they looked and still look breathtaking. Quality of graphics is only relative to the context. I imagine those dino's took weeks to render and could now be done in realtime on your xbox. but try to sit 30 of them, independently animated in a field, and your back in the weeks. Thats why we are far far from photo-realism
 
Yes. Being a big fan of first person shooters i'm still disapointed that when you shoot someone in the head you can't tell the difference blood and brain and when grenades go off why can't identify the different internal organs.

On second thought graphics are pretty good and i'm not bother if they don't get much better. If they do all it going to do is make certain games quite gross to play, if they try to be realistic. It will also make development more expensive which will mean less games produced.
 
I have to say that I totally agree with Ultra_Extreme, games like GTA are a very good example of where we really are in terms of graphics when you have large interactive environments. Things like linear 'rail' shooters, whilst some of them are quite good, leave a lot of extra processing power left over for tweaking the graphics right up.

The two best looking games on 360 and PS3 are arguably Gears and Drakes and they both share similarities in as far as they were too short and quite linear gameplay wise.
 
I remember saying to a friend when I was about 13 (1993) that console graphics couldnt feasibly get any better as they were now "arcade perfect" i.e. Street Fighter II.

Now, until they invent the Holodeck I am not satisfied.
 
think about artificial intelligence. The A.I in games now is equal to a dumb ant. N.P.C's now have trouble with the simplest of pathfinding. when we have quantum computing then we can seriously think about proper A.I
 
I am happy with the current state of graphics myself. What I feel we need are larger more detailed environments, and, as mentioned, better AI.

I think the next generation of consoles could be very promising if they really put some graphics horsepower in, and up the memory on the things by a hell of a lot. Memory getting very cheap now, so when the next consoles come out, I would like to see them throwing more than is necessary in, giving developers a lot more room for development.
 
i reckon you can't get better than the likes of COD4, looks absolutely stunning with no slow-down and the like... drakes fortune to me while it looks nice is just begging for some decent AA, and for VSync - I remember reading in PSM3 (the issue that had free pro triggers) that they reckon DF actually looked better via scart... although i haven't tried it myself i can see where they're coming from...
 
QuiKsiLVeR said:
i reckon you can't get better than the likes of COD4, looks absolutely stunning with no slow-down and the like... drakes fortune to me while it looks nice is just begging for some decent AA, and for VSync - I remember reading in PSM3 (the issue that had free pro triggers) that they reckon DF actually looked better via scart... although i haven't tried it myself i can see where they're coming from...
Click to expand...
Mass Effect is where it's at, hopefully 2 will iron out the framerate and texture popping.

CoD4 looks nice in places, but bad in others, I think the best looking console game is a toss up between UT3, Mass Effect and Uncharted.

You certainly can't beat the character models on Mass Effect.
 
As good as those Crysis shots look on first glance, take a second and you can see the difference in things like the grass. Although these are minor and at full speed as your wandering around I doubt you will notice.

As for people models, I doubt these will ever be perfect unless we use real actors!

But this is besides the point, I agree that there are lots of other areas that need developing first i.e A.I. and physics. I won't be happy until I can destroy every object in the game and have lifelike physics dettecting even the most subtle dents to a trash can etc..

Then again, this thread is about graphics and as good as they are today I think in 20 years time you could be having the same discussion over graphics that make todays graphics look like the NES does to us today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom