Why have graphics stagnated for almost 20 years?

Obviously not on the surface of it. I understand the line of thinking though if you look at from a functional perspective. Once 3D acceleration became a thing beyond arguably beyond the first generation, the actual core gameplay and experience wasn't hindered by shoddy pixelated engines, or stuttering slow gameplay.

When you look over time the comparison is clear to see visually though, perhaps you get a little punch drunk to the older stuff if you don't play many newer titles.
 
Joking aside, the reason graphics are becoming more and more stagnated is due to the law of diminishing returns each time the number of triangles in 3D graphics is doubled. The first 3D game was Battlezone in 1980 and the graphics were just wire frames. The 10 years that followed saw an incredible advancement. The evolution of graphics between 1990 - 2000 was big but not as big as the previous decade. The leap from 2000 - 2010 was smaller still. The apparent graphical leap from decade to decade is decreasing.

As I said, it's the diminishing returns each time the number of triangles is doubled. Imagine a sphere with a surface made up of 20 triangles. So very crude graphics indeed. Each time you double the number of triangles that make up the sphere, the graphics quality doubles. However, the noticible improvement will decrease. By the time number of triangles is into the millions, the doubling of triangles will still double the quality. However, it will be less noticible.

A sphere with 20 millon triangles has twice as good graphics as a sphere with 10 millon triangles. However, you probably wouldn't notice the difference because the triangles are so small. So diminishing returns. Graphics becomes stagnated.
 
Because all the algorithms have been known for decades they just didn't have the hardware to run them at high spec. Everything you see like lighting, reflections have to be individually programmed like bump mapping. They can now use high definition textures for example without clogging up the ram.

Ray tracing solves this through complex equations that accurately represents how light interacts with matter however there still isn't the hardware to process RT fully.

The other reasons are tools and skillsets, more and more people are learning game design, modelling, level design so companies can be a lot more productive building more complex interactive world's.

But the majority of a rendering engine hasn't changed since 15 years ago, just as I said hardware has allowed much more complex high def games to be produced.
 
One time you would never have seen lots of foliage in games. Your system would bog down. Game worlds certainly has massively improved. Physics and AI.
 
CuriousTomCat said:
Joking aside, the reason graphics are becoming more and more stagnated is due to the law of diminishing returns each time the number of triangles in 3D graphics is doubled. The first 3D game was Battlezone in 1980 and the graphics were just wire frames. The 10 years that followed saw an incredible advancement. The evolution of graphics between 1990 - 2000 was big but not as big as the previous decade. The leap from 2000 - 2010 was smaller still. The apparent graphical leap from decade to decade is decreasing.

As I said, it's the diminishing returns each time the number of triangles is doubled. Imagine a sphere with a surface made up of 20 triangles. So very crude graphics indeed. Each time you double the number of triangles that make up the sphere, the graphics quality doubles. However, the noticible improvement will decrease. By the time number of triangles is into the millions, the doubling of triangles will still double the quality. However, it will be less noticible.

A sphere with 20 millon triangles has twice as good graphics as a sphere with 10 millon triangles. However, you probably wouldn't notice the difference because the triangles are so small. So diminishing returns. Graphics becomes stagnated.
Click to expand...
Apart from the past 10 years leap has been much bigger then the previous 10 years leap. RT, VR and engine improvements have broken the diminishing returns pattern for now. I agree with you up until recently.
 
V F said:
One time you would never have seen lots of foliage in games. Your system would bog down. Game worlds certainly has massively improved. Physics and AI.
Click to expand...
Physics and AI are about where they were 20 years ago.

in fact they were probably better 20 years ago when Hl2 came out and other games were pushing Physx features.


Now we get games where barely anything is interactive or has physics, there was a time games saw destructive environment etc as a good thing.
here's 2001
This game had online multiplayer btw, you could still blow up walls, make tunnels with rocket launchers etc.

Physics in racing games barely changed, AI in racing games still moving road blocks, AI in most games = Brain dead.

most games stopped having interactive environments even
 
arknor said:
Physics and AI are about where they were 20 years ago.

in fact they were probably better 20 years ago when Hl2 came out and other games were pushing Physx features.
Click to expand...

Try Doom Eternal Nightmare AI or God of War AI on Give Me God of War. Such as the Valkyries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom