Renzatic on 19/4/2016 at 07:33
Quote Posted by zoog
If graphics doesn't matter (and gets better) anymore then why we are bying more and more powerful videochips every year?
Cuz 4k, damnit! :mad:
Though to demonstrate how we're very quickly reaching that point of diminishing returns, I give you Allison Road (not that old 90's song)
[video=youtube;__i_LoRKhJ0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__i_LoRKhJ0[/video]
Now how can you improve upon that? Higher res textures will make it look even MORE realistic. Refinements in lighting wouldn't hurt. We still have plenty of room to carry the quality we're seeing here in somewhat enclosed areas to outdoor environments. There's tons that are left to be done.
...but considering the level of quality we're at now, the changes made over the next 5 years won't be nearly as jarring as comparing the original DOOM to Unreal 1.
nicked on 19/4/2016 at 07:55
Quote Posted by Abysmal
But as soon as there is any interaction with a human in a game with visuals like that, it becomes immediately apparent what is still (very) lacking. Convincingly lifelike animation is probably still a decade or more away.
I dunno that it's that far away. Have you played Until Dawn? It's not quite out of the uncanny valley but it's close.
Malf on 19/4/2016 at 08:10
Yeah, and that MMO I'm playing, Black Desert Online?
The character creator in that is capable of stunningly lifelike results:
Inline Image:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/bbQSVgOF-KI/hqdefault.jpgSure, the hair's a bit off, but the faces are fantastic.
I'll upload a screeny of my character when I get a chance.
But yeah, there's not much point focussing on ever more realistic graphics now, and style says a lot more about your game these days.
I think they could still work on animation however, and it's a massive shame Rock Star either won't license Euphoria out to other companies, or it's too expensive for them to license. Even there though, while it does a brilliant job of improvising animations and making rag-dolls look less rag-dolly, the active animations such as characters moving around, still look stilted.
While the game itself was pretty mediocre, I felt Rage had
exceptional animation that was very convincing.
zajazd on 19/4/2016 at 08:35
The last time I was really impressed by graphics quality was in 2009 in Batman Arkham Asylum on pee see.
Judith on 19/4/2016 at 08:37
Quote:
Why has the drive to demand photorealism fizzled out?
Because it's easy for your game to look like a 3dsmax model catalogue for interior design architecture. It also feels weird, maybe uncanny valley has something to do about it as well. Reliance on photographic textures is expensive and/or time consuming (whether you buy those, or capture them yourself). Making textures and materials from scratch and having a certain style gives you much more creative control.
Thirith on 19/4/2016 at 08:41
My impression from everything I read and hear is that the heydays of "New year, new graphics card" have been over for a while now. Perhaps this will change again with VR and 4k/144Hz screens becoming more widespread, but there's no comparison to, say, 10-15 years ago.
I'm also lucky in that I enjoy playing games on various systems, mainly PC and PS4, and I almost never think that one of the games I play is held back by the tech. I've yet to mind that a PS4 game I'm playing is locked at 30 frames. Similarly, when I look at modern games, I'm rarely aware of the gap between what they're aiming for visually and what's actually on the screen. Look at older 3D games, and they're clearly limited by the tech (unless we're talking about something overtly stylised), but when I look at Destiny (PS4) or Dying Light (PC), I'm not immediately struck by what is still lacking. Certainly the graphics could be improved, but my impression is that by and large the current games I play look the way they're supposed to look, not like a version that's compromised by CPU and graphics card speed.
Nameless Voice on 19/4/2016 at 10:25
Another point is that the way most large companies now work for a "single version for all systems" stymies graphical advancement.
You can't make a game with incredible detail because it won't run on the current generation of consoles, and they don't want to have to make two versions of all the art assets.
Now people have got so used to the graphical quality being left intentionally lower than it could be for that reason that they've stopped expecting such large strides in graphics quality from the AAA sector.
faetal on 19/4/2016 at 11:11
I think graphics are just less talked about because the improvements are starting to plateau out a bit to the point where it's rare to play a game where you think "wow, I've never seen anything like this". I think after eg Crysis, the improvements have become less and less pronounced, so now it's not a talking or selling point and other aspects have been prioritised to give that wow factor which generates hype.
icemann on 19/4/2016 at 11:19
The amount of time it takes to make a super impressive gfx game vs a more indie looking one is another factor.
How long was Deus Ex HR in the works for? Years from memory.
Also I just think some sorts of games look best if they look gamey vs the realistic look. For some game types, if you made them all super real looking, it would remove the magic of it somewhat I think.
faetal on 19/4/2016 at 11:34
Of course, but that dev time is worth it if the outcome is going to set the tone of your marketing. Otherwise, it's fine to stick to current tech with maybe just a few extra shiny bits on top.
