Can games get any more demanding than Crysis Warhead?

chengbin

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2009
77
0
18,640
1
Can games get any better/more demanding than Crysis Warhead? The graphics are so good, almost photorealistic, that I can't see games getting any better than this.

Therefore this brings to the next question. I don't see the need of faster graphics cards after 3-4 years. By that time, a reasonably high end video card should be able to play Crysis Warhead at 2560x1600 with some AA/AF easily. Since games are not getting any more demanding (correct me on this), and resolution can't get much higher for PCs, I don't see the need for faster video cards. Maybe if you're into Folding@home, then yes. Maybe in the future when 2160p or 4320p comes out, then we need POWERFUL graphic cards for gaming consoles.

Since I bought up the point that monitors won't have higher resolutions, and this is in the display section too, I want to ask. What do you think the future for monitors are? Size can't get much bigger, because it'll look too absurd having 30+'' monitors on your desk. Resolution isn't increasing, because there's no point. The only thing I can see is having better quality panels. I think right now (and before), monitors are increasing in size. I think in the future, monitors are increasing in quality, hopefully IPS and S-PVA panels become cheaper. Of course correct me if I'm wrong.
 

rags_20

Distinguished
Aug 16, 2008
902
0
18,990
1
They can. Haven't you heard of Moore's Law? What do you mean you don't need faster cards after 3-4 years? There is no such thing as the ultimate. People had 20MB hard drives during the 80s and didn't know what to do with that much space. They use 640KB of RAM. They thought that more wouldn't be needed. Today we have 12GB of RAM and TBs of hard disks and SSDs coming up. I don't think there's much to be discussed. How can you not see something getting better than CW? Crytek is not the only game developer.
 

chengbin

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2009
77
0
18,640
1
What I mean is, how can it get better than photorealism? Crysis, and Crysis Warhead is pretty damn close, and sometimes is, photorealistic.

Of course I've heard of Moore's Law. I can see the need of better CPU, HDD, and RAM for a very long time. (IMO processors are still too slow right now), but I can't see it for graphic cards after a few years.
 

raybob95

Distinguished
Mar 7, 2009
586
0
18,990
3
GTAIV is EXTREMELY demanding, as is FSX, if you let it be. :D

And as we continue to develop monitors, soon you'll have a 24" monitor running at 120Hz, 48-bit Color, and 3840x2400 resolution.
 

chengbin

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2009
77
0
18,640
1
But would you see much of an improvement with 48 bit color and 3840x2400 resolution? I doubt it. The resolution is too high for a small monitor, and most of the time, for most of the people, you won't see much of an improvement.
 

raybob95

Distinguished
Mar 7, 2009
586
0
18,990
3


With 48-bit color, not a ton, but the Human eye can see up to thousands of DPI.
 
The original Crysis is more demanding than Crysis Warhead, mostly because Warhead has more optimizations. Anyway I expect that by the end of the year there will be DX10 games more demanding than either Crysis before we start seeing developers focus on DX11 and give DX10 just for compatibility.
 

chengbin

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2009
77
0
18,640
1


That's true to some degree, maybe when the screen is 10cm away from you. It depends on distance. I doubt you can see a big improvement on a 24'' 3840x2400 than 1920x1200 half a meter away.
 

efeat

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2008
272
0
18,790
2
One (compound) word: framerate. No current GPU can run warhead at max details and still maintain 60 fps at all times. That's how can we improve =)
 

SpadeM

Distinguished
Apr 13, 2009
284
0
18,790
2
I don't think it's about frame rates, i mean u can run Warhead maxed out with a 3way/4way sli solution. But even so Crysis isn't photo realistic, what it's missing is GI. When games will be able to handle GI and hardware too of course, in real time, then games will be truly beyond the "WOW" factor.
As an example ... Look up the differences between rendered 3D pictures with max for example, of images with and without GI.
 
I want to see actual terran deformation, and fully destructible environments....ie. blow a foxhole in the ground to take cover, or fire a tank shell and completely destroys a tower/concrete structure.
 

chef7734

Distinguished
Mar 3, 2009
856
0
19,010
19

I agree with you completely. Cysis was a huge step towards this and hopefully it will get much better in the years to come.
 
what a ridiculous question..

the asker of this question has NO imagination.

yes, games can get better. much better. they arent even close to realistic.

from my limited understanding, active ray tracing will be the next *huge* thing.
 

efeat

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2008
272
0
18,790
2


They still can't average 60 fps, let alone maintain it at all times.



But anyway, my post wasn't meant to be entirely literal. Improving image quality isn't the only way we can advanced in graphics technology.
 

joshwood123

Distinguished
Dec 24, 2008
78
0
18,630
0
well ya see, we are all human, and humans are never happy with what they got, even if they say they are, their not. So, we will always make bigger, better, fast computer parts, if not for the need, but the WANT! i mean really? There will never be a point where everyone stops and doesnt know what to do next or how to make what they have, faster and more powerful...


just thought i should throw that in there...

;]
 

chengbin

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2009
77
0
18,640
1


Read my post. I said in 3-4 years, when GPUs can easily run Warhead at max detail and resolution.



Sorry, what is GI?
 

mamw93

Distinguished
Jan 16, 2009
540
0
18,980
0
Yes... Crysis Warhead in 3-D. Get a 120HZ monitor, a pair of NVidia 3-D glasses, and a 9800GT and up graphics card and you'll find out how good it can REALLY get. I have the Viewsonic 120HZ monitor with a GTX 295 and it looks AMAZING!!!!
 


Hence, the need for a Physics API; not an engine, but an actual standard, just like DX and OGL. We aren't going to make major jumps in how a game looks from here on out, texture wise at least. Its going to be lighting, its going to be physics, etc.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
I think theres a few things thatll improve. Raytracing , used in a blend with rasterization, higher textures, were currently strangled at the 32 bit 2gig scenaio. Having higher textures, and going to a true 64 bit model, allowing for much higher limits, limits we see broken in a game or 2, with max res and all eye candy cranked, and games with mods in them.
Coming in DX11, we also have tesselation, which if used in higher res, will give closer textures more of a life like looking scenario, and an over life like "real" environment. We have AI and physics to add, where gravity, wind, possibly heat or cold could play into an overall experience. Were close from the cartoonish games we had, but far from real "realism"
 

raybob95

Distinguished
Mar 7, 2009
586
0
18,990
3



My main ways that I think games should improve are:

1) Better AI, in the future maybe as smart as a human
2) PHYSICS (Everything that would come into play in real life)
3) BIGGER WORLDS (GTAIV could have had a world 3x as big if it wasn't for the XBOX360)

Part of the way we can accomplish all this is through new Storage Media.

I foresee three ways:

1) In the near future, all games come on several Blu-Ray discs
2) In the far future, the games come on e.g., 320GB SSD
3) In the farther future, We advance the internet, and with our 64TB HDDs, you download a 1TB game in a 800 Mbit/s connection. (2.8 hour Download)

And for those of you that don't realize it, there is SO MUCH MORE that we can do to computers. We are effectively just beginning to leave the Caveman-era of computers. We haven't even gotten into 3-dimensional 40 GHz Processors with dozens, or hundreds of cores yet.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
Think about it. Having 64bit, youll have those larger games, longer view distances with more clarity etc, which we simply cant have now due to mem limitations. Turn around quickly in a high res, high textured game, and you get the slows. With faster cards, and an available higher amount of ram etc etc, problems solved
 

chengbin

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2009
77
0
18,640
1
Now that you guys mention it, like physics and raytracing, there is some improvement room available.

I've always realized that our CPUs are too slow. I totally agree with the description "cavema-era of computers". I think that's the perfect description for the tech world we're in now. But then if we have FAST CPUs, we'll get lazy programmers using incredible inefficient codes.

Can you guys explain the "memory limitation" thing?
 

daedalus685

Distinguished
Nov 11, 2008
1,558
0
19,810
16
Can games become more demanding? What a silly question.. by the time we are able to really emualte "reality" (that is physics, AI, photoraelism, 'perfect' resolution, etc.) games will require orders of magnitude more power. Hundreds and hundreds of times as much storage, bandwitdth, speed, memory, etc. Of course what we recognize as a computer today wont be anything like those of the future which are capable of running a 'perfect' recreation of reality any more than the first mecahnical calculators are similar to the most advanced comptuers of today. Everything will change given time.

Is crysis near the limit of the currenct computer architecture? perhaps.. but we still have lots of headroom for improvements in realism beyond image quality. Even before drastic architechtural shifts occur in computers and the way we interact with them. The other areas of concern are just as taxing to a computer, as mentinoed above with the posts reguarding AI, physics and world size (removing in game loads).

For isntance the first myst games used very high resolution still pictures.. one could make a case that it was just as photo realistic, if one weer to compare screen shots, as what we have today.. but it was far from taxing, and far from realsitic in any other regard.
 

TRENDING THREADS