tolham :
alidan :
i have this argument with my brother all the time and i'm honestly sick of it, some how even after i explained it to him 10 times over, he still doesn't understand ui scaling and how all the benefit of sub 48 inch 4k is lost for general purpose computing, or how gpus aren't going to magically be able to handle 4k in 4 years. we got to the point where single gpus can just barely push 1080p maxed at 60fps, and somehow he thinks going to 4k is doable off a single gpu at 60+fps right now... god i hate this conversation with people who dont get it.
actually, umm, you're the one who doesn't get it. you apparently don't understand where technology is at and where it's going. we're not "just barely" pushing 1080 @ 60fps, we're pushing 1080 @ 120hz with a single GPU. we can already game at 4k with SLI (hell, tomshardware even wrote an article about it a year ago), and you can bet the farm we'll have a single GPU that can drive 4k gaming in the next 2 years. I don't think you've been following the news for the last couple years.
from what i remember looking at benchmarks, because im not going to dig through them for this, we are just getting to 120hz at 1080p mazed with 2 cards, not single cards. you forget that we get crap dumped on us from consoles with poor optimization, and i'm sure you can dig through any number of games released this year and years ago that are able to hit 1080p 60hz, even 120hz off a single card, but this is about high end graphics, you dont get to set a game to the highest end it can go and than get to play it the highest fps unless it is
1) the graphics aren't as good as you think and they went for style over raw power
2) you aren't looking at a current high end game.
ohim :
The problem is in polygons and how GPUs render .... of course you guys could make a difference between a Lara Croft of 80 polygons and a Lara Croft of 10.000 polygons or 30.000 one ... but there is a point where even if they 100.000 polygons you won`t see the difference and say the graphics are the same. There was a tech around youtube few years ago about rendering with individual pixels and thus making unlimited detail...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AvCxa9Y9NU
as of right now, their tech is real, what they can do with it is real, but they have yet to show us anything that is moving or game like, and have not told us outside of a "trust us" that they are able to make the games not take up terabytes of space, or require insane processing power when they move, or in the most recent video, show us that they can put in a fake interactive lightsource.
cptnjarhead :
There are so many other ways to push games forward besides graphics.
Better AI, bigger levels, better physics and so on. Most of these fall into “playability” not eye candy.
Take Liberty City in GTA 4, imagine if you could go into all the building?, or having the NPC’s exist in the game world as part of the city, with AI that was unique to each NPC, instead of popping in and out of the map doing repetitive scripted events. The replay factor alone would be huge.
Ai is allot harder to make work than you think, though i can say there are games that have some really crap ai, i wish games difficulty instead of you do less damage enemies do more, increased enemy ai instead.
bigger levels, this isn't an issue anymore, they can be as big as we want them to be... here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhyyUiYQolA
by far not the biggest game ever made, that goes to daggerfall, its still impressive how big it is and how little space it takes up. the problem here is that you need to hand craft a world, or make the random generation algorithm to end all random generation algorithms. i have a few ideas for making such a thing, but no way to really implement or test them out.
physics has its own set of problems right now, the best physics set i know (that is real time) of is physx, which nvidia makes proprietary, and goes largely unused. physics also come with a fairly steep requirement on processing power, so if you make them required for a puzzle or gameplay, you alienate a fairly large segment of the gamers, you also have other games that while they use some form of physics, cant replicate results,
going into every building, you know how much extra geometry that is just there?
each npc has its own ai and its own routine... you just told your cpu to slit its wrists.
every npc being named, ok, every npc given a really simple task, sure, but random pop in and out is necessary because your computer cant handle a 100000K population, let alone the several million plus that that a city in a gta would have if they were real. here, this game on the ps2 had a stupid amount of on screen enemies, try to find out how it did it and what the limitations are of that, and if you want to see how much further it could be pushed now, the ps2 had 6 GFLOPS for its cpu.
i agree it would be nice, but asking for the impossible is still impossible.
liffie :
I have to agree with the article, but it has been a case of diminishing returns as far as graphics go for a while. I for one say gameplay over graphics, but the thing is it just a bit more gilding on the lily so to speak. You can make the games flashier and keep upping the textures etc but your not gaining all that much for all the extra horse power it takes to run it all.
There will always be someone who wants to make the games graphics bigger and better but is that all that matters? I mean look at uncharted or even Final Fantasy 12 on ps2 or 13 on ps3 or Just Cause 2 those are graphically very beautiful games regardless of weather or not you like that particular type of game they are pretty. Can you say graphics have got 1 or even 2 times better since then. I think the only place there has been any real noticeable improvement in the last few years is in lighting and shadows in games sure your polygon counts have gone up some as well but it is not like the difference between ps1 and ps2.
I think until developers and hardware makers can pull off real time ray tracing, which is still a good ways off but the only thing that is going to give you that wow moment again, we have kind of hit a bit of a plateau as far as how pretty you can make a game without needing a massive jump in gpu power for a small graphical benefit.
i would say that certain genres rely on graphics more than others. you want a horror game, graphics are the easy way to make more atmosphere if you don't completely batch the sound.
a big point in the uncharted and tombraider or assassin creed games are the vistas. in tomb raider and uncharted's case, they try to mimic movies, so the graphics are important there.
junkeymonkey :
what they need to do is WOW me with gamws that don't require a steam or other 3ed party account with there malware attached in order to load or play
some folks anit stupid and don't spend money on things they don't own or control like steam games where you pay them for the use of a game as they see fit ??
why cant they put the full game on a disk with out you needing to go beg someone like steam inorder to load and play and then if something were to go wrong you got nothing unless they say you do?? ya a fool and his money are parted .. so as long as there a steam type client and a internet connection I have to have to load and play that's a no sale and I hope they loose good money and cry cause its not my fault they made things not worth ne spending my money on so to bad so sad for them
im pretty sure that i will get suspended if i advocate the way around these 3rd party programs...
for i don't know how long, you have not owned the games you play... you have a license to play them that you agree to but you own nothing. games are a service, or at least treated like a service now... yea... it sucks, and there are ways to have an offline copy that are frowned upon, but i bought the game, i payed 60$ for it, i get to use it how i want. i know there are several games i own because of drm i don't use the version i bought to play the games.
turkey3_scratch :
See I'm much different. I run Shadow of Mordor 720p on Xbox One and I am wowing at the graphics. Honestly, they look incredible to me, I could not give a crap for a higher resolution and shading on a PC because that would cost double what the Xbox one costed for me. I can see how well Shadow of Mordor was optimized for console, and I guess I think the graphics are great because for one thing I play 90s games to this day.
i think i removed all the quotes here correctly.
now, i assume everyone has a pc, so i take the cost of motherboard and all that out of it.
the xbox 1 came out at 500$, so lets go over to new egg.
oh... wow...
ok, lets assume you dont have a powersuppy powerfull enough to run a gpu, the cheapest one is a 700 watt coolmax for 50$ that is 80+ gold, and from someone i trust, seasonic for 80$
now your gpu choices here are
wait on a good deal, and you can probably get a 980 for 450-500$
a 780ti now only costs 440$
an r9 290X can be had for 360$
and the gpu i personally use the r9 280X (i was not putting something designed to run 95C in my computer) costs 230$
and the r9 280X WILL get you higher graphic fidelity and max most games (may need to turn shadows down a peg) than the xbox one could ever dream of. hell, looking at the cost of the 280x you could almost build a full computer cheaper than the xbox one that plays games significantly better.
hitman40 :
I think sometimes there isn't leaps and bounds because devs try to always abandon good visual aspects of their previous games. Look at a game like LA Noire. That game had amazing motion capture for faces. Now all the games they released after that have gone back to sub-par.
if i remember right, you were tied to using the exact same face, which required you to use people who can act, not just voice actors...
the tech was extremely costly when you look at it like that. without it, la noire would not have been a good game. also, didn't the studio behind the game fail at making the game so much they were disbanded and rockstar main picked up the pieces? its been a few years sense i read about the games development.
none12345 :
Story is #1, if the games story sucks the game sucks.
Gameplay is close number #2, if the game playes like crap, or has no replay value, the game sucks.
Sensory inputs are #3, thats graphics and sound. These are still important but not as much as the story and gameplay.
The reason its becoming hard to impress gamers on graphics, is because they've been giving us the same graphics for about 6-8 years now. There is almost no difference between games from 2008 and 2014 graphically speaking. Sure some minor changes, but nothing really to write home about.
You want to wow me? Give me a truly interactive environment. Everything should be destructible, in a realistic way. That means leaving behind piles of rubble or burning buildings for hours on end. And by piles of rubble i don't mean the unrealistic joke that we currently have.
You want to wow me? Give us weather that interacts with the environment. And that doesn't mean changing textures to looking frozen or wet when it rains or snows. I want snow to accumulate realistically on objects, and be intractable such that if you brush your hand over an object you brush off the snow. I want it to build up and get wind blown such as it does in real life. I want rain to first wet surfaces, then start turning ground to mud, that you get bogged down in a realistic way. I want trickles to merge and form streams and rivers over geometry in a realistic way.
Sound could really use some attention as well. Its been ignored for too long.
Doing these things could easily bring a 16 core quad graphics card machine to its knees. Which is a GOOD thing. Time to start pushing computer hardware again. The hardware world is so stagnate over the last 8 years or so because software no longer pushes the boundaries of hardware. This 5%-10% improvement per year is a joke compared to the glory days of 50%-100% every year we use to have.
The examples i gave above are easily parallel computer problems. Means they should be able to suck up all the graphics and cpu cores you can throw at them with ease. Increasing core count is still something that cpu companies can more or less easily do with each process shrink, even if they cant increase clock speed.
#1 - you are wrong. proof, doom. put brutal doom in there and tell me gameplay cant sell the game... by and large game stories are mediocre at best, with very few notable exceptions. the story in a game serves as a motivation, gameplay is what makes or breaks a game. at least outside of specific gerners where its all about a story... and no, rpgs are not the genre.
#2 - by and large number 1, but we already went over that. replayability is subjective, some people play platformers to speed run, while others play it once and see no reason to keep playing. there are also games where the game play is absolute crap but for some reason people still play through them. you can argue story, but i argue fanboys from previous games.
#3 - i would say sound is over graphics in importance, but is harder to screw up so its not something most people notice.
you are also wrong again on nothing improved from 2006-2014, metro to last light, crysis 1 to 3, on the consoles resistance 1 to 2, they doubled the poly count but no one knew until they were told.
with the weather you are asking the near impossible, unless its heavily faked, but than you would notice its faked.
sound... really there isn't much to improve. play blacklight retribution with headphones and tell me you cant tell where people are just by sound alone... more games need to do this.
now, from my understanding, no one wants to buy new hardware every year as a requirement to game... you want to kill pc gaming all together go for it, a minority complain about stagnation, but we get the games like crysis still, we get metros that push games, most people don't want to have to but a completely new computer just because... im also not sure a 50-100% improvement is possible anymore just because we are nearing the peak of what current methods will allow.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram