Do you still need better graphics than we have now?

?

  • Yes

    Votes: 65 44.2%

  • No

    Votes: 82 55.8%
  • Total voters
    147
Nowa

Nowa

Member
d09b-crysis-3-explosion.png


For me, in terms of raw graphical power, pic related from 2013 is plenty enough. The game looks beautiful. Put that shit on 4k, 120hz and that's it. Illumination, vegetation, it's all great to my eye. I would much prefer if companies tried new physics models, new artificial intelligence, different art styles and other recourses to impress instead of just pursuing better and better graphics. So for me it has been a long time I don't need better.

I'm probably in the minority though. Have you guys got to a point where you think "yeah, that's enough for me"?
 
No, but there are some games that still need to look better. I praised Donkey Kong Bananza's gameplay, but it's crazy that it kinda looks like a Switch 1 game, despite it being exclusive to PS4 Pro like hardware.
 
I haven't been about needing graphics to improve since the GCN/PS2/Xbox era but as time has gone by I think PS360 was the sweet spot. I'm not sure anything we would call a graphical showcase from the PS4/Xbox One days through to where we are now has felt needed to me but I acknowledge I haven't been about graphics for a very long time while other people do really get into graphics and probably have highlights from the past 10 years that wouldn't be possible on PS3/360 level hardware. I also largely don't play modern games much outside of modern Nintendo games (which have been a gen behind since the Wii) and JRPGs. I recently played Hogwarts Legacy. It's probably the first western AAA game I've played in the last 15 years. It reminded me of what I've suspected. AAA games that need PS4/PS5 sort of power, they have this janky look and feel to them. The game is technically pretty but I often found myself asking if it was prettier than many PS360 era games. I know on paper it has more detail and technically has more going on. But I'm not sure it's that pretty, and I feel like I noticed odd lighting effects and other visual blemishes that I would call modern AAA jank.
 
Last edited:
Dude I've been playing Rune for the past few days and I even think it looks cool at times:

ss_29de79ef97b6f59d57ea3fb5c48961feadfb5017.1920x1080.jpg


We don't need better graphics. What we need are smarter developers to make better use of the available hardware and better art designers to help with making the games look pretty. Elden Ring could be a good example of a game with so-so technology but amazing art design.
 
No, we first need to modernize production pipelines in order to speed up graphics production and leave time to optimization, current game engines are still not optimized for modern graphic pipelines and it shows, which harm maxing out those machines
 
We're closing on a point where it becomes physically impossible to make new bleeding edge graphics, not without a studio budget of billions.
 
Last edited:
not need but there is still a long way to go. I want Ready Player One level of detail realtime. I want CLEANER image quality and with the TAA crap we got going on we still need a long more power to brute force these features while keeping things crisp.

I want a battlefield game with FOR REAL destruction. I want the physics and explosions to be better, I want all the cars to have soft body physics like beam ng. I want the helicopter and plane crashes to have proper speed and destruction. I want all the gore to be as deep as is can be.

See, we got pretty games but they lost the playground depth, I want it all back. It's all hollow and dead.
 
I want RTGI/PT and virtualized geometry as standard. Once that is done and I never see a misplaced lightmap or pop in again Im fine with whatever art developers cook up.
 
Art style trumps graphics to my tastes. I think technology will improve regardless, though. Problem is by pushing the bleeding edge visually, we're always stuck with shitty performance. Wish they'd focus on 60 FPS (preferably without frame generation) and then build from that. I don't mind if the current graphical level hangs around for a few extra years until the performance catches up.
 
Better lighting with ray tracing makes an image more impressive than texture detail imo.

I generally prefer art styles over realistic graphics

But to give an idea of what I'd love, take a game like halo 3: Artistically the game was already nearly perfect (minus character polys. Lord hood and halo 3 rat still haunt my dreams), but if you took that and replace the baked lighting with a more realistic lumen system + ray tracing, thats all I would need or want.
 
Last edited:
Kataploom said:
No, we first need to modernize production pipelines in order to speed up graphics production and leave time to optimization, current game engines are still not optimized for modern graphic pipelines and it shows, which harm maxing out those machines
Click to expand...
This is what I don't get it. Common sense would say: "for better graphics you need more time and more budget". But then at the beginning of every gen we are promised that it'll be so much easier to use these new engine, that it won't affect the devs, but it never becomes true. This gen everyone uses UE5 and we still need better and better gpus for poorly optimized games and they are still taking longer and longer to make.
 
If progress stalls out here for a while, i think it's just fine. Just about any look you want short of dead-ringer realism can be translated to the screen.
 
"Need" is a strong word, technically I guess I didn't need better graphics than the NES. But do I want better graphics? Sure.

People always talk a about diminishing returns, and I guess there's some merit to that, but I'm sure if we move years ahead into the future and post a picture of a Ps5 game and compare it to a Ps10 game it'll be night and day.
 
Last edited:
I wish we could still have games with PS3-like visuals (and I mean the entire visual package of that generation, which for the most part predated PBR and other graphical advancements) come out as if it was just another kind of aesthetic to go for, such as the PS1-like visuals in Crow Country, for instance.

So that accepting different kinds of graphical sophistication would allow for each developer to make the most out of their budget (a high-end PS3 era game is way more pleasing visually than a half-assed PS4 era title) and, in turn, allow for more interesting explorations of game pricing: PS5-looking games would be $80 (now that Nintendo has opened the flood gates); PS4-looking games would be $60; PS3-looking games $40; and truly retro-looking stuff and indies, $30 or below depending on scope.

That way, the Team Ninja wouldn't have to embarrass themselves by failing to deliver on current graphical standards with Rise of the Ronin; and perhaps notable creators who have been dealt a bad hand at some point in their careers, such as Tetsuya Nomura, could be given the chance to finally deliver on, in his case, the original uncompromised vision for Final Fantasy Versus XIII with the fidelity showcased in the January 2011 trailer -- so that Square Enix wouldn't have to run the risk of making a $300M bet if they ever were to revisit that project under the standards of current-generation hardware.
 
Nowa said:
This is what I don't get it. Common sense would say: "for better graphics you need more time and more budget". But then at the beginning of every gen we are promised that it'll be so much easier to use these new engine, that it won't affect the devs, but it never becomes true. This gen everyone uses UE5 and we still need better and better gpus for poorly optimized games and they are still taking longer and longer to make.
Click to expand...
Because UE5 is a disaster, it's virtual geometry system, Nanite, is shit because it tries to cover many hardwares at once, same for Lumen, other engines like IdTech solved this issue not trying to be God engines
 
I feel like what mostly creates my "need" is the development in TV tech. Wii was great on my CRT, but appalling on HDTV. Many PS3 games looked great on HDTV, but I can't play them on my 4KTV. I still have a CRT and game on my Wii so I can live with different graphics levels, as long as they fit the display tech.
 
Last edited:
For traditional gaming? We've reached a point where a generational leap is just a few more pixels than last gen. Any recent mid-range card can plow through everything. Graphics are so good now that after 5 minutes we just stop caring.

The next frontier for big graphical jumps is VR: where not even a 5090 can give you the framerate nor the resolution needed for something like Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 at high settings. And we're far from "retina" resolution VR headsets. We're gonna have to go 16K for each eye, not to mention wider field of view to leave the "binocular vision" ghetto we're currently in.
 
Last edited:
Pejo said:
Art style trumps graphics to my tastes. I think technology will improve regardless, though. Problem is by pushing the bleeding edge visually, we're always stuck with shitty performance. Wish they'd focus on 60 FPS (preferably without frame generation) and then build from that. I don't mind if the current graphical level hangs around for a few extra years until the performance catches up.
Click to expand...

Here's your game:

k6pt8Ei.jpeg
 
I want better graphics to a degree. The jump from Switch to Switch 2 for Metroid Prime 4 for example. It's not going to win any awards but it's nice.

What I primarily care about these days are art style and performance. Khazan for me looks totally fine. Couldn't give less of a fuck about rock textures or the peach fuzz on Aloy's face.
 
Yes. Avatar in real-time with completely destructible environments down to individual grains of sand, full ocean simulations.
 
Art direction is what sticks with me so I hope to get more of that. Some games from a decade ago impress me more just because of the art.
 
nial said:
No, but there are some games that still need to look better. I praised Donkey Kong Bananza's gameplay, but it's crazy that it kinda looks like a Switch 1 game, despite it being exclusive to PS4 Pro like hardware.
Click to expand...
it's a tradeoff for all the destructibility and the large open world.
 
I care faaaaaaaaaar more about art direction over raw graphical power, especially these days the so called high tech graphics always goes toward realism which I personally find boring.
 
Last edited:
Griffon said:
We're closing on a point where it becomes physically impossible to make new bleeding edge graphics, not without a studio budget of billions.
Click to expand...
I agree, with the current state. But I think the next great leap in graphics is going to be real-time AI interpretation of graphics to be realistic.

It's already in the works--not real-time--where they can do this. For example:

 
and i think everyone likes better graphics. The real issue is at what cost? Not just price-wise. But creativity-wise. And amount of content. Number of games. Variety of games. Time between releases. And then other factors like battery life, noise, heat, size of the hardware ...
 
Last edited:
Robb said:
"Need" is a strong word, technically I guess I didn't need better graphics than the NES. But do I want better graphics? Sure.

People always talk a about diminishing returns, and I guess there's some merit to that, but I'm sure if we move years ahead into the future and post a picture of a Ps5 game and compare it to a Ps10 game it'll be night and day.
Click to expand...
Grildon Tundy said:
Need? No. Want? Yes.
Click to expand...
Yeah you can use need and want interchangeably, I picked the wrong word.
 
We are at the very least 2 console gens from photorealistic graphics, provided tech advancements wont slow down too much, but more likely 4 gens away since tech advancements slowing down a lot last 10years...
 
Graphics for me is the artistic vision, if their vision is to make an 8-bit graphics and they do something interesting with it I am down for it, at the same time a photo realistic game like Alan Wake 2 is also very cool for me because that was the artistic vision behind it.
 
PeteBull said:
We are at the very least 2 console gens from photorealistic graphics, provided tech advancements wont slow down too much, but more likely 4 gens away since tech advancements slowing down a lot last 10years...
Click to expand...

I posted a similar video for KCD2 a couple posts above this.

I think in ~10 years, they'll be able to do this AI interpretation in real-time if not sooner.
 
I haven't really needed better graphics since the late PS3 era. Lots of games from that time still look great IMO once you get them running at decent frame rates and resolution.

On that same note, these days I care way more about IQ and frame rate.

Good IQ at 60 or more fps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> graphics
 
Grildon Tundy said:
I posted a similar video for KCD2 a couple posts above this.

I think in ~10 years, they'll be able to do this AI interpretation in real-time if not sooner.
Click to expand...
Maybe on BiS pc rig worth 4k+ usd, consoles will take longer, same way we needed to wait a bit with ssd(till 2020) or with ai upscaling and rt(to 2024 so ps5pr0), ps5pr0 does solid job with it but i think ps6 will trully excell in that area, still even ps6 will be comparable to 4090, definitely not above current pc bis gpu aka 5090 and definitely below current pc bis cpu aka 9800x3d.
 
PS360 was enough for me. We needed 1080p and 60fps on a constant basis though, and shorter load times were always nice to have. But better visuals have little value to me.
 
never did
books dont need better graphics, they need to be good or what i want to read at the time to be compelling
 
PeteBull said:
Maybe on BiS pc rig worth 4k+ usd, consoles will take longer, same way we needed to wait a bit with ssd(till 2020) or with ai upscaling and rt(to 2024 so ps5pr0), ps5pr0 does solid job with it but i think ps6 will trully excell in that area, still even ps6 will be comparable to 4090, definitely not above current pc bis gpu aka 5090 and definitely below current pc bis cpu aka 9800x3d.
Click to expand...
I think you're right on the 2 console gens from now, which would be around 10 years. During the next console gen, advancements in the AI algorithms makes it less performance-intensive and high-end PCs can do it. Then the console gen after that gets a limited version of it.
 
Yes, I want to see games with visuals like The Witcher 4 and The Matrix UE5 demo. I want it to reach those heights graphically and even go beyond it. I enjoy beautiful visuals and for some games we need better visuals to achieve the game creator's and the artist's visions of the worlds they imagine and desire for the player to experience.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How many teraflops do we need for excellent graphics?
Opinion Hardware  2 3
136
5K
HeWhoWalks replied
Concept = BLOB UNLEASHED! (better than GTA!)
27
2K
_Blackberry_ replied
Need a soundbar, NOW !
32
1K
CLW replied
Ubisoft on PSSR: "We're now confident that the image quality with PSSR will always be better than with TAA".
News Game Dev Platform  2 3 4 5 6
269
15K
Durin replied
We have obviously long since passed the point of diminishing returns in the arms race for “better graphics”
2 3
106
5K
BbMajor7th replied
Top Bottom