Support NeoGAF

[cormack12]

No, probably just worded it poorly in OP. So of you paint a wall and paint the middle first then it's striking, but it's when you edge it in that really sets it off. If you smudge and smear the lines it looks shit, but edging takes the most concentration and effort.

I guess I'm saying all the subtle stuff when combined is actually the big leap and is so noticeable when replaying games that are still fairly recent. We need to hold those gains in higher regard?

I know we speak about diminishing returns, and largely the conversation focuses on big leaps and how there aren't any - or haven't been any for a while.

But even going back to Uncharted 4 now, which is still a fantastic achievement in art, direction and gameplay etc. it is showing its age already. Not in things like character models but all the little advancements like in density, effects and just certain environmental things you notice a lot more (floors looking a bit flat, trees in the background being flat textures etc) - some are still fantastic obviously like the brickwork etc. but the inconsistency still stands out this long after its release, which is normal.

I've also just completed Zero Dawn Remastered and the same applies here, this is a great example of how the original isn't in 'bad' shape but still shows its age when you play the original release. The extra polish and changes are more than the sum of their parts imo.

I can sort of see why these games are getting remasters/remakes to add a little bit more polish. Whether we should pay full price is another story of course.......

So ultimately, are the returns just a lot more subtle and only noticeable by their absence when we revisit games that aren't 'old' but not quite in the recency bracket.

 

[Lunarorbit]

I guess the question is how much more advanced can it get and how much do we want?

I think with advances in ai games can get more dense, especially in backgrounds. Those trees you mention will get more diverse and realistic looking. Maybe standard enemies will have more personal touches to differentiate them.

I'm perfectly fine with the way things are now but I said that 2 gens ago and visually it's gotten way better

 

[Soodanim]

Diminishing to the point of subtlety. Sounds more like a semantic distinction to me

 

[SweetTooth]

Yup, diminishing returns are real. You will have Nvidia latest and greatest and games will still look really close to previous gen with minimal "perceived" improvements.

 

[Punished Miku]

Diminishing change = increasing non-change

 

[The Cockatrice]

Devs were great at faking realisting lighting, light bounces and shadowing so much that RT seems useless most of the times visually as in people wont notice shit when playing the games. You know waht they do notice though? A 200% decrease in performance and IQ. TLOU2 will look visually like a modern game even 10 years from now and it's a PS4 game. Bet.

 

[Madserb2023]

That's the same as diminishing returns. We are experiencing diminishing returns and that's normal. Happened with cinema. On the PS1 you had something that was an approximation of a car, but by the time you got to the PS2 you had something that looked exactly like a car. From then on your just get a more detailed car. The first stage will always have the greatest visual difference. The humans in Toy Story 1 look odd but by the the time you get to the Incredibles, they look human. Very little perceptual improvement after that.

 

[Clear]

Same thing isn't it? If advancement is constant but perceived benefit is relatively lower than it was in the past, then returns can be said to be diminishing.

 

[simpatico]

All PS and Xbox games are really just Series S games. I think of going from S to X, unless that disc drive means a lot, those returns are terrible.

 

[Loomy]

The best looking games are very close to realism as it is. The focus now is making achieving those results easier and less demanding.

 

[digdug2]

All PS and Xbox games are really just Series S games. I think of going from S to X, unless that disc drive means a lot, those returns are terrible.

By that logic, many cross-platform PC games are also just Series S games since they are designed and developed for compatibility with the lowest common denominator.

Sure, many PC games get more bells, whistles, and granularity when it comes to graphics options... but they are still gimped from the start.

 

[FingerBang]

I know we speak about diminishing returns, and largely the conversation focuses on big leaps and how there aren't any - or haven't been any for a while.

But even going back to Uncharted 4 now, which is still a fantastic achievement in art, direction and gameplay etc. it is showing its age already. Not in things like character models but all the little advancements like in density, effects and just certain environmental things you notice a lot more (floors looking a bit flat, trees in the background being flat textures etc) - some are still fantastic obviously like the brickwork etc. but the inconsistency still stands out this long after its release, which is normal.

I've also just completed Zero Dawn Remastered and the same applies here, this is a great example of how the original isn't in 'bad' shape but still shows its age when you play the original release. The extra polish and changes are more than the sum of their parts imo.

I can sort of see why these games are getting remasters/remakes to add a little bit more polish. Whether we should pay full price is another story of course.......

So ultimately, are the returns just a lot more subtle and only noticeable by their absence when we revisit games that aren't 'old' but not quite in the recency bracket.

It's been 8 years.

Now move those 8 years back and see how much dated games used to look like.

Look at Final Fantasy VII and Final Fantasy X. Barely 5 years between them.

Cyberpunk has been out for 4 years and not many games are better looking today. Technology moves forward, Ray Tracing can definitely make a massive difference in visuals, but the big jumps tend to get further apart.

The main issue is that modern systems are so powerful, what you can achieve is virtually limitless.

That, turns out, is really bad for creativity.

 

[cormack12]

Same thing isn't it? If advancement is constant but perceived benefit is relatively lower than it was in the past, then returns can be said to be diminishing.

No, probably just worded it poorly in OP. So of you paint a wall and paint the middle first then it's striking, but it's when you edge it in that really sets it off. If you smudge and smear the lines it looks shit, but edging takes the most concentration and effort.

I guess I'm saying all the subtle stuff when combined is actually the big leap and is so noticeable when replaying games that are still fairly recent. We need to hold those gains in higher regard?

 

[cireza]

I find that we didn't make any huge leap when comparing to the best games of the PS360. Games like Bayonetta, Final Fantasy XIII or Sonic Unleashed for example. These games still slap. The only notable gain has been resolution and framerate, but the rest feels like it isn't of major significance. Actually, this quest for more realism never felt as pointless to me as it is right now. Tremendous consumption of resources for pointless advancements.

We can't go back to optimizing for specific hardware soon enough.

 

[Polygonal_Sprite]

Diminishing to the point of subtlety. Sounds more like a semantic distinction to me

Yup. He’s literally describing diminishing returns lol.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Are there really diminishing returns, or are the returns just more subtle?​

I think it means the same thing. More subtle differences are 'diminishing returns.'

 

[LordOfChaos]

That's a distinction without a difference if not outright circular, if returns are more subtle they're diminishing

 

[The_Observer]

I sort of get what OP means and there is some truth in it IMO, but I think the problem is that talent is gone from the industry and instead of developing their own engines, squeezing out everything from these machines they just brute-force their ways without real innovation. I mean, look at The Order 1886 (of which I recently made a thread about). They had a vision, to create a playable CG movie and they achieved it. 10 years later it still looks as a playable CG movie. But if you take it apart, like checking out a tree in the distance, you will see that it’s really old. So, I think this is what is missing, the strive for innovation and a clear vision to be unique and stand out. Imagine if that same developer studio with the same mindset would create a similar game having a lot more hardware power available for them. It would melt our faces, just like it did almost 10 years ago.

 

[Clear]

I guess I'm saying all the subtle stuff when combined is actually the big leap and is so noticeable when replaying games that are still fairly recent. We need to hold those gains in higher regard?

Still seems more or less identical in practice though; I take your point that if you stack together all the small improvements you can make a pile big enough to make a solid argument that improvement is ongoing as fast or maybe faster than in the past, but ultimately it still comes down to what people perceive to be meaningful.

The reality is that in most cases reactions are more instinctual than analytical. Its all about the "wow" factor, a change in perception of what's possible.

in my opinion, technical graphics alone simply cannot do that anymore. Our media culture is too saturated by high-end CGI, its become normalized. And that goes for Movies as much as games.

Interesting point of discussion though.

 

[SHA]

Neither, games look cheaper compared to older games like mass effect and other defined generation games, static or visually rich ground shouldn't be our main topic cause it's sad that we've got that low, games should be completely different and we aren't there yet compared to last 2 to 3 generations.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I see diminishing returns in a different light than "visual gain per hardware improvement". Rather than that, its that the more you try to make your game look visually impressive, the more exponentially expensive it'll be to achieve it.

 

[asdasdasdbb]

No. But the hardware improvements slowing plus AAA dying... I could see why people would think so.

 

[saintjules]

Haven't seen games like this yet in terms of fidelity.

 

[DKPOWPOW]

This entire gen has been 90% last Gen games running in 4k/60 fps. Half the time they can't even get it to do that.

The returns are diminished for many reasons, but I find these 2 to be the biggest. Overuse of Unreal Engine 5 and the foolish need to jump to 4K.

1080p was fine, and it's still fine unless you game on a 70 inch TV. We could be playing infinitely more interesting games if most game companies focused on gameplay rather than the the same old shit for the past 10 years.

Instead most new games have the same static boring environments we have had since the PS1 era.

 

[RodriGames40]

Diminishing returns aren't "technically" a thing as say, software has plateaued? No way... Hardware is plateauing in the other hand, litography has essentially reached its limit. If the hardware does not improve, graphics will not improve... It's very simple.

 

[Insanemaelstrom]

I might be wrong but I think the issue is that because earlier consoles and systems in general were weak, so devs got really good at using approximation. They might not be 100% realistic or look 100% as good but they got close( maybe 95% to 99% even). In present day, consoles and pc hardware is good enough that they no longer have to use approximation, so they use algorithms to get the 100%. The performance cost of using that 100% though is far too high and the visual difference between the two, is far too low. And that's the current situation we are in.

For most people, it's hard to notice the difference rt makes because most games already have excellent lighting.

Plus in addition to that, we have nostalgia. We remember games as looking better than they actually were. It's easier to notice the difference when games are side by side.

Finally, for whatever reason, most games( especially western ones) just don't really have a good artstyle nowdays, for whatever reason. They look good technically but they also look bland and visually unappealing. Dragon age veilguard( personally for me) is an example of this. Whereas artsyle was a far bigger focus back in the day because devs were very constrained when it comes to power.

 

[ByWatterson]

Games cannot realistically look that much better than the best-looking already do without great, great expense.

It's not that more can't be done, but rather that the bottlenecks are now time and money, not hardware constraints.

The only real avenue out of this reality is AI.

 

[Crayon]

That's what diminishing returns means.

"Uncharted 4 is already starting to look old".

"Already"? it's old.

 

[Aces High]

There's a much bigger problem:

The more realistic a game looks, the worse it plays.

You are locked in these super complex animation cycles that look nice in a trailer but play like ass.

Games feel more sluggish with every new gen.

 

[Fbh]

But isn't that exactly what "diminishing returns" refers to?
It doesn't mean graphics don't keep improving, it means the improvements are slowing down and becoming more subtle.

Uncharted 4 is a good example.
There is no denying that newer games look better, but Uncharted 4 still looks great today, specially playing it on stronger hardware at higher resolutions and 60+ fps. One could argue it holds up way better than an 8 years old game did back in 2016 when it came out.

To me that's also why framerate and IQ have become more important. Personally I think a last gen game running at a high resolution and 60fps looks waaaay better and more appealing than a "next gen" game running at 30fps (or 60fps with a super low resolution and awful IQ).

Diminishing returns aren't "technically" a thing as say, software has plateaued? No way... Hardware is plateauing in the other hand, litography has essentially reached its limit. If the hardware does not improve, graphics will not improve... It's very simple.

I think hardware is one part but budgets are also an important factor.
Games are already really expensive, publishers can't continue increasing the budget indefinitely if the audience doesn't grow in a proportional manner.

 

[RodriGames40]

I think hardware is one part but budgets are also an important factor.
Games are already really expensive, publishers can't continue increasing the budget indefinitely if the audience doesn't grow in a proportional manner.

Budgets depend on manpower and cost of labour, I don't think all the people currently working on games are vital to getting a game look better (see the amount of bloat and DEI hires). I've seen games made with 1/3 of the average western budget blowing away anything currently out... But then again, if the hardware stagnated, there's only so much the artists can get done down the line.

 

[Danjin44]

My issue is most this so called high tech graphics only going one direction "realism" and as make the games more realistic the character designs and art style becomes more boring in order to look more "grounded".

 

[Synless]

Red Dead 2, Uncharted 4/LL, Horizon FE PS4 still looks like the best that’s out there today…

It’s not a a question, we are definitely stuck with diminishing returns going forward.

 

[InterMusketeer]

It's not just diminishing returns for the games themselves. It's also taken its toll on devs and studios who now take ages to release the most basic shit because we need reflective puddles and 5 extra trees. I could do without the fluff if it meant getting more good and unique games.

 

[diffusionx]

Virtua Fighter 1 came out in 1993 and Soul Calibur came out on Dreamcast in 1999. Same genre. And I am talking about VF1 on a massively expensive high end arcade board made with Lockheed Martin vs. Soul Calibur on a $200 console. So a smaller amount of time between Uncharted 4 and today. So, yes, obviously the returns have diminished quite a bit, but this was always inevitable.

I wouldn't be surprised if Cyberpunk 2077 is still one of the best looking games in 2030. A literal 10 year old game at that point.

 

[Cakeboxer]

We are still far away from having really realistic games and therefore no dimishing returns. Everbody and also the op praises the graphics of the Horizon FW. But to me it's too cartoony to be impressed or see a huge step forward.
I want something like this:

 

[diffusionx]

We are still far away from having really realistic games and therefore no dimishing returns. Everbody and also the op praises the graphics of the Horizon FW. But to me it's too cartoony to be impressed or see a huge step forward.
I want something like this:

"Really realistic" really is not applicable to the vast majority of games. Sure some depressing cop shooter, yea, but let's think this through.

Like what does a "really realistic" Batman game look like? Batman doesn't actually exist, so the premise is faulty. A "really realistic" Horizon is nonsense. The vast majority of games have an art style that is not realistic by design.

 

[Cakeboxer]

"Really realistic" really is not applicable to the vast majority of games. Sure some depressing cop shooter, yea, but let's think this through.

Like what does a "really realistic" Batman game look like? Batman doesn't actually exist, so the premise is faulty. A "really realistic" Horizon is nonsense. The vast majority of games have an art style that is not realistic by design.

Really realistic to me means the point when we achieve games that look like that. Then we have dimishing returns. Devs can still use the Pixar/cartoon look if they like, but right now it's often used because it's easier to get good graphics. Batman with real life graphics in a dark and dirty city? Would love that.

 

[diffusionx]

Really realistic to me means the point when we achieve games that look like that. Then we have dimishing returns. Devs can still use the Pixar/cartoon look if they like, but right now it's often used because it's easier to get good graphics. Batman with real life graphics in a dark and dirty city? Would love that.

Stylized graphics are not the same as "Pixar/cartoon." The point is that a game like Horizon or Arkham Knight are like, hyper-reality because they it's portraying a fictional world. This is the vast majority of games and it is not going to change no matter how much the graphics tech advances.

 

[zeroluck]

Hardware stagnated that is why, last gen was saved by the introduction of PBR rendering, next step is ray tracing, but hardware could not keep up, when 4090 tier performance become the base line you will see a drastic change.

 

[{insert code here}]

The concept of diminished returns makes sense if you consider that computer graphics are just an attempt at simulated reality. Eventually we get to a point where we match the simulation.

 

[ResilientBanana]

1st party is one thing, but 3rd party games tend to be poorly optimized.

 

[kevm3]

Diminishing returns exist, but that's not why games still look like they do 8 years ago. Companies want to put games on as many systems as possible, so they build with a switch or ps4 standard in mind and then just throw some nice filters or have a better framerate on the ps5 version. These games look nowhere near even the tech demos we've seen early on in the next gen's systems life, so there is a TON of progress still to be made.

For example, something like this:


Making a whole game look like this would probably be too expensive though.

 

[simpatico]

By that logic, many cross-platform PC games are also just Series S games since they are designed and developed for compatibility with the lowest common denominator.

Sure, many PC games get more bells, whistles, and granularity when it comes to graphics options... but they are still gimped from the start.

There have been few to actually zero AAAA PC games made since the 360 era tbh. I think Half Life 2 / Crysis era was about the very end of that. Maybe StarCraft 2. But nowadays my interest in the platform is the past. Must be close to 70% of my game time is spent playing games release before this year. In a proper world The Witcher IV would be PC only and they'd hire a port house to figure out a console version a year later. But the hardware is so close to each other now it just doesn't make sense to wait if you plan on releasing it on other platforms.

 

[rofif]

of course there are diminishing returns.
We had stuff like uc4 or ff XV ~10 years ago. And 10 years prior to that we had ps2 games.
I would argue that we still don't get games consistently better looking than these two and some other examples

 

[Zug]

Diminishing returns in graphics really started to kick in 2007 with Crysis, so 17 years ago (I know...).
It's not a new trend at all, but for "weak" consoles it's been particularly apparent with the PS4>PS5 transition, which was quite underwhelming visually.

 

[TGO]

Devs were great at faking realisting lighting, light bounces and shadowing so much that RT seems useless most of the times visually as in people wont notice shit when playing the games.

This is true, how can you be impressed by RT reflections when the most simple mirror reflection looks like shit in RT compared to them double rendering in old games for a pixel perfect reflection or a render to texture method.
Both give better results

 

[The Cockatrice]

This is true, how can you be impressed by RT reflections when the most simple mirror reflection looks like shit in RT compared to them double rendering in old games for a pixel perfect reflection or a render to texture method.
Both give better results

2004 game, but yeah, we need half the gpu power nowadays to have worse looking raytraced water than a game that came out 20 years ago. We're all being scammed but whatever.

 

[TGO]

2004 game, but yeah, we need half the gpu power nowadays to have worse looking raytraced water than a game that came out 20 years ago. We're all being scammed but whatever.

I can do one better

Check out the Ray tracing on the PSX.
but seriously, I can see what ray tracing can do but in those cases..the older methods was better, so why not use both?

 

[XXL]

Games have way more microscopic details now. Alot of older games are very empty and sparse.

I think alot of times people just glorify past technology (not just gaming).