Support NeoGAF

[pramod]

We all know about the law of "diminishing returns", but I think gaming graphics is really suffering from this lately.

Sure, games are pushing more polygons than ever before, with even higher res textures, at much higher resolutions.

But somehow, games don't seem any more "real" to me. And I don't know even if they push 10x more polygons and 10x higher res textures from this point is going to make things much better.
As for resolution, I think we're already hitting the max of what human eyes can perceive.
For example all these people going ga-ga over new footage of SF6, and I'm just like, meh.

I don't know exactly why I feel this way, and what the solution might be. Maybe there has to be improvements in other areas rather than just # of polygons?
Maybe it's the animation, or the lighting, that's holding back the feeling of "true realism"?

 

[Esppiral]

I think creativity has hit a wall, that and games being built with last gen consoles in mind. Devs should push for better physics and world simulation.

 

[Go_Ly_Dow]

Yes, think it's more about budget, time and artistic vision than raw power to produce visiually stunning and highly detailed games. See Red Dead 2, The Last of Us 2, God of War Ragnarock, Horizon Forbidden West etc.. which are all bound to a 1.84tflop GPU and Jaguar CPU. Don't think these games offer groundbreaking gameplay and they all suffer from repetitive gameplay / narrative issues, but can't deny they are some of the best looking games.

 

[N0S]

Nope, still waiting on photo realism.

 

[Victor Omega]

yes. the focus now should be on the animation.

but we keep finding new gimmick like ray tracing to distract us.

 

[DenchDeckard]

I think thee will still be amazing advancements in lighting and raytracing which will make scenes look so much better. Take a look at fortnite with the 5.1 engine update. Now imagine that in the hands of devs who really want to push the boat out in a crazy single player game, I think we will still see huge improvements its just everyone is working with the cross gen mentality and creativity is pretty much void at the minute. It feels like money was spent on doing good motion capture and dialogue etc instead of game mechanics and cutting edge ideas.

 

[deriks]

Sorta

Can grt better here and there, like with foliage and stuff that looks a paper. Still, I prefer physics investment rather than keeping the old ragdoll

 

[bitbydeath]

Nah, it's been mostly cross-gen and rushed launch titles so far. We haven't seen what PS5 and XSX are capable of yet.

 

[mxbison]

Games with decent physics still look like the first picture. So no, we are still very far off.

Priorities are just going in the wrong direction.

 

[Pelta88]

Nope.

The last game I played is GOW Ragnarok. Graphically, I continue to be impressed. It's down to the talent of the studio.

 

[TonyK]

For me the key is lighting. At this point they can put millions of polygons and 8k textures but games would look as fake as always. RT lighting (shadows + global illumination) is the only thing it looks a bit next gen to me.

Check these screenshots I took yesterday from PS5 Cyberpunk. Polycount and textures are the same, but objects seem to float over the table with regular lighting (because lighting is not calculated in the same way for static objects than for dynamic objetcs), meanwhile with RT all environment seems coherent.

PS5 performance mode (traditional lighting):

PS5 RT mode (only RT shadows and AO):

 

[Dynasty8]

To the naked eye, yeah. Many PS4 and PS5 games do look somewhat similar.

We're not going to see those crazy generational bumps like we did from 16bit to 64bit, or from PS2 to PS3, etc. I'm okay with this, games look amazing today, but I care more about performance. All games should aim for minimum 60fps and run smoothly.

 

[Same ol G]

The last big jump was from gc, ps2, xbox to ps3, xbox360.
Since that gen improvements are just marginal at best.
It's also the reason why the Switch is still an option for new releases today.

 

[Belthazar]

Not a wall, but definitely a very steep incline called budget. Right now it's mostly about how much it would cost to make the assets rather than if a console would be able to run it. Imo developers should work towards improving things like draw distance, framerates, physics, AI, etc. instead of pushing for more fidelity.

 

[Filben]

Maybe if we only count polygons. Shadows are already phenomenal and most of the time not distinguishable from real scenes. Lighting and animations, however, still have a lot of room for improvement.

Also reflections. While screen space reflections are already excellent on static images, they always break apart when you move and the reflecting image change relative to the camera. This result in an extreme uneven image that 'wobbles' and destroys any sort of photorealism.

In short: lighting, reflections, animations can be much improved. With RT we got the former two covered in the next 5-10 years.

 

[Knightime_X]

We all know about the law of "diminishing returns", but I think gaming graphics is really suffering from this lately.

Sure, games are pushing more polygons than ever before, with even higher res textures, at much higher resolutions.

But somehow, games don't seem any more "real" to me. And I don't know even if they push 10x more polygons and 10x higher res textures from this point is going to make things much better.
As for resolution, I think we're already hitting the max of what human eyes can perceive.
For example all these people going ga-ga over new footage of SF6, and I'm just like, meh.

I don't know exactly why I feel this way, and what the solution might be. Maybe there has to be improvements in other areas rather than just # of polygons?
Maybe it's the animation, or the lighting, that's holding back the feeling of "true realism"?

That 6k to 60k example always seemed silly to me.
At that size you can still easily see the difference, at full resolution and full-screen, one looks considerably worse than the other.
60k to 600k would be a different story. But by that point, I'm more concerned about the framerate.

 

[farmerboy]

Probably, but I don't think it's about tech or ability. I think it's about man hrs and the cost. In the end, it's a business.

Maybe when developments in ai allow for cheap easy creation of assets, then we'll see another jump.

 

[tusharngf]

i think there is more scope for raytracing and shadows.

 

[clampzyn]

coz of the trend of 4k tv, since then devs prioritized resolution and upscaling instead of photo realistic looks, now that upscaling techniques are widely available and is actually, if not all, producing better image than native, we will actually see devs going for photo realistic looks now once they dump last gen consoles on their budget.

 

[sertopico]

Surely it hit my wall(et)!

 

[Bavarian_Sloth]

I think thee will still be amazing advancements in lighting and raytracing which will make scenes look so much better.

This.

Just look at the Witcher 3 ray tracing update. The game looks far better now, just by changing the lighting.

Unfortunately we will have to wait for the Next Gen consoles, which will have the advanced dedicated hardware (ray tracing + DLSS style upscaler).

 

[Wildebeest]

In short: No.
In detail: Yes.

 

[PendekarRajawali]

Nope, still waiting for life like facial expression.

 

[Beechos]

No we def have not hit a wall. We're just in a time where the stakes are so high every decision revovles around money and time. Creating these experiences take alot of manpower and time which equals to more and more money spent. Thats why everything looks and plays the same, its the quickest way to develop a game and safest.
The only innovations made nowadys is how to get a game to make more money.

 

[LostDonkey]

Not at all. Most games still look like shit under scrutiny. It's less about the way they do look though, sure and it's going to be more about how they feel and react. The pinnacle would be if you could smell games.

Imagine the horror.

 

[The_Mike]

Not at all, it's always possible to add higher framerate.

 

[Scotty W]

We all know about the law of "diminishing returns", but I think gaming graphics is really suffering from this lately.

It is an asymptotic approach to photo realism. If you compare 91-96, you will see an unbelievable improvement. Do the same with 96-01, and it is still a big improvement, but not as big. Improvement has continued, but the rate has diminished. I doubt that casuals and non gamers can see much of an improvement from last gen to this.

Most likely small improvements will continue to be made, while fundamental leaps are made in other areas such as VR, 3d displays or holograms til one day everything coalesces into one giant leap. Or World War 3 happens and we die in nuclear flames.

 

[winjer]

It's a case of diminishing returns and a slow down of Moore's law.

 

[TrebleShot]

Nvidia got their wish and RT is now seen as the next gen and must have graphical feature whereas a game like Horizon FW doesn't have RT nor does TLOUp1 and both are the best looking games this year.

 

[Klosshufvud]

Not just graphics...

 

[clampzyn]

until future witcher games looks like this, we still not there yet

 

[Griffon]

Every day I care less and less about overly detailed graphics.

I just want good games that have a cool art style.

 

[Belthazar]

That 6k to 60k example always seemed silly to me.
At that size you can still easily see the difference, at full resolution and full-screen, one looks considerably worse than the other.
60k to 600k would be a different story. But by that point, I'm more concerned about the framerate.

This example is not about not being able to spot the difference, it's about there being a way smaller difference than the previous 2 tenfold increases

 

[SaintALia]

Yeah it's as you said, the jumps in advancement are just becoming less perceivable. But that's just superficial stuff, we still have a VERY VERY VERY VERY long way to go for physics simulations and proper lighting. Although I think we have made really good progress with the latter two over the years.

I'm sure a dev will pull a The Order: 1866 and use the current graphics technology we have, while smearing a bunch of effects on the screen, cutting the viewable area, 30fps, and making a really linear game to truly showcase this gen's graphics and people will be blown away, making little gifs and taking screenshots of it and whatnot.

 

[Throttle]

For me the key is lighting. At this point they can put millions of polygons and 8k textures but games would look as fake as always. RT lighting (shadows + global illumination) is the only thing it looks a bit next gen to me.

Check these screenshots I took yesterday from PS5 Cyberpunk. Polycount and textures are the same, but objects seem to float over the table with regular lighting (because lighting is not calculated in the same way for static objects than for dynamic objetcs), meanwhile with RT all environment seems coherent.

PS5 performance mode (traditional lighting):

PS5 RT mode (only RT shadows and AO):

To be honest the ray-tracing image is only slightly better. And they could have implemented traditional "fake" shadows for those objects and close the gap somewhat.

 

[brian0057]

Graphics have reached a point of diminishing returns while gameplay in general is still stuck in 2007.

 

[VN1X]

Graphics have reached a point of diminishing returns while gameplay in general is still stuck in 2007.

You're playing the wrong games then.

 

[Victor Omega]

yes. the focus now should be on the animation.

but we keep finding new gimmick like ray tracing to distract us.

i'll even add textures to the conversation. both animation and texture are so behind in gaming it laughable




Texture can do many things, like realism, without all the advancement of polygons and lighting.





Back to animation. Take for example, the AI that allows Boston dynamic robot to do parkour.





The robot is controller by a modified xbox contoller

All gaming need is AI to produce realistic animation...





But sadly, these things like gaming AI, Texture, and animation become proprietary to publishers and don't become gaming standards. This is an area where gamers need to advocate for new, better gaming standards

 

[tomato shrub]

No. Because every time I thought that, I was proven wrong. As long as you can still tell it's a game during gameplay, it hasn't hit the final wall.

 

[ProgenitorCastle]

Games using the same engine again and again with the same-y effects (looking at you Unreal Engine) is partly to blame.

 

[clampzyn]

You're playing the wrong games then.

LMAO can't blame him probably because he still using 2007 hardware

 

[clampzyn]

No. Because every time I thought that, I was proven wrong. As long as you can still tell it's a game during gameplay, it hasn't hit the final wall.

That'll be very hard to tell because you know you're playing a game even if the visuals are photo realistic.

 

[brian0057]

You're playing the wrong games then.

When people make these threads, it's always in reference to AAA gaming.
I stand by my statement.
It's also why I'm mostly playing indies or AA games these days. It's where the more interesting works are.

 

[Whitecrow]

With rasterized graphics, yes.
Texture resolution and good art direction can make some games stand out, but those games with ray tracing effects would look a lot better and immersive.

 

[Efren is G.O.A.T.]

If we take a look at Ragnarok, I'd be more than happy if every game this gen aim for that same level of quality regardless of art style. What I want more than anything is better physics and better performance.

 

[SirTerry-T]

I think art direction has hit a brick wall to some extent. A lot of games look like they could have been pumped out by the same creative staff. There are very few AAAA games that stand out uniquely, from a visuals standpoint.

I blame everyone chasing the same trends, with the same Artstation accounts in their inspiration folders.

 

[Fbh]

Not in the sense that graphics can't keep getting better or that games in 10 years won't look substantially better than what we have now.
But I definitely think the diminishing returns are getting exponentially stronger with every new gen.. If 2 years into the Ps4 I went back and played an early Ps3 game the difference felt massive and those early Ps3 would suddenly look worse than I remembered. But now two years into the Ps5 if I go back to stuff like Infamous Second Son it still looks totally fine, not as good as modern games but good enough that the graphics become a non factor in my enjoyment of the game.

I remember when Elden Ring came out there were some people complaining about the graphics and how it doesn't look as nice as Demon Souls remake, but to me it was never an issue because while there's room for improvement, it still looks nice. Yeah Demon Souls look technically superior but to be honest visually I vastly prefer Elden Ring because of its superior art direction, more interesting locations, better enemy design, etc

 

[darrylgorn]

Yes, and we're better off for it.

 

[TonyK]

To be honest the ray-tracing image is only slightly better. And they could have implemented traditional "fake" shadows for those objects and close the gap somewhat.

Those objects have physics, they are no attached to the table. Static objects have the usual lightmap shadows, but interactive objects need real time lighting.

 

[Clear]

Honestly not sure what some people are expecting.

Its like all this hand-wringing about "cross-gen", as if what amounts to upgrading a new set of core components in a PC is going to result in a transformative effect.
No, its what you had before just slicker and better looking.

The weird irony is that there have been a lot more really useful and interesting technological advancements this time around, but they kinda get blown off because like in the case of enhanced i/o, they mainly serve to fix problems created as a side-effect of the general ramping-up of data sizes and asset complexity.