semiconscious
Member
according to my tired ol' eyes, graphics've definitely peaked, & there are no glasses in existence that can fix this...
If you watch the people remaking Jurassic's park you see that it is more about the lighting and animation.Are we even at realtime Toy Story 1 or Jurassic Park level yet though? That was almost 30 years ago. The gap between what is "possible", and what is practical, just seems to keep widening over time...
I blame design by committee.
Corporations now just want to follow trends and play it safe, they want to normalize design to make it as dumb and simplified as they can.
Much like modern music, they have normalized mediocrity.
You are right, they need to push for path tracing, better effects, etc. Polygons and textures are close enough by now.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.
You are right, they need to push for path tracing, better effects, etc. Polygons and textures are close enough by now.
Slowly yes.
Yeah, I know ray tracing and so on.. but to be honest, raster techniques and shaders are so fucking good, that the gap between raster and RT is not that huge.
Uncharted 4 still looks amazing and it's 2016 game without any ray tracing... Death Stranding characters look almost real. There is not THAT MUCH better they can get. Obviously they will lkook a lot better but we are in 95% already.
OBVIOSULY Tlou2 and Part1 both look better than uc4 but I wanted to find the older game to show that .... hey... it is fucking 2016 game !!!
I know it's backed... but so what? It looks better baked than similar in real-time.
So if anything, games will look at least that good but fully real time like Metro Exodus.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Some games 6 YEARS later.... yeah. Look better. but much better?
Are we even at realtime Toy Story 1 or Jurassic Park level yet though? That was almost 30 years ago. The gap between
Pic 1 and 4 are from in gameplayThing is whenever people post these naughty dog cutscenes - it doesn't look like that when you're actually playing. It looks like an approximation of that but not really THAT - maybe it's LOD's or whatever, maybe nanite will fix this? But these games look crazy in the cutscenes - and have fairly seamless transitions to gameplay - but when you're playing you see it just doesn't look the same quality. I don't know why that is
Definitely, I'm playing on performance mode and I think it's one of the most consistently stunning games I've ever played.I'm happy as a clam playing GoW Ragnarok. It looks so good. I imagine things will me impress me the same next gen, but it's a high bar and I don't mind.
Yeah I mean it just looks way better in still shots then, or just if it's a shot of the environment? At least for me, in motion, it doesn't look like that, maybe it's the character moving within the environment or other things - but the illusion of it looking THAT good feels broken when actually playing.Pic 1 and 4 are from in gameplay
I mean let's take this. 15 years ago was 2007. 15 years before that was 1992I remember discussing the same question in gaming forums probably more than 15 years ago... No, still no wall. I mean, graphics have come a long way, but still have a long way to go.
This my guy right here, on point, point.I mean let's take this. 15 years ago was 2007. 15 years before that was 1992
This is 1992
![]()
That was the peak graphics of 1992, and it was only available in arcade at the time.
15 years later we had this:
![]()
![]()
Then 15 years later we have this:
![]()
![]()
The jump between the first two is a lot bigger imo.
I mean let's take this. 15 years ago was 2007. 15 years before that was 1992
This is 1992
![]()
That was the peak graphics of 1992, and it was only available in arcade at the time.
15 years later we had this:
![]()
Stylistically/artistically I understand that. And artistically we can always grow. But technology wise, detail wise - if you're aiming to create a realistic type forest island, we just weren't capable of that type of detail or realism during virtua racing days. But we are now, we have been able to get there for awhile… the more you push it detail wise the harder you have to look for the differences, the less impact that makes and it's a question of do we really need more "detail" at this point. Or should other areas be focused on moreVirtua Racing is relaxing my mind, since there is less detail and therefore less things you have to visually comprehend.
The Horizon screenshot, in contrast, is over detailed and therefore way more stressful visually - there is too much detail. What's worse, almost everything has the same colors, which makes every detail blend together into a visual mess, just like a camouflage pattern. So much detail for nothing,. You can't even absorb all of it while playing, because humans have a limited amound of visual detail they can absorb at any given moment.
I don't think it looks any "better" than Virtua Racing, just different.
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"?
![]()
Maybe not a literal wall, but more like a very very steep slope that just keeps getting steeper.Are the people saying we've tapped out all high?
Like you really think graphics will NEVER improve past what we have now? Lmao.
Considering that older games generally tend to be better in design and mechanics, I'm inclined to agree.I'm actually really excited in seeing more old games get the ray tracing treatment.
To be fair though, it's also about the talent of developers.U clearly haven't seen next genbgames running on a next gen engine. These consoles are pretty weak to run these engines at its full capabilites even series x but we should ve seeing great looking game ssoon
Most corporations aren't even trying to begin with.
Look at Zelda BotW, for instance.
All it took was a developer eager to shake things up and try different things to come up with something fresh.
Nintendo fosters a mentality of innovation, that's why they're usually the first to come up with different ideas that no one thought as viable (dual screen console, Wii motion controls, etc)
Those that do not even attempt to innovate will naturally never come up with anything new.
Most corporations just want to make things easier for themselves, so that they can put less effort, take less risks while profiting more so that they can please investors before consumers.
Yea because they don't want to put too much risk, big coporations will just wait for someone to take the risk and if it work they'll just follow. I mean nobody wants to put their money on risk but someone's gonna do it but it ain't gonna be someone like Sony / MS first party devs.Most corporations just want to make things easier for themselves, so that they can put less effort, take less risks while profiting more so that they can please investors before consumers.
Shitty pixel art and chiptune sounds and gameplay and presentation with le quirky writing and characters. If the average indie game was on par with 90's Snes and Neo Geo games I'd be in heaven.Indie developers could be doing things differently, they could be the ones bringing innovation to consumers.
But no, they *have* to release for the 25324502824th time yet another "retro-inspired" game with pixel art and chiptune sounds.
It looks like that in motion. The game looks like that. It's like the highest of high RTGI but it's all baked in for the most part.Yeah I mean it just looks way better in still shots then, or just if it's a shot of the environment? At least for me, in motion, it doesn't look like that, maybe it's the character moving within the environment or other things - but the illusion of it looking THAT good feels broken when actually playing.
Edit: this isn't to hate on uncharted I think 4 has some of the best graphics ever - it just feels like certain snippets give it the illusion of looking a step above as a whole vs how it actually looks