Support NeoGAF

[Panajev2001a]

The closer this nex-generation is getting, the more I remember how people constantly said that the diminishing returns in graphics were already SO BAD that no real improovement could be notice when the next-generation hits.

We want new gameplay so we tell ourselves that graphics will not sell any system (Jason Rubin's argument is different, it was about the smaller difference each new generation between developers who super-optimize their graphics engines and smaller studios in terms of graphics rendering technology: small studios will not be able to afford the same quality of art content as the bigger studio will geti their hands on thus helping to show a bigger rift between their titles and the competition).

Then... again I go back to looking at this:

Now, think about this image...

Think about the fact that on PCs... right now... as we speak it runs at that quality at something beyond the seconds per frame point.

Think about the fact that the gear that next-generation consoles (if they tap into what semiconductor technology and technical expertise can provide at the moment they finalize development) will be decisively faster than the fastest single Desktop PC you can buy (I do not count Beowulf clusters here ) right now or at the time these consoles will ship (PCs tend to gain back the performance-crown at least 3+ months after the console makers release their next-generation part usually).

Seeing what people like Konami did with PlayStation 2 like Z.O.E. 2, SH3 and MGS3 or Sony with games like Gran Turismo 4 or another classic like ICO (I was trying to list a limited amount of more recent titles, but ICO is a time-less game IMHO ) later in the console's life-cycle I do not think we are ready for all the tricks developers will use to highlight the strengths of the next-generation machines and hide their weaknesses.


Think about that scene being interactive (you can say... move the ship... move the camera, etc...) with that rendering quality at a smooth frame-rate (say even 30 fps.. yes, the dreaded 30 fps... hey this is not a racing game ).

I am really saying think about it...

Imagine the lights moving and the shadows dancing along with it... imagine seagulls or other birds flying in the air next to the airship, imagine the air-ship moving along the landscape, lowering in altitude, getting closer to the side of the rocky coast-line and then breezing above the sea's waves.


Do you honestly believe in the "diminsihing returns" in graphics performance argument ? Do you believe still that next-generation consoles will not be able to blow people away graphically speaking at least, not to add more advanced physics and interactivity levels with the game's environments ?

Add to that scene the attention to detail and to cinematic touches that teams like Team Kojima put in their Meal Gear games (think about Metal Gear Solid 3 which still wows me from all points of view includign art and 3D engine used).

This was from last year's 3Dmark '04:

And Morrowind IV: Oblivion's screenshots target quite better graphics IMHO:

 

[Jonnyram]

Hmm, resolution and art direction are the only things that make those screens stand out from the current gen, imho. Lighting, polys and textures are already accounted for.

 

[Rhindle]

It's really not so much a matter of technical ability, as it is a matter of cost. AAA games already cost $10-25M to produce. The cost of producing assets for next-gen games will increase at least 3-4 fold, even with advances in tools.

I think you do have an issue with developers really being able to take full advantage of the hardware without having a 200-person development team on every project.

Oblivion is a case in point, with Bethesda saying that the game world is going to have to be substantially smaller than that of Morrowind.

 

[Grubdog]

I dunno.. it's going to be hard to make all that "feel" realistic, if an enemies arm goes through a tree or something it's going to look really weird. Things really are pointing to longer development times, hopefully this means more really really good games as a result of more effort being put into single games, and less unneccesary crap. With that said I don't know shit about technical hardware things so i'm talking out of my ass.

 

[soundwave05]

Yeah the bigger issue is how much is it gonna cost to make games that look like that (or better?).

CGI graphics are cool ... but you do realize it takes years and budgets of upwards of $100 million dollars to make CGI visuals (ask Square).

 

[missAran]

Well, if there is a point of diminishing returns, I don't think we've reached it. I don't think we're really that close. Visually there are still ways to vastly improve.

However, there is a point where we can no longer significantly progress; I don't believe that developers physically can simulate real life visuals. I'm talking absolutely real life; not only will the hardware NEVER get this advanced, artists do have a point where they can't do any better. Look at a painting, and a real picture will look better, better yet, look at a picture and a real, live shot (with your eyes) will look better.

 

[Rahul]

This looks like Crystal Chronicles, but higher res. I'd think the point is that any uninitiated won't be able to tell the difference unless you point it out: "the grass is actual grass" "there's a breeze", etc.

Take your family to a random CG movie (the Incredibles, for instance) and watch them blissfully ignore the new improvements in CG technology present in that movie. Do they care that the guys in Monsters Inc. have "real fur"? No, it's transparent. Many of the small improvements that will be made with current and future visual technology are such things that most general consumers (outside the games industry, not tech-savvy) will not (care to) notice.

 

[xexex]

Pana, I for one have never thought that we are anywhere remotely close to diminishing returns in graphics. I mean real-time videogame graphics (you can include PC game and Arcade game graphics in that). I have long said that we are 3 or 4 (maybe more) console generations (4-6 years each gen) away from being at a point where graphics *might* no longer improve much. we have decades of advancement yet to go, in real-time graphics.

Xenon, Revolution and Playstation3 will look like Atari 7800, NES and Master System a few decades from now, when we have far superior graphics

it's true that graphics will NEVER look like real life. that's just impossible. but that's not the point either.

so, Pana, do you agree with me, or not?

 

[Panajev2001a]

Yeah the bigger issue is how much is it gonna cost to make games that look like that (or better?).

CGI graphics are cool ... but you do realize it takes years and budgets of upwards of $100 million dollars to make CGI visuals (ask Square).

CGI ? The 3Dmark screens are real-time...

 

[Panajev2001a]

Take your family to a random CG movie (the Incredibles, for instance) and watch them blissfully ignore the new improvements in CG technology present in that movie. Do they care that the guys in Monsters Inc. have "real fur"? No, it's transparent. Many of the small improvements that will be made with current and future visual technology are such things that most general consumers (outside the games industry, not tech-savvy) will not (care to) notice.

There is the slight problem that consoles will not approach Monster Inc. or the Incredibles levels of AA, polygonal complexity and lighting for a LONG while still, we are not getting close to that kind of diminishing returns in technology.

Also, that scene looks way beyond what FF: CC can do.

Those are pictures: imagine them moving, imagine the world being interactive, imagine the lighting being all dynamic. You will notice the change, you will be wowed when you'll compare those graphics in motion to this current generation graphical showcases.

You will criticize the art of course where it needs to be criticized, but you will notice how the games feel and look clearly different.

I am not asking fro leap and bounds over Half-Life 2 and then Unreal Engine 3, but also remember where PlayStation 2, Xbox and GameCube owners see on the best TV on the most advanced and spectacular title on their console.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Pana, I for one have never thought that we are anywhere remotely close to diminishing returns in graphics. I mean real-time videogame graphics (you can include PC game and Arcade game graphics in that). I have long said that we are 3 or 4 (maybe more) console generations (4-6 years each gen) away from being at a point where graphics *might* no longer improve much. we have decades of advancement yet to go, in real-time graphics.

Xenon, Revolution and Playstation3 will look like Atari 7800, NES and Master System a few decades from now, when we have far superior graphics

it's true that graphics will NEVER look like real life. that's just impossible. but that's not the point either.

so, Pana, do you agree with me, or not?

The point for graphics is to loom "better" than real-life .


I do not know and I am not going to predict when the diminishing returns law will really hit console makers in regards to advances in their chipsets' technology: the more people shout that processing performance will not separate one generation fo game consoles from the next, the more I see examples of this still not happening yet.

 

[mrklaw]

I'm going to disagree just for fun (I mostly do agree with you, and am looking forward to the next-gen - and I loved your description of that boat scene moving)

Your examples - ICO, MGS3, ZOE2, GT4 etc, are almost photorealistic in our eyes. Our imagination fills in the gaps. I remember when I was playing PSOne games and earlier, thinking 'these graphics are so real, how can they possibly get any better?'.

So the 'current gen' will always look fantastic. The reality, measured scientifically may well be different, but subjectively our minds will fill in the gaps.

I'll take it a step further and say that next-gen graphics will be a step backwards. Why? Because they'll be so realistic that people start noticing flaws in comparison to the real world. This gen its clear they are just simple polys, so you fill in the gaps. As the gaps get smaller, our imagination is needed less and less, and our concious mind will notice flaws.

 

[firex]

I think we're going to find a significant graphical improvement with the launch of next gen, but not as much improvement during it.

 

[cybamerc]

Next gen hardware has the potential to offer massively improved graphics. However, I don't expect every game to look truly "next gen" simply due to budget constraints.

I also think it's worth keeping in mind that Joe Average sees things differently from people who follow and have an interest in new hardware. A person who doesn't have any technical knowledge typically puts less emphasis on technical qualities. So yes... I do believe that there's some truth to the argument about diminishing returns.

 

[soundwave05]

Saying that one pic of the cottage looks like Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles, only "high res", is like saying Monica Bellucci is only slightly better looking than Kathie Lee Gifford.

 

[Monk]

Isn't that from Fable? 0_o

 

[Asskicker064]

Isn't that from Fable? 0_o

Yes, because Fable invented the stone house and grass.

 

[Monk]

No i really thougfht i saw that pic before.

 

[gofreak]

I don't think we've hit a point of diminishing returns. IMO there's a long way to go. But I don't know if the average consumer feels that way..I'm thinking they probably do though, at least beyond a certain age. I'm sure they can tell the difference between a pixar movie and a videogame today.

I think we'll be pleasantly surprised again this generation

 

[arhra]

The main thing i'm worried about wrt next-gen graphics is the 'uncanny valley' effect - we're getting close to the point where things look close enough to reality that was start expecting them to behave entirely realistically, and at that point, the slightest hint of wooden animation, or whatever, is so much more jarring than it would be with the kind of quality we've got this generation.

 

[gofreak]

The main thing i'm worried about wrt next-gen graphics is the 'uncanny valley' effect - we're getting close to the point where things look close enough to reality that was start expecting them to behave entirely realistically, and at that point, the slightest hint of wooden animation, or whatever, is so much more jarring than it would be with the kind of quality we've got this generation.

Exactly - a massive issue. I also think the interface needs to be looked at...although that's perhaps less pressing than having things behave properly. But if and when we have photorealistic worlds, won't it be such a pity to be simply experiencing them through television screens?

 

[TekunoRobby]

The main thing i'm worried about wrt next-gen graphics is the 'uncanny valley' effect - we're getting close to the point where things look close enough to reality that was start expecting them to behave entirely realistically, and at that point, the slightest hint of wooden animation, or whatever, is so much more jarring than it would be with the kind of quality we've got this generation.

What are you worried about, it is GOING to happen no matter what. In many cases it's already happening amoung the CG industry. We definitely won't reach the Uncanny Valley with next-gen games unless most of the power is dedicated to facial recreation and movement so the effects won't be as immediate as we might think. Anyways not to worry it'll be growing pains like everything else in the CG industry. It'll just make us think longer and harder on how to effectively recreate the human persona in the most efficient manner, not necessarily the most realistic.

 

[Bregor]

I disagree Pana. I think already in this generation you can see a huge difference in quality between the developers who have the time and money to create really fantastic looking content and those who don't. While it's true that the new hardware will be capable of producing much more realistic looking scenes, IMO a smaller and smaller fraction of developers will have the resources and desire to use that capability.

Content creation is the problem, not the consoles capability.

 

[gofreak]

I disagree Pana. I think already in this generation you can see a huge difference in quality between the developers who have the time and money to create really fantastic looking content and those who don't. While it's true that the new hardware will be capable of producing much more realistic looking scenes, IMO a smaller and smaller fraction of developers will have the resources and desire to use that capability.

Content creation is the problem, not the consoles capability.

They said the same thing when PS2 came out (I remember Square's president saying that only 5 companies in the world would be able to fully harness its power), and to a degree things worked out like that. But we still got a fair number of games that really pushed the hardware, even if it was from just a handful of companies.

So I look forward to what the Squares, and Konamis and Capcoms of this world will do with PS3/Xbox2/Revolution..

 

[Bregor]

They said the same thing when PS2 came out (I remember Square's president saying that only 5 companies in the world would be able to fully harness its power), and to a degree things worked out like that. But we still got a fair number of games that really pushed the hardware, even if it was from just a handful of companies.

So I look forward to what the Squares, and Konamis and Capcoms of this world will do with PS3/Xbox2/Revolution..

Some companies have made the best of current hardware, but quite a few have not. It is very instructive to me that you can find comparable looking games on all three platforms, despite the difference in graphics power. It seems clear to me that the skill and resources of the developer have had a much bigger influence on the final appearance than the power of the machine.

As the amount of detail and size of game worlds increase, the problem will only become greater. The number of companies that can keep up will shrink, and the time to develop big releases will increase. It is a potentially enormous problem IMO.

 

[Rahul]

There is the slight problem that consoles will not approach Monster Inc. or the Incredibles levels of AA, polygonal complexity and lighting for a LONG while still, we are not getting close to that kind of diminishing returns in technology.

Also, that scene looks way beyond what FF: CC can do.

Those are pictures: imagine them moving, imagine the world being interactive, imagine the lighting being all dynamic. You will notice the change, you will be wowed when you'll compare those graphics in motion to this current generation graphical showcases.

You will criticize the art of course where it needs to be criticized, but you will notice how the games feel and look clearly different.

I am not asking fro leap and bounds over Half-Life 2 and then Unreal Engine 3, but also remember where PlayStation 2, Xbox and GameCube owners see on the best TV on the most advanced and spectacular title on their console.

I know *I* can tell the difference, my point is that many other people who are not enlightened by the differences of specular surfaces, refraction, realtime/dynamic weather, etc. won't. FFCC has shadows of clouds moving over the ground and sunlight glistening in the water. The presence of the effect itself is enough to be either "there" or "not there" to anyone other than us hardcore; whether the technique is advanced or high res etc etc. just isn't obvious to those who do not have a trained eye.

Let's take a look at that scene and compare it to FFCC (basing purely on the stills, as I know that moving images will have several things FFCC did not care to implement, or couldn't):
- Trees with distinguishable leaves
- Water with shiny, reflective surface
- A (presumably) animated, cloud-filled sky
- Grass and rocks and other terrain doodads that make the environment
- A homely, fantasy-like feel to the construction of the environment (little stone cottage, meadow, brook, fences, etc -- very North England)

To anyone who is not looking, the two appear to be the same. Then, if you start to point little details out, they will notice a difference. For instance, the subtleties of leaves rustling in the breeze can admittedly add a lot of life to a scene. FFCC does not have this. Having water react when something splashes into it is also a next-gen implementation we barely see currently (since water is generally just some kind of animated texture).

But there is definitely a cumulative reduction per generation in the blatantly visual differences involved in the increase in technology. For instance, Mario Bros 1 to Mario World involves an entire addition of colour that was inaccessible on the NES. Moving to the N64, 3d is introduced. Moving to the Gamecube, possibly the last relevant visual features are added (advanced lighting, reflective surfaces, a simulated breeze like in Wind Waker, etc). What can developers to do add to that? A million different things, but each of them increasingly irrelevant and subtle in the big picture.

I have no doubt that to us there are still many different things that can be improved upon to make games more like real life. But when people cannot tell the difference in graphics capability between Toy Story (mid 90s) and the Incredibles (2004), then the same thing can be said of games (for which I've also seen other examples).

 

[Solid]

 

[DaCocoBrova]

I'd like performance improvements, personally.

 

[Brofist]

Or some AI that's actually intelligent. Or better physics in games. I mean the eye candy is nice, but it's only one aspect.

 

[Scrow]

Or some AI that's actually intelligent. Or better physics in games. I mean the eye candy is nice, but it's only one aspect.

HL2 is where it's at for physics.... throw the AI out the window though.

"follow freem*SPLAT*"
"heheh, i got*SPLAT*"

 

[Brofist]

HL2 is where it's at for physics.... throw the AI out the window though.

"follow freem*SPLAT*"
"heheh, i got*SPLAT*"

Yeah HL2 physics are sweet, I haven't seen anything like that on the console side yet though. In fact what is considered the console game with the best physics engine?

 

[DaCocoBrova]

Aren't there console games that use Havok? Psi-Ops?

 

[dark10x]

This looks like Crystal Chronicles, but higher res.

Damn, you're right! The only difference is the resolution!!

Isn't that from Fable? 0_o

Unreleased Fable vegetation?

...or perhaps finished game veggies?

 

[Bregor]

I haven't seen AI in any game yet that I haven't been able to find some exploit on. Lets face it, until computers can actually think they won't seem smart.

 

[dark10x]

I haven't seen AI in any game yet that I haven't been able to find some exploit on. Lets face it, until computers can actually think they won't seem smart.

That's true.

However, some games can be exploited more than others. You can exploit Half-Life 2's AI much more than, say, Halo...

 

[Soybean]

I never understood the argument that graphical improvements in the next generation would be marginal. I remember a year or two ago, right here on this board, some guy was absolutely adamant that it was IMPOSSIBLE to get better graphics than the current generation. I got so angry because he was such an idiot.

Games don't look like computer animated movies, let alone real life. When game graphics are indistinguishable from a TV show, then we'll have approached the ceiling.

We'll probably begin to see diminishing returns soon (within a decade) but it's sure as hell not now.

 

[Nerevar]

I think as the capacity to process more and do better graphics, the role of middleware as a vital part of any game is going to increase. Already we have an almost universal physics engine (havok), we have a whole bunch of widely-known and widely-used graphics engine tools (like renderman, i think?). This will really help to cut down game development (comparative to not having the tools), and hopefully designers can focus more on game mechanics than anything else. I'm just hoping more developers leverage these tools to create quality products. Afterall, that is the basis for what drives most corporate software development (reuse of code).

 

[Naked Snake]

MGS3 looks much better than that, in every aspect. And I'd go as far to say that I prefer the forest environments in MGS3 over the outdoor ones shown in these pics for Morrowind IV: Oblivion.

 

[Bregor]

I think as the capacity to process more and do better graphics, the role of middleware as a vital part of any game is going to increase. Already we have an almost universal physics engine (havok), we have a whole bunch of widely-known and widely-used graphics engine tools (like renderman, i think?). This will really help to cut down game development (comparative to not having the tools), and hopefully designers can focus more on game mechanics than anything else. I'm just hoping more developers leverage these tools to create quality products. Afterall, that is the basis for what drives most corporate software development (reuse of code).

This still leaves the majority of the content creation: artwork, modeling, animation, level design, etc. Even with great middleware all of this stuff needs to be designed and it takes time, skill, and money to do it.

 

[Nerevar]

MGS3 looks much better than that, in every aspect. And I'd go as far to say that I prefer the forest environments in MGS3 over the outdoor ones shown in these pics for Morrowind IV: Oblivion.

:lol

versus

which one looks better again?

Edited for a more fair comparison.
And while I think MGS3 is a phenomenal game graphics-wise, probably one of the top 3 for this gen, to say it looks better than the scenes in 3d mark and oblivion (a next-generation game) is, well, fanboy-goggles. You can really tell the difference in the rendering of the grass (it's everywhere on the 3dmark screen, and only in patches on MGS3), the leaves (every leaf is individually rendered on the 3dmark scene, whereas it's merely an effect on the branches in the MGS3 screen), the tree trunks, and in the light. The 3dmark screen is simply on a different level.

This still leaves the majority of the content creation: artwork, modeling, animation, level design, etc. Even with great middleware all of this stuff needs to be designed and it takes time, skill, and money to do it.

Oh i agree, but my point is that people are in here arguing about the increased complexity of developing a game engine. I'm hoping that middleware will offset this, so more time can be developed to developing other aspects that will increase in complexity as the consoles become more powerful.

 

[DaCocoBrova]

:lol

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Do you honestly believe in the "diminsihing returns" in graphics performance argument ?

No. The diminishing returns argument only applies to games that are visually under- and over-done in appreciable detail, IMO. You get a smart and focused art director and efficient and creative artists (level designers, modellers, texture artists, animators) on the case, and you'll see the right kind of detail where it's appropriate so as to give the full impression that the title is really going beyond the norm and delivering something totally incredible. All the coders have to do is make that focused vision a reality.

So, you don't need everything to be at the exact same level of detail, or even interactivity level. Just as long as you get your point across and maintain it throughout the duration of play, you've done as much as you need to.

The increase in capability is going to make a lot of things much easier. It's just going to take a lot of restraint, careful planning, and money to do it right, on the visual end.

Half-Life 2 and World of Warcraft are some of the best examples of games that deliver an immediately noticeable level of visual detail and atmostphere, but aren't overdone...you can easily find the things that are 'weak' in their visuals without really having to pan around. Yet, they both effectively convey what they intend to by focusing on what is needed to achieve that mood, reaction, etc.

To try and fill in every gap would be a tremendous waste of time, money, and effort...when that energy could be better spent on polishing and refining the most important visual elements they've got.

Do you believe still that next-generation consoles will not be able to blow people away graphically speaking at least, not to add more advanced physics and interactivity levels with the game's environments ?

Yes, and I think it's going to be readily apparent once the first titles are shown in real, demo-able form.

Games like ICO are relatively simple, visually. But they get more done by focusing on the truly important aspects such as proper framing, effective animation, emotional (can't think of a better description ATM) use of color, and intuitive sense of silhouette/shape.

The techincal end of things only enables the artists to do more, in a hopefully more expedient fashion.

 

[Naked Snake]

:lol

I don't see what's funny about what I said, yes Oblivion might be far more advanced technically than MGS3, but its art direction and color usage is FAR LESS pleasing to my eyes and tastes... In other words, I think MGS3 looks better, easily.

Edit: Just saw your edit, now excuse me while I laugh for a while

:lol :lol :lol

Okay I'm back... It's funny because I was going to use the exact same screenshot you used of MGS3 in support of my argument, AND I thought you were laughing because I said it looks better than Oblivion, NOT the 3D Mark screenshot, as I wont even bother arguing that one, since I think the 3D Mark screenshot is UGLY. I wouldn't even want to play game that looked exactly like that... For the record, I haven't seen that demo in motion, my opinion is based on that single screenshot alone (which has nothing on MGS3 as far as I'm concerned), but I doubt seeing the full demo would make me change my mind anyway.

It's not fanboy goggles, it's artistic taste.

 

[Nerevar]

I don't see what's funny about what I said, yes Oblivion might be far more advanced technically than MGS3, but its art direction and color usage is FAR LESS pleasing to my eyes and tastes... In other words, I think MGS3 looks better, easily.

Ok, well, there's a difference between "artistically" looking better and "technically" looking better. When that distinction isn't made, in a thread about next-generation game engines and their capacity, I thought the reference was implicitly technical. I can understand where you're coming from artistically, but I don't think you have a leg to stand on technically. And I wasn't really laughing about your reference to oblivion anyway, I was laughing at how you said MGS3 looks better than the 3dmark demo, which once again, from a technical standpoint is just a joke.

 

[tahrikmili]

Hmm, resolution and art direction are the only things that make those screens stand out from the current gen, imho. Lighting, polys and textures are already accounted for.

Name me a few games with such poygon count and such high res textures on current consoles please? The ones suggested so far are obviously leagues behind next-gen PC graphics, as evidenced by screenshots..

 

[Naked Snake]

Yes I was talking artistically (for the most part at least), but is the 3D Mark image really THAT superior to MGS3 technically? Because I really don't see it, in that static shot... A video would probably illustrate it better.

 

[gollumsluvslave]

The way i look at it is similar to any kind of evolution; take movies for example

I remember watching the original Star Wars when i was a pup, and Jaws and Superman and being wowed by the effects. Time passes. FX work evolves. Cost goes up.

I look back now at the above films and can see how unrealistic they look - dated, due to advances made etc.

Now, some people will be wondering how much better CGI work will get? In context of movies, within 5 years people will look back at Gollum in LOTR and think it looks poor IN COMPARISON to what there is at that time...

So, if movies have not even reached the point of diminishing returns(a more mature industry no less) I can't see how anyone thinks that in 5 years time we won't be looking back at the Halo 2's and Half-Life 2's and RE4's and thinking "I can't believe that looks so... dated..."

Of course, taking the movie analogy, with the evolution comes the cost factor - back in the day of Star Wars / Superman etc, $100 dollar budgets were unheard of - now they are common-place.

So,

While I don't think we are technically anywhere near the point of diminishing returns, whether the reality is as obvious will depend on how the industry evolves with the ability to deliver these grand visions.

It may be akin to the movies we see now - 4 or 5 major studios can deliver the big budget movies with cutting edge effects, while smaller independent studios deliver 'different' food for thought - after all it's not just about the FX is it?

Of course, if the industry can get away with raising game-prices, then it may be easier to deliver greater visual improvements - one thing is certain, game development budgets will be double what they are now, or greater.

 

[tahrikmili]

Yes, objects are blocky (trunks), textures are ugly (wall in MGS3 vs. boulder in 3DMark), foilage is rare, leaves are layers of stupid textures (whereas in 3DMark they are all poly's that move by themselves independent of each other under the influence of the wind). The MGS3 shot has no bump/displacement mapping and obviously suffers for it with flat looking object textures. And then there are the water shader effects that allow for seeing through the water and the reflections on top as well sa the frothing, the like of which, I have yet to see in a console (not that I say there isn't..) which you can't see in this particular shot..

With a video you would know what I mean, I guess.

 

[Nerevar]

Yes I was talking artistically (for the most part at least), but is the 3D Mark image really THAT superior to MGS3 technically? Because I really don't see it, in that static shot... A video would probably illustrate it better.

yes, it is. Like I said, artistic preference is one thing (although I don't understand how you think it's ugly .. it's a screenshot of a virtual scene that is designed to mimic reality?), but technical is another. You're arguing artistry in a thread about technical prowess, which is misguided at best. I really don't care what you "prefer" to look at more, but technically that 3dmark screenshot is doing things the MGS3 engine couldn't even dream of.

 

[DaCocoBrova]

The way i look at it is similar to any kind of evolution; take movies for example

I remember watching the original Star Wars when i was a pup, and Jaws and Superman and being wowed by the effects. Time passes. FX work evolves. Cost goes up.

I look back now at the above films and can see how unrealistic they look - dated, due to advances made etc.

Movies are a bad example. CG has gotten worse (IMO). Looking at Spider Man 2 last night had me thinking about this... CG has been running in place for a minute now.

The same things has happened w/ gaming from a content stand point.