Support NeoGAF

[Radical_3d]

So, in the long wait until the 21th and with the PS5 Pro embargo lifted I’ve dive into a myriad of YouTubes until the topic wasn’t even the Pro anymore. And then I stumbled into this one:


It talks about the all know theme of diminishing returns and the cost of modern games. But it also rises a curious, almost heretical (probably heretical here), question. Are graphics just good enough? Would you be ok if the industry didn’t release any more advance hardware. Say that nVidia gets their 5000 line out, AMD their RDNA4 line and the Switch 2 is released. Would that be enough to you? I know that this is a bit hypocritical coming from a PS5 Pro buyer, but I think I’d be ok… for a while. Like, give me 8-10 years so the next jump is as significative as it used to be. I know that I could have a 4090 class PS6 in four years to have path tracing at 1080, but why not wait 10 years and have path tracing at 4K and more detail?

I know that this is the worst forum to post this (well, maybe the Nintendo fans…), but that question rose by the comments on a previous video where people was actually relieved that the new intel chips are less powerful, lessen their FOMO. So I wondered if there is people like minded here. What do you say, GAF? A 10 year truce?

 

[ssringo]

I wouldn't be okay with it but it wouldn't be the end of the (gaming) world. Honestly I spend more time playing games that don't push current hardware than ones that do.

 

[Humdinger]

No, keep pushing, at least for a while. I'm not much of a graphics whore myself (more concerned with gameplay and story), but even I notice the difference in 60 fps vs. 30, for instance, or ray tracing, or sharper image quality. Many others put a lot of stock in better graphics and performance, and the customer should get what the customer wants.

 

[Parazels]

No, until 4k@60, full PT and advanced physics are default settings in all games.

 

[Wolves hunt in packs]

I was satisfied with 1080p and 60fps this gen as a minimum and we kinda got this and better for 3 years and now it's all downhill.

For PS6 i would want at least 1440p and 60fps as a minimum. I think those are realistic views.

Don't care about RT etc, base good resolution and 60fps is good enough for me.

 

[Zannegan]

Visually, I'd be fine. I'd love to see 100% path-traced lighting someday, but I could live with PS4-quality character models and environments.

I don't want the tech to slow though. I want larger, more dynamic, more interactive simulations to be a possibility.

 

[deriks]

Uh... How would it stop?!

Because graphics per se are different from fun. And we can push graphics to be as real as... Reality. And then we see what will have later. Maybe we discover another new thing down in the road

 

[Hawk The Slayer]

Definitely won't mind since games like Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart, Space Marine 2, GTA VI's trailers are already amazing. Focus more on optimization and content instead.

 

[BlackTron]

We need to keep going until something like a 3D cache CPU is in mass produced affordable game consoles with AI upscaling. When we have that for under $500, they can take a break for a decade and just make games.

 

[Quasicat]

I’m willing to stop because we are at that point where gaming looks really good. For me the thing that made this generation better were the quicker load times from the ssd. To me the prices for such a leap aren’t worth it anymore. If a PS5 Pro is running $700, then a PS6 won’t be that far behind.

 

[Danjin44]

Make zero difference to me, most of game I play barely push graphic tech, also my biggest reason why I'm not willing spend $1000 to buy PS5 pro.

 

[Celcius]

Just buy a Switch, OP

 

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

Once we get this current level of graphical fidelity with full ray tracing at 60fps yes

 

[Radical_3d]

I don't want the tech to slow though. I want larger, more dynamic, more interactive simulations to be a possibility.

I want that too. But the tech is so slow and the cost in power and money are so high that I want to wait until I feel like putting the Devil May Cry demo disc on my PS2 again with the next console.

 

[Arsic]

Until I can lay on my bed playing a VR mmo like in sword art online— keep pushing.

 

[Mister Wolf]

More power.

 

[El Muerto]

Keep the graphics where they're at. I miss the physics from 6th and 7th gen games. Battlefield Bad Company, Black, Psi Ops, Red Faction Guerilla all had better physics than todays games.

 

[MujkicHaris]

Yawn to the video and also to this thread. Graphics? Again?
Compare PS2 games and those on <insert your favorite modern platform>. Yes, graphics are kind of better (not always). But what else?

What gaming tech are you talking about? Besides graphics, nothing has changed. The last time a game innovated was when Oblivion introduced Radiant AI. I remember clearly when I saw it for the first time. It was out of this world experience.
Give me better AI, physics, destruction, quests that adjust to player behavior... Nobody really cares about zooming in to 300% and comparing which side has better looking pattern of pixels.

No, I am not okay with current gaming tech stopping, there's plenty of work to be done. First step is to refocus on things that matter.

 

[Pejo]

The closer we get to "realism" we get, the more I focus on art style and setting. Sure stuff like Ray Tracing is neat and can be immersive, but I'm more interested in a game with a great art style and direction. I wish devs would start optimizing instead of just throwing more horsepower at things.

 

[Closer]

I'm ok with the power we have now. I don't play AAA games, as they are never finished at release. We can wait years until those games are in their finished state to enjoy, like for about 3 to 4 years.

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

More detail just for flair purposes is a total waste of everything.

 

[FalconPunch]

I think more time needs to be put into physics and reactive worlds like back in the 360 days. The worlds are so static right now that it kills immersion. More effort also needs to directed towards animation and ai as well. These areas have been really ignored during the ps4 gen and now into the ps5 gen. Visuals/Graphics can stay stagnant for now as it's not making games more fun to play. Finally, the new gen devs need to sharpen up their optimization skills because right now, it's really bad.

 

[amigastar]

All i know is Future of gaming graphics is exciting. Games will look awesome in the future (as long as we survive until the future that is)

 

[VAVA Mk2]

No, until 4k@60, full PT and advanced physics are default settings in all games.

4K120 PT for me.

 

[vkbest]

I would prefer games with less bugs and more optimized instead buying hardware to fix those problems by brute force. But 30fps defenders probably wouldn’t agree with me.

 

[Feel Like I'm On 42]

Hell NO!

 

[Loomy]

If you only look at visual fidelity as the improvement, I can understand. But there's a lot of technology in your consoles that make achieving those realistic graphics easier, cheaper, and faster. That needs to keep improving.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Every 3-4 years upgrading my consoles and new PC is about perfect

 

[OverHeat]

PC every 2 years is perfect for me.

 

[Magic Carpet]

People are going to be willing to take a step backwards if it means going mobile.

 

[Shake Your Rump]

Almost every “PS5” game is just the PS4 version with higher resolution or framerate. So, I’ve been stuck in 2017 tech-wise this whole time.

 

[Itchy Tickles]

It's a bit tricky. Yes creating new hardware helps advance things, but on the other hand, current hardware (regardless of generation actually) is never really perfected upon.

While on consoles for example, I didn't care for the ps4 / Xbox one to be "4k" systems, but rather that they guaranteed at least 1080p 60fps. Even the current gen touting "8k" was just so dumb considering 4k is still out of reach, actually so is 60fps for the most part.

On PC it might be different in terms of professionals that use their machine for heavy duty stuff. As a game only person on PC (not photocopy or video editing etc) I do wish they would focus more of software being perfected. Game engines being optimal would amazing and not actually a damn hindrance with stutters, texture pop in etc
I'm not a fan of developers using things like DLSS as a recommended requirement as it shouldn't be used as a crutch. Devs should optimize their games and use something like that as a bonus / extra feature. They need to put the work in.

 

[SHA]

We didn't take advantage of the hardware we have yet, games still look average and some ue games underperforming, that's not the limit of current gen hardware.

 

[chokotoureiki]

No, I'd much prefer to see constant advancement. If we kept it the same then ppl are going to complain that games feel stagnant. I enjoy seeing games looking better and better with each gen and along with advances comes with innovation, and yes....innovation can also be applicable to graphics as well, not just hardware.

For example, in Last of Us Part 2, an insane amount of work went into developing things like context sensitive animations and hit reactions that really lended to the game's feel and gameplay, not just the aesthetics.

Also the axe in God of War played a critical role gameplay wise. Things like inverse kinematics that made the axe feel real and powerful made a huge difference in how the game played and felt.

That's why it annoys me whenever ppl boil graphics down to just looks and aesthetics when its so much more than that. There's so many things that come with better graphics. The feel, presentation, and ambience of a game can all contribute to gameplay.

 

[EDMIX]

NO.

Like P Diddy I can't stop, WON'T STOP, I DON'T EEEEEEEVEN KNOW HOW TO STOP!

 

[Robb]

 

[V1LÆM]

4K120 PT for me.

make it 4K 240Hz PT for me.

8K is not worth it and I can't tell any difference between 240-360Hz.

PC will never stop moving forward. while I'd be happy to stay at 4K 240Hz I'd be disappointed if PC couldn't do 8K 480Hz...just for the sake of it.

 

[IAmRei]

I think its enough now, we dont need more risk for budget to invest and being threat to bigger industry more. New tech equal to more budget sadly, and if its keeping like this, could be dangerous for future AAA or AAAA. But well, its unlikely goes stop, it will somehow will keep moving. Graphic or new tech are the easier to sell as premise, but hard to execute well at the point of high reward but also high risk in term of investment.

 

[Kataploom]

I'd like gaming hardware stays the same for at least one gen after next gen, devs cannot adapt to current tech fast enough and that would help a lot to balance productions costs and work pipelines

 

[ZoukGalaxy]

Personally I really don't care about PS5 Pro because it doesn't improve at all what bothers me a lot: PHYSICS

I'm mean, just look at all these ridiculous physics in every game aka "look at my giant axe I'm wearing proudly on my back and going deeply in my ass without any pain 'cause I'm a warrior" or "look at my ridiculous hair through my armor and my clothes".
Also, environment "destruction" is really awesome (like in Batman Arkham Knight with the awesome Batmobile through whole city).

There is so much to improve, and this is not about graphics and not only physics, we need also some serious offline IA improvements from enemies. I'm still much impressed by IA from decades games like F.E.A.R.

I would only buy a PS5 Pro, when cheaper, if itimproves seriously the already awesomeness of the PSVR 2 but beside this...

 

[Crayon]

I'd hardly notice if it stopped rn. If I never had to turn down settings I'd never realize I'd bought my last gpu.

 

[Mr Hyde]

Don't care much for high end graphics. Most AAA games today looks great so I rather they spend energy optimizing and keeping gameplay smooth with higher frames. Aside from Switch 2 I don't plan on upgrading hardware for at least 10 years. That should make for a sufficient jump in next gen experiences.

 

[Vick]

No, until 4k@60, full PT and advanced physics are default settings in all games.

 

[Braag]

Undercooked ray tracing which tanks performance and AI upscaling which still has a lot of room to improve.
This ain't it yet.

 

[Danny22]

If anything AI upscaling makes the future exciting, much more so than the last, diminishing returns, 10 years.

Until I can lay on my bed playing a VR mmo like in sword art online— keep pushing.

And if we reach singularity by 2045 (google it), I daresay we'll have that sword art online mmo in full VR.

 

[RoboFu]

You guys are not gamers you are watchers and that's one of the issues with the industry now. Gameplay has got dumb down to nothing while image quality has become worse chasing slightly better graphics than 2 gens ago.

 

[GymWolf]

Lol no, we are still light years from real photorealism and animations, physics and ia are even more behind than fidelity.

 

[BlackTron]

People are going to be willing to take a step backwards if it means going mobile.

This was largely already demonstrated by Switch.

 

[NewYork]

I'm mean, just look at all these ridiculous physics in every game aka "look at my giant axe I'm wearing proudly on my back and going deeply in my ass without any pain 'cause I'm a warrior" or "look at my ridiculous hair through my armor and my clothes".
Also, environment "destruction" is really awesome (like in Batman Arkham Knight with the awesome Batmobile through whole city).

Is physics an issue of hardware development, though? I think it's more of an issue of necessary effort while developing a game.

 

[RickSanchez]

Yes and No.

Yes - in terms of chasing graphical fidelity. I think we have reached a point of diminishing returns for this aspect. To the point where some games released 8-10 years ago still look good - see Alien Isolation, and games released 5 years ago look amazing - see Red Dead Redemption 2. Big budget games, in general, look great now and there is no point in spending further manpower and hardware resources in getting the freckles on the main character's face to look realistic. Enough already. The only specific graphical aspect i can think of that could still use improvement is facial animations and lip sync.

No - in terms of hardware advances for power consumption efficiency and simulation depth. Modern high-end GPUs kinda need their own power plants at this point. There is room to optimize to reduce electricity usage. And by simulation depth, i mean having complicated game mechanics that would need powerful CPUs and super-high read-write speeds. Like, imagine combining the depth of Baldur's Gate 3's role playing with Sims-style character control and RDR2-style animations. Imagine Starfield, but without loading screens where you seamlessly transition from building to street to wilderness to space to solar system to galaxy (what Star Citizen is trying to achieve). This would require serious hardware innovation to become accessible to the average gamer.