Forums - Gaming Discussion - How much do you care about the graphical leap between consoles at this point?

hinch said:
DonFerrari said:

Yep, every new gen people say we hit the ceiling and nothing will impress us anymore, but they are always wrong. But well, some don't really care about graphics.

Yeah that's true.

And there's false misconception that better graphics =/= more realistic graphics. You can have better graphics and it will improve a games look, even with more stylized designs. Take Nintendo, hypothetically, if they decided to go power route for next gen for Switch 2.. you could have Mario running around in 4K with ray-tracing and it would look stunning.

We have so many fantastic looking game with looks that you don't have in real life and colors that aren't natural. They have photorealism but doesn't look real. And that can't be done without improving the graphics of the game.

Like FF XIII opening (or most CGs on FF) it looks great, similar to life, but the visual aren't anything you would see in life. Also I laugh about complains about looking like life, that is what you look your whole life, movies, series, etc... why would that be a problem only in game?

And I agree we could have somenthing on the level of craftmanship for graphics the level of Detroit Become Human but with the aesthetics of a Nintendo game.

Mar1217 said:
DonFerrari said:

Talk what you want but even games like Killzone Shadow Fall and Ryse of Rome showed the graphical jump in a very easy to see way, Infamous Second Son is even better at it.

Perhaps you think like that because you weren't actively seeing the release of the systems like PS2 and PS3 when the gap between end gen PS1 games like FFIX jump to launch titles of PS2 or GoW2 on PS2 to launch titles on PS3 weren't as massive as you would believe when trying to compare launch title of PS1 with end of life PS2, etc. Because sometimes looking behind it looks different than what it really was.

Boy, if you think the jump between FF-9 and FF-10 wasn't impressive as to what they could already achieve early on then, I think this line of thinking is mute in the water.

Tell me of a game that could hope to match the graphical and atmospheric tension of REmake on the GameCube during the end of the PS1 era without having to look like a muddy pixel puddle with some ugly flat faced poorly textured model.

Sorry but current gens are not fighting in the same way to make you look at the advancement they've done anymore. It isn't a "in your face shock" .

That simply how I see it though. Subjective as it may be.

Where have I said that the jump from FF-IX to X wasn't impressive? Look what I wrote, FF IX to a launch title on PS2... like look at this link and tell me which of these games had you impressed graphically https://www.ign.com/articles/2000/10/28/the-ps2-launch-titles

So let's see if there wasn't a jump in quality from PS2 to PS3 or how the PS3 to PS4 was significative.

GOW 2 on PS2

Genji day of the blade on PS3

Detroit Become Human on PS4

So it is basically we not remembering how bad most of the early gen titles looked compared to their end of gen and how that can make the jump be small.

Darwinianevolution said:
CGI-Quality said:

It is viable as long as the market seeks it (which it continues to). Like I said, we're nowhere close to that point — be it financial or technical.

Besides, you said: "Meh. Graphics cannot be improved that much at this point". That is factually incorrect no matter what standpoint you take.

I meant it in the sense of deminishing returns. If a developer spends tens of thousands of man hours and millions of dollars to craft a game to be the most beautiful and graphical astonishing game ever made, it's not going to sell much more than a game that just looks great, and the difference in resources needed is clear. At some point, the investment ins not worth it, so why bother improving the graphics?

Because a lot of the public likes and wants better graphics, if they didn't there would be no point in still improving Graphic Cards or consoles. And also some games sell based on the graphic, others on the multiplayer, other on the puzzles, etc.

HollyGamer said:
CGI-Quality said:

You have to know what the goal is before a proclamation like that can be made and you can't just improve performance without considering cosmetics. It is very much a system of 0s and 1s.

The goal is to achieve photorealistic graphic .which i can say current gen  already can do decent job. Game engine like Frostbite engine, Unreal, Capcom Resident Evil Engine with scanning etc already did fantastic job.

Not really, several companies don't try photorealism (even ND that invest a lot in graphics have the char in UC4 very stylized)

And on photorealism, on PS3 we already though it was great and nothing else was needed (even on PS2 that seemed the case) but we are always pushing the bar higher.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
HollyGamer said:

The goal is to achieve photorealistic graphic .which i can say current gen  already can do decent job. Game engine like Frostbite engine, Unreal, Capcom Resident Evil Engine with scanning etc already did fantastic job.

Not really, several companies don't try photorealism (even ND that invest a lot in graphics have the char in UC4 very stylized)

And on photorealism, on PS3 we already though it was great and nothing else was needed (even on PS2 that seemed the case) but we are always pushing the bar higher.

They don't doesn't mean they cannot. Even if Playstation 9 comes out, if the developer choose not to be photorealistic than the games will just be stylish graphic instead photorealistic (which is i don't mind). And yes there is always be a new bar in each new generation, but the bar will not be noticeable from now on. The problem is not the technology it self or the spec, but more of our limitation on seeing a higher resolution more than 16K. In games we don't need an artist rendering every atom and particle of our skin. So the goal on physical based rendering already achieved (except it just need a proper Ray Tracing)

But the point to my comment is we are already in the situation where photorealism on gaming will be hard to notice on each generation onward. Instead Developer will strive for physics and world interaction to create a living world and also they will focus on AI and simulation. There is so much to improve on games and that's not just photo realisme. 



HollyGamer said:
DonFerrari said:

Not really, several companies don't try photorealism (even ND that invest a lot in graphics have the char in UC4 very stylized)

And on photorealism, on PS3 we already though it was great and nothing else was needed (even on PS2 that seemed the case) but we are always pushing the bar higher.

They don't doesn't mean they cannot. Even if Playstation 9 comes out, if the developer choose not to be photorealistic than the games will just be stylish graphic instead photorealistic (which is i don't mind). And yes there is always be a new bar in each new generation, but the bar will not be noticeable from now on. The problem is not the technology it self or the spec, but more of our limitation on seeing a higher resolution more than 16K. In games we don't need an artist rendering every atom and particle of our skin. So the goal on physical based rendering already achieved (except it just need a proper Ray Tracing)

But the point to my comment is we are already in the situation where photorealism on gaming will be hard to notice on each generation onward. Instead Developer will strive for physics and world interaction to create a living world and also they will focus on AI and simulation. There is so much to improve on games and that's not just photo realisme. 

Pixel count is just a small portion of photorealism, and we can certainly notice a lot of difference from the models at fullHD from game to game. Just compare the facial model between three great games like HZD, UC4 and Detroit. You'll still easily see how much better Detroit is and they are all rendered at similar pixel count.

But geometry, polygons, texture, and several other effects are still improving a lot. Don't worry when gen 9 really starts to blow you'll be able to see the difference to Killzone or Infamous Second Son.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Very little. I think the last time I was bowled over by graphics was 14 years ago, with Oblivion and Gears of War on Xbox 360.

Now, that's not to say I'm not interested in the forward march of technology, but I'm much more invested in what new gameplay possibilities technology offers, whether related to physics, AI, terrain deformation, etc. The nuts and bolts of a game are, to me, more important than its outward appearance.

I still love a beautiful, polished video game, but it doesn't excite me without the promise of great gameplay.



DonFerrari said:
HollyGamer said:

They don't doesn't mean they cannot. Even if Playstation 9 comes out, if the developer choose not to be photorealistic than the games will just be stylish graphic instead photorealistic (which is i don't mind). And yes there is always be a new bar in each new generation, but the bar will not be noticeable from now on. The problem is not the technology it self or the spec, but more of our limitation on seeing a higher resolution more than 16K. In games we don't need an artist rendering every atom and particle of our skin. So the goal on physical based rendering already achieved (except it just need a proper Ray Tracing)

But the point to my comment is we are already in the situation where photorealism on gaming will be hard to notice on each generation onward. Instead Developer will strive for physics and world interaction to create a living world and also they will focus on AI and simulation. There is so much to improve on games and that's not just photo realisme. 

Pixel count is just a small portion of photorealism, and we can certainly notice a lot of difference from the models at fullHD from game to game. Just compare the facial model between three great games like HZD, UC4 and Detroit. You'll still easily see how much better Detroit is and they are all rendered at similar pixel count.

But geometry, polygons, texture, and several other effects are still improving a lot. Don't worry when gen 9 really starts to blow you'll be able to see the difference to Killzone or Infamous Second Son.

Yes PS3 to PS4 is the peak evolution, we still can see the difference. But from PS5 to PS6 onward , we will just be seeing increasing of resolution and performance  , the rest of the hardware probably will be  focusing rendering the amount of object or character in one area.

If you want to see the end goal of photo realism is,  just look at  FF7 remake character model that has the same quality with the CG model in FMV CG scene or Resident Evil 8 in game model character which already using photo geometry using real human model

I don't know what else we can achieve beyond realism, current gen can already render realistic model with the exact same features . What only lacking this gen is proper lighting (Ray Tracing ) and animation and also proper physics and simulation . 



Around the Network
HollyGamer said:
DonFerrari said:

Not really, several companies don't try photorealism (even ND that invest a lot in graphics have the char in UC4 very stylized)

And on photorealism, on PS3 we already though it was great and nothing else was needed (even on PS2 that seemed the case) but we are always pushing the bar higher.

They don't doesn't mean they cannot. Even if Playstation 9 comes out, if the developer choose not to be photorealistic than the games will just be stylish graphic instead photorealistic (which is i don't mind). And yes there is always be a new bar in each new generation, but the bar will not be noticeable from now on. The problem is not the technology it self or the spec, but more of our limitation on seeing a higher resolution more than 16K. In games we don't need an artist rendering every atom and particle of our skin. So the goal on physical based rendering already achieved (except it just need a proper Ray Tracing)

But the point to my comment is we are already in the situation where photorealism on gaming will be hard to notice on each generation onward. Instead Developer will strive for physics and world interaction to create a living world and also they will focus on AI and simulation. There is so much to improve on games and that's not just photo realisme. 

Yeah we're not even close to photorealism on consoles. Wake me up when consoles reach Pixar quality of animation.

This is photorealism. Granted it takes millions of dollars and hundreds of man hours to produce.

This is pretty interesting video, if you want to delve into photorealism



hinch said:
HollyGamer said:

They don't doesn't mean they cannot. Even if Playstation 9 comes out, if the developer choose not to be photorealistic than the games will just be stylish graphic instead photorealistic (which is i don't mind). And yes there is always be a new bar in each new generation, but the bar will not be noticeable from now on. The problem is not the technology it self or the spec, but more of our limitation on seeing a higher resolution more than 16K. In games we don't need an artist rendering every atom and particle of our skin. So the goal on physical based rendering already achieved (except it just need a proper Ray Tracing)

But the point to my comment is we are already in the situation where photorealism on gaming will be hard to notice on each generation onward. Instead Developer will strive for physics and world interaction to create a living world and also they will focus on AI and simulation. There is so much to improve on games and that's not just photo realisme. 

Yeah we're not even close to photorealism on consoles. Wake me up when consoles reach Pixar quality of animation.

This is photorealism. Granted it takes millions of dollars and hundreds of man hours to produce.

This is pretty interesting video, if you want to delve into photorealism

That's CGI , games does not required to render every atom and particle of each object. Current gen hardware can already achieve cheap way to render the graphic  for gaming purpose. 



I would rather see 60fps



 

My youtube gaming page.

http://www.youtube.com/user/klaudkil

HollyGamer said:
DonFerrari said:

Pixel count is just a small portion of photorealism, and we can certainly notice a lot of difference from the models at fullHD from game to game. Just compare the facial model between three great games like HZD, UC4 and Detroit. You'll still easily see how much better Detroit is and they are all rendered at similar pixel count.

But geometry, polygons, texture, and several other effects are still improving a lot. Don't worry when gen 9 really starts to blow you'll be able to see the difference to Killzone or Infamous Second Son.

Yes PS3 to PS4 is the peak evolution, we still can see the difference. But from PS5 to PS6 onward , we will just be seeing increasing of resolution and performance  , the rest of the hardware probably will be  focusing rendering the amount of object or character in one area.

If you want to see the end goal of photo realism is,  just look at  FF7 remake character model that has the same quality with the CG model in FMV CG scene or Resident Evil 8 in game model character which already using photo geometry using real human model

I don't know what else we can achieve beyond realism, current gen can already render realistic model with the exact same features . What only lacking this gen is proper lighting (Ray Tracing ) and animation and also proper physics and simulation . 

I will just say that you need to look CGI thread to see how much of a jump we are going to have.

Sure every gen the jump seem smaller because there is the ceiling (that we will still take decades to achieve) but sure everytime we get nearer there is less road to cover. But it is still very noticeable. And I'm not even thinking about the bad stuff like pop ups, collision and things like that.

I have seem the CGs from FF7 and I can still easily see the gap. Even if my relatives when I'm gaming ever since PS3 ask if I'm watching a movie.

Once we really achieve photorealism we will still have other stuff to achieve. We are at something similar to people going from B&W tv to color tv thinking they didn't need anything more and it wouldn't be possible to improve that 21" CRT because they were already seeing images that were life like.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

xl-klaudkil said:
I would rather see 60fps

Then only PC will suffice for you because you can decide what you want to prioritize. On consoles there will always be a big chunky of devs that preffer to put more pixels or IQ and keep fps at 30.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994