I honestly feel Graphics have hit their peak.

#131NicodimusPosted 11/21/2012 1:21:54 AM
From: CatalystGuitar18 | #120
Um....

http://kotaku.com/5961994/what-skyrim-looks-like-when-youre-running-100-mods-at-once

vs

http://cdn4.spong.com/screen-shot/t/h/theeldersc345719l/_-The-Elder-Scrolls-V-Skyrim-PS3-_.jpg


To be honest, the gap between them is not really that large (just comparing screens.) I'd like to see them both in motion to check out the framerate...anyway, while there is a gap, we are clearly in the territory of diminishing returns where there are no more great leaps to be made (unless we do holograms or something totally different.) If you compare NES to SNES to PS1 to PS2 to PS3...those were all bigger leaps than those screenshots, but they also got incrementally smaller.
---
PSN #1: Nicodimus - Dragon's Dogma Pawn: Kaylee (Fighter)
PSN #2: Nicodimus222 - Dragon's Dogma Pawn: Mina (Mage)
#132Ahoge-donoPosted 11/21/2012 1:23:22 AM
How much better can graphics get till we hit the uncanny valley and everything feels really awkward to look at?
#133DarkZV2BetaPosted 11/21/2012 1:28:42 AM
Dynheart posted...
Those Kotaku shots are nice. Honestly, though, they don't pop out at you like PS2 to PS3/360 jump in graphics.

They are nice, but so it the original graphics too; and I think that's what the OP was getting at. Eventually, and it will be very soon, we are going to be hitting a plateau for graphics. From there I'd rather them work on AI/physics. Graphics are already crazy good/getting crazier good. I mean, some of those screen shots are photo realistic already. From there it's how much you can cram onto the screen..and AI/physics.

PC's have no limits. Consoles, though....yea.


Because it's a console game with some nice tweaks.
Similarly, Xbox-360 cross platform games didn't have that generation jump in their still-frame visual quality.
---
AMD CACHING = NOT YET FINISHED
Hey... just so you know...PC is a brand. ;). ~Lord_Kagato
#134overkillwfo1978Posted 11/21/2012 1:32:18 AM(edited)
Ahoge-dono posted...
How much better can graphics get till we hit the uncanny valley and everything feels really awkward to look at?


I don't know, but, judging by those modded Skyrim shots, I'm ready to pack by bags and MOVE to Uncanny Valley.
---
"Then we figured out that we could just park them in front of the tv, that's how I was raised, and I turned out tv"
#135jairusmonillasPosted 11/21/2012 1:31:27 AM
STN79 posted...
With all current systems now using HD and the games looking pretty damn amazing how
could things get any better visually? What else do we need? Ultra hyper Alpha Omega HD?
I really doubt I'm going to care much about whatever comes after this. PS4 and Xbox 720
probably won't be the huge leap people are expecting. It'll just be another HD system with a higher cost.
One of these days a new game system is gonna be over 1000 dollars. Good luck getting mommy and daddy to fork that over.


WiiUssurance topic.

You're only saying that cause Wii U's graphics is not impressive and doesn't even look like next gen graphics but more of a polished current gen graphics.
#136CrossRavenPosted 11/21/2012 1:31:56 AM
Last I seen, those uber looking Skyrim pics are for mods designed only for picture taking. They aren't really playable because of the frame rate being next to nothing.

Also, ignoring the PC side of the equation, console games can definitely improve in texture quality and resolution. So, I'd look for that as being one of the big "upgrades" on next gen consoles.
---
"Give me a Y....Give me an R....Give me a Break" - Yuna, Rikku and Paine
Xbox Live Gamer Tag: Cross Raven
#137dean407Posted 11/21/2012 1:32:47 AM
People are failing to realize the real potential of graphics power increasing. its not necessarily about rendering better, its about rendering MORE. everyone here has heard of DayZ right? imagine a game like that where you get to play in the ENTIRE state of New York, City and all. where the bricks in buildings aren't just flat textures, but individually rendered in real time. where bullet holes are little physics events that actually chip away at the facade of a building or wall. imagine (using BF3 as an example) that the rain puddles in the back alleys of Grand Bazaar are rendered in a way that react in real time to player footsteps, with each ripple consisting of not just thousands, but MILLIONS, of polygons. where a bullet is physically rendered in real time and picks up the lands and grooves of the rifling in a barrel as it moves down it after being shot. or the tires in Gran Tourismo leaving a little bit of actual materiel behind when you lock your brakes or take off from a standstill and spin those tires, not just textures, materiel that the game would know is no longer on those tires and can, again in real time, change handling properties for my car during a race.

and lets not get started on how far processing power needs to get before we can get real physics engines up in this piece. I want genuine wind and weather patterns. I want to be able to check the weather forecast in a GTA game, I want snow that falls and slowly collects on stationary trucks and people. even looking at BF3 a lot of people barely realize that Grand Bazaar even HAS rain to begin with, I can't wait for that rain storm to swell and ebb and flow like a real on would. to slowly change the motion of the characters clothes as they become more wet and could even slow player down, creating yet more strategy. or the way the water would vaporize as it comes into contact with a hot barrel on a m249 going full cyclic.

I want fully rendered STATES, not just small portions of tiny islands like we have been. Crysis was a step in the right direction but it wasn't enough. as it stands we need to fully separate console and PC development, which is why Crysis 2 didn't look as good as it could have and why even BF3 was hampered by not being as "big" as it could've been.

this is the stuff my fantasies are made of, no offense but you guys are thinking small-time
#138overkillwfo1978Posted 11/21/2012 1:38:54 AM(edited)
dean407 posted...
People are failing to realize the real potential of graphics power increasing. its not necessarily about rendering better, its about rendering MORE. everyone here has heard of DayZ right? imagine a game like that where you get to play in the ENTIRE state of New York, City and all. where the bricks in buildings aren't just flat textures, but individually rendered in real time. where bullet holes are little physics events that actually chip away at the facade of a building or wall. imagine (using BF3 as an example) that the rain puddles in the back alleys of Grand Bazaar are rendered in a way that react in real time to player footsteps, with each ripple consisting of not just thousands, but MILLIONS, of polygons. where a bullet is physically rendered in real time and picks up the lands and grooves of the rifling in a barrel as it moves down it after being shot. or the tires in Gran Tourismo leaving a little bit of actual materiel behind when you lock your brakes or take off from a standstill and spin those tires, not just textures, materiel that the game would know is no longer on those tires and can, again in real time, change handling properties for my car during a race.

and lets not get started on how far processing power needs to get before we can get real physics engines up in this piece. I want genuine wind and weather patterns. I want to be able to check the weather forecast in a GTA game, I want snow that falls and slowly collects on stationary trucks and people. even looking at BF3 a lot of people barely realize that Grand Bazaar even HAS rain to begin with, I can't wait for that rain storm to swell and ebb and flow like a real on would. to slowly change the motion of the characters clothes as they become more wet and could even slow player down, creating yet more strategy. or the way the water would vaporize as it comes into contact with a hot barrel on a m249 going full cyclic.

I want fully rendered STATES, not just small portions of tiny islands like we have been. Crysis was a step in the right direction but it wasn't enough. as it stands we need to fully separate console and PC development, which is why Crysis 2 didn't look as good as it could have and why even BF3 was hampered by not being as "big" as it could've been.

this is the stuff my fantasies are made of, no offense but you guys are thinking small-time


Awesome post.... and to add to this for the people that think he is crazy, Imagine going back to 1985 with a 1080p TV, a modern PC and a copy of Battlefield 3 that you could run at max...

People would think you were a God. Think about that while reading the above paragraphs and what might be possible in 10-20 years.
---
"Then we figured out that we could just park them in front of the tv, that's how I was raised, and I turned out tv"
#139leopoldsharkPosted 11/21/2012 1:40:54 AM
How many millions of dollars would that cost? How many years would that take? The rising cost of games is a huge issue to developers. Unless you are CoD or another big name franchise, people have trouble selling their game at 60 bucks a piece and DLC only does so much. Plus with the rise of social gaming, the indie market, and Steam sales, people get used to paying <20 dollars for a brand new game. It's nice to have big dreams, but you have to think about it from the developer's (and publisher's) perspective.
#140TechniMyokoPosted 11/21/2012 1:50:15 AM
there is no peak