I honestly feel Graphics have hit their peak.

#141PatrilotIVPosted 11/21/2012 1:52:39 AM
Definitely hasn't hit the peak, but the difference in graphics is getting smaller and smaller. Sure, that Skyrim pic looked really nice, but I can still play Skyrim and think it looks great. Honestly, I would not even notice much of a difference if I was playing the one with 100 mods or whatever it was. Seems almost wasteful to put so much effort into making such a minute change in the overall aspect of the game.
#142overkillwfo1978Posted 11/21/2012 1:56:21 AM
leopoldshark posted...
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.


15 years ago, In 1997, Final Fantasy 7 cost $45 million dollars to make. Nowadays, an indie developer could pretty much make that in a basement.

19 years ago, In 1993, Doom cost over $100,000 dollars to make. Everyone and thier mothers can make FPSs in their bedrooms that blow this game out of the water several times over.

You are going against the grain of proven history here with your argument.
---
"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"
#143ElectricMolePosted 11/21/2012 1:58:21 AM
*bows in respect to overkillwfo1978*

damn, thats some sweet truth youre talking there.
---
http://youtu.be/NB9ea_xWexM
Let's Get to the Top!
#144FairyGlitterPosted 11/21/2012 2:03:22 AM
There's way more to be seen in the way of graphics and resolution.

Sony's working on a 4K television that'll blow current HD out of the water. They're also developing an 8K television that probably won't be allowed on the market until the human brain has evolved to the point where it can handle such an extreme amount of awesome.

As for graphics, have you seen Unreal Engine 4? Or, better yet, Square Enix's Luminous Engine? They completely outclass everything we have currently console-wise, and they'll be available during the next generation of systems. Of course, a high-end PC is also far above consoles, but that's another story.

There's no end to technology. That's what makes it exciting and a little frightening. When we hit the pinnacle of graphical quality, then everyone will focus on immersive virtual reality. When that's perfected, we'll have something even better. There's no "peak" in tech, though.
#145edwinhaiPosted 11/21/2012 2:17:44 AM
at some point the graphics are going above our own sight and we cant see it anyway
---
quack quack quack ~ the evil duck wizzard
#146QuetzalmaPosted 11/21/2012 2:24:33 AM
graphics are FAR from hitting their peak..
#147dean407Posted 11/21/2012 2:25:06 AM
I would honestly think that once you start talking individual brock rendering you could just create a simple algorithm to build things, example would be I want a building with x floors with a rectangular shape with this side to side ratio and a square footage on each floor of y. that would make things much more simple, and would still allow for huge amounts of variation in different kinds of buildings. you could also set parameters for how a random floor plan generator could run to make each floor a bit different. or the exact same if its an office-type building.

in all honesty though I just want weather effects, more than anything like bigger maps or better models and textures weather can make a HUUUUUGE difference in the feel of a place. and really, even if we debate whether graphics matter, having an area "feel" right is something everyone wants, even if they don't know how to articulate it.
#148dennis941012Posted 11/21/2012 2:30:05 AM
NoJobBob posted...
ps3 has terrible graphics compared to PC

but at the same time a very good gaming PC is really expensie


I bought none gaming laptop (sony vaio) and it runs everything in best settings possible with no lag so far.... It did cost $1290 but if person were to build a gaming pc $400-$500 would have specs equivalent to my vaio
---
(>")> <(' ')> <("<)
~GameFAQs LoL Board Supreme Leader~> voted by http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/user.php?=89123
#149AlexFiliPosted 11/21/2012 2:51:24 AM
While in one sense, I agree... in another sense we're only reaching the first stages of graphical capabilities.

Take Assassin's Creed for example, you can have hundreds of people at once. We need something closer to tens of thousands, like GTA but without the pop-in/pop-out. There are also 3D capabilities and other graphical techniques we don't even know yet. It's only been in the past decade that we had things like motion blur, pip-pap, occlusion etc.
---
Intel Core 2 Duo 6320 (1.86Ghz), 4GB Ram, ATI Radeon 4350 HD
http://legendarysuperwarriors.tumblr.com/
#150FelineCyborgPosted 11/21/2012 3:12:15 AM
Oak_Tea posted...
I think it's more accurate to say they're reaching a peak. The jump from the Atari 2600 to the NES and the NES to the SNES were huge leaps. Same with going from the SNES to the N64 (but arguably, the SNES era was the peak of sprite artwork in games).

The N64 to Gamecube saw a bit of a jump, but it certainly wasn't as noticeable. And since I can't compare the GC to the Wii the same way, the PS2 to PS3 was a relatively smaller step, and I can't see the PS3-PS4 being much larger, for example.

To say that graphics can't get any better would just be silly right now. But there will be a time.


snes peak of sprite artwork? tell me you are joking...i take it you've never played rayman origins or blazblue, or hell even dreamcast era games such as street fighter 3 or garou:mark of the wolves. those blow the hell out of anything the snes could do by a looong mile
---
Stay, go, what do I care? - Random Citizen in Oblivion