I honestly feel Graphics have hit their peak.

#171LegendaryHeroRebornPosted 11/21/2012 6:29:47 AM
They haven't hit their peak yet, since the amazing graphics in the opening movie or cutscenes (example Final Fantasy XIII), doesn't compare to the gameplay graphics. Will graphics ever get that far that those pretty cutscenes graphics are in the whole game?
---
3DS FC: 0731-5087-7070. SSB Brawl FC: 3265-4738-3740
Xbox Live & PSN: EliteGamerRyan.
#172NintendologicalPosted 11/21/2012 11:23:07 AM
DarkZV2Beta posted...

You mean like bump mapping?(ex: damn near anything not on sub-Wii level hardware)
Or normal mapping?(ex: Doom 3 on PC, as well as pretty much every modern game)
Howabout parallax mapping?(ex: Crysis on PC, quite a few other titles this gen used it to great effect as well)
And if that's not good enough, howabout tessellation?(ex: Crysis 2, and pretty much every DX11 tech demo)

If that's not good enough for you, you may be stuck waiting for Point Cloud Rendering to take off.


Normal maps are 2D textures. Normal maps are created by taking a high polycount model with a lot of detail, converting the surface into a texture and then applying that texture to a lower polycount model. In fact, many of today's games use fewer polygons than say a Dreamcast game, because detail is derived from shaders, bloom effects and high resolution textures. I is more efficient to use 2D textures on low poly models than to actually render the original detailed model.
---
Your uncle was so dumb he paid the full price of a new PS2 to rent it for a week? Your family tree must be a straight line" - Finlandia
#173trenkenPosted 11/21/2012 11:28:19 AM
kissdadookie posted...
trenken posted...
The thing about technology is it never actually peaks. People are very short minded. I remember when the N64 came out, EGM said it was the pinnacle of 3D graphics. They said this because nothing better actually existed at the time. The alternative was crap like Doom which looked awful on the PC.

There is ALWAYS room for improvement. Even 20 years from now when games look significantly better than they do now, there will still be plenty of room for improvement.

There is so much technology that doesnt exist yet to be able to get games to look 100% real. Imagine a role playing game with no loading times that looks like real life, in an open world the size of New Jersey. That WILL happen someday, but its so far off, many decades.


I remember the DOS Daggerfall game was considered to be like real life when that came out. LOL. Those were the simple days.


Yep exactly. Thats the thing, closed minded people have a very hard time looking beyond whats currently possible. Believe me in 20 years kids will be looking at the games we play now the same way we look at NES games. There is so much room for improvement, and not just graphically.

Imagine if you could play as Mario running through a 3D cartoony exaggeration of the real world, little animals running around, each leaf of a tree blowing in the wind? We are so far away from that with 3D Mario games. They still look like enhanced versions of Mario 64.

Let a couple decades go by and Mario games will completely blow peoples minds. Computer tech now just cant handle it. Well, technically it can, but it would cost you a nice pile of money to buy a home console that could run that. The whole thing is all about making it affordable. Its possible now, but making it affordable could take decades.
---
3DS | 1504-5688-7256
PS3/Vita | CygnusZero
#174DarkZV2BetaPosted 11/21/2012 1:53:28 PM
Nintendological posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...

You mean like bump mapping?(ex: damn near anything not on sub-Wii level hardware)
Or normal mapping?(ex: Doom 3 on PC, as well as pretty much every modern game)
Howabout parallax mapping?(ex: Crysis on PC, quite a few other titles this gen used it to great effect as well)
And if that's not good enough, howabout tessellation?(ex: Crysis 2, and pretty much every DX11 tech demo)

If that's not good enough for you, you may be stuck waiting for Point Cloud Rendering to take off.


Normal maps are 2D textures. Normal maps are created by taking a high polycount model with a lot of detail, converting the surface into a texture and then applying that texture to a lower polycount model. In fact, many of today's games use fewer polygons than say a Dreamcast game, because detail is derived from shaders, bloom effects and high resolution textures. I is more efficient to use 2D textures on low poly models than to actually render the original detailed model.


No, actually, normal maps are maps(similar to texture maps) that are responsive to lighting, generating cast shadows that give the illusion of 3D depth to a 2D surface.
Also, no, most games don't use lower poly models than Dreamcast games. When was the last time you played DC? Never?
---
AMD CACHING = NOT YET FINISHED
Hey... just so you know...PC is a brand. ;). ~Lord_Kagato
#175superbot400Posted 11/21/2012 2:00:41 PM
Graphics haven't peaked , but video games do suffer diminishing returns and graphics are at level where aren't really that impressive anymore.
---
http://spinsulin.freeforums.org/the-fantastic-four-respect-thread-t4436.html, my huge ass respect thread. You won't see it.
#176WHATZITUYAPosted 11/21/2012 4:50:21 PM
I feel they have peaked from the view of profit.

Graphics can get better, the question is whether or not the time/cost will justify the income.
---
What the...? Are you kidding me? Seriously?! Well...it's your opinion.
#177BigAl519Posted 11/21/2012 4:56:04 PM
WHATZITUYA posted...
I feel they have peaked from the view of profit.

Graphics can get better, the question is whether or not the time/cost will justify the income.


Pretty well this. People are so caught up with the so called power of these next gen consoles they fail to realize how much more it costs to make those pretty graphics and add more life to games. Each character on the screen needs to be made by someone, same with each object. The more detail in the object the longer it takes to make. The more objects they make the longer it takes to develop. And thats just the graphics. If they try to add smarter AI, which the CPU's will allow, then the programming will take even longer as well and be much more difficult. I expect next gen games to be at least $80 each if developers actually try to use their full power.
---
A real gamer will buy any system and enjoy it, a tool will sit on a forum trying to bash one or the other!
#178jgatlabayanPosted 11/22/2012 8:25:11 AM
http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/135788-investigating-ray-tracing-the-next-big-thing-in-gaming-graphics/3
---
Q6600@3.4 / 295 GTX / AsusP5WDH/8GB Corsair DDR2-800,26" VS LCD,55" 1080p 240hz Samsung LED /PS3/360/Wii/Xbox/PS2/GC/DC/PS1/Saturn/N64
#179HozamaPosted 11/22/2012 8:32:12 AM
I think we're nearing the point that the cost/return margin on improved graphics are reaching a breaking point. Instead of trying to improve the resolution on the freckles of a persons nise, they should spend their time improving the engins used. If we could get Mass effect or FF level graphics at a greatly reduced cost and time requirment, that's the way to go.
#180Great_Pudding_3Posted 11/22/2012 8:34:38 AM
Unfortunately the technology just isn't there yet. Remember in those FMV movies or CGI movies, those graphics aren't real-time they're all rendered frame by frame and take countless hours to do so.
---
Stu, what are you doing?