How far can graphics go?

[S h o o B i E x]

As the title suggests, just exactly how far can graphics go? IMO, the graphics right now are amazing. CoD4 when your running around almost looks completely real. I have never played Crysis, but the screenshots I have seen are insane. Just how far can we push graphics? When will it be that what we are playing looks more realistic than reality?

 

[ViviTheMage]

Originally posted by: S h o o B i E x
As the title suggests, just exactly how far can graphics go? IMO, the graphics right now are amazing. CoD4 when your running around almost looks completely real. I have never played Crysis, but the screenshots I have seen are insane. Just how far can we push graphics? When will it be that what we are playing looks more realistic than reality?

never, we could only end up mimicking reality I guess....like in those Tom Clancy books where you hooked up to your nervous system and YOu became the video card and the virtual world became reality.

example from the book :

The guy knew there was a virus in this certain 'area' and he went after it, physically in the virtual world. It was a huge worm and he had to destroy it, not sure how .... I don't remember.

I make it sound fake, but the book made it seem a bit more realistic, that it could happen if technology got that far.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: S h o o B i E x
As the title suggests, just exactly how far can graphics go? IMO, the graphics right now are amazing. CoD4 when your running around almost looks completely real. I have never played Crysis, but the screenshots I have seen are insane. Just how far can we push graphics? When will it be that what we are playing looks more realistic than reality?

Well that doesn't even make sense, but I think I know what you are trying to say, maybe. In my opinion there is still along way to go in the graphics department. Don't get me wrong, there are some spectacular graphics out there (I was playing with Crysis again on the weekend, and some of the stuff in there is fantastic) but there are certain areas, facial models for example, that could still use a great deal of improvement.

Faces still do not look entirely real, eyes still appear completely dead a lot of the time, lips do not move appropriately, and even hair does not look as it should most of the time. Heck even hands and feet still look a little strange in the majority of games.

I assume eventually we will get to a point where all of these things are rectified, but who knows how long that will be. Hopefully before I die, because I'd like to see it.

KT

 

[jonks]

Just consider we went from Super Mario Bros on 8bit nintendo to Crysis in 23 years. If the level of improvement 23 years from now is of comparable improvement, it will be seriously realistic looking.

 

[BladeVenom]

We are a long ways from realistic. Things might look good in a screenshot, but the physics and AI are still way behind what is needed to give the impression of realism in an interactive environment.

 

[Coldkilla]

I'm just happy that graphics are starting to become at least photo-realistic, maybe they can start spending on actually working on gameplay instead for once.

 

[pmv]

Ever improved graphics sometimes seems like a ploy to distract you from the failure to improve AI or tell better stories. I mean, I know that's not literally the case, but eventually they'll be done with graphics and have to start concentrating on the latter, surely? Would a dedicated AI card make any sense? An AIPU? Probably not as the problems are so general that that's what a CPU is for, I suppose.

 

[sandorski]

Pong had great Graphics. Space Quest was just too awesome for words. Wolfenstein was just like being there!! Unreal nearly ended my life from a massive coronary!!!

It looks great now, but in time it will seem to be very lacking.

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Pong had great Graphics. Space Quest was just too awesome for words. Wolfenstein was just like being there!! Unreal nearly ended my life from a massive coronary!!!

It looks great now, but in time it will seem to be very lacking.

ever since dreamcast, we've been seeing diminishing returns. Probably another two generations, and the quality of games graphics would be determined by production value rather than hardware.

 

[AeroEngy]

Originally posted by: ed21x
ever since dreamcast, we've been seeing diminishing returns. Probably another two generations, and the quality of games graphics would be determined by production value rather than hardware.

I agree with you there. It seems like there is a tipping point comming (maybe it is already here) where it is to costly to develop all the models, program all the AI, etc. to take full advantage of the hardware.

For example say someone released on Uber card that was 100x as powerful as the current generation. There wouldn't be vary many companies that could afford to develop and engine to take advantage of it.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Graphics will always improve. Even movies with ray-traced special effects rendered by supercomputers have room for improvement. As time goes on we'll continue to discover new methods for making things more realistic as well. Even the most realistic games still can be discerned as a game. Not only that, but I think we'll see a move to where the graphics, physics, and audio systems all interact in a much more organic manner. Look at games where there's scripted events such as in Call of Duty 4 where there's a part where you have to snipe and its windy, which impacts your bullet, now think of that being integral to the game and not a scripted sequence. At some point, we'll probably see games that utilize weather modeling that is currently done on supercomputers.

You people hoping that graphics won't keep center stage aren't going to be happy with how things are moving in the getting-near future (but should be very happy longer term), as things shift back towards software rendering. Ray tracing for instance will have major upsides, but its going to need a lot of processing power, which means graphics will likely end up with the priority of computing power for some time to come. However, software rendering should help push for physics and audio, and other things to become integral to the overall game engine.

 

[Bateluer]

Until we have full photorealistic, identical to living flesh, holo-decks that are as easy to program for as they are on Star Trek, there is room for improvement.

 

[Soundmanred]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Until we have full photorealistic, identical to living flesh, holo-decks that are as easy to program for as they are on Star Trek, there is room for improvement.

Yup, no matter how good graphics get, you're still staring at a screen and pushing buttons.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Until we have full photorealistic, identical to living flesh, holo-decks that are as easy to program for as they are on Star Trek, there is room for improvement.

We also need sentient AI NPCs to interact with in RPGs that do not realize that they are in a game running as a simulation on a computer in a virtual world that looks identical to our own with the same physics and... wait... what if we are such sentient NPCs? Sounds like a plausible Sci-Fi Original Movie plot...

 

[DangerAardvark]

There's still a whole uncharted territory in the direction of graphical details like deformable character models and diggable ground, burnable trees, break-downable walls, shoot-uppable windows, topplable buildings, etc. We're still a long way from a game where everything behaves like you'd expect it to behave.

 

[s44]

The better graphics get, the more developer time it takes to make even an hour of non-repetitive content. The question is, will *this* trend ever improve?

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

We still need decent virtual reality, man. Now THAT would be awesome. WTF would happen when it crashed, though?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Until we have full photorealistic, identical to living flesh, holo-decks that are as easy to program for as they are on Star Trek, there is room for improvement.

We also need sentient AI NPCs to interact with in RPGs that do not realize that they are in a game running as a simulation on a computer in a virtual world that looks identical to our own with the same physics and... wait... what if we are such sentient NPCs? Sounds like a plausible Sci-Fi Original Movie plot...

Wolfenstein was as good as any SciFi Original movie and it had better Special Effects!

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
There's still a whole uncharted territory in the direction of graphical details like deformable character models and diggable ground, burnable trees, break-downable walls, shoot-uppable windows, topplable buildings, etc. We're still a long way from a game where everything behaves like you'd expect it to behave.

These are more physics and AI rather than graphics. I believe the technology is there for most of the effects listed, but it would just take alot of money to develope and engine to do all of the above. We just need more invested in good gaming physics, but the processing power probably isn't that far off.

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Until we have full photorealistic, identical to living flesh, holo-decks that are as easy to program for as they are on Star Trek, there is room for improvement.

We also need sentient AI NPCs to interact with in RPGs that do not realize that they are in a game running as a simulation on a computer in a virtual world that looks identical to our own with the same physics and... wait... what if we are such sentient NPCs? Sounds like a plausible Sci-Fi Original Movie plot...

It's all fun and games till those sentient AIs realize they are slaves in a game, and decide to rebel.

 

[BassBomb]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
We are a long ways from realistic. Things might look good in a screenshot, but the physics and AI are still way behind what is needed to give the impression of realism in an interactive environment.

Bingo!

When I first played FarCry and FEAR the AI freaked me out

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
We still need decent virtual reality, man. Now THAT would be awesome. WTF would happen when it crashed, though?

You would be lying on the floor motionless seeing an error.
"Would you like to send an error report?"

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: s44
The better graphics get, the more developer time it takes to make even an hour of non-repetitive content. The question is, will *this* trend ever improve?

I don't know for certain, but I do not believe that is correct. They have a lot of amazing tools out there which save tons of time if the artist understands how to use them very well. The amount of time it took to get a lot of games from older generations out the door was often longer than it takes now because the artists did not have as sophisticated tools to utilize. Think about it. Back during the PS1 days, did we really see a crap load more games come out which did not feel graphically repetitive as opposed to today?

 

[Drift3r]

Actually the AI is there for stronger opponents but you folks need to understand that game developers make games for everyone not just a small segment of hardcore players looking for a challenge. A friend of mine who works for a gaming company told me once that they could easily add in AI that learns and adapts to players gaming tendencies. Of course the problem would be that over time this type of AI would quickly frustrate and put off many potential customers who don't have the time or patience to always keep things varied in a game in order to beat this AI. Most PC game companies always look for ways to reach and target the most people when they make a game thus you'll almost always have AI that can be beat by anyone with a IQ at or above 70.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Meh, games still look really fake. Texture resolution is still too low, polygon count still too low, and there isn't any organic animation. By this I mean, that characters look like stiff models with a texture slapped on. Their clothes don't change shape or anything, neither does their skin or muscles. They aren't "squishy." Trees still look like crap, especially when you get close to the leaves. Same with grass. There are still too many pre-recorded animations rather than behavior or movement being completely determined by some physics engine. This is very obvious in fighting games.
Then there is the way materials are made up. A pile of sand is just a big texture. It isn't a bunch of little particles that behave organically and independently. Wood is just a texture, so are rocks and water.