Close to perfect!?

Judgy

Edit history:

Judgy: 2013-07-09 12:03:33 pm

2013-07-09 12:01:16 pm

Borderlands 2 Glitch Hunter/ router.

Graphics:

I happened to be watching a Bioshock run (Props to Bloodthunder BTW) and notice there was an incredible amount of detail in the glass of the bathysphere around 5:30 (Spelling!?) which got me to wondering with graphics at the stage they are currently, how long will it be until any improvement in graphics is indistinguishable by the human eye?, how long until improvement can no longer be noticed?, this also leads me to other questions namely, What do you feel is lacking currently? what definitely NEEDS to be improved, I find Water effects particularly with Physx (BL2 and such) to be very lack-luster at the moment but that is just me.

[Note i am not saying Bioshock has the best graphics, I know of many games which out do it vastly.]

To summarize:
1. Do you think Graphics are "Good enough" currently
2. Do you think we are close to unnoticeable improvement
3. What needs to be worked on because it isn't good enough
4. Anything else you want to add (New gfx cards features merely to sell new hardware etc etc)

Thread title:

Graphics:

I happened to be watching a Bioshock run (Props to Bloodthunder BTW) and notice there was an incredible amount of detail in the glass of the bathysphere around 5:30 (Spelling!?) which got me to wondering with graphics at the stage they are currently, how long will it be until any improvement in graphics is indistinguishable by the human eye?, how long until improvement can no longer be noticed?, this also leads me to other questions namely, What do you feel is lacking currently? what definitely NEEDS to be improved, I find Water effects particularly with Physx (BL2 and such) to be very lack-luster at the moment but that is just me.

[Note i am not saying Bioshock has the best graphics, I know of many games which out do it vastly.]

To summarize:
1. Do you think Graphics are "Good enough" currently
2. Do you think we are close to unnoticeable improvement
3. What needs to be worked on because it isn't good enough
4. Anything else you want to add (New gfx cards features merely to sell new hardware etc etc)

presjpolk

2013-07-09 12:13:45 pm

HELLO!

You know a home console game that had style and still maintains that style to this day? Berzerk.

New tech is overrated.

Patashu

2013-07-09 04:37:01 pm

I used to think that we would reach a point where no graphical improvement would be meaningful anymore, but there's always more work to do - deformable terrain can always be more deformable, trees can always be more complex, etc. Just recently there was a game released that accurately modelled the effects of dirt, mud and water being moved around by a truck's tires, discolouring them, making the truck get stuck, the forces, etc:

Rakuen

Edit history:

Rakuen: 2013-07-09 06:17:15 pm

2013-07-09 06:15:37 pm

Weegee Time

Well, with 4K, resolution continues to increase, so more horsepower will be needed for that at the very least. I think Patashu's right, we're going to see more focus on building improved cursory elements. To most people it's going to be marginal improvements and that's okay. We've also got new VR equipment, like the Oculus Rift, and improving both graphics and processing while still maintaining good latency is still a challenge. Once it gets there though, you can bet people will be demanding the most realistic worlds possible. The development work at the high end will naturally feed into that.

Onin

2013-07-10 04:02:57 am

You're looking for two things.

Firstly, a completely new method of rendering graphics. Polygons and textures is a highly inefficient way to create high-level graphics since it just becomes exponentially more time-consuming to improve your models' realism. However, a different method is in development (or really, it's already done): voxel-based cloud-point graphics. Or something.

(Was looking for a better video, but this'll have to do)

The reason this graphics method isn't in use yet is because it's EXTREMELY taxing on your average computer. In order to render anything usable, most of these voxel engines need to creatively reuse the same item many, many times. Imagine if you were able to use that technology with near limitless computing power. Enter quantum computers.

Combine those two technologies, and it won't take long for graphics to approach realismic qualities.

Mystery

2013-07-12 02:36:29 pm

Quote from Onin:

Combine those two technologies, and it won't take long for graphics to approach realismic qualities.

I don't think you should buy the hype. I don't think it's nearly as good as they say.

General Vagueness

2013-07-16 11:17:59 am

Faster than the speed of love

Quote from Mystery:

Quote from Onin:

Combine those two technologies, and it won't take long for graphics to approach realismic qualities.

I don't think you should buy the hype. I don't think it's nearly as good as they say.

It's not, but it can be, just like any graphical system.
As for reaching the end of increasingly better graphics, I think we've hit a plateau, probably the last plateau, but it'll be a while still before there's no visible improvement to be made.

Mystery

2013-07-16 11:21:15 am

As for better graphics, I believe we're at the stage where we can't afford to make it any better until the situation in the industry changes radically.
I believe that we have far from achieved realistic graphics and especially animation.

Onin

2013-07-16 11:37:07 am

Of course you always have to keep in mind that "realistic" is not equal to reality. It's a constant problem in cinema, that showing something that's completely real often doesn't come over as realistic to audiences. Unrealistic colour filters, makeup, camera techniques, CGI etc. help make the whole package realistic to the audience. It's what I call the difference between realistic and realismic (aiming for realism versus reality).

Furthermore, the more realistic graphics become, the more difficult it becomes to cross the uncanny valley. If you manage to create a graphics engine that can create fully realismic objects and characters, then every way in which they can't move or act realismically will feel all the more alien.

sixfour

2013-07-20 05:10:53 am

graphics have been good enough for a decade. if developers spend less time pissing about on graphics and more on gameplay, the industry would be a lot better

nate

2013-07-25 11:10:57 am

Attachment:

Visualacuity.pdf

DanE

Edit history:

DanE: 2013-07-26 02:45:19 am

2013-07-25 12:42:34 pm

Fjölpärsk

Quote from sixfour:

graphics have been good enough for a decade. if developers spend less time pissing about on graphics and more on gameplay, the industry would be a lot better

Word! Since I mostly play games from 90s and never really cared that much about the visuals, I get the feeling that the games that are coming out today are all about graphics. Well, not ALL of them ofc, but it seems that people tend more to talk about how good/bad the graphics are instead of the acctual gameplay. It's kinda sad in a way, but hey, that's just my opinion Smiley

OrangePledge

2013-07-25 08:48:42 pm

I like the nice and updated graphics but I can also enjoy 16 bit games or some that are more pixelated. I do agree with sixfour because graphics seem to be some of the only things developers worry about now, that's why some games have really lacking content

Freezard

2013-07-26 06:41:00 am

Sometimes, "better graphics" does not mean that the game looks better. Zelda: A Link Between Worlds is a prime example of this. The game looks like shit and it's both embarrassing and depressing to see the development unfold. The original ALttP is a beauty, the graphics are pixel perfect, it didn't need super detailed graphics. Running it on a Wii U wouldn't help anything, 2D was already perfected on the SNES. I'm just in awe that, 13 years after release, a game that looked so good can be watered down so much just because of the transition to 3D on incapable hardware. It's really sad to see such a great franchise lose its soul more and more past Wind Waker, but I am proud for not having played any of them which have been decisions I've taken just by looking at the graphical style of the modern era games.

LotBlind

2013-08-03 11:06:08 am

Better graphics is synonymous to "better rendering medium" i.e. the canvas of a painter, the stone of the sculptor... while that has absolutely nothing to do with how well-done, carefully crafted or deeply considered the art is. In fact modern games (the ones following the trends) don't really HAVE wonderful art like they used to, all they have is "better graphics". It's "lead graphical designer" instead of "art direction".

You could also just ask yourself why would anyone consider photorealism (the painting style) the BEST style of painting? It's just one of the many many styles.

Guys just drop this whole topic right now, anyone can see that the era of photorealism in games will become a marginal phenomenon (it's resource-heavy and sucks up a ton of production time). Another point to make is that the first wave of art/products on a new medium is NEVER the one it will be remembered for. The tables will turn and graphics will serve functionality and storytelling again.

Alright I'm not one to rant on about this stuff...

Better graphics is synonymous to "better rendering medium" i.e. the canvas of a painter, the stone of the sculptor... while that has absolutely nothing to do with how well-done, carefully crafted or deeply considered the art is. In fact modern games (the ones following the trends) don't really HAVE wonderful art like they used to, all they have is "better graphics". It's "lead graphical designer" instead of "art direction".

You could also just ask yourself why would anyone consider photorealism (the painting style) the BEST style of painting? It's just one of the many many styles.

Guys just drop this whole topic right now, anyone can see that the era of photorealism in games will become a marginal phenomenon (it's resource-heavy and sucks up a ton of production time). Another point to make is that the first wave of art/products on a new medium is NEVER the one it will be remembered for. The tables will turn and graphics will serve functionality and storytelling again.

Alright I'm not one to rant on about this stuff...

Rakuen

2013-08-03 01:10:45 pm

Weegee Time

Quote from LotBlind:

Guys just drop this whole topic right now, anyone can see that the era of photorealism in games will become a marginal phenomenon (it's resource-heavy and sucks up a ton of production time). Another point to make is that the first wave of art/products on a new medium is NEVER the one it will be remembered for. The tables will turn and graphics will serve functionality and storytelling again.

On the other hand, if one style pushes the boundaries further and further that means everyone else gets to play in a bigger sandbox. Photorealistic games and highly stylized games can coexist and will cater to different people with different design sensibilities. There is nothing wrong with that and the existence of both sides benefits everyone.

LotBlind

2013-08-04 12:14:35 pm

Good point Rakuen! I know I was astonished by Unreal's graphics when it first came out... And I liked The Hobbit's 3D-scenes (that having been my first 3D-film). Yeah sure there's nothing wrong with developing better tools... but many are disappointed by all the stuff that it tends to leave in the shadows. Hmm... There are many examples of games that have delivered BOTH the technology AND the "justification" for it, which is quite a subjective thing of course. For me, definitely stuff like anything by id up till more recently. I guess ultimately my point was that if you chase after realism realism realism, it seems to become some kind of mantra for AAA developers. Hmm... anyway I'm glad to see many sides of the argument.

Onenineeightfive

Edit history:

Onenineeightfive: 2013-08-05 01:09:30 pm

Onenineeightfive: 2013-08-05 01:07:46 pm

2013-08-05 01:02:33 pm

Quote:

how long will it be until any improvement in graphics is indistinguishable by the human eye?

Eye is not the issue, your brain is. Visual cognition is a predication system. By the fact you know you're playing a game, it'll be really difficult to foul your brain.

The limitation of the eye to distinguish two separated objected is one thing, but make the graphics feel more realistic is an other.

oasiz

Edit history:

oasiz: 2013-08-05 05:15:46 pm

2013-08-05 05:14:35 pm

Iha paska

Graphics are never going to be perfect, actually I do not want them to be either. This is why different art styles are awesome and people can keep inventing stuff that doesn't exist. Like imagine an art style with Van Gogh brush strokes but completely interactive and full of motion.
There is no definition of perfect in my eyes. Sometimes it's best to have certain art directions that allow your brain to fill the parts that do not exist.
Most aim for photorealism and that is the "good graphics" for most people, it actually gets more and more harder when the graphics get better because the moment your style has inconsistencies, they will pop out like crazy, plus the fact that your brain doesn't really have to fill in the missing bits so you can/have to "spoonfeed" all the design and art as it is.

Photorealism might get closer and closer to representing real life but it will always have limitations on detail and interactivity.
Current 3D is just cheating by creating approximate representations of things by plotting coordinates in "space", also everything is still static and non-interactive, solid as a rock, that is something that our brain thankfully covers mostly.
We still need to advance quite a bit before we can get consistent graphics, grounds without polygon seams on them, things that don't animate on a pre-animated loop etc.. Not just calculating a single frame is everything Smiley

What I want more is interactivity and dynamics, getting really tired with these fancy .3DS rotator engines that basically have more static .3DS models in them and some dynamic .3DS models that *gasp* "play" a pre-defined animation, ground can't be damaged etc..
Sure the limitations exist as you could break games too easily otherwise but seriously, no game even tries that for real.. something like minecraft probably is the closest bet (along with various voxel based experiments).
Even the build engine in duke3d seemed to have more potential for geometry manipulation than some games today since you could literally move/bend the world itself at your will, all dynamically calculated, usually ending up with really funky results if you break it but it was there, along with the ability to do non-euclidean geometry.
HL2 tried to go around this by having physics objects littered around everywhere, that was something I also liked since you had more control.
Games seem to go a bit backwards with this when you look at games like portal where everything is simply glued to the ground (you can't just grab the computer unlike in HL2 where you could grab a TV from the wall socket). Sure it was a gimmick in HL2, but it made it much more fun.
Graphics wise? Games are art, they should be cohesive pieces where the art style complements the game itself. I can't imagine a photorealistic tetris or a cartoony call of duty, but something like antichamber? damn, more of this please! Audio and visuals combined in to something unique and timeless.

Graphics are never going to be perfect, actually I do not want them to be either. This is why different art styles are awesome and people can keep inventing stuff that doesn't exist. Like imagine an art style with Van Gogh brush strokes but completely interactive and full of motion. 
There is no definition of perfect in my eyes. Sometimes it's best to have certain art directions that allow your brain to fill the parts that do not exist. 
Most aim for photorealism and that is the "good graphics" for most people, it actually gets more and more harder when the graphics get better because the moment your style has inconsistencies, they will pop out like crazy, plus the fact that your brain doesn't really have to fill in the missing bits so you can/have to "spoonfeed" all the design and art as it is.

Photorealism might get closer and closer to representing real life but it will always have limitations on detail and interactivity.
Current 3D is just cheating by creating approximate representations of things by plotting coordinates in "space", also everything is still static and non-interactive, solid as a rock, that is something that our brain thankfully covers mostly.
We still need to advance quite a bit before we can get consistent graphics, grounds without polygon seams on them, things that don't animate on a pre-animated loop etc.. Not just calculating a single frame is everything :)

What I want more is interactivity and dynamics, getting really tired with these fancy .3DS rotator engines that basically have more static .3DS models in them and some dynamic .3DS models that *gasp* "play" a pre-defined animation, ground can't be damaged etc..
Sure the limitations exist as you could break games too easily otherwise but seriously, no game even tries that for real.. something like minecraft probably is the closest bet (along with various voxel based experiments).
Even the build engine in duke3d seemed to have more potential for geometry manipulation than some games today since you could literally move/bend the world itself at your will, all dynamically calculated, usually ending up with really funky results if you break it but it was there, along with the ability to do non-euclidean geometry.
HL2 tried to go around this by having physics objects littered around everywhere, that was something I also liked since you had more control. 
Games seem to go a bit backwards with this when you look at games like portal where everything is simply glued to the ground (you can't just grab the computer unlike in HL2 where you could grab a TV from the wall socket). Sure it was a gimmick in HL2, but it made it much more fun. 
Graphics wise? Games are art, they should be cohesive pieces where the art style complements the game itself. I can't imagine a photorealistic tetris or a cartoony call of duty, but something like antichamber? damn, more of this please! Audio and visuals combined in to something unique and timeless.