PDA

View Full Version : Game graphics hitting a wall?


Pages : [1] 2 3

Vanzagar
02-13-09, 04:05 PM
Every year or two, since I can remember, games always seem to see a significant improvement in graphics quality, in the past there was awlays something on the horizon that I thought looked great and was eager to see, but lately... meh... nothings really sparks my interest...

I still don't see anything on the horizon that will make Crysis look dated... we stuck with this level of graphic quality/detail for the next few years or even the foreseeable future?

ralinn
02-13-09, 04:07 PM
What's wrong with it? Crysis was way ahead of its time.

Vanzagar
02-13-09, 04:13 PM
What's wrong with it? Crysis was way ahead of its time.

Nothin's wrong with it.. just saying it feels odd.... and asking if maybe I'm missing something that may be out there... we need Carmack to start pushing the envelope again...

ralinn
02-13-09, 04:17 PM
I'd truely appreciate something that looks good and is playable. Pushing graphics is easy so most PC developers are just plain lazy.

Medion
02-13-09, 04:18 PM
I think devs are more console-centric than they've ever been. Most games are made with consoles in mind, and as such, you generally see a slightly upscaled version on the PC. On the plus side, I've noticed more PC games come to market without the need for a patch. I own several games that don't even have a patch available.

jAkUp
02-13-09, 04:29 PM
Every year or two, since I can remember, games always seem to see a significant improvement in graphics quality, in the past there was awlays something on the horizon that I thought looked great and was eager to see, but lately... meh... nothings really sparks my interest...

I still don't see anything on the horizon that will make Crysis look dated... we stuck with this level of graphic quality/detail for the next few years or even the foreseeable future?

Probably the next level in graphics quality will be Project Offset.

NaitoSan
02-13-09, 04:53 PM
not everyone have world fastest rigs like most of you guys. that's what keeping developers from going for crysis-quality graphics. it's not worth spending million more dollars on it plus QA to keep games bug free for zillion rig setups. consoles' far more stable for developers at this moment. those bugs can be really weird and frustrating, trust me. for example my friend who worked on resistance for psp, one of programmers had trouble getting this small bug fixed so they had to completely re-write some part of the engine to get it fixed. once one bug is fixed, new bugs show up. lucky it's on psp where all psps are same (spec wise). imagine it if it's on pc. even skilled programmers face same problem.

if intel, amd/ati, nvidia or so stop releasing too many line-up products to at least one to three gpus (med, high and extreme edition) per two years where it'll be easier on our wallet. also we need to get rid of onboard video (they're a piece of crap). maybe we will start to see graphics quality go up quickly.

that's my opinion.

MaxFX
02-13-09, 04:53 PM
Yeah offset will probably be something special as its supposed to be Intels Larrabee push so it will be exiting to see if and how much raytracing it will get as we know thats what Intels talks about :)

So heres hoping that it will be the next big thing!

Sazar
02-13-09, 04:55 PM
Every year or two, since I can remember, games always seem to see a significant improvement in graphics quality, in the past there was awlays something on the horizon that I thought looked great and was eager to see, but lately... meh... nothings really sparks my interest...

I still don't see anything on the horizon that will make Crysis look dated... we stuck with this level of graphic quality/detail for the next few years or even the foreseeable future?

Remember when Far Cry came out? Totally over-shadowed HL2 and Doom 3.

Crysis has similarly overshadowed EVERYTHING out there since it came out and continues to do so.

There could well be something new coming out that will revolutionize things :D

In my opinion, games like Fallout 3 look pretty spectacular as is :D

jolle
02-13-09, 05:14 PM
What's wrong with it? Crysis was way ahead of its time.
The framerates you get with modern high end GPUs can attest to that.


But I think we´re really starting to see the that steep curve on diminishing returns.
You need alot more power to push the quality a step further, the higher you go.
(for example, if you add 1000 polygons to a Quake 1 model, its huge improvement, if you add 1000 polys to a character in crysis, its not going to be that big a difference)

And aliasing is a bigger issue now then ever really, a good example of that is something I noticed a really long time ago.
First time I ran Dawn, the NV tech demo, with and without high levels of AA, the difference there was pretty much the difference between realtime and offline rendering.

And now that´ve really started to use SSAA a whole lot, you notice the huge difference in IQ it does.
One of the early sequences in Crysis Warhead where the character moves through some vegitation, that sequence was night and day with and without SSAA.
MSAA really doesnt help much at all in such scenarios, and using TSAA type solutions will result in probably worse performance then pure SSAA as you´re now doing MSAA and SSAA on pretty much the entire screen, possibly more as there are layers of textures with transparency.

The creeping and crawling you get in the image in motion with aliasing and also with lacking texture filtering becomes more and more of an issue the better the graphics you get, as it contrasts a whole lot more with the image then in for example Quake 1.


Raytracing dont seem that much of a real lift to realtime IMO.
You can do exact reflections, and some other stuff, but a raytraced shadow, like a stencil shadow need alot of work to become soft, and that is really expensive.
It´ll prolly be another tool in the toolbox though, alot of offline rendering today use some raytracing for certain stuff, where its appropriate, but not for everything.

Judging by developer response is not really something they´re all that excited about, but rather something Intel want´s to use to leverage the game onto their playing field, to compete with NV and ATi who has been in the realtime rasterizing business for years and years.. but again, it´ll be another tool to work with.

wysiwyg
02-13-09, 05:34 PM
Probably the next level in graphics quality will be Project Offset.

i remember being in awe of the first teasers when it was first heard about years ago when i had nvidia 6600s still

it still looks great but not awe inspiring anymore :o

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/22926.html

Gnaddel
02-13-09, 05:39 PM
That Project Offset trailer looks nowhere near crysis. More Dark Messiah 'ish than that actually. Nothing wrong with a game being similar to Dark Messiah though!

|MaguS|
02-13-09, 05:54 PM
That Project Offset trailer looks nowhere near crysis. More Dark Messiah 'ish than that actually. Nothing wrong with a game being similar to Dark Messiah though!

Um think they ment on a graphical level, not gameplay.

sillyeagle
02-13-09, 06:12 PM
Yeah offset will probably be something special as its supposed to be Intels Larrabee push so it will be exiting to see if and how much raytracing it will get as we know thats what Intels talks about :)

So heres hoping that it will be the next big thing!

Phil Taylor was Senior PM at MS ACES studio before he went Intel to work on Larrabee. He is a very active blogger and forum junkie, so his Larabee blog is packed full of insider info.

http://www.futuregpu.org/

nekrosoft13
02-13-09, 07:15 PM
I think devs are more console-centric than they've ever been. Most games are made with consoles in mind, and as such, you generally see a slightly upscaled version on the PC. On the plus side, I've noticed more PC games come to market without the need for a patch. I own several games that don't even have a patch available.

how is no patches a plus side? games still have bugs, you just don't get any fixes for them

MaxFX
02-13-09, 07:23 PM
Phil Taylor was Senior PM at MS ACES studio before he went Intel to work on Larrabee. He is a very active blogger and forum junkie, so his Larabee blog is packed full of insider info.

http://www.futuregpu.org/

Okey nice will check it out to se what going on :)
And as jolle said, think his spot on. the difference to the eyes arent that easy to made anymore as we allready come this far. just take a look at just Crysis and it's hard to se how they can do much for atleast know to blow that away. it will take time and much better/stronger hardware for that I think. and it's pretty good as it is as it looks crazy so now wheres the next gfx hardware that can make the damn Crysis playable :D

And e.x Mirrors Edge how good dont that game look and plays supersmoth. that is one game that impressed me a lot and a nice, fun on top of that so what more do one need.
Forget, FEAR2 dont look that shappy eatier. looks pretty awesome I think so im more then happy ;)

MaxFX
02-13-09, 07:29 PM
The framerates you get with modern high end GPUs can attest to that.


But I think we´re really starting to see the that steep curve on diminishing returns.
You need alot more power to push the quality a step further, the higher you go.
(for example, if you add 1000 polygons to a Quake 1 model, its huge improvement, if you add 1000 polys to a character in crysis, its not going to be that big a difference)

And aliasing is a bigger issue now then ever really, a good example of that is something I noticed a really long time ago.
First time I ran Dawn, the NV tech demo, with and without high levels of AA, the difference there was pretty much the difference between realtime and offline rendering.

And now that´ve really started to use SSAA a whole lot, you notice the huge difference in IQ it does.
One of the early sequences in Crysis Warhead where the character moves through some vegitation, that sequence was night and day with and without SSAA.
MSAA really doesnt help much at all in such scenarios, and using TSAA type solutions will result in probably worse performance then pure SSAA as you´re now doing MSAA and SSAA on pretty much the entire screen, possibly more as there are layers of textures with transparency.

The creeping and crawling you get in the image in motion with aliasing and also with lacking texture filtering becomes more and more of an issue the better the graphics you get, as it contrasts a whole lot more with the image then in for example Quake 1.


Raytracing dont seem that much of a real lift to realtime IMO.
You can do exact reflections, and some other stuff, but a raytraced shadow, like a stencil shadow need alot of work to become soft, and that is really expensive.
It´ll prolly be another tool in the toolbox though, alot of offline rendering today use some raytracing for certain stuff, where its appropriate, but not for everything.

Judging by developer response is not really something they´re all that excited about, but rather something Intel want´s to use to leverage the game onto their playing field, to compete with NV and ATi who has been in the realtime rasterizing business for years and years.. but again, it´ll be another tool to work with.

+1 very well said and as you say the devs dont really seem that overhyped about it. as Carmac and the other top devs says it will be a mix of them both to get it to the future as they can take a litte from here and a little from there so to speak :)

NarcissistZero
02-13-09, 07:47 PM
I agree with others that consoles are holding things back a bit, but PC games are really still progressing and looking better and better despite that. As someone who played the Xbox versions of Fallout 3, Mirror's Edge and Left 4 Dead, I promise you that the PC versions of those games are more than slightly enhanced, looking much better even on the base assets level.

I don't think anyone is in a rush to challenge Crysis... maybe if Crysis sold way over expectations and made PC gaming hip again, but it didn't sadly. I think some games like Mirror's Edge and Cryostasis challenge Crysis when maxed out, but don't quite match it. We probably won't see something that really trashes Crysis until the next generation of consoles come out (though games like Rage, Bioshock 2 and Dragon Age might surprise us, if given their PC due like I bet they will be).

(I wonder if the PS4 and Xbox 640 will even have games which surpass Crysis on max settings? The Wii could easily influence them to scale back their technological improvements. I don't even know when we'll see the next consoles... I think it might be a while).

XDanger
02-13-09, 09:01 PM
Crysis killed it for the next 2 years.

If only CE2 had Physx effects and destructible enviroments It would be perfect.

That and HL2 CM level textures.

Buio
02-13-09, 10:46 PM
But I think we´re really starting to see the that steep curve on diminishing returns. You need alot more power to push the quality a step further, the higher you go. (for example, if you add 1000 polygons to a Quake 1 model, its huge improvement, if you add 1000 polys to a character in crysis, its not going to be that big a difference)

Which does put some more understanding in why NVidia are pushing PhysX and going for general GPU processing etc.

To be honest, I think animation, AI and physics can add as much to immersion as graphics and I look forward to more development in those areas.

ASUSEN7900GTX
02-14-09, 03:25 AM
i think people might see crysis as a tech demo tha a game as crytek stopped the support of patches many bugs still keep the game har on any hardware and warhead well that was more of a game than crysis.

I think crytek did a ubi(double agent) on crysis and left it as it was since maybe they knew the game wasn´t finished, and where is that rumored patch with super graphics they talked about? Yet a sales trick?

well i enjoyed fallout 3 adn some other games now i will sink into FEAR 2 and left 4 dead ok no crysis graphics but could still ahve a lot of value as a game

well anyways there will be challengers to crysis and who knows what crytek is cooking up mean while.

LycosV
02-14-09, 03:53 AM
I think NarcissistZero nailed it. We aren't going to see killer graphics until the next gen consoles come out. PC games just don't have the market potential that console games do, and because of that noone invests a lot of time into PC exclusives.

Once the next generation of consoles comes out we'll see a huge jump in graphics and then stagnation again, it's a cycle.

Lfctony
02-14-09, 04:46 AM
how is no patches a plus side? games still have bugs, you just don't get any fixes for them

That's not what he said Nekro. He said that many games come out without needing a patch, which is a good thing.

ralinn
02-14-09, 06:48 AM
Hmm, I still wouldn't go as far to say that consoles are holding PCs back. I think they're completely different things. If anything, I'd say Crysis held the PC back... like NarcissistZero said, Crysis didn't do as well as expected. There's only a minority of people willing to pay out the money that Crysis requires to play at its full potential and I don't think thats the fault of consoles. IMO the Crysis jump was too far too soon. Developers have learnt from that and aren't willing to go all out on graphics when they can still make things look amazing on current hardware.

I said it before, I'll say it again. It's easy to create a game with great graphics like Crysis but Art and Art direction is everything if you want to make a game look good and run on current hardware. A fine example of this would be Mirror's Edge PC and COD4 PC. I'd even stretch to say WoW as there are a lot of people that still love its style and it also runs great on their PC.

SH64
02-14-09, 07:23 AM
Guess we have to wait for Project Offset ... nothing else in the horizon that could match, let alone beats Crysis.