Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Did you ever think...[Graphics]

The Dude With HerpesThe Dude With Herpes Registered User regular
edited August 2009 in Games and Technology
So I was watching the videos for the Crysis 3 engine at Gamescom, seeing them all sync up on the PS3/360/PC and how amazing they all looked, then while watching this one:
http://ve3d.ign.com/videos/53682/PC/Crysis-2/Gameplay/Cevat-Yerli-CryEngine-3-Demonstration
It occurred to me:

I'm 29 and I've been playing video games for well over 20 years now. Ever since my stepdad brought home a Commodore 64 for some unknown reason (dude knows zero about technology, I doubt he even knew what it was) I've been playing. I've owned virtually every "major" system since then and have played a lot of games.

Well, growing up with videogames since virtually the beginning of video games I've had a somewhat neat experience of being able to watch the total evolution of graphics from pong to what we have today.

Honestly, when I was 7, there's no possible way I could have known that graphics would go from this:
tooth_invaders_01.gif
to this:
46658_1_normal.jpg

Let alone in my lifetime, but ever; the fact that it has happened so fast is mind boggling to me. If you had shown me that when I was 7 and said "One day you will play a game that looks like this" it would have been the most ridiculous thing ever. Hell, I remember when I first played Myst, it blew my mind how good it looked. I didn't think it was possible. I was fully aware that it was mainly still images but it was still rendered on a computer.

I know people like to argue whether or not you need good graphics to make a game better or not, but that's not what the point of this is. Whether or not you need good graphics, the fact is that relative to everything that has come before, even games that look mediocre by today's standards are still amazing technological marvels in the big picture of video games. And there's no questioning that skilled use of graphics and atmosphere can have a mindboggling effect on how a game feels.

So I think it's pretty sweet where we are. Honestly I have no idea where we could even go from this point. But, I remember thinking that exact same thing when I played Mario 64; and look how far we've come since then.

So where are we going with graphics? What is the next step, because it's gonna get pretty damn hard to get more realistic. What are some of your all-time greatest memories of games and their graphics growing up?

Just as some ground rules: Don't turn this into a console vs console vs pc thread; and don't shit on peoples memories if they remember something looking amazing and you thought it was shit. Feel free to discuss the necessity and importance of graphics, but don't be douchebags about it.

Please.

P.S. Yes, that is tooth invaders and yes, I played the living crap out of it as a kid.

The Dude With Herpes on
Steam.gif Galedrid - WoW.gif Benediction - bnet.gif Galedrid#1367
Origin.png Galedrid - FFXI.png Kingshand - FFXIV.png Galedrid Kingshand
360.png Galedrid - WiiU.gif Galedrid - 3DS.png 3222-6858-1045
«134567

Posts

  • HalfmexHalfmex Don't call me Mr. Scorpion. It's Mr. ScorpiO, but don't call me that either.Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I actually think about this subject quite a bit every time I play any GTA or other sandbox game. I think where we go from here won't be so much of a graphical leap in realism but rather we'll go further into making things more lifelike. Take Fallout 3 for example. Pretty much every building you come to, you can't see through the windows. The ground? A flat texture wrapped around the uneven modeled surface. So much of a lot of sandbox games looks great from a distance, but as soon as you walk up to it, the mystique is lost.

    I don't know if we'll ever get to a "every blade of grass is rendered independently" type of situation, but we've still got a long road ahead of us to go from "looks believable at a distance" to "looks damned-near lifelike up close". Heck, I've yet to see a game render a tree realistically yet. I can understand why it's done the way it is today, don't get me wrong, but it's still very jarring to see trees that look like paper mache or cardboard cutouts in this day and age.

  • SirToastySirToasty Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Someday every hair on someone's head will be rendered in the game. Everything will be indistinguishable from real life. I don't doubt this. Technology is amazing.

  • HenroidHenroid Gibberish Cold white sand!Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    We'll render every goddamn blade of grass just because we can. That's the sort of thing the final leap in graphics tech will bring us to.

    But that illusion where distance from textures makes them look better is a useful one to play.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit." - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
  • chamberlainchamberlain Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    SirToasty wrote: »
    Someday every hair on someone's head will be rendered in the game. Everything will be indistinguishable from real life. I don't doubt this. Technology is amazing.

    And when this happens we will still be searching for the blue key to open the blue door.

    The list never changes: http://www.infinitebacklog.com
    Chamberlain.jpg
  • Dr. GeroDr. Gero Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    When I first saw the Half Life 2 videos, I thought it couldn't get much better than this. And then I saw the Unreal 3 tech demo a few years back. Damn, that blew my mind.

    I hope I'll be able to jack into a virtual world before I die.

  • HenroidHenroid Gibberish Cold white sand!Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    SirToasty wrote: »
    Someday every hair on someone's head will be rendered in the game. Everything will be indistinguishable from real life. I don't doubt this. Technology is amazing.

    And when this happens we will still be searching for the blue key to open the blue door.

    Okay ha ha, but he was talking about graphics capability to be fair. :P

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit." - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
  • PeregrineFalconPeregrineFalcon Registered User
    edited August 2009
    I had to go back and confirm what that guy said because holy shit that's all running on a PS3.

    I know, it's a bit of abloo bloo console, but god damn if that doesn't give me hope that developers will get their shit together and figure out how to use it. WTB Crytek 3 engine game.

    Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
    Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Tooth invaders was AWESOME

  • S-StarwindS-Starwind Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Halfmex wrote: »
    don't get me wrong, but it's still very jarring to see trees that look like paper mache or cardboard cutouts in this day and age.

    I can understand why this still happens. Realistically you're looking at tree's all being different shapes/sizes and all having a different number of branches. With the amount of tree's that an area can conceptually have, alot of carefully/realistically sculpted, individual tree's would add alot to the polygon count that could be used elsewhere. Its more efficient and viable to re-use the same tree's, maybe just slightly resized and/or rotated to so they arent identicle. Perhaps its just seen as a way around a potentially time consuming process of creating individual trees when they dont see them as important as other aspects of the environment. As hardware and available resources improve, this will definately change.
    Unless there is another reason for it. I'm just thinking ouloud.

    I think that textures will improve to the point of photo-realistic in real-time rendering. As for where they go from there...In the short term, I dont know if it'd be anything major, at least for a little while. More likely we'd see more sublte additions. Physics wind blown foliage/debris? More realistic footprint effects on terrain? Permanent physical damage on environment from weapons/collisions?

    I remember, going back a good few years, that people would constantly call for permanent landscape damage in certain upcoming games. It didnt really catch on and seems to have been somewhat forgotten for the mainstream. Perhaps, at some point, that idea will be revisited?

    XBLive GamerTag - II The Starwind (Playing - Halo 4, Dungeon Defeners)
    PSN ID - S-Starwind (Playing Super Street Fighter IV Arcade Edition, Gundam Battle Ops)
    Final Fantasy XIV - Masamune Server (Moving to Sargantanas) - Rykosho Hoshikaze
    Steam ID - The Starwind
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I don't want games to get more realistic. It's already bad enough to shoot mans in Crysis, to choke them to death... I'm not a psychopath, I only kill because they're attacking me. I don't want to fight realistic depictions of people, because soon we will be into murder simulator level graphics.

    Now non-violent exploration style games, there's where graphics can shine. Imagine the sort of jungle vista that can only be created digitally?

  • lowlylowlycooklowlylowlycook Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    The big problem is finding away to pay the modelers and other artists to make these games. So far even HD console games which far pretty short of Crysis are seemingly not profitable unless you manage to make one of the top selling games of whichever year your game hits in.

    steam_sig.png
    (Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
  • HalfmexHalfmex Don't call me Mr. Scorpion. It's Mr. ScorpiO, but don't call me that either.Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    I don't want games to get more realistic. It's already bad enough to shoot mans in Crysis, to choke them to death... I'm not a psychopath, I only kill because they're attacking me. I don't want to fight realistic depictions of people, because soon we will be into murder simulator level graphics.

    Now non-violent exploration style games, there's where graphics can shine. Imagine the sort of jungle vista that can only be created digitally?
    Yeah, and then imagine shooting the natives of said jungle in the face with an AK-47 with perfectly rendered muzzle flash and realistic shell eject physics.

    Mmm.

  • truck-a-saurastruck-a-sauras Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    I don't want games to get more realistic. It's already bad enough to shoot mans in Crysis, to choke them to death... I'm not a psychopath, I only kill because they're attacking me. I don't want to fight realistic depictions of people, because soon we will be into murder simulator level graphics.

    Now non-violent exploration style games, there's where graphics can shine. Imagine the sort of jungle vista that can only be created digitally?

    murder simulators are awesome! have you never seen the movie Brainscan?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Steam
    XBOX
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Yeah, and then imagine shooting the natives of said jungle in the face with an AK-47 with perfectly rendered muzzle flash and realistic shell eject physics.

    Mmm.
    murder simulators are awesome! have you never seen the movie Brainscan?


    This is why we can't have nice things

  • SaddlerSaddler Registered User
    edited August 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    We'll render every goddamn blade of grass just because we can. That's the sort of thing the final leap in graphics tech will bring us to.

    But that illusion where distance from textures makes them look better is a useful one to play.

    We can, but I wonder if it will ever be economically feasible to do so? Also, what kind of game would benefit from it? John Deere 2018?

  • Lindsey LohanLindsey Lohan Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    The big problem is finding away to pay the modelers and other artists to make these games. So far even HD console games which far pretty short of Crysis are seemingly not profitable unless you manage to make one of the top selling games of whichever year your game hits in.

    I'm starting to think the next big push will be more behind the scenes, reducing the artists/modellers needed to actually generate content. I would think a full body scanner, for example, where you could just have an actor stand and be completely digitized in 3d and ready to have a skeleton put into - or a baseball bat or proton pack could be scanned and immediately used as a 3d object in a game with no real artist input needed would be huge in terms of lowering overall developer costs.

    steam_sig.png
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Saddler wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    We'll render every goddamn blade of grass just because we can. That's the sort of thing the final leap in graphics tech will bring us to.

    But that illusion where distance from textures makes them look better is a useful one to play.

    We can, but I wonder if it will ever be economically feasible to do so? Also, what kind of game would benefit from it? John Deere 2018?

    How about a flight simulator? Realistic, dynamic clouds, properly rendered shorelines, terrain that doesn't look like ass when you're under 2000 feet, etc.

    Look at the leap from HL1 to HL2 in graphics, and then HL2 to Crysis... and now Crysis to RAGE.

  • HenroidHenroid Gibberish Cold white sand!Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Saddler wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    We'll render every goddamn blade of grass just because we can. That's the sort of thing the final leap in graphics tech will bring us to.

    But that illusion where distance from textures makes them look better is a useful one to play.

    We can, but I wonder if it will ever be economically feasible to do so? Also, what kind of game would benefit from it? John Deere 2018?

    The reason why it isn't done and specifically persued now is because it isn't economically feasible. As technology progresses, current day tech becomes cheaper. Remember the big deal people made over Pixar's lamp short film? Or the Final Fantasy movies? Those took a lot of time to render.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit." - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
  • HalfmexHalfmex Don't call me Mr. Scorpion. It's Mr. ScorpiO, but don't call me that either.Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    In all seriousness, the argument for games being realistic murder simulators has been there since long before the current or even previous generation of consoles. Ever since Wolfenstein was released, alarmists have been quick to point the finger at games desensitizing youth to violence.

    The fact is, we don't need realistic graphics to see those things. Turn on the news or watch any action film made within the last thirty years and you'll be up to your elbows in guts and eyeballs.

    It's just not an argument that holds water anymore with any rational person. Gaming is finally starting to be recognized as an artistic medium (by some) and we're being treated to more cinematographic levels of realism with every new generation, and I applaud that. Whether it's shooting someone in the face or helping build a new kingdom for your followers, graphics are a big part of what makes this medium so immersive.

  • StormwatcherStormwatcher Up all night To get luckyRegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    I don't want games to get more realistic. It's already bad enough to shoot mans in Crysis, to choke them to death... I'm not a psychopath, I only kill because they're attacking me. I don't want to fight realistic depictions of people, because soon we will be into murder simulator level graphics.

    Now non-violent exploration style games, there's where graphics can shine. Imagine the sort of jungle vista that can only be created digitally?

    Play Borderlands then. Gorgeous cell-shaded goodness. Or Mario games :)

    The interesting thing is how the BIGGER gap has already been bridged, and in THIS current generation. Now we're just getting the details right. Things do look real-life-like right now. Compare to PS2 or N64.

    Steam: Stormwatcher | XBL: Stormwatcher 21 | PSN: Stormwatcher33 | Gamecenter: Stormwatcher33 | 3DS: 0130-2805-2850
    steam_sig.png
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    The big problem is finding away to pay the modelers and other artists to make these games. So far even HD console games which far pretty short of Crysis are seemingly not profitable unless you manage to make one of the top selling games of whichever year your game hits in.

    I'm starting to think the next big push will be more behind the scenes, reducing the artists/modellers needed to actually generate content. I would think a full body scanner, for example, where you could just have an actor stand and be completely digitized in 3d and ready to have a skeleton put into - or a baseball bat or proton pack could be scanned and immediately used as a 3d object in a game with no real artist input needed would be huge in terms of lowering overall developer costs.

    I wonder if we're going to see a lot more use of the tech they developed for The Force Within, with realistic materials that break/deform and otherwise behave as they should (unless that was lolhype bullshit). Sating people's bloodlust, you could have a general human body and paint on someone's appreance, and if they're shot then the body reacts appropriately with brains/guts spilling out etc

    I see a lot of happy nerds if this comes to pass

  • lowlylowlycooklowlylowlycook Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Saddler wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    We'll render every goddamn blade of grass just because we can. That's the sort of thing the final leap in graphics tech will bring us to.

    But that illusion where distance from textures makes them look better is a useful one to play.

    We can, but I wonder if it will ever be economically feasible to do so? Also, what kind of game would benefit from it? John Deere 2018?

    The reason why it isn't done and specifically persued now is because it isn't economically feasible. As technology progresses, current day tech becomes cheaper. Remember the big deal people made over Pixar's lamp short film? Or the Final Fantasy movies? Those took a lot of time to render.

    Right, but Moore's law doesn't apply to artists.

    steam_sig.png
    (Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
  • taliosfalcontaliosfalcon Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Saddler wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    We'll render every goddamn blade of grass just because we can. That's the sort of thing the final leap in graphics tech will bring us to.

    But that illusion where distance from textures makes them look better is a useful one to play.

    We can, but I wonder if it will ever be economically feasible to do so? Also, what kind of game would benefit from it? John Deere 2018?

    The reason why it isn't done and specifically persued now is because it isn't economically feasible. As technology progresses, current day tech becomes cheaper. Remember the big deal people made over Pixar's lamp short film? Or the Final Fantasy movies? Those took a lot of time to render.

    Right, but Moore's law doesn't apply to artists.
    Until we can make a computer program that renders them obsolete...Muahahaha.

    But seriously, having an artist to come up with the basic outline for something, then feeding the specs into a program with variables for different features is the way of the future.

    WII U NNID- talios
    steam-taliosfalcon
    XBL-AdeptPenguin
  • SirToastySirToasty Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I'm thinking the first thing that is gonna happen before we start rendering individual blades entirely is some way to facilitate rendering ALL of them. To model as little as possible and be able to control how everything appears without individually placing each element.

  • HenroidHenroid Gibberish Cold white sand!Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Saddler wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    We'll render every goddamn blade of grass just because we can. That's the sort of thing the final leap in graphics tech will bring us to.

    But that illusion where distance from textures makes them look better is a useful one to play.

    We can, but I wonder if it will ever be economically feasible to do so? Also, what kind of game would benefit from it? John Deere 2018?

    The reason why it isn't done and specifically persued now is because it isn't economically feasible. As technology progresses, current day tech becomes cheaper. Remember the big deal people made over Pixar's lamp short film? Or the Final Fantasy movies? Those took a lot of time to render.

    Right, but Moore's law doesn't apply to artists.
    Until we can make a computer program that renders them obsolete...Muahahaha.

    But seriously, having an artist to come up with the basic outline for something, then feeding the specs into a program with variables for different features is the way of the future.

    Procedurely generated music, art, and writing, OH NOES.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit." - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Halfmex wrote: »
    In all seriousness, the argument for games being realistic murder simulators has been there since long before the current or even previous generation of consoles. Ever since Wolfenstein was released, alarmists have been quick to point the finger at games desensitizing youth to violence.

    The fact is, we don't need realistic graphics to see those things. Turn on the news or watch any action film made within the last thirty years and you'll be up to your elbows in guts and eyeballs.

    It's just not an argument that holds water anymore with any rational person. Gaming is finally starting to be recognized as an artistic medium (by some) and we're being treated to more cinematographic levels of realism with every new generation, and I applaud that. Whether it's shooting someone in the face or helping build a new kingdom for your followers, graphics are a big part of what makes this medium so immersive.

    Immersive killing isn't a good thing. That sort of stuff fucks people up.

  • lowlylowlycooklowlylowlycook Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Saddler wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    We'll render every goddamn blade of grass just because we can. That's the sort of thing the final leap in graphics tech will bring us to.

    But that illusion where distance from textures makes them look better is a useful one to play.

    We can, but I wonder if it will ever be economically feasible to do so? Also, what kind of game would benefit from it? John Deere 2018?

    The reason why it isn't done and specifically persued now is because it isn't economically feasible. As technology progresses, current day tech becomes cheaper. Remember the big deal people made over Pixar's lamp short film? Or the Final Fantasy movies? Those took a lot of time to render.

    Right, but Moore's law doesn't apply to artists.
    Until we can make a computer program that renders them obsolete...Muahahaha.

    But seriously, having an artist to come up with the basic outline for something, then feeding the specs into a program with variables for different features is the way of the future.

    Procedurely generated music, art, and writing, OH NOES.

    Hey, I'm all for it if it means we get another sequel to Elite.

    steam_sig.png
    (Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
  • chamberlainchamberlain Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    The big problem is finding away to pay the modelers and other artists to make these games. So far even HD console games which far pretty short of Crysis are seemingly not profitable unless you manage to make one of the top selling games of whichever year your game hits in.

    I'm starting to think the next big push will be more behind the scenes, reducing the artists/modellers needed to actually generate content. I would think a full body scanner, for example, where you could just have an actor stand and be completely digitized in 3d and ready to have a skeleton put into - or a baseball bat or proton pack could be scanned and immediately used as a 3d object in a game with no real artist input needed would be huge in terms of lowering overall developer costs.

    I wonder if we're going to see a lot more use of the tech they developed for The Force Within, with realistic materials that break/deform and otherwise behave as they should (unless that was lolhype bullshit). Sating people's bloodlust, you could have a general human body and paint on someone's appreance, and if they're shot then the body reacts appropriately with brains/guts spilling out etc

    I see a lot of happy nerds if this comes to pass

    This is what I want; not for things to look real, but for things to act real. There were some crazy tech demos of R2D2 being thrown into different materials that were amazing. Granted, not all of it made it into the game, but what did was pretty cool.

    They talked about level designers having to become achitects because the levels would have to take into account gravity and what buildings were made of. Imagine the destruction on Red Faction, but even more detailed.

    The list never changes: http://www.infinitebacklog.com
    Chamberlain.jpg
  • The Dude With HerpesThe Dude With Herpes Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Saddler wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    We'll render every goddamn blade of grass just because we can. That's the sort of thing the final leap in graphics tech will bring us to.

    But that illusion where distance from textures makes them look better is a useful one to play.

    We can, but I wonder if it will ever be economically feasible to do so? Also, what kind of game would benefit from it? John Deere 2018?

    The reason why it isn't done and specifically persued now is because it isn't economically feasible. As technology progresses, current day tech becomes cheaper. Remember the big deal people made over Pixar's lamp short film? Or the Final Fantasy movies? Those took a lot of time to render.

    Right, but Moore's law doesn't apply to artists.
    Until we can make a computer program that renders them obsolete...Muahahaha.

    But seriously, having an artist to come up with the basic outline for something, then feeding the specs into a program with variables for different features is the way of the future.

    Procedurely generated music, art, and writing, OH NOES.

    Hey, I'm all for it if it means we get another sequel to Elite.

    Anarchy Online had procedural music long before anyone even knew what it was. It worked out really well IMO.

    I think it could easily be done graphically too as time goes on. I mean, procedural "dungeons" ala Diablo 2 have been around forever but they're very limited in diversity. I think that it would be feasable to make a Star Trek type game with countless unexplored worlds that were created procedurally (at least the terrain; towns/NPC's are long down the road) that were realistic and just as "creative" as something an artist did.

    I'm sure that will step on some toes, but even a game artist has to recognize benefits of doing so; and it's not like they would be useless. There would still be specifically designed things that they could focus on instead of wasting their talent trying to pump out planet 4626242135.

    Steam.gif Galedrid - WoW.gif Benediction - bnet.gif Galedrid#1367
    Origin.png Galedrid - FFXI.png Kingshand - FFXIV.png Galedrid Kingshand
    360.png Galedrid - WiiU.gif Galedrid - 3DS.png 3222-6858-1045
  • StormwatcherStormwatcher Up all night To get luckyRegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    The big problem is finding away to pay the modelers and other artists to make these games. So far even HD console games which far pretty short of Crysis are seemingly not profitable unless you manage to make one of the top selling games of whichever year your game hits in.

    I'm starting to think the next big push will be more behind the scenes, reducing the artists/modellers needed to actually generate content. I would think a full body scanner, for example, where you could just have an actor stand and be completely digitized in 3d and ready to have a skeleton put into - or a baseball bat or proton pack could be scanned and immediately used as a 3d object in a game with no real artist input needed would be huge in terms of lowering overall developer costs.

    I wonder if we're going to see a lot more use of the tech they developed for The Force Within, with realistic materials that break/deform and otherwise behave as they should (unless that was lolhype bullshit). Sating people's bloodlust, you could have a general human body and paint on someone's appreance, and if they're shot then the body reacts appropriately with brains/guts spilling out etc

    I see a lot of happy nerds if this comes to pass

    This is what I want; not for things to look real, but for things to act real. There were some crazy tech demos of R2D2 being thrown into different materials that were amazing. Granted, not all of it made it into the game, but what did was pretty cool.

    They talked about level designers having to become achitects because the levels would have to take into account gravity and what buildings were made of. Imagine the destruction on Red Faction, but even more detailed.

    I think that's gonna be the next frontier to be explored. Improvements in pure graphics will net less and less gains, (diminishing returns) for stuff we will barely notice. Physics and materials are the next thing to work on along the path for better games.

    Steam: Stormwatcher | XBL: Stormwatcher 21 | PSN: Stormwatcher33 | Gamecenter: Stormwatcher33 | 3DS: 0130-2805-2850
    steam_sig.png
  • lowlylowlycooklowlylowlycook Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Hey, I'm all for it if it means we get another sequel to Elite.

    Anarchy Online had procedural music long before anyone even knew what it was. It worked out really well IMO.

    I think it could easily be done graphically too as time goes on. I mean, procedural "dungeons" ala Diablo 2 have been around forever but they're very limited in diversity. I think that it would be feasable to make a Star Trek type game with countless unexplored worlds that were created procedurally (at least the terrain; towns/NPC's are long down the road) that were realistic and just as "creative" as something an artist did.

    I'm sure that will step on some toes, but even a game artist has to recognize benefits of doing so; and it's not like they would be useless. There would still be specifically designed things that they could focus on instead of wasting their talent trying to pump out planet 4626242135.
    Wikipedia wrote:
    The Elite universe contains eight galaxies, each galaxy containing 256 planets to explore. Due to the limited capabilities of 8-bit computers, these worlds are procedurally generated. A single seed number is run through a fixed algorithm the appropriate number of times and creates a sequence of numbers determining each planet's complete composition (position in the galaxy, prices of commodities, and even name and local details — text strings are chosen numerically from a lookup table and assembled to produce unique descriptions for each planet). This means that no extra memory is needed to store the characteristics of each planet, yet each is unique and has fixed properties. Each galaxy is also procedurally generated from the first.

    However, the use of procedural generation created a few problems. There are a number of poorly located systems that can be reached only by galactic hyperspace — these are more than 7 light years from their nearest neighbour, thus trapping the traveller. Braben and Bell also checked that none of the system names were profane.

    The sequels had procedurally generated planets that you could land on.

    steam_sig.png
    (Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
  • HalfmexHalfmex Don't call me Mr. Scorpion. It's Mr. ScorpiO, but don't call me that either.Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    Immersive killing isn't a good thing. That sort of stuff fucks people up.
    It hasn't yet, why would it start now (or at an as-yet-undetermined point in the future)? Let's take Fallout 3 again. You get brain matter, loose eyeballs, jawbones and skull fragments when you headshot someone in that game. I (and I'll wager any other rational human being) playing the game haven't had any compulsions to recreate that in real life.

  • slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    RE: The OP

    I wonder if there were something, some example, that someone could show us now, that we could compare to our current stuff, and make us think the same thing?

    If someone had shown you the Crysis pic back in the 80's when you were playing Commodore, and you thought, "Man, that's impossible!" I wonder if there's something similar that we could see now, a sort of "here's what the future of graphics looks like," that would impress us just as much....

    ... probably not. Or maybe? I don't know.

  • JauntyJaunty Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Halfmex wrote: »
    In all seriousness, the argument for games being realistic murder simulators has been there since long before the current or even previous generation of consoles. Ever since Wolfenstein was released, alarmists have been quick to point the finger at games desensitizing youth to violence.

    The fact is, we don't need realistic graphics to see those things. Turn on the news or watch any action film made within the last thirty years and you'll be up to your elbows in guts and eyeballs.

    It's just not an argument that holds water anymore with any rational person. Gaming is finally starting to be recognized as an artistic medium (by some) and we're being treated to more cinematographic levels of realism with every new generation, and I applaud that. Whether it's shooting someone in the face or helping build a new kingdom for your followers, graphics are a big part of what makes this medium so immersive.

    I agree with this completely, but even so I wouldn't be as interested in an ultra-realistic battlefield depiction. Not because I think it would be desensetizing, but for the opposite reason: I'd find it disturbing. In a game where it's used sparingly, and for specific purpose I could see it being an invaluable tool, but not in something like battlefield. such realism would strip it of any entertainment it could offer, and just wind up burning me out. I'm far more interested in graphical power being used to give us new, imaginative, highly stylized worlds like that of Mirror's Edge or Team Fortress 2

  • Ragnar DragonfyreRagnar Dragonfyre Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    The big problem is finding away to pay the modelers and other artists to make these games. So far even HD console games which far pretty short of Crysis are seemingly not profitable unless you manage to make one of the top selling games of whichever year your game hits in.

    I'm starting to think the next big push will be more behind the scenes, reducing the artists/modellers needed to actually generate content. I would think a full body scanner, for example, where you could just have an actor stand and be completely digitized in 3d and ready to have a skeleton put into - or a baseball bat or proton pack could be scanned and immediately used as a 3d object in a game with no real artist input needed would be huge in terms of lowering overall developer costs.

    I hope this never happens. The amount of jobs that would be lost would be crippling. Mocap has already taken away a lot of jobs from the animation industry. Jobs that have been retained in mocap ready studios are like factory work for animators. They simply clean up the mess that mocap has created in the animation (though the "mess" has been reduced drastically with recent advances). It's very formulaic, with not a lot of room for creativity.

    Keyframed animation (everything done by the animator), may take longer but is far better in terms of quality. Look at everything done by Naughty Dog. They HATE mocap. (unless this has changed with Uncharted, everything in Jak was done with keyframe.)

    The next noticeable step will be total photorealism. We will see it in our lifetime, probably sooner than we think.

    Personally, I don't like what the drive for photorealism has done to the videogame industry. The focus has changed from giving your game it's own stylized look to making it look as real as possible (in many cases). It's sad that games with a striking style like Okami get totally overlooked by the majority of people.

    steam_sig.png
  • mastriusmastrius Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Halfmex wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    Immersive killing isn't a good thing. That sort of stuff fucks people up.
    It hasn't yet, why would it start now (or at an as-yet-undetermined point in the future)? Let's take Fallout 3 again. You get brain matter, loose eyeballs, jawbones and skull fragments when you headshot someone in that game. I (and I'll wager any other rational human being) playing the game haven't had any compulsions to recreate that in real life.

    Yeah really. We dont need someone from PA telling us that games are the devil and killing in games makes fucked up people. Thats just wrong man. Look at how they already are. People would be fucked by now if that were the case.

    "You're like a kitten! A kitten who doesn't speak Japanese." ~ Juliet Starling
  • Rigor MortisRigor Mortis Registered User
    edited August 2009
    slash000 wrote: »
    RE: The OP

    I wonder if there were something, some example, that someone could show us now, that we could compare to our current stuff, and make us think the same thing?

    If someone had shown you the Crysis pic back in the 80's when you were playing Commodore, and you thought, "Man, that's impossible!" I wonder if there's something similar that we could see now, a sort of "here's what the future of graphics looks like," that would impress us just as much....

    ... probably not. Or maybe? I don't know.
    This is what I thought when I saw that Johnny Chung Lee head tracking video. Imagine that being a standard feature of gaming.... Perhaps Project Natal will help with that more than with motion control? I hope to god it works well in Gran Turismo 5, because that's likely to be my first experience with it.

  • McAllenMcAllen Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    How many games do we play just for the sheer amount of graphic sex that we can get out of it?

    I don't know if it's been mentioned already, but it really feels like most games are turning into Barbie dolls with second grade storytelling. We've all heard that tremendous art can't substitute good writing in comics, but if it's vice versa then the comic can have some promise. Does anyone else feel like this is happening more than before?

    Graphics r awesum but how many of us would trade these graphics for a memorable narrative?

  • vrstvrst Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Graphics still have a loooooooooooooooooooooooong way to go to arrive at anything resembling reality.

    The next time you walk around, pay attention to the 'graphics'

    Then do the same in a game. Yeah.

    I'm pretty sure that in ten years time, we will look upon the current generation like we now look at PS2 3D. Trust me, it does not age well.

  • Special KSpecial K Registered User
    edited August 2009
    For me, the next important step for real immersion is not slightly better textures or physics.

    It's actual, true "3D" input, and moving away from "output is on a flat plane in front of you".

    The Wii is halfway there on the input front, and we're going to need stupid goggles of some description so I can't see the room around me, and every time I move my head the correct view renders for that line of sight.

    Imagine that - looking to your left by physically moving your head there, while pointing the wireless plastic gun thingy you're actually carrying in your arms in the other direction to shoot some mans you saw running up 2 seconds before. With rumble on the gun etc.

    That is far more immersive than better textures drawn onto a flat 24" screen (or whatever) in front of you.

«134567
Sign In or Register to comment.