Where do graphics go from here?

YoungTrouble

Do you think game graphics will improve in the next ten years as much they did in the last ten?

dreamers75

here


http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-oculus-rift-interview

johnny_ultimate

I'm hoping several mainstream developers broaden their colour palettes to include colours other than brown and industrial grey.

If graphics stayed at their current level of technical fidelity, and instead designers focused on more original, offbeat and challenging art styles, well I wouldn't mind too much. It's all well and good having pretty but uninspired games like Crysis, but stuff like Rayman Origins, El Shaddai, Okami, Muramasa, Child of Eden, Journey etc... are the games that to me look genuinely stunning. More of that, less of the metallic super soldiers.

Magill

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm hoping several mainstream developers broaden their colour palettes to include colours other than brown and industrial grey.

If graphics stayed at their current level of technical fidelity, and instead designers focused on more original, offbeat and challenging art styles, well I wouldn't mind too much. It's all well and good having pretty but uninspired games like Crysis, but stuff like Rayman Origins, El Shaddai, Okami, Muramasa, Child of Eden, Journey etc... are the games that to me look genuinely stunning. More of that, less of the metallic super soldiers.

I mean... obviously there is a good broad range of colors this generation. Games like dark souls, metro, stalker and path of exile are examples of "brown/grey" coloured games that look pretty damn awesome imo. If every game was as colorful as some of those games you mentioned, i'd probably want to murder some kittens after a few months !!



As for where graphics are going... its just going to be constantly improving, i'd imagine the gap between the best looking games this generation and that of next generation will be huge i think. Resolutions will probably be much higher, at least on console where most games run at 720p (PS4 is expected to support up to 4k resolutions i think ?). Some of the tech demo's at E3 where pretty insane tbh.

johnny_ultimate

Magill wrote: »

I mean... obviously there is a good broad range of colors this generation. Games like dark souls, metro, stalker and path of exile are examples of "brown/grey" coloured games that look pretty damn awesome imo. If every game was as colorful as some of those games you mentioned, i'd probably want to murder some kittens after a few months !!

Not saying there aren't great 'brown / grey' games, just too many lazy ones A lot of games do tend to coalesce into over-similar styles, though, and it'd be great if the bigger games diversify a little bit.

Yeah technological advances are cool and all, but I guess my point is I'd rather more unusual or ambitious art stylings over 4K resolution and further steps into uncanny valley. Or more games like NA Loire which, despite its massive flaws, at the very least used graphic technology as more than just eye candy by making it an integral part of gameplay.

Magill

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Not saying there aren't great 'brown / grey' games, just too many lazy ones A lot of games do tend to coalesce into over-similar styles, though, and it'd be great if the bigger games diversify a little bit.

Yeah technological advances are cool and all, but I guess my point is I'd rather more unusual or ambitious art stylings over 4K resolution and further steps into uncanny valley. Or more games like NA Loire which, despite its massive flaws, at the very least used graphic technology as more than just eye candy by making it an integral part of gameplay.

Meh, there is plenty of diversity in the graphical department within gaming, its a lame argument imo, or at best, a weak one.

Improving the "eye candy" is hugely important, for many different reasons(Gameplay, story telling, immersion).

johnny_ultimate

Magill wrote: »

Meh, there is plenty of diversity in the graphical department within gaming, its a lame argument imo, or at best, a weak one.

Improving the "eye candy" is hugely important, for many different reasons(Gameplay, story telling, immersion).

Yes, I agree there is plenty of diversity, but I just tend to find many games at the 'cutting edge' technology wise only occasionally try anything truly revolutionary or unusual. Plenty of Wii games have been extremely visually engaging IMO despite their low resolution, while I've been left underwhelmed by technically 'technically superior' efforts like Crysis 2 or Skyrim. I guess all I'm trying to say is that it's not all about making resolutions higher and higher and higher. Without creative art design, all those wonderful engines are wasted, or their true potential untapped.

Again, I can only re-cite LA Noire IMO as a game of recent times that truly utilised improved tech in a forward-thinking, important way. Facial technology that actually determines the gameplay rather than just acting as 'eye candy'? Going forward, that is what we need so much more of, and I think it's a promising precedent. Now if someone made a better game out of such tech...

Eggy Baby!

This reminds me- I remember hearing a while back that an Australian company called Euclideon were pioneering infinite polygon technology, called Unlimited Detail, and the prospect of it seemed very promising. But I haven't heard from them since? Have they discontinued their research or what?

MitchKoobski

I don't really want 100% realistic graphics. I just want more colour. This whole grey/brownscale thing is annoying.

I also want more games to be 3D compatible. I used to say it was pointless until I got to play Motorstorm Apocalypse and Uncharted 3 during the week in full 3D. Had an eyegasm.

Magill

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Yes, I agree there is plenty of diversity, but I just tend to find many games at the 'cutting edge' technology wise only occasionally try anything truly revolutionary or unusual. Plenty of Wii games have been extremely visually engaging IMO despite their low resolution, while I've been left underwhelmed by technically 'technically superior' efforts like Crysis 2 or Skyrim. I guess all I'm trying to say is that it's not all about making resolutions higher and higher and higher. Without creative art design, all those wonderful engines are wasted, or their true potential untapped.

I mean, this is it... there are plenty of different art styles in gaming like i've said. Being revolutionary in the graphic department is easier said than done, what can they really do that isn't just improving upon whats been done before. The idea behind L.A Noire isn't exactly a new idea, developers have been working on facial expressions for a long time, they were just never as detailed or integral in gameplay. The problem with basing a game around it is that most people can't even read facial expressions in real life, never mind in a computer game.

And yes, i know its not all about resolutions and graphical detail.. but that IS the thing that will improve most... which is what this thread asks.

OctavarIan

I'd like to see more effort put into the art & design side of things. This won't happen though without a similar upheaval in gameplay design, which won't happen while publishers need to make so much money.

I hate the way I sound these days but mainstream games have gotten so, so boring. Hopefully some of the fun and imagination from the indie gaming scene will trickle upwards over the next few years.

Kirby

There is no limit on progress because you can always make something look prettier, look more realistic, and do it with less resources.

Graphics will always get better.

danthefan

Personally I don't really need graphics to improve a whole lot from here, I'm happy enough with the way current games look tbh. As a gamer I'd be looking for good gameplay, new concepts and good game design more than better graphics.

_vti

I really couldnt give a crap about VR and 3D.

Detail levels, immersion and captivation are they way things should go.

norrie rugger

Better environmental physics would be higher on my list than graphics

o1s1n

_vti wrote: »

I really couldnt give a crap about VR and 3D.

Detail levels, immersion and captivation are they way things should go.

But virtual reality IS total immersion. That's the way it needs to go next. Imagine being able to walk around a 3D environment with full head tracking. It would be incredible.

By 'walking around' I don't necessarily mean walking around physically by the way - you could move in the environment by other means. But head tracking to the point where you cant see the edges of the screen and you're literally in the game is where I'd like to be with games in the next gen.

_vti

o1s1n wrote: »

But virtual reality IS total immersion. That's the way it needs to go next. Imagine being able to walk around a 3D environment with full head tracking. It would be incredible.

By 'walking around' I don't necessarily mean walking around physically by the way - you could move in the environment by other means. But head tracking to the point where you cant see the edges of the screen and you're literally in the game is where I'd like to be with games in the next gen.

VR isnt strictly immersion. Have you seen that VR BF3 thing that discovery show did before BF3s release?....it was just ****e!

Immersion doesnt need virtual reality measures, just a captivating gameplay/style/story with high level of lasting value.

Big Knox

_vti wrote: »

VR isnt strictly immersion. Have you seen that VR BF3 thing that discovery show did before BF3s release?....it was just ****e!

Immersion doesnt need virtual reality measures, just a captivating gameplay/style/story with high level of lasting value.

Sorry but he's right. Properly implemented VR is the ultimate immersion tool. Nothing else comes close and if we see it properly produced and backed by developers within the next few years it should bring gaming to the next level.

Canis Lupus

norrie rugger wrote: »

Better environmental physics would be higher on my list than graphics

Totally the same for me. Gfx are already very pretty but I'd love to see real physics in a game along with improved AI.

GTR63

The Oculus Rift VR sound interesting, but maybe it only really works well from the first person perspective. The Games industry needs a bit of a lift when I read on cvg friday that retail had its worst week since records began I wasn't at all shocked.

Magill

GTR63 wrote: »

The Oculus Rift VR sound interesting, but maybe it only really works well from the first person perspective. The Games industry needs a bit of a lift when I read on cvg friday that retail had its worst week since records began I wasn't at all shocked.

Im sure that's mostly due to online sales tho...

Reekwind

Graphics are good enough as they are. That isn't to say that they won't get better, or that this wouldn't be a Good Thing, but currently graphics engines are powerful enough tools that the constraints lie with developers, not technology. We've reached the point where almost anything short of photorealism can be represented in game... but developers are typically reluctant to take advantage of this

Partly that's due to the hardware limitations of consoles and partly it's due to the nature of the industry; either way it's disappointing that we escaped from 2D sprites, and went through that painfully early 3D period, just to see military shooters dominate

Downlinz

Have graphics really advanced much in the last 10 years? When I think of games 10 years old like Final Fantasy X or Gran Turismo 3 I don't think whats out today is planets away from it. HD is the big difference obviously.

RoverZT

Downlinz wrote: »

Have graphics really advanced much in the last 10 years? When I think of games 10 years old like Final Fantasy X or Gran Turismo 3 I don't think whats out today is planets away from it. HD is the big difference obviously.

That's true, been thinking that as well.

Things haven't changed that much.

FFX, Metal Gear Solid 2 are 10 years old and still look great.

I haven't been impressed with graphics for years.




11 years on and the above still almost looks a modern day game.

Overheal

Mmm... GT3 A-Spec.

That game was gorgeous. And is still gorgeous, I'm sure. Played that game to death.

PseudoFamous

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

This reminds me- I remember hearing a while back that an Australian company called Euclideon were pioneering infinite polygon technology, called Unlimited Detail, and the prospect of it seemed very promising. But I haven't heard from them since? Have they discontinued their research or what?

Its essentially bull****, IIRC. Its unusable in videogames due to only being able to render statics rather than moving objects, as everything is essentially voxels using euclideon's idea.

TheFairy

Graphics Smaphics just make good games. Fed up with part completed games sold out the door by the corporate machine!

satchmo

Saying graphics are good enough as they are is taking way too narrow a view of the role graphics play in games.

It's not just about the ooh-shiny factor (although that's still a primary concern - graphics sell games, whether you like it or not). A large part of graphics development in games these days is about feature development that allow certain gameplay elements to shine. Large parts of the gameplay of Uncharted 3 for example simply couldn't have been done with Uncharted 1's graphics engine - water simulation & rendering, volumetric lighting, and sand rendering are a few things that spring to mind that have a major impact on the game.

Beyond gameplay, you'd be very surprised how much tech goes into things you wouldn't necessarily even notice. Things like realistic tone mapping, colour grading, dynamic global illumination, physically-based lighting, etc. None of these were in the graphics engines of 10 years ago, and while you could probably play many of today's games just as well without any of these features, they all contribute a huge amount to the immersion factor and perceived quality level that you expect when you pay 50-odd euro for a game. These days, I don't expect to just have fun with my games, I also expect to have an experience. Graphics are an intrinsic part of this.

Lastly, one thing people often overlook is the collaboration that goes on in the graphics community. You might think Crysis 2 was uninspiring, and that they should have spent less time on the graphics and more on the gameplay. But there are a huge amount of games that have benefitted directly from the graphics research that the Crytek guys have shared. Some of these are most likely games that people would laud for concentrating less on graphics and more on gameplay... but these games could only concentrate less on graphics because someone else already did the work.

There is still a lot of work to do in realtime graphics. Higher quality anti-aliasing, proper volumetric effects, more sophisticated lighting models, better translucency, the list goes on. And these aren't being developed just for their own sake, or to make better screenshots. Every advance in graphics puts more control in the hands of the designers and artists, letting them concentrate less on what they can do within the constraints of the engine, and more about implementing whatever gameplay or artistic style they can imagine. And in the end that's what really matters, right?

Magill

satchmo wrote: »

Saying graphics are good enough as they are is taking way too narrow a view of the role graphics play in games.

It's not just about the ooh-shiny factor (although that's still a primary concern - graphics sell games, whether you like it or not). A large part of graphics development in games these days is about feature development that allow certain gameplay elements to shine. Large parts of the gameplay of Uncharted 3 for example simply couldn't have been done with Uncharted 1's graphics engine - water simulation & rendering, volumetric lighting, and sand rendering are a few things that spring to mind that have a major impact on the game.

Beyond gameplay, you'd be very surprised how much tech goes into things you wouldn't necessarily even notice. Things like realistic tone mapping, colour grading, dynamic global illumination, physically-based lighting, etc. None of these were in the graphics engines of 10 years ago, and while you could probably play many of today's games just as well without any of these features, they all contribute a huge amount to the immersion factor and perceived quality level that you expect when you pay 50-odd euro for a game. These days, I don't expect to just have fun with my games, I also expect to have an experience. Graphics are an intrinsic part of this.

Lastly, one thing people often overlook is the collaboration that goes on in the graphics community. You might think Crysis 2 was uninspiring, and that they should have spent less time on the graphics and more on the gameplay. But there are a huge amount of games that have benefitted directly from the graphics research that the Crytek guys have shared. Some of these are most likely games that people would laud for concentrating less on graphics and more on gameplay... but these games could only concentrate less on graphics because someone else already did the work.

There is still a lot of work to do in realtime graphics. Higher quality anti-aliasing, proper volumetric effects, more sophisticated lighting models, better translucency, the list goes on. And these aren't being developed just for their own sake, or to make better screenshots. Every advance in graphics puts more control in the hands of the designers and artists, letting them concentrate less on what they can do within the constraints of the engine, and more about implementing whatever gameplay or artistic style they can imagine. And in the end that's what really matters, right?

Exactly ! People overlook how important graphic tech is, especially these hipster gamers.

Mr.Saturn

I call the big HD developers just giving up and quietly reintroducing FMV games with a couple of modern trinkets e.g. Wing Commander III: Brown & Bloom edition.

Blazer

ATI are already working on VR and cards that are capable of supporting it.
By 2015 they plan to have a walk in room powered by ATI graphics which will apparently merge you within the game...think of Start Trek's holosuite but less advanced.
Someone was saying that the PS4 will support upto 4K resolutions.
Not a chance in hell..todays cards can barely support 2560x1600 at decent framerates so there's no miracle graphics chip available for Sony to do this.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

wat?

I have a 670 and I can game perfectly at 2560x1440p
metro2033 is the only one that gave me trouble at max or just under max settings and even that was average at or around 30fps. the only other game I've had issues with was skyrim when I modded the absolute **** out of it and even then, it was hitting at or just under 30fps with *everything* I could throw at it thrown at it.

o1s1n

satchmo wrote: »

Beyond gameplay, you'd be very surprised how much tech goes into things you wouldn't necessarily even notice. Things like realistic tone mapping, colour grading, dynamic global illumination, physically-based lighting, etc. None of these were in the graphics engines of 10 years ago, and while you could probably play many of today's games just as well without any of these features, they all contribute a huge amount to the immersion factor and perceived quality level that you expect when you pay 50-odd euro for a game. These days, I don't expect to just have fun with my games, I also expect to have an experience. Graphics are an intrinsic part of this

Great post, and does give an insight into the way you perceive games yourself. However for me, if it's something I 'wouldn't necessarily notice' then it means feck all in the long term to be honest.

When I get a nice looking current gen game I play around with the physics and see what effects are going on in the beginning. It's a novelty. But after that, in most instances, they may as well not be there.

You might say 'They're there, adding to the immersion, you don't have to notice directly' But I really do think immersion comes differently for different people.

I could play a PS1 game now which had terrible aliasing and get more immersed in that then a modern lovely looking game which wasn't very involving.

I could become more immersed in a book than the fanciest, most enhanced game out there - and that's just ink on a page.

That's why I'd rather games took a more drastic leap regarding how you become immersed and why I'd love some proper VR.

This doesn't stop with sight by the way. Smell along with a VR headset could really make you feel like you were in a game. Something which I think is currently being developed.

richymcdermott

I personally do not care for realism graphics , give me hand drawn cell shaded graphics anyday like valkyria chronicles , okami , rayman .

Blazer

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

wat?

I have a 670 and I can game perfectly at 2560x1440p
metro2033 is the only one that gave me trouble at max or just under max settings and even that was average at or around 30fps. the only other game I've had issues with was skyrim when I modded the absolute **** out of it and even then, it was hitting at or just under 30fps with *everything* I could throw at it thrown at it.

30fps? That's barely playable. Anything below 60fps I wouldn't bother with.
I get approx an average of 40-70fps on BF3 on ultra at 2560x1600 and it's a killer so show me a card out there that will magically support 4k resolution on any upcoming console for a 6 or 7 year period?
There's isn't one...4K resolution is approx 4096 × 1714 and as anyone running 3 x ATI 7970's in tri-crossfire etc @ even higher resolutions say it's not worth the extra cost as they still only get about 40-60fps at that rez.
So unless a PS4 is going to magically conjure up a make believe card that will support 4k it's not going to happen.
1080p will be the max that the next gen consoles will support to ensure that they can handle games for the next 4-6 years without falling over.

Retr0gamer

What I want from next gen graphics:

Less over the top bloom effects. It's the new lens flare and coloured lighting.

Pixel shaded textures with toned down specular highlights that don't make everything look like it's covered in Vaseline.

Kirby

Blazer wrote: »

30fps? That's barely playable. Anything below 60fps I wouldn't bother with..

You own an xbox or ps3? You would be surpised at how many games are 30 fps.

What gets people is the jarring jump and stutter from high fps to low fps.

30 fps is actually okay aslong as it's constant and doesn't dip.

Magill

Blazer wrote: »

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

wat?

I have a 670 and I can game perfectly at 2560x1440p
metro2033 is the only one that gave me trouble at max or just under max settings and even that was average at or around 30fps. the only other game I've had issues with was skyrim when I modded the absolute **** out of it and even then, it was hitting at or just under 30fps with *everything* I could throw at it thrown at it.

30fps? That's barely playable. Anything below 60fps I wouldn't bother with.
I get approx an average of 40-70fps on BF3 on ultra at 2560x1600 and it's a killer so show me a card out there that will magically support 4k resolution on any upcoming console for a 6 or 7 year period?
There's isn't one...4K resolution is approx 4096 × 1714 and as anyone running 3 x ATI 7970's in tri-crossfire etc @ even higher resolutions say it's not worth the extra cost as they still only get about 40-60fps at that rez.
So unless a PS4 is going to magically conjure up a make believe card that will support 4k it's not going to happen.
1080p will be the max that the next gen consoles will support to ensure that they can handle games for the next 4-6 years without falling over.

They will almost certainly support higher than 1080p m8. There's quite a few 1080p games this generation...on 7 year old hardware. Also, most console games run at 30fps..... So obviously its playable.

Potential-Monke

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2g94xQmtHw

Maybe not using real people, but the scenes where the gamer is controlling, a purpose built room where you control everything with your body with true realism. I want this so much, i only hope i live long enough to see it and play it.

(also, never realised Michael C Hall was in this, what an actor!)

Overheal

Kirby wrote: »

You own an xbox or ps3? You would be surpised at how many games are 30 fps.

What gets people is the jarring jump and stutter from high fps to low fps.

30 fps is actually okay aslong as it's constant and doesn't dip.

thats why i usually run vsync and a framerate cap

Blazer

Magill wrote: »

They will almost certainly support higher than 1080p m8. There's quite a few 1080p games this generation...on 7 year old hardware. Also, most console games run at 30fps..... So obviously its playable.

yes..but remember that the ps3/xbox are only dx9 capable..
to go to dx11 will still take a hit..it would be nice if they went beyond 1080p but I can't see it happening...and jsut to let you know...very very few games on the xbox are 1080p...in fact about most of them are barely 720p.
There are about 10 games on the xbox which run natively at 1080p

Halo 3 for example is actually below 720p while GoW3 is 720p.

Another thing is the existing graphics chips are really holding back games on current gen consoles.
Activision are still using a modified quake engine for COD to keep it running at 60fps on consoles and they're afraid to go to a new engine for fear of locking people out and losing sales.
You only need to look at Battlefield 3 to see the huge differences between a top notch pc and a console.
And considering that the next gen xbox/ps3 will be around the €300-€400 they're obviously not going to stick a €400 graphics card in it. My bet is they use a modified 6 series ATI radeon card that supports 30/60fps @ 1080p and definitely no higher.

Magill

Blazer wrote: »

yes..but remember that the ps3/xbox are only dx9 capable..
to go to dx11 will still take a hit..it would be nice if they went beyond 1080p but I can't see it happening...and jsut to let you know...very very few games on the xbox are 1080p...in fact about most of them are barely 720p.
There are about 10 games on the xbox which run natively at 1080p

Halo 3 for example is actually below 720p while GoW3 is 720p.

Another thing is the existing graphics chips are really holding back games on current gen consoles.
Activision are still using a modified quake engine for COD to keep it running at 60fps on consoles and they're afraid to go to a new engine for fear of locking people out and losing sales.
You only need to look at Battlefield 3 to see the huge differences between a top notch pc and a console.
And considering that the next gen xbox/ps3 will be around the €300-€400 they're obviously not going to stick a €400 graphics card in it. My bet is they use a modified 6 series ATI radeon card that supports 30/60fps @ 1080p and definitely no higher.

Like i said, i expect them to support higher resolutions, im not saying every game will run at 2560x1600(Or any !), but that they will at least support higher than 1080p. It would be unwise of them not to, especially from a marketing pov.

ShadowHearth

Magill wrote: »

Like i said, i expect them to support higher resolutions, im not saying every game will run at 2560x1600(Or any !), but that they will at least support higher than 1080p. It would be unwise of them not to, especially from a marketing pov.

Well it will be like it is with current gen then so. Yes Xbox 360 can do 1080p, but only 5% are in 1080p. So the new Xbox will be able to do 1440p, but majority of games will be 1080p.

I call bull**** on 4k resolution too. No way they will jump over 1440p as its not going to be profitable financially. They will milk us on 1440p and then 4k. Then again no gaming gpus even support 4k out there.

NTMK

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Well it will be like it is with current gen then so. Yes Xbox 360 can do 1080p, but only 5% are in 1080p. So the new Xbox will be able to do 1440p, but majority of games will be 1080p.

I call bull**** on 4k resolution too. No way they will jump over 1440p as its not going to be profitable financially. They will milk us on 1440p and then 4k. Then again no gaming gpus even support 4k out there.

This 4k rumour started because the 7 series amd cards "support" 4k doesnt mean its playable. for the next gen your looking at 1080p being the native output and not a hope in hell of 4k res in game. As for 1440p i doubt it would happen due to 1440 not being a tv standard

1080p at 60fps is the most likely for the next gen

Magill

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Well it will be like it is with current gen then so. Yes Xbox 360 can do 1080p, but only 5% are in 1080p. So the new Xbox will be able to do 1440p, but majority of games will be 1080p.

I call bull**** on 4k resolution too. No way they will jump over 1440p as its not going to be profitable financially. They will milk us on 1440p and then 4k. Then again no gaming gpus even support 4k out there.

Yeah more than likely, but sure thats still a huge upgrade for consoles. The 4k resolution rumours are more than likely bull****, but sure who knows.... maybe they'll support it just for movies or something. These consoles are likely to be around in 10 years time, so planning for the future wouldn't be a bad thing.. especially since both MS + Sony are big into their "Media Centre" stuff when it comes to marketing. And if it supports it 4k output then i wouldn't put it past indie developers to make some games that support it also(Im not sure how this all works, if the supported resolutions for video playback is the same as for gaming on consoles etc).

Also... enough of the console jabber ! Its on the PC where the big graphical improvements will be seen first, and we've already got 1440p.... i guess at this stage pixel quality is much more important than its quantity tbh.

satchmo

o1s1n wrote: »

Great post, and does give an insight into the way you perceive games yourself. However for me, if it's something I 'wouldn't necessarily notice' then it means feck all in the long term to be honest.
...
You might say 'They're there, adding to the immersion, you don't have to notice directly' But I really do think immersion comes differently for different people.

Yeah that's a good point, and I am probably biased in that respect (full disclosure - I'm a graphics programmer!). But my main point was really that the continuing advances in graphics tech enable new gameplay experiences that simply wouldn't have been possible in previous generations. And that is what has a direct impact on your immersion, regardless of how pretty the picture is.

As for the whole 4k thing, that's simply a hardware spec limit that the press picked up and ran with. I guarantee that next-gen console games won't run at anything above 1080p - TVs don't support anything above that, so there's no point. A lot of games will actually probably still run at 720p (true 720p, not the sub-700p that a lot of current-gen games run at). We'll use the extra horsepower for better quality pixels... less aliasing, improved image quality, better lighting, and so on. NVidia's Timothy Lottes has a great blog post on why this should be the case (the comments from some leading graphics developers are just as worth reading).

RedXIV

While I appreciate that graphics is a huge player in games and I'll never say "graphics is good enough now, they can concentrate on other things now" I'm admit, I'm with o1s1n, I'd fecking love proper VR. But I've wanted that for as long as I can remember not just what I believe the next graphical jump should be.

I've been watching the Oculos Rift with interest and think it could be on my next christmas list

Magill

RedXIV wrote: »

While I appreciate that graphics is a huge player in games and I'll never say "graphics is good enough now, they can concentrate on other things now" I'm admit, I'm with o1s1n, I'd fecking love proper VR. But I've wanted that for as long as I can remember not just what I believe the next graphical jump should be.

I've been watching the Oculos Rift with interest and think it could be on my next christmas list

Lol, imagine something like amnesia on it. Games like bf3/planetside would be epic too no doubt.

RedXIV

Magill wrote: »

Lol, imagine something like amnesia on it. Games like bf3/planetside would be epic too no doubt.

For some reason the one I always think of being greatly implemented with VR is pokemon. If you could place yourself in some random jungle and have random creatures coming from places rather than in the 8x6 grid of grass pixels, that'd probably blow my mind

I'd probably not have the balls to play amnesia

norrie rugger

RedXIV wrote: »

For some reason the one I always think of being greatly implemented with VR is pokemon. If you could place yourself in some random jungle and have random creatures coming from places rather than in the 8x6 grid of grass pixels, that'd probably blow my mind

I'd probably not have the balls to play amnesia

Dead Space would give me a heart attack

Magill

RedXIV wrote: »

Magill wrote: »

Lol, imagine something like amnesia on it. Games like bf3/planetside would be epic too no doubt.

For some reason the one I always think of being greatly implemented with VR is pokemon. If you could place yourself in some random jungle and have random creatures coming from places rather than in the 8x6 grid of grass pixels, that'd probably blow my mind

I'd probably not have the balls to play amnesia

Haha. I've never really been into the pokemon games, but would love a more 'grown' up game with the only same concept. I remember a game called jades cocoon that would be awesome in a VR world i reckon.

I do be ****ting myself playing amnesia on a monitor with the light on Haha.