Where do graphics go from here?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 07-08-2012 12:05PM

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 · 07-08-2012 12:06PM

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 · 07-08-2012 12:16PM

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

Blazer · 07-08-2012 12:42PM

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 · 07-08-2012 12:55PM

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 · 07-08-2012 02:02PM

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 · 07-08-2012 02:15PM

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 · 07-08-2012 03:12PM

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 · 07-08-2012 06:02PM

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 · 07-08-2012 08:06PM

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 · 07-08-2012 08:44PM

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 · 07-08-2012 09:31PM

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 · 07-08-2012 10:40PM

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 · 07-08-2012 11:31PM

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 · 08-08-2012 02:44AM

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 · 08-08-2012 11:47AM

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 · 08-08-2012 12:10PM

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 · 08-08-2012 12:24PM

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 · 08-08-2012 12:43PM

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 · 08-08-2012 12:54PM

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.

o1s1n · 08-08-2012 01:15PM

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

I think it'll be on my Christmas list too.

I'd seriously buy it even if there was only a handful of games which used it properly. I've wanted a VR headset ever since Sega was developing one back in the early 90s!

In my quest for VR, I almost bought a Virtuality machine on ebay a few years ago. But in the end wasn't sure if I had the necessary first party components to get it up and running.

Retr0gamer · 08-08-2012 01:39PM

The big problem with Virtual Reality is that all it is is head tracking. There's no physical feedback from the device so you'll still just fell like a camera floating in the world.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 08-08-2012 01:41PM

i dont think that would matter much tbh
i get plenty immersed just sitting a foot away from my monitor if the game is good enough. the kb/mouse just feels like a part of me, the only problem would be new games where you wouldnt know the hotkeys.. if you have a vr goggle on you cant take the second to look down at the keyboard

norrie rugger · 08-08-2012 02:30PM

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The big problem with Virtual Reality is that all it is is head tracking. There's no physical feedback from the device so you'll still just fell like a camera floating in the world.

Not really Retro; you do not need too much feedback when rotating your head, as your own body will give you the sensation of turning around.

the problem would lie in jumping and speed, in that could cause motion sickness

norrie rugger · 08-08-2012 02:35PM

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

i dont think that would matter much tbh
i get plenty immersed just sitting a foot away from my monitor if the game is good enough. the kb/mouse just feels like a part of me, the only problem would be new games where you wouldnt know the hotkeys.. if you have a vr goggle on you cant take the second to look down at the keyboard

Other than 3 monitor set up it would be the only way to get peripheral vision. Would be great in driving/flying, FPS and action games. It would be awesome in sports games

marshbaboon · 08-08-2012 08:08PM

I'm probably in the minority, but to be honest, hopefully there'll be less focus on developers splashing out the majority of their budgets on graphical fidelity. Art design is much more important than texture resolution in building a believable world.

Don't get me wrong, I love a good looking game but genres and titles are really starting to blend together now with regard to style & colour palettes.

TLDR: If I have to play one more brown shooter I'm going to go insane.

Magill · 08-08-2012 09:07PM

What are all these brown shooters that people keep talking about.... the big shooters that i can remember from the last year or so.

Dues Ex
Tribes Ascend
Uncharted 3
Battlefield 3
MW3
Gears of war 3
Bulletstorm
Homefront
Brink
Crysis 2
Mirrors Edge
Killzone
Resistance
Halo
Bioshock

The only ones from that list with a brown colour palette would be... resistance/killzone/mw3 and maybe gears of war ? Am i missing something ?

mikom · 08-08-2012 09:17PM

Magill wrote: »

What are all these brown shooters that people keep talking about.... the big shooters that i can remember from the last year or so.

Dues Ex
Tribes Ascend
Uncharted 3
Battlefield 3
MW3
Gears of war 3
Bulletstorm
Homefront
Brink
Crysis 2
Mirrors Edge
Killzone
Resistance
Halo
Bioshock

The only ones from that list with a brown colour palette would be... resistance/killzone/mw3 and maybe gears of war ? Am i missing something ?

Mirrors Edge is a shooter?

marshbaboon · 08-08-2012 09:35PM

satchmo · 08-08-2012 09:50PM

People talk about art direction and graphics tech like they're two mutually exclusive aspects of game development. They're not - achieving an art director's vision is directly dependent on what graphics tech he has at his disposal. You can't have one without the other.

Speaking of VR, I just got a demo of the Rift prototype from the Oculus guys. Very cool tech, it's got a huge amount of potential. I was on the fence about getting a devkit, now I think I'll have to!

Where do graphics go from here?

Comments