Have graphics stagnated?

No, they haven't. There's a large focus on particle effects right now in video games and generally speaking it looks great.

>>376395059
Diminishing return, anon. More focus is on detail and lighting now it seems.

Graphics are getting better, but people don't notice anymore.
It's like the difference between medium and ultra settings. Ultra has more detail and it takes about twice as much GPU power to render, but when actually playing the game you don't notice if that rock on the ground has 20 or 40 polygons.

If you're aware that what you're experiencing might be unique to you alone, why even ask this broad ass question?

>>376395059
>jagged edges everywhere with an attempt to cover up with anti-aliasing out the ass

your pic has alright graphics for the time OP, but compared to something like 4k doom, your pic from a technical stance looks like shit graphics.

>Finish Yakuza Zero
>Think that it would be good to play for again to get that Akiyama fix
>Whoah, I don't remember the game looking this bad
>Almost no npc on the streets and they pop up out of thin air

God, memory can be so selective sometimes.

File: 754-1.jpg (1MB, 2762x2243px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2762x2243px

>>376395059
A bit,the consoles are what 4-5 years old and people on PC want to run 60-144 fps and with higher resolutions

Ubi and EA are probably the only big game companies trying to push graphics. A bit disconcerting really.

>>376395059
it's definitely still improving

4k will be a hurdle for most people for a long time though

Games look way better than 2008, you can't count mods as the official game. The bigger question is though, does it matter? Graphics is less important than art direction and gameplay. I like to look at pleasing images ofc, but its nothing more than a bonus.

>>376397335

The thing is you don't even need to have insane hardware to have pleasing visuals. These days, I'd say art style is more important than sheer visual prowess.

I think Nintendo was right with the Wii, albeit I think they did it a gen to early. It really is getting to the point where it's hard for average people to notice the differences with most games. And even then, I can still go back and play most PS3 and 360 games with no problems.

Honestly, I'd rather a dev go for a nice art direction and use the rest of the horse power to do more interesting things.

>>376395059
yeah
now they focus mostly on retarded filters and resource hogging technology that improves very little while consuming a lot

>>376397306
Why are they pushing bullshit high resolutions like this that you can't even tell from 1080p instead of focusing on making the actual graphics look good?

>>376397335
They do look better, but compare the progress from 97-07 to 07-17. They say that tech progress is exponential, but in video games I see it slowing down instead.

ultra realism plagues gaming

>>376398119
>bullshit high resolutions
resolution is the single most important factor in graphical quality.

>can't even tell from 1080p
you are blind

as for OP's topic, graphics are improving but gameplay hasn't changed much at all even though the technology allows it because AAA publishers are more driven by greed than innovation.

>>376398119
see an eye doctor. seriously.

GPU power is much better spent on more resolution than slightly more detailed graphics.

>>376398496
>>376398606
>not understanding hyperbole
Yes, of course you can notice the difference, but it's not nearly as noticeable than making the graphics, effects and animations better. Even framerate is more important.

>>376398780
>he thinks animations have to do with graphics rendering

keep living in denial, 1080p max settings will always lose to 4k lowest settings. as for framerate anything less than a constant 60fps is a slideshow.

>>376395059
developers are far too reliant on shader packages
texture quality is actually regressing
we're still getting games with prebaked lighting, while 10 years ago we had games with full dynamic lighting
gpus have ridiculous amounts of memory and get faster every year, yet graphics keep going half a step forward and 50 steps sideways

>>376395665
The difference between 20 and 40 polygons is extremely noticeable though. The difference between 20 000 000 polygons and 40 000 000 would be a better comparison to show off how things are stagnating today.

Development cycles are already like 5 years. You want them longer?

File: 20170508222215_1.jpg (919KB, 3440x1440px) Image search: [Google]

919KB, 3440x1440px

Games just need to focus on nailing down lighting. You can have all the polys you want but it doesn't mean shit if it looks flat

>>376400085
i still find the difference between 20 000 000 polygons and 40 000 000 pretty noticeable.

>>376400192
Yeah lighting is about the most difficult and power expensive thing you can have in game though. It will be years until we can have actual real life like lighting in games.

>>376395059
Maybe if you're blind. That picture looks like shit compared to high settings nowadays.

File: flyby.jpg (661KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

661KB, 1920x1080px

graphics hardly mean that much,as long as the game provide excellent gameplay and reasons for you to stay then most people would be satisfied
i love playing ro2 and rising storm even though the graphic is mostly outdated and im looking forward to rs2

>>376400192
Is that AC Unity?

>>376395665
Graphics are plateauing in terms of shit like model quality and world detail, at least as far as consoles can allow realistically, and focus is shifting to animations like >>376395112 instead.

Compare an early PS3 or 360 game to Sunset Overdrive or Infamous Second Son (not that those are graphical powerhouses at this point but that's the point I'm making) in motion and you'll see a world of difference.

File: h1lqacq.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>376400627

>>376400627
horizon 3 is very pretty

>>376400725
>>376400627

Easy to make white and black environments look realistic. Hard to do the same with a sunny day.

>>376400808
http://nsa37.casimages.com/img/2017/05/08/170508071152595620.gif
http://nsa38.casimages.com/img/2017/05/08/170508071258406674.gif

File: Uncharted 4_ A Thief’s End™_20160601074232.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

You need new eyes.

>>376395059
>Most games llook the same as they did in 2008
Check your eyesight then, dumbass

>>376400725
Jeez what an ugly car

File: serveimage.jpg (712KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

712KB, 1920x1080px

>>376395059
>at least to me anyway.

Well, if you keep playing Flash titles, of course there is never going to be a bump in graphics quality.

>>376400919
Gran turismo? They always fake their graphics.

File: 20170508221213_1.jpg (913KB, 3440x1440px) Image search: [Google]

913KB, 3440x1440px

>>376400569

Yup

>>376399670
>as for framerate anything less than a constant 60fps is a slideshow.

Consoles can't even achieve this otherwise I would buy one for the spare room.

>>376400919

That's sunset. Show me middle of the day.

File: 1490823904531.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>376395059
Not in any way. Games look incredible nowadays, they look so good with so much little detail in everything that its often obscured by the resolution and lack of anti aliasing. A properly aliased screenshot of basically any modern game can look like a pre rendered bullshit. GTA V alone looks stunning whereas GTA IV at a high resolution just shows its flaws.

we have graphics like >>376401680


yet indie developers choose only to make 2d pixel garbage

>>376404113
http://i.imgur.com/mmMC4Nc.gif

>>376404350
I dont understand how its possible for any human to look at that picture and complain INDIPENDENT developers aren't competing with it. It's easy to take graphics for granted, but developers aren't taking those hundred million dollar budgets and using the bills as toilet paper. People work their asses off for insignificant details like rocks.

>>376401649
DELET THIS

>>376404456
Let's be real here, all the fuckhuge budgets are mostly for marketing

>>376401649
YOU'VE DONE DID IT BOY

>>376395059
You're blind.

Compare AC2 to Unity, compared GTAIV to GTAV, Far Cry 2 to 4. Night and day.

>>376404385
>http://i.imgur.com/mmMC4Nc.gif

That's not even gameplay footage. Some CGI cutscene shit.

>>376398309
I find that its the same with "tech". We live in an age of consumers and monopoly.

File: lara51.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

Youre wrong OP

>>376398309
The difference between 97-07 is in asset creation, the difference between 07-17 is in post processing, lighting, particles, shadows etc. High-poly models and lossless textures slowly became a non-issue for the modern GPUs

File: 391220_20170508153507_1.png (4MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1920x1080px

>>376404736
The game has issue in exterior but the indoor part are good looking.

Also I don't remember that part, is it a dlc ?

>>376396163
GTA IV didn't have any anti-aliasing, they just put a blur filter over the entire screen.

There are multiple factors:
We made a lot of big advancements in the 90's and early 00's (bump and normal mapping making adding a ton of detail to low poly objects, higher polycounts giving us shapes that aren't super blocky, shadows etc). The advancements being done today, while they add a lot, are much more subtle. Take SSS, which is fairly recent tech, and compare it to bump mapping -- which one would you miss the most if it went away?
Speaking of polycounts, a higher polycount doesn't add very much. You already have normal maps baked from extreme high poly models that add a ton of detail, so the most immediate difference you'd notice would be the silhouettes being smoother and more detailed. Compare that to the difference 1000 polygons could do fifteen years ago. You could go from having eyes painted on the texture to having modelled eyes with blinking eyelids.
When it comes to textures, going from a 512x512 specular map to a 4k spec map will be less of a dramatic difference than going from no spec map at all, and just having an assigned value for the specularity, to actually having a texture map deciding it.
Gamers today also require more. Enthusiasts want 4k and 60fps. Back in the day, you'd play games in 640x480. I'm on two 1440p screens myself today. Ten years ago, I had a 1280x1024 screen.
There's been a lot of improvements regarding the animations too. In some games, your characters feet adjust to the ground they're walking on etc. It's not as noticeable in screenshots, but in motion you can see the difference. Just compare the fluidity of BF1 to BF2 for example.

>>376405478
Continuing:
Photogrammetry wasn't used before. BF1 and Battlefront look great thanks to it. People will complain that all the assets are "fixed" and there are not physics, but BF1 has actually pretty good destruction so I'd say that's a grave exaggeration. Also, that hasn't that much to do with photogrammetry as you can, after the asset has been created, still do the same things to it as you could to an asset modelled and textured by hand.
I think lighting is the most important thing now. I hope we can have a decent approximation of realtime GI in games soon. Just imagine Mirror's Edge like lighting in, with all the subtle shadows, the light bounces etc. combined with how interactive the light is in games like FEAR.

>>376398309
>>376404778
In that sense, asset creation is nowadays mostly dictated by resources and artstyle choice than future optimization. Sure, the games still need a lot of memory so some texture do not look as good for optimization purposes, but most of the textures and models that are in constant use and close to the player are as good as they can be, in my opinion. In this sense I think the ability of these 2 categories have peaked by today, just like animation that has been mostly relegated to mo-cap. The technology may streamline the process of creation as well as make some the issues easier to overcome, but I doubt that we would ever raise the bar for much more detailed assets ever.

>>376405192
is that the same reason for why sleeping dogs is pixalated to shit even on ultra

File: lara50.jpg (2MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1440px

>>376405125
Yeah its DLC

>>376395059
I guess I can understand why you think this. Since every dev is falling for the open world meme they can't max out on the graphics.