Where do you guys think graphics will be in 5 years? I think

>>380761402
They'll probably be pretty stale (as they have been for some time) and riddled with gameworks-type gimmicks.

The Blizzard kind of unrealistic cartoony aesthetic will probably keep getting popular. There'll still be "pixelshit".

Especially at 1080p a lot of graphical advancements will be unnoticeable, so it would be nice if console devs would aim for 60fps. That's quite unlikely however, what with the current push for 4K.

>>380761402
>I think they're going to start getting a lot better because consoles are abandoning the long life cycles
they'll start getting better as soon as the last gen tech jammed into them is able to accelerate at a faster rate than resolution. 4K is a meme and will just end in games having less jaggies, but with shittier polygon:pixel ratio, shittier frame rate, and higher res textures.

It's what the original "next gen" consoles did. They made textures shiny and hi res and shoved a lackluster chip into them both. Throw a decent chip equivalent to a 1070 in there and they'd be just fine, but that's expensive.

>>380762025
>4K is a meme
Stopped reading there, kys

>>380761402
I think lighting will be the next big improvement.
Right now we have few games with GI and usually it's using probes.
We still haven't reach the pre downgrade lighting of games like TW3 or The division.

>>380762025
>will just end in games having less jaggies

Anon please lay off the memes, jaggies don't go anywhere and the main advantage of higher resolutions is the increased screen real estate, resulting in more detail and rendered objects being visible.

File: 1495463734760.png (143KB, 623x651px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 623x651px

>>380761402
I think resolutions will need to be higher due to higher polycounts.
The aliasing in this image isn't too bad but it's still highly visible due to the density of objects.

>>380762170
>tech becomes more advanced
>games get shittier and shittier each release cycle
correlation = causation
go play an fps from the late 90s and tell me it's not better than battlememe games, call of shooty, and every other clone of those two that exist on the market.

>>380761402
I'd rather the developers spend their budget on gameplay instead of graphics, thanks.

File: 1479383699852.gif (997KB, 245x240px) Image search: [Google]

997KB, 245x240px

I feel like developers have lost track of what they should be doing with games.

Why keep upping graphics and resolution where you can do so many other things with that power? Like games have things that we just accept but wouldn't it be great if somebody changed that?

>Dead bodies still evaporate into thin air
>Most structures are still not destructible
>Respawning is still just showing up out of nowhere
>Still no visible damage on characters when they get hit in specific places

Why not focus on this shit?

>>380762883
Developers are driven by market forces to cater to casuals whose main interest is in graphics.

At least, that's their illusion of what people want.

>>380762883
>Why keep upping graphics and resolution where you can do so many other things with that power?
because advertising a 144 frames per second game doesn't sound as cool as advertising a 4k ULTRA MEGA TIGER CAMO AKIMBO HD game.

same shit we had last gen
pho-realism that all looks the same
but oh wait zoom in one this blade of grass and look it has 25% less jaggies on it then last gen!
big fucking whoop

graphics hit their end point long ago in pretty much the PS2 era. what we need now is more shit on screen, further view distances, and better AI.

Most AAA games will continue to stagnate because publishers have long since realized that 'mediocre' is good enough for the masses that only buy according to advertisement and brand-image.

>>380762837

I hate this dumb fallacy that you can't want both.

File: 621813-914828_20041116_004.jpg (152KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1024x768px

>>380761402
>Where do you guys think graphics will be in 5 years?

Probably remain largely the same as they have since mid-late 7th gen, especially with most AAA games going in the cinematic Hollywood-wannabe trash direction.

In my opinion, instead of hyper-realistic visuals, games need to start focusing more on art direction and performance. You can make a good looking game by putting more of your chips in art direction and if carried out properly you could have a game age as well as Wind Waker, or if you want a realistic aesthetic look to the Metal Gear Solid series.

MGS2 is a good example of achieving a realistic look while not sacrificing performance (the game ran at 60fps on the original PS2 version). MGS3 also still looks good to this day despite being 13 years old now and aged better than many of its contemporaries because it's art direction was on point.

>>380761402
Graphics have been pretty stagnant for nearly a decade. As far as PC goes

>>380761402
You are banking on developers not being lazy, consoles don't hold back anything, it is nu-males work ethics.

>>380761402
We won't be able to tell what is reality and what isn't. So we will see people killing other people in broad daylight.

>>380762724
>games being bad somehow makes rendering resolution a meme
You're not making sense here.

>>380762883
Resolution is purely a display option, it has little to do with game developers. If you mean the 4K consoles, it's a choice made by console manufacturers to cash in on the 4K TV trend.

>>380763236
Budgets are limited. You can't get everything.

I'm fine with decade old graphics. I'd rather play Zelda: BotW than Horizon: Zero dawn.

>>380762883

The CPU-GPU industrial complex is keeping the game devs down

>>380763267
No lmao.

>>380761402
Real time raytracing will be the big next step in terms of graphics

File: 1494207555451.jpg (73KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1280x800px

it wont get any better until stacking gpus on consoles is a standard

so not in another 20ish years

File: 6LmFEHU.jpg (2MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x2160px

>>380762204
>I think lighting will be the next big improvement.
This. Recently played Quantum Break and the lighting in that game is insane.

File: Crysis_screen8.jpg (169KB, 1278x720px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1278x720px

>>380763508

I mean there's been a little improvement, but this decade old game looks pretty similar to what you get with modern games today.

>>380761402
what game?

>>380763648
Why do you use a game that few ppl played nigger. It's not what your average game looked like in 2007.

>>380763404
No I'm saying the increase in graphical fildelity has led to a doritos and mtn dew culture within the gaming world that gives no fucks about gameplay outside of "are my friends gonna be playing it with me?" And that question is answered with marketing and hype, which is, not by any accident, exactly what AAA studios use to sell their games in today's market.

I'm saying it's made devs lazy as fuck, not that bad games = those with quality graphics.

>>380763749
AssCreed Syndicate

File: kes.png (41KB, 100x196px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 100x196px

>>380761402
Hopefully they will look better than ps2 games

>>380763648
>this decade old game looks pretty similar to what you get with modern games today
In texture and polygon count? Yes it's a perfectly acceptable game.
Engine-wise? It's very obviously old. Just look at the textures used for the foliage.

Devs need to start trying to make the world seem real and interesting instead of making it look photo realistic if they want to keep the current wave of muh graphics console fags sucking at their teat.

File: clear-vs-blur.jpg (702KB, 1920x2160px) Image search: [Google]

702KB, 1920x2160px

>>380761402
The same shit. Screen space shading for effects that ruing the clarity of image and glogging up all the bandwidth and VRAM. Upscaling since all the screen-space effects and pixelated dynamic shadows can't run the game at full resolution. All glorified with horrendous 20FPS MAX.

It's sort of irony PS2 port (KH2) on PS3 looks better than native PS3 game, because it forward renders and doesn't try to achieve this "cinematic" shit, with all the camera lens like effects, nor tries to aim for the realistic graphics style. The result is actually something that renders very sharp and everything is distinct and clear.

>>380763648
You're cherry picking extremely hard when you use Crysis, a graphically exceptional and revolutionary title at the time, as your example.
Very disingenuous of you anon.

And whilst Crysis still looks good with todays standards, it's certainly not at the top graphically, and shows it's age with aspects like low-resolution textures and polycount.

File: LevskiRefinery.webm (419KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 1920x1080px

>>380761402

>>380761402
I thought a lot of the games at E3 looked noticeably better than, say, a game from 2013. I expect huge downgrades but either way, they looked nice in the demos.

>>380763214
You're so retarded if you think we peaked in the ps2 era. How does uncharted 4 not look way better than the first? And that's an entire console inbetween.

>>380764745
Funny you mention KH2 which looks worse than 1 because of all the lens shit they did use. DOF, lens flare, film grain, etc.
>>380764907
But it has better physics, lighting, and water than most modern games. The textures and polycount is higher than most modern games as well since it's a real PC game and was built to scale.

File: nv.jpg (153KB, 1619x905px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1619x905px

singularity soon fellow shills

>>380761402
Honestly graphics are getting worse to shit out more content in game cycles. There are games like OPs pic which are entirely graphics based but they lack content, The Order was a 4 hour game iirc?

Also many of these graphics based games are just to show off hardware for a new console release. If we have less console releases we will see less of these graphical push games. It depends if we keep letting the industry fuck us.

look at dem graphics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCNTRe3Y1XI

>>380765362
>Funny you mention KH2 which looks worse than 1 because of all the lens shit they did use. DOF, lens flare, film grain, etc.
IIRC it only slightly uses them in cutscenes, but the gameplay is mostly free from those effects. The picture stays clear all time, and geometry is rendered at native resolution. It still forward renders so all the bandwidth hog from deferred rendering doesn't make the game crawl. Ultimately all games should prefer gameplay and framerate over graphics. Art style / direction is more important than the "realism". It's sort of disgusting how 30fps is considered "norm", especially how big difference 60fps makes for the responsivity and smoothness of motion.

>>380763449
You're fine with 2007 graphics? You should really go and look at games that were released that year. That look really bad nowadays.

>>380765362
Anon, physics have little to do with how a game looks. Back in the days the amount of VRAM was quite low, go up to some rocks and take a look at them, the texture resolution is abhorrent. Some ground textures are fine compared to games nowadays, but that's simply because most games nowadays have equally shitty textures, usually capping at 1024.

No matter what you say you're still using fucking CRYSIS, a game that stood out graphically for years after its release, whilst trying to argue graphics haven't improved over the years. To even suggest Crysis is an apt example of graphical state of video games 10 years ago is EXTREMELY disingenuos.

>>380761402
why would they stop targeting the initial versions of consoles? you can't cut them off. are the pro and s doing all that well?

>>380765362
>But it has better physics, lighting, and water than most modern games
No

File: crysis-1.jpg (149KB, 800x541px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 800x541px

>>380761402
>Where do you guys think graphics will be in 5 years?
For consoles? They might approach Crysis 1 level at that point.

File: smugwr.jpg (65KB, 558x344px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 558x344px

>>380767160
>Anon, physics have little to do with how a game looks

>>380766426
KH2 is also 30fps with drops bro.
>>380767160
>Anon, physics have little to do with how a game looks.
fuck off dumb nigger

File: surf failure.webm (3MB, 960x534px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 960x534px

>>380768953
Show me a game that can do something like this.

I'll wait.

graphics should stay the same, I hope it just improve on details like better AIs, better settings (Ultra) and stable frame rate.

File: Editor 2014-12-18 05-29-22-78.jpg (295KB, 1920x1068px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 1920x1068px

>>380767160
>MUH TEXTURES
Fuck you're autistic.

File: 1463830723761.jpg (10KB, 247x248px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 247x248px

>>380767160
>Anon, physics have little to do with how a game looks.
lmao

File: scully.png (388KB, 540x636px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 540x636px

>>380761402
I wouldn't care if graphics stayed the same or even regressed if games could get rid of shit like loading zones when moving from an open world into a building. Or that all lighting would be made fully dynamic so any light could be turned on or off.

In other words, first get rid of the design compromises that are caused by insufficient processing power. Then start improving the visuals if processing power increases. The most important aspect however is that every game's performance gets optimized to standard display refresh rate ie. 60fps or higher and desktop display compatible field of view ie. 90° or higher.

>>380772401
>KH2 is also 30fps with drops bro.
I never said it wasn't. (Though apparently PS4 version is 60)

I remember when the first Assassin's Creed was announced and thought it was crazy that they spend 2yrs building it. Now it's a regular occurrence for games to experience a 3yr+ development cycle.
It costs way too much money and time to produce a game nowadays. I believe we're about to hit the 'peak', hence this push for 4k. Graphics don't have to improve necessarily, just these other factors, e.g. resolution, framerate (we'll prob see 60fps being a selling point of PS5 or whatever), HDR, etc.
They're basically using it to freeze graphical enhancements in time, while the correct tools for streamlining the content creation progress get produced. Because what's happening right now is that graphics are starting to hinder progress in other departments, such as actual design innovations, e.g. play it safe because we've (publishers) have pumped too much money into this thing.

File: crysis_2017_06_16_16_39_08_611.jpg (4MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3840x2160px

>>380772883

>not using the POM+AF mod

Anon fix that shit, get on it.

>>380773210
Not in cutscenes lmao.

>>380774462
Sounds lazy

>>380773149

Leave it to an X-Files poster to make a good post. Good shit anon.

I would be 100% happy with Half Life 2 graphics as long as it came with something substantial. Bigger maps, more complex environments, better AI interaction etc.

>>380761402
WHO GIVES A SHIT
we have been playing the exact same games for over 10 years now. I don't even see the fucking difference in graphics.

>>380773149

this guy right here got the right idea. i wouldn't give a rat's ass of care if my game looked like some indie polygonal shit, if the transitions, menus, lighting and shit were smooth.

the trend to go for ultrarealism and heavier effects these days is kinda bothering me too, considering i have some eye problems. but that's just me.

>>380761402
individually simulated nose hairs

>>380773149
FOV calculated from your eye to monitor distance.

>>380774356
?
His screen looks better than yours.

>>380762724
Late 90s fps are mostly trash

>>380776963
he's running it just below the maximum settings, so it's lacking things like color grading, lightshafts, filmic grain, sharpening, good shading...

>>380776068
That's what I meant. FOV should be optimized for the most common configuration of display size and viewing distance. For many years, bad console ports have optimized FOV to a couch-TV distance and settled for 60°, which is very zoomed in in a normal desktop configuration.

>>380764258
thanks anon

I think we've reached the point of diminishing returns as far as graphics are concerned. At least until some new tech comes along.

>7th gen
bloom
>8th gen
chromatic aberration
>9th gen
???

>>380761402
>super realistic
>still using a controller and limited to a small number of buttons and actions

lol

>>380761402
I think graphics have become real enough that they have plateaued, with diminishing returns. I don't think they will look much "better" in 5 years as they already can look almost photo real.

I think and hope there will be a shift from trying to improve visual graphics to trying to improve physics and simulation graphics. Stuff like realistic volumetric water and interactive/destructible environments. I think this area of graphics is overlooked and it's what really makes game worlds feel real. I don't care about a hyper realistic environment if its all static, it feels like a fake display when nothing has phyics interactions.

>>380761402

We'll have this level of visual quality on headsets
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGyaR2sSBkA

File: 1497475211159.jpg (63KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 480x360px

>>380773952
UNDERAGE FAGGOT GET OFF THIS BOARD