what will in-game graphics look like 10 years from now?

>10 years from now
>example is 30 year difference

Like today, but with slightly better resolution and draw distance.

Hopefully at least as good as The Witcher 3.

>>386742397
Yeah how much "better" can it get. You will be able to use a lot more light rendered by better shaders and make it artificially stunning. But we've achieved near realism already.

So what he said >>386742397
Greater draw distance, resolution and synthetic buffing

>>386742010
I hope they will be able to do good looking females at that point

File: polygons.jpg (73KB, 625x313px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 625x313px

About the same.

>>386742010
The same but with a little bit of difference that only a graphics nazi would notice

>>386743118
No idiot.

The biggest differences will come from lighting and shadows. Real-time lighting, shadows, and particle effects will be pushed to insane levels. Expect more realistic real-time fluid simulations, and most importantly, better framerates.

honestly i wish devs spent more time on performance and render distance than modeling and texturing 459 different dog turds

They will probably start leaning away from realism and the trend will move towards something more akin to a real time Pixar style, with better boob physics.

>>386743241
>better framerates


Stopped reading there

File: 1498585101905.jpg (92KB, 612x612px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 612x612px

honestly? I dont give a fuck
I just want good gameplay
but that's too much to ask apparently

>>386743241
>better framerates.
We can only hope, but the resolution meme is going to keep getting pushed.

Going from 2d to 3d is more of a turning point than going from 3d to 3d. Resolution is the new bitwar.

>>386743241
IMO those things havent improved much in the last decade already.

The more complex messes and texturing have made rendering the same style of shadows and lighting exponentially more taxing that you end up with a similar visual in the end. And it will likely continue in this direction.

>>386743241
>better framerates
lmao

just wait until monitor manufacturers start shilling motion blur-less monitors
you're going to see some deliciously smooth moving pictures

>>386743118
this image is fucking retarded, the 60000 tri model is clearly identical to the 6000 one since all they did was take the 6000 mesh and add tris to it rather than creating a new mesh using 60000 tris like they did with the 6000 tri mesh versus e.g. the 600 tri mesh. In short, it's extremely misleading.

>>386743468
>those things havent improved much in the last decade already.

Surely that's a joke? I know UE4 uses some cheap tricks that make it less than perfectly accurate, but fuck off. Look at a game from 10 years ago and compare it to D44M. The particle effects, the lights and especially reflections of the lights, there's a massive difference.

Compare Enemy Territory: Quake Wars to Quake Champions.


Now, if you want to argue graphics were only that shit because consoles held things back, maybe, but even Crysis looks bad compared to those titles now.

File: test2.webm (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

great

>>386743617
Like an autist you're taking it too literal and not understanding that it's conveying a concept of diminishing returns.

>>386743885
no shit you get diminishing returns when aiming for a set point vastly below reality, the image is retarded and so are you

>>386742010
Resolution will go so high no one will even care how many pixels are on screen.

>>386744058
But that's all it's conveying, you're expecting more from it then it's meant to communicate.

>>386743658
over the shoulder camera was a mistake, this looks awful

>>386743658
swiggity swooty

>>386743885
>>386743617
>>386743118
>>386744147

Not that guy but he's right, in a model designed with 10x the polys from the get-go there'd be a lot more detail. Those buttons wouldn't just melt into the clothing, and the ruffles in his clothing could be modeled properly, instead of being smooth lumps. The hair around his ears, etc.

Whoever made it wants to say "eventually, more polygons won't matter" but they said it in the wrong way to make it easy to digest for retards or something.

>>386744196
yeah the game sucks, I refunded it

>>386743885
>>386744147
Another thing to keep in mind is if you have more tris to work with, not only can you make more detailed models but you can have more models present as well - environments with far more intractable objects as said objects can be complete models rather than modelled into the environment like most game environments currently do - similarly, you can pull off much larger environments without sacrificing polys for distant objects (something that'll become more important at 4k+ resolutions).

>>386744147
it's an entirely misleading image, it tries to communicate the concept of diminishing returns in graphics, by aiming for a poorly modeled bust of beethoven. We've got fucking billion dollar movies rendered on world-class superclusters that still make ridiculous progress every year, you think video games are anywhere close to hitting diminishing returns?

Pretty much the same but with higher resolution/texture.

We have reached a level today where the developers can finally have a choice of how they make their games.
They can make a cartoon game with simple maps and simple textures or a realistic with a lot of vegetation.

Back then they could only make 2D because that was the only possible thing to do.

>>386744273
I mean in any game, over the shoulder just obscures an entire side of the screen. It should only be used like in mass effect, where it only goes over the shoulder when you take your weapon out

>>386744409
You guys are killing me.
Yes there is a lot of factors that the image is not taking in to account. Whats the resolution? How close are we able to move the view port up to the mesh? Are we using texture methods to simulate more complex meshing? Is tesalisation in use?

None of these are relevent to simply conveying a concept of diminishing returns and that it its a thing. Thats all the image is doing.

And after you hit that threshold, whatever it may be depending on all of your other variables, your effort is likely better spent elsewhere.

Slightly better than now. Dont forget crysis 1 is 10 years old

>>386744758
if it wanted to convey a concept of diminishing returns maybe it shouldn't be ridiculously dishonest
might as well make a cube with 400000 polygons and complain about "diminishing returns" lol, fucking fraud

>>386744758
what >>386745258 said.
Also, in my post (the one you replied to) my point was that if you have access to a higher poly count, you couldn't use it on one model like that statue anyway, developers would be more inclined to use it on higher-detail environments: a higher poly count is especially useful for constructing realistic terrain.

>>386745258
How is it dishonest?
Using a cube would be a good example it self as well. As it shows that you only need so many vertices to communicate visually said object.

>>386745375
I know, I'm not saying you're not right that developers wouldn't use their resources else where, but thats exactly what I'm saying. Did you not read actually read >>386744758

>>386744758
>>386745516
I think you're missing the point here - developers typically scale down the quality of an object, not scale up like that image conveyed - Yes, if you only need simple geometry for an object (like the cube example), then higher tris wouldn't be at all necessary. However, this isn't what that image conveyed at all, which is why I called it misleading. If the image was meant to convey the idea of simpler objects not needing the higher tris, then it did an awful job of it with the incredibly misleading statue comparison that wasn't using the 60000 tris to create a new mesh unlike the previous meshes did. At some point there will be diminishing returns, but to what extent depends wildly on the game - and, in ultimately, it'll always be beneficial to be able to use a higher poly count, since it allows developers to create smoother than smoother curves, so I fail to see why anyone would even want to frame this as a negative.

>>386745516
>How is it dishonest?
>Using a cube would be a good example it self as well. As it shows that you only need so many vertices to communicate visually said object.
Because we're not striving for cubes and shitty busts made by amateurs, we're striving for fully rendered worlds with the visual fidelity of real life

if the image was replaced with a 4 poly tetrahedron evolving into a 6 poly cube that evolves into a 60000000000000 billion poly cube, that would be dishonest, because nobody with good sense and the rendering power of god would be making a game about fucking cubes.

>>386745958
>>386745982
Missing the forest for the trees

>>386742010
why is she doing that pose?

>>386746102
amazing, it's like you ignored all the points of my post entirely just to post an idiom.

File: maxxy.jpg (162KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1280x720px

>>386742010

heres about a 7 year diff. so you can imagine how far we'll go.

>>386746102
yes, that's what the image does, it would see one fully realistically rendered tree (using three overheating 2080ti's for that single model) and proclaim graphics as "finished", forgetting that trees generally come in forests.

we're already hitting the limits of hardware. in terms of semiconductor size we can't get much smaller than where we're at. that combined with >>386743118 means we're not going to see significant leaps until there's some sort of paradigm shift.

>t. someone who works with 3d grafix

>>386746290
I understand what you're getting at, but you're looking for far more nuance then what the image is for. Its a simple concept that is conveyed in a vacuum. But if you so please we could continue this thing of going in circles.

>>386746532
I already explained why the image is misleading in my very first post in the thread, it's you that kept me going in circles about it.

File: IMG_0062.png (13KB, 744x615px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 744x615px

>>386742010
>caring so much about the graphics of video games instead of the gameplay which actually matters
Sonybros everyone

>>386746408
Geralt aged like wine.

>>386746508

That's just intel and co. milking the shit out of silicon while there is still gold left in the mine. If some powerful company came in today and started investing in graphene etc. Intel would feel threatened and increase their emerging technologies budget up the ass.

When you are at top is careful balance of milking as much as possible but investing just enough to not get 1upped by other companies.

Right now intel is planning on silicon alternative tech having play beyond 2024. We will have to wait and see.