Graphics will get better over time - Hype or Fact?

[Zarxrax]

Whenever a new system comes out and people are talking about the graphics quality, there will inevitably be the people who say "and these are just the first round of games! Imagine the kind of graphics we will see in 5 years when developers have learned to get the most out of the system!"

Do you think there is any merit to this statement?

Looking at games from years ago, we can see how this thought process came to be.
There is a HUGE difference between games like Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Bros. 3 on the NES, and another huge difference between Super Mario World and Yoshi's Island on SNES.
However, the NES and SNES both allowed extra hardware in the cartridge itself to extend the capabilities of the console. When we look at the graphics of Yoshi's Island, we are not seeing the power of the SNES, we are seeing the power of the Super FX 2 chip, which had over 5 times the clock speed of the cpu in the SNES itself!

Looking at later systems like the N64, we no longer see such drastic improvement in graphics quality. Super Mario 64, a launch title, is still recognized as being one of the best looking games for the system!
Looking at other systems such as the Nintendo DS, Wii, we also saw lots of great looking games early on in the system's lifecycle, and it would be hard to say that there has been a clear and noticeable increase in graphical quality over time. At least that is my viewpoint.

It's my opinion that as developers get more familiar with the systems, they might be able to squeeze a BIT of extra eyecandy out of it, but generally, what you see at the beginning is roughly similar to what you will see at the end.
Does anyone have a counter-viewpoint to this?

 

[ByteMunch]

I think the 3ds may be a little different, with the developers learning the tricks to the 3D viewpoints over time. Also, different engines may still be ported to the system, which may increase asthetics

 

[Dangy]

I think that graphics get better with each system released, not with each game released.

There are also things that come into play, like a highly-optimized graphics engine.

 

[twiztidsinz]

Fact.
Source: Every system out there.

Look at the first wave of NES/SNES/Genesis/N64/PSX/GameCube/PS2/ games vs the games put out near the end of it's life cycle. As developers get more "comfortable" developing for a platform they learn more 'tricks' and can get more things in there.
You're not going to get a MASSIVE increase, but you'll see a noticeable improvement in quality

 

[Nathan Drake]

Super Mario 64 is considered to be one of the best looking DS titles to date? lolno

The models are blocky as hell, only a small upgrade from the N64, and the textures in many areas are barely discernible. Games like Lufia and FFIV are ones that tried to push the DS graphically, especially DQIX. There are very obvious differences graphically between all of those games in comparison to 64 DS. Maybe not drastic, but definitely big improvements.

 

[Dangy]

Super Mario 64 is considered to be one of the best looking DS titles to date? lolno

The models are blocky as hell, only a small upgrade from the N64, and the textures in many areas are barely discernible. Games like Lufia and FFIV are ones that tried to push the DS graphically, especially DQIX. There are very obvious differences graphically between all of those games in comparison to 64 DS. Maybe not drastic, but definitely big improvements.

He was talking about the N64, not the DS.

 

[Sir-Fritz]

Super mario 64 isnt concidered one of the best looking games for n64 either.

 

[Dangy]

Super mario 64 isnt concidered one of the best looking games for n64 either.

Sure it is.

 

[Nathan Drake]

I still wouldn't call it even one of the best graphically on the N64. There were more than a handful of games that handled graphics far better.

 

[Rydian]

As developers get more "comfortable" developing for a platform they learn more 'tricks' and can get more things in there.

To add to this, sometimes some of the first games are worse than they could normally be due to time or other constraints. For example Super Mario World used 8bpp sprites (instead of the SNES's 16bpp) in order to fit twice as many in the same amount of space so the entire game could be 512KB.

 

[Recorderdude]

Super mario 64 isnt concidered one of the best looking games for n64 either.

Sure it is.

Games that look better than mario 64 (off the top of my head):

Conker's Bad Fur Day (The absolute best)

Donkey Kong 64

Goldeneye 007

Perfect Dark

Banjo Kazooie

Banjo Tooie

Diddy Kong Racing

Zelda OOT

Zelda Majora's Mask

Pokemon Stadium 1 and 2

Yeah, best-looking all right

But really, I think that there is still a lot of room for growth on any console. I mean, look at the PS2 as a perfect modern example. Compare Dynasty Warriors 2 (A PS2 Launch Title Brawler) to God Of War 2 and tell me if you see a difference in graphics

 

[Nebz]

Super mario 64 isnt concidered one of the best looking games for n64 either.

Sure it is.

Games that look better than mario 64 (off the top of my head):

Conker's Bad Fur Day (The absolute best)

Donkey Kong 64

Goldeneye 007

Perfect Dark

Banjo Kazooie

Banjo Tooie

Diddy Kong Racing

Zelda OOT

Zelda Majora's Mask

Pokemon Stadium 1 and 2

Yeah, best-looking all right

But really, I think that there is still a lot of room for growth on any console. I mean, look at the PS2 as a perfect modern example. Compare Dynasty Warriors 2 (A PS2 Launch Title Brawler) to God Of War 2 and tell me if you see a difference in graphics

Errrr aren't most of these games built on the same or a similar engine?
I would figure some would look better than others depending on the games they are.... Most of those Rare titles and Mario 64 are very cartoonish and, in my opinion, there was only so much you can do with detail.
Pokemon Stadium lacked in actual gameplay and script when compared to Mario 64 and most of the other games also... I remember a lot of repetitive animations and not much or if any movement in backgrounds.

I'd say for it's time, Super Mario 64 was considered pretty damn good at a graphical stand point.

 

[Zarxrax]

Conker's Bad Fur Day is so much better than Mario? Really?

I looked up screenshots of Conker, and it looks like crap. Everything is blurry and I can barely tell what I'm looking at in some screenshots.
http://ign64.ign.com/dor/objects/13960/con...?page=mediaFull
http://ign64.ign.com/dor/objects/13960/con...?page=mediaFull
http://ign64.ign.com/dor/objects/13960/con...?page=mediaFull

Not BAD for the N64 or anything, but I would hardly say that its leaps and bounds ahead of Mario 64.

 

[Rydian]

Conker's Bad Fur Day is so much better than Mario? Really?

I looked up screenshots of Conker, and it looks like crap. Everything is blurry and I can barely tell what I'm looking at in some screenshots.
http://ign64.ign.com/dor/objects/13960/con...?page=mediaFull
http://ign64.ign.com/dor/objects/13960/con...?page=mediaFull
http://ign64.ign.com/dor/objects/13960/con...?page=mediaFull

Not BAD for the N64 or anything, but I would hardly say that its leaps and bounds ahead of Mario 64.

Those are shitty shots off of a TV or analog capture card.

Here's something from the intro, done in an emulator (but at SD resolution with AA off to be fair).

 

[Mangofett]

Zelda MM is an EOL title for the 64. Compare it to SM64 and see the difference.

Also, look at GameCube. One of the last high-budget titles released was Zelda TP. And it was used as a launch title for the Wii. Add the two together and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Fact is, games take a long time to make. The games released near launch are rushed, more so than usual, on a platform that has barely been explored. Expecting better graphics over time should be common sense.

 

[dinofan01]

I agree with everyone here that graphics will get better and can continue to get better. But doesnt anyone else think we're gonna hit a point where it doesnt make sense to make better looking graphics? If we continue using polygons were gonna need massive teams to pump out these amazing graphics we're dreaming of. That takes money and at a certain point after continuous price raises on a single game, im sure consumers will stop buying and profit will drop off. I think the possibility is there but reality says you dont need infinitely better graphics.

 

[KingVamp]

I agree with everyone here that graphics will get better and can continue to get better. But doesnt anyone else think we're gonna hit a point where it doesnt make sense to make better looking graphics? If we continue using polygons were gonna need massive teams to pump out these amazing graphics we're dreaming of. That takes money and at a certain point after continuous price raises on a single game, im sure consumers will stop buying and profit will drop off. I think the possibility is there but reality says you dont need infinitely better graphics.

Not if it a way to make cheaper, but yet better graphics at the same time.

 

[dinofan01]

I agree with everyone here that graphics will get better and can continue to get better. But doesnt anyone else think we're gonna hit a point where it doesnt make sense to make better looking graphics? If we continue using polygons were gonna need massive teams to pump out these amazing graphics we're dreaming of. That takes money and at a certain point after continuous price raises on a single game, im sure consumers will stop buying and profit will drop off. I think the possibility is there but reality says you dont need infinitely better graphics.

Not if it a way to make cheaper, but yet better graphics at the same time.

which is why I said if we continue to use polygons. I recall this new technology. It was kind of like a cell system to make 3d graphics. Idk how realistic it is to assume devs would be willing to make a change. The future is unclear for sure.

 

[KingVamp]

I agree with everyone here that graphics will get better and can continue to get better. But doesnt anyone else think we're gonna hit a point where it doesnt make sense to make better looking graphics? If we continue using polygons were gonna need massive teams to pump out these amazing graphics we're dreaming of. That takes money and at a certain point after continuous price raises on a single game, im sure consumers will stop buying and profit will drop off. I think the possibility is there but reality says you dont need infinitely better graphics.

Not if it a way to make cheaper, but yet better graphics at the same time.

which is why I said if we continue to use polygons. I recall this new technology. It was kind of like a cell system to make 3d graphics. Idk how realistic it is to assume devs would be willing to make a change. The future is unclear for sure.

You do not think the tech or process behind polygons can be made cheaper?

 

[dinofan01]

I agree with everyone here that graphics will get better and can continue to get better. But doesnt anyone else think we're gonna hit a point where it doesnt make sense to make better looking graphics? If we continue using polygons were gonna need massive teams to pump out these amazing graphics we're dreaming of. That takes money and at a certain point after continuous price raises on a single game, im sure consumers will stop buying and profit will drop off. I think the possibility is there but reality says you dont need infinitely better graphics.

Not if it a way to make cheaper, but yet better graphics at the same time.

which is why I said if we continue to use polygons. I recall this new technology. It was kind of like a cell system to make 3d graphics. Idk how realistic it is to assume devs would be willing to make a change. The future is unclear for sure.

You do not think the tech or process behind polygons can be made cheaper?

Well just looking how much pricier the dev process has increased over recent years I would say no (in comparison to other polygonal games not sprite based). But then again Im just going off observations since im no programmer so I could be wrong.