Graphics will get better over time - Hype or Fact?

[KingVamp]

It was kind of like a cell system to make 3d graphics.

You post, before I was able to edit.

Are you talking about Unlimited Detail?

 

[Rydian]

A 3D model can be less time-consuming to make than a sprite, because out of ONE model you can get all sorts of movements, but for a sprite you need to re-do it for each frame of animation for each movement.

 

[dinofan01]

ummm yeah I think that was it looking at youtube. I remember seeing it a loooong time ago though... or Im crazy.

A 3D model can be less time-consuming to make than a sprite, because out of ONE model you can get all sorts of movement,s but for a sprite you need to re-do it for each frame of animation for each movement.

you also have to take in account a lot of devs use motion capture with their games. that extends the time and cost of the process. but not every game needs mo-cap

 

[DiscostewSM]

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

*image snip*

Pretty sure the game ran at a resolution of 320x240 (as opposed to the emulator's 640x480 screen shot), and the emulator enhanced the texture detail (even though the game's own microcode handled texture detail better than any other N64 game), but nonetheless, Conker's BFD was still top of the line in terms of visual quality, even over the highly rated SM64.

 

[Rydian]

From what I see it would render at a higher resolution than normal if you had the expansion pack, but I can't see what the native is.

EDIT: 320x240 resized to 640x480 with bilinear filtering (weakest filtering I can see, to approximate the blurriness of TVs) would look like this.

If I had some sort of NTSC filter like in ZSNES I'd do that instead.

 

[DiscostewSM]

Still impressive considering the limitations of the N64, and yeah, I'd assume it could run at a higher resolution with the expansion pack, as Rare did use it for DK64, made before Conker's BFD.

 

[KingdomBlade]

Deffently a fact! Every game system wants to have the best graphics.

I severely doubt that Nintendo wanted the Wii to have the best graphics. They wanted it to be the cheapest and most accessible, so they sort of went low with graphics and more with fun gameplay.

 

[Ikki]

We're talking about the games here, not the systems.

And no, it's not time what it takes. It takes elbow grease.

 

[Panzer Tacticer]

I am a wargamer, we don't NEED awesome graphics in our games, hence they are rarely much of a drain on a computer to run them.

Even so, some games can be really demanding other ways. Gary Grigsby's War in the East (pc wargame) will cost you more processing power to run than any other game on the market right now. That's flat fact. I have the game, I already know this.

But, it takes a bitching video card to run some graphically intensive shooters at best visual appeal. The thing is, they don't always need a processor and as much muscle as some of my wargames that possess graphics that look like that came from the 90s.

The above mentioned wargame, playing AI vs AI, will conk out after being given about 15 minutes of automated play running on a good dual core with 2 gigs of ram with a reasonably decent video card. It simply can't perform all the calculations fast enough.

Graphics in a game, are only as good as the person that designed the game required them to be.

So some games made today will simply not look better if there was no reason to have them.

As our doodads get more and more powerful, your options get better and better to dump more and more into the experience, if the person making the game feels like using the muscle.

Best thing I have seen a computer do recently, is out perform hohum singers. I'm a total Hatsune Miku fan eh.
She's not better than Celine Dion or Enya. But you can cram Lady Gaga who sucks ass.

 

[machomuu]

I am a wargamer, we don't NEED awesome graphics in our games, hence they are rarely much of a drain on a computer to run them.

Even so, some games can be really demanding other ways. Gary Grigsby's War in the East (pc wargame) will cost you more processing power to run than any other game on the market right now. That's flat fact. I have the game, I already know this.

But, it takes a bitching video card to run some graphically intensive shooters at best visual appeal. The thing is, they don't always need a processor and as much muscle as some of my wargames that possess graphics that look like that came from the 90s.

The above mentioned wargame, playing AI vs AI, will conk out after being given about 15 minutes of automated play running on a good dual core with 2 gigs of ram with a reasonably decent video card. It simply can't perform all the calculations fast enough.

Graphics in a game, are only as good as the person that designed the game required them to be.

So some games made today will simply not look better if there was no reason to have them.

As our doodads get more and more powerful, your options get better and better to dump more and more into the experience, if the person making the game feels like using the muscle.

Best thing I have seen a computer do recently, is out perform hohum singers. I'm a total Hatsune Miku fan eh.
She's not better than Celine Dion or Enya. But you can cram Lady Gaga who sucks ass.

Off Topic: What are you doing here, I thought you left?

On Topic: I think it's fact, though I usually don't care, it's part of the reason I love retro games so much.

 

[Deleted member 473940]

Graphics will get better, I guess thats a fact.
Games will run smoother at higher Frames Per Second and other factors.

However I must say I am a little dissapointed in the development of the last few years.

I will take Crysis as an example.

Original Crysis was WAY ABOVE anothing at its time, and still is in par of todays games(if not on the top graphics wise).
Crysis 2 and many newer games were just dissapointment comparing to some past games.

 

[Berthenk]

Common sense...
Technologies will always get better and less power-consuming. So if it costs less power to do more, we can do more if we increase the amount of power we can use.

 

[Deleted member 473940]

Common sense...
Technologies will always get better and less power-consuming. So if it costs less power to do more, we can do more if we increase the amount of power we can use.

Well yeah. Things are more "compact".
However I dont see that much rapid improvement in the last years to be honest.

Next Gen Consoles will sure make huge differnce. Not sure about Nintendo's next console, but I am sure Sony and Microsoft will have monstrous system. A graphics card thats as powerful as the GTX 590 maybe

!?

 

[Rydian]

Next Gen Consoles will sure make huge differnce. Not sure about Nintendo's next console, but I am sure Sony and Microsoft will have monstrous system. A graphics card thats as powerful as the GTX 590 maybe

!?

No, console graphics are actually much weaker then PC graphics.

You don't notice for two reasons.

1 - You can develop a lot more efficiently for a console because you don't have to account for hardware differences, thus you can get slightly better graphics with the same power.

2 - TVs look like shit so you don't really notice it's not as good. Most people don't know this because they don't sit two feet away from their TV like they do their monitor when playing an FPS.

 

[Deleted-247497]

Come on guys, its really just common sense. Developers will always get better at optimizing their games for the system; resulting in better looking games. A lot of your counter-examples are first party games which makes sense since they are working on their own hardware and know it better than anyone. Look at any console; even modern consoles like ps3/360. Games coming out now look a billion times better than launch games.

 

[Deleted member 473940]

Next Gen Consoles will sure make huge differnce. Not sure about Nintendo's next console, but I am sure Sony and Microsoft will have monstrous system. A graphics card thats as powerful as the GTX 590 maybe

!?

No, console graphics are actually much weaker then PC graphics.

You don't notice for two reasons.

1 - You can develop a lot more efficiently for a console because you don't have to account for hardware differences, thus you can get slightly better graphics with the same power.

2 - TVs look like shit so you don't really notice it's not as good. Most people don't know this because they don't sit two feet away from their TV like they do their monitor when playing an FPS.

I am quite aware that Console graphics are much weaker than PC. PC gets continues updates of new hardwares..
but we can still be sure that the next Gen consoles will be a HUGE step up in terms of graphics from this gen?

 

[Berthenk]

2 - TVs look like shit so you don't really notice it's not as good. Most people don't know this because they don't sit two feet away from their TV like they do their monitor when playing an FPS.

Ergo, the reason why PC games don't look at least 2 times better than console games. Also, read this.

Edit: did I quote the wrong part...? I don't remember...

 

[Rydian]

I am quite aware that Console graphics are much weaker than PC. PC gets continues updates of new hardwares..
but we can still be sure that the next Gen consoles will be a HUGE step up in terms of graphics from this gen?

I'm not all that sure.
The difference between 2xAA and 8xAA can be seen on a PC monitor, but is much harder to make out on a TV.
2048x2048 textures might look as blurry as 1024x1024 textures depending on the game.
You could do extra shader work for adjacent pixels, but would they be discernible on a TV?