As far as graphics are concerned, the only thing that we have to consider is the engine used to render, generate the 3d graphics. as we all know, they have different type of compression and encoding. those are the determining factors for system resources.

if they are to stick with our current cg software (whichever is out there in the 3d graphics industry), future graphics would then require greater amount of resources. but if they develop an engine where they can generate cg at high compression levels that are lossless and that if the software used can decode faster compared to our conventional ones, then we may consider lowering down system resources.

but as i see it, the only way is up:
up on graphics quality <--> up on system resources...

x-animeFreak-x

Right now tons of new video cards are coming out left and right. However do you think in the future that graphics will look soo realistic, that no ammount of additional pipelines or higher clock speeds will make a difference in how a game looks or runs. Also do you believe that a single video card ( or two if ATI/Nvidia is still competeing ) will become essentially standard in all computers? Course their will be other outlets for increasing game performance ( like physics) but do you think graphics will be perfected?

first of all, i beg to differ a lot on one of those statements. Many of the new engines require more power to run, FEAR wont run too well on anything less then a x1800 or 7800gt.

have you seen the farcry 2 engine? its insane
http://media.pc.gamespy.com/media/694/694190/vids_1.html
pretty much, that requires a far more poweful GPU.

nvidia has already stepped up quad sli, so my guess is that will become the prefered choice for high end graphics, just as a dual core cpu has become a standard, as quad core will become when intel releases kethsfield in q1 of 2007.


but, it doesnt really matter to me, im a nintendo freek, sure iv got a gaming rig too, but its game quality i look for, not flashy graphics

katamari anyone?

Right now, it seems like the nvidia 7 series (8 is coming out soon, right?) is overtaking ati radeon by a smidgen...
ati...efficiency
nvidia...eye candy

but with my x300 mobiliy radeon, i'm not one to talk...

Graphics perfected? Yeah, like everything else. I wouldn't be surprised if in 3 years there'll be video cards that can display graphics similar to nowadays' CGI movies (yeah... like FFVII AC).

But this tendency of improving graphics... is just wrong. Where do you leave the gameplay, the compatibility (aw crap, thinking about this makes my head hurt) and other important things?

kyousuke

But this tendency of improving graphics... is just wrong. Where do you leave the gameplay, the compatibility (aw crap, thinking about this makes my head hurt) and other important things?

you have a point. after all, the gameplay defines the game... not the graphics.

as for my video card, i have an ati radeon 9200se 128mb and i'm somewhat satisfied with it. i am not an extreme gamer but i do like a wide variety of games. and they all work well so far on my rig by lowering the settings. but of course, i would like to set everything to maximum for better gameplay (possibly, once i get a good card)... i spent so much on my processor, mobo and memory for my apps.

It goes without saying that graphics will get better. My proof is look at the late 1970's graphics compared to now.

I might have two 7800 GTXs but gameplay is more important to me. I think that there are some games that already look frighteningly real.

I think that sometime in the future, all graphics will look more realistic.

Before the Final Fantasy movie Spirits Within, computer generated movies didn't look nearly as good, but because of that technology that they developed, other movies can look that good too.

Same thing goes for games. The earliest realistic looking game I remember is Final Fantasy X, with Tidus and Yuna. I remember seeing a picture of him and thinking that was a real guy. A cute real guy no less. Now look at the Xbox 360. The graphics are great, I was playing Dead or Alive 4, and the water in looks really good.

So I'm sure that in the future, everything will look amazingly real. It's just a matter of time.

Yeah graphics will get better and better. But with more and more time spent on mapping / moddeling / etc. because you need more details devs will get more and more away from doing great gameplay like already mentioned.

And that's a problem. It's already getting worse.
I mean Q4 was a MP flop, while Q1 - Q3 had nice gameplay in MP.
Most CS players don't play CSS cause they don't like the gameplay.
FEAR was a MP flop.
And as some people think ut2k7 will also get a flop.

Most FPS games coming out nowadays aren't played long anymore. Most people still play games that are some years old. But yes there are good games and there will be good games, but it seems they will get less.

I myself am waiting for RTCWII (if it ever will come out. there's a xbox (i think) game beeing developed and ported to pc but I don't know about this) and hope it will get nice. ET was cool so I hope RTCW2 will get cool too.

Perfected graphics, maybe, but at what price? And not anytime soon for the vast majority of consumers at least. 10 years from now? Mainstream graphics... won't be "standard" until technology catches up (more pipelines/more efficient gpus). So unless you like big energy consuming, expensive electronics then not any time soon. Unless of course some magical hardware/software inovation comes around and revolutionizes bandwidth efficiency.

For the sake for consumers NO. Having choices wether good or bad is better than no choice at all. Competition is a good thing as it makes manufactures improve quality and lower prices. I truely hope that there isn't a standard video card.

I like gameplay as much as the "hardcore" gamer, but for the sake of my poor eyes, I cannot stand playing anything withoug AA/AF. Maybe in the future this won't be an option, but instead a standard as far as image quality goes.

I'm currently fine with todays "graphics." The only thing that bothers me is the limitation in the game itself. I'd much rather see improvements in AI, object interaction/manipulation , maps/worlds, physics, rather than graphics.

As far as it looks good, why not? But the problem is, it have the chance to look TO realistic and then its not fun.

ShooterInc

As far as it looks good, why not? But the problem is, it have the chance to look TO realistic and then its not fun.

I'm not so sure I'd agree with the whole realism being reversely proportionate to fun model, however I do believe that games, as forms of art, should be treated as such based on a vision and not just making attempts at mimicking reality (unless, of course, the point of the game is to do so, say in the case of a simulation or something).

That said, I'd love to play a shooter with the level of visuals found in, say, The Spirits Within with destructive environments and advanced physics. Please note that this is coming from someone who plays NES and HE-System games more often than modern ones. *rolls eyes*

Back to the initial topic, achieving graphic perfection... well, that depends on what you would call perfection. My definition would be that the system in question would be able to create graphics indistinguishable from real life, which would require that 3D objects be completely rendered inside and out and be made up of thousands - perhaps even millions of parts that would also need to be connected to each other with variables applied stating object densities, what they are capable of doing, etc - which could easily use billions of polygons in a single frame of animation. We'll probably see processing devices capable of understanding how objects are composed (think: Terminator) before we get to the point where it's feasible to model objects to that extent. Tools for creating this kind of stuff have advanced over the years, however the methodology hasn't changed all that much. In the meantime, I guess increasing texture sizes and shader effects incrementally will have to do.

Graphics, maybe, but then they have a problem with physics and modelling. Take wind for example: have you seen a single game with realistic wind? (And I do not mean that looped sprite-animation.)

The present videocard technologie is better then any game or software program supports. For instance, there are motherboards with Double Sli connections (4 vidcards). The possibilities of such system are endless, but even the best game on highest quality only needs one, maybe two of those cards. Overkill.
No, the perfection of graphics is totally not an issue nowadays, it's just that they (nvidia, ati) want you to believe it is. But for now, I think companies can put their effort in the development of larger storage systems (better graphics takes more space) and faster processors rather then releasing a 'better' videocard every month.

Give it time. The main reason you don't see things like wind calculation and its effects on the enviroment, true light sourcing, and other such effects is because it takes enormous amounts of processing power to do in real-time. It can be done (go looking for supercomputer simulations sometime), however you don't see it in game environments due to the technical limitations (Also note that they recently had to change the definition of the term "supercomputer" because desktop PC's had exceeded the previous denotation of the word). Developers have forged ahead in that field quite a bit in the last couple of years, and I think once engines make the migration to 64-bit native workspaces (talking PC's here), they'll begin to take advantage of the newfound power to work on little details.

I mean, look at Forza motorsport. If the developers are to be believed, the physics engine takes drafting, the centrifugal force and weight of engine components, and overall weight balance of the car into consideration. If they can do that on a 32-bit, 733MHz CISC processor, imagine what the soon-to-be-released dual and quad-core 3.0+ GHz 64-bit chips will be able to do.