Console graphics: are we leveling off?

[+Random Terrain]

What about this Euclideon stuff?

 

youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4

 

 

youtube.com/watch?v=5AvCxa9Y9NU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AvCxa9Y9NU

 

That F-ing guy is on drugs if he thinks those clips look real in the video above. I was yelling "that's not video of real stuff, you lying f*cker."

[Andromeda Stardust]

What about this Euclideon stuff?

 

youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4

 

 

youtube.com/watch?v=5AvCxa9Y9NU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AvCxa9Y9NU

 

That F-ing guy is on drugs if he thinks those clips look real in the video above. I was yelling "that's not video of real stuff, you lying f*cker."

I think they've got the right idea. I've dabbled a lot in the fractal rendering community. Most of the stuff I've done consists of 2D fractals, but many people are rendering 3d fractals, which have infinite detail. Using polygons would be impossible so other methods had to be developed. Trees, mountains, even the human body are fractal in nature. So it would be entirely possible to render a tree using a computer algorithm, inserting controlled randomness into all the elements, then using a similar random distribution to create a forest. Leaves are just a pattern of fractal veins woven into a shape. Branches extend outwards from the main tree based on a formula which is unique for every species. And obviously, the leaf is multireplicated across ever twig in the entire tree.

 

Here's an example of 3D generated fractal.

 

The stuff featured in the video is alien yes, but you could create algorithms to simulate natural objects of infinite detail and render them to a specific frame resolution. Architectural objects could be made from primitives instead of polys, but with real infinite detail on the surface (cracks in stone, etc...). The videos in the above post were made from infinitely replicating objects. You'd think it would eat up infinite amount of RAM but if the rules for generating the environment are all that are needed, these simple rule sets (which generate infinitely complex objects) might take far less memory that say a million polygons (which by the way would be vastly less detailed).

 

Still, I'm skeptical that their engine will be able to implement this generation. We are looking at at least 9th gen here, possibly 10th.

[Keatah]

Whether that is the way forward or not I couldn't say. To me it would be nothing more than a curiosity. Something to ponder on the pot. I've seen many technologies and techniques come and go; all claiming to be the next big thing. Sometimes these 1-off non-standard rendering methods made it far enough to get to the game stage. Remember Quadratic rendering on the NV-1? Or how about Voxels - first seen on Comanche? Maybe the PRISM graphics engine rings a bell for you..? Or the Challenger (?) engine from Zone Raiders?

 

I can tell you that the industry is very very entrenched in polygon rendering and it isn't changing anytime soon.

[+wood_jl]

Yes, we have reached a brick wall in terms of CPU speed. The theoretical max for Silicone CPUs is 8Ghz. The 8Ghz jump was broke with an AMD FX 8150 Bulldozer

 

<snip!> (and a whole lot more was posted)

 

Kudos for one of the most interesting posts I've ever seen on Atariage!

[omegadot]

Saying any tech has leveled off makes me figure I'm wrong, but I can say I haven't really cared about a graphic improvement since like half-life 2.

[Keatah]

I stopped caring about graphics improvements after and around the Doom III era. I guess modern-day programmers aren't smart enough to use the best graphics cards to their fullest potential.

[cimerians]

I was always happy with SNES graphics (or Genny).

 

As much as I'm a fan of the original Playstation and Saturn era systems I was never thrilled about the whole polygon 3D thing. I knew it was the only way to evolve as I was playing many 3D polygon type PC games at the time (Alone in the Dark etc)...I simply wasn't a big fan of it.

 

So I guess my favorite graphic era, after arcades fell by the wayside, was the SNES\Genesis period along with PC gaming during those days: Wolfenstein, Doom, Pool of Radiance, X-Wing, Ultima VII etc.

[Andromeda Stardust]

Another thing to keep in mind with 5th gen consoles was this was the start of 3D graphics era.

Ignoring 3D logic coprocessors on 4th gen consoles, PS1, N64, Saturn were the introduction pf the consumer to 3D graphics. The polygons were blocky and crude, similar to how rectangular pixels on the Atari VCS were crude. Be that as it may, the jump from 4th gen 2D to 5th gen 3D was the greatest generational leap ever, even bigger than pre crash -> NES. In my humble opinion, 3D started looking good starting with 6th gen and has stayed that way ever since. With later consoles, it's all Full HD and increasing poly counts and texture maps. PS4 and XBOne are just glorified PCs with closed hardware. At least Wii-U is doing sometjing original. Better yet, we've now gone full circle back to 2D, with indie titles ranging from breathtaking HD evnoronments to retro-inspired pixel games. Good stuff still happening in the game world, but the looming death of physical media has me concerned.

 

Yes, I still have a soft spot for titles like Mario 64, ect, and all the tons of platformers and racing games that came out then. But, like Atari, I can understand the sentiments of people who did not grow up with the consoles having issues with blocky graphics, whether pixel or polygon.

[Bill Loguidice]

... n bigger than pre crash -> NES. In my humble opinion, 3D started looking good starting with 6th gen and has stayed that way ever since. With later consoles, it's all Full HD and increasing poly counts and texture maps. PS4 and XBOne are just glorified PCs with closed hardware. At least Wii-U is doing sometjing original. Better yet, we've now gone full circle back to 2D, with indie titles ranging from breathtaking HD evnoronments to retro-inspired pixel games. Good stuff still happening in the game world, but the looming death of physical media has me concerned.

 

The only original aspect of the Wii U at this point is the ability to play offscreen using the gamepad. Otherwise, this "original" aspect of the Wii U is criminally underutilized and mostly an afterthought, much like the 3D aspect of the 3DS. In that regard, the Wii U is no different than its competition in that it really doesn't make interesting use of one its potentially more compelling features, e.g., Kinect on Xbox One, the controller on PS4, Vita integration on PS4, etc.

 

The fact of the matter is, whether its computers, smartphones, tablets, consoles, etc., we are in a period of mostly iterative developments. Certainly more innovative breakthroughs are going to follow at some point (augmented reality/VR has the most obvious potential at the moment), but for now we'll have to be content with minor improvements in speed, fidelity, etc.

[Andromeda Stardust]

Aside from the motion gaming fad, we haven't had any real breakthroughs since the polygon explosion during the 5th gen. MS and Sony just put out their 3rd iteration of the Xbox and PS2. Literally nothing has changed. Same basic controller design, same everything, just newer. That's why I believe 6th generation was where gaming first started to hit that plateau.

 

6th generation was basically when 3D polygon rendered games really started looking good, much like the precedent the 16-bit wars set for 2D sprites. And current gen games still don't look that much better, especially considering the developers like to pick a color pallet consisting of the gray/brown typically found in FPS. Why, because too much color makes it look cartooney and unrealistic.

 

Bah! Everybody is so focused on more polygons, more larger textures, HD, and trying to bridge that uncanny valley, that they forget to make the games innovative and fun. That's where indie developers and 1st party Nintendo games really start to shine. At least there are still those out there making games who haven't forgotten their roots!

[Bill Loguidice]

Bah! Everybody is so focused on more polygons, more larger textures, HD, and trying to bridge that uncanny valley, that they forget to make the games innovative and fun. That's where indie developers and 1st party Nintendo games really start to shine. At least there are still those out there making games who haven't forgotten their roots!

 

I hate to keep disagreeing about the Nintendo stuff because I'm not anti-Nintendo (or anti-anything really), but to be fair about the first party games on the Wii U and "innovation," Nintendo is just as guilty of rehashing the same material over and over again as anyone else at this point. As for the "fun" part, that's completely subjective. Bottom line, if you want innovation, you rarely can look to any major publisher/developer because the development costs are too high to assume the risk. You almost always have to turn to indies these days if you want something vaguely "innovative" (a loaded term if there ever was one).

[BydoEmpire]

Every generation there's discussion of leveling off, then the next generation comes out and it's "wow, great graphics." Diminishing returns, probably... That said, we've already long since passed the point where I care about the difference, and I don't really play modern games anymore so I'm not really the best judge.

[Keatah]

To me, now, last year's graphics card vs. present-day vs. next year's offering.. they're all one and the same.

 

Gone are the days when I purchased a console like the VCS or Intellivision and looked forward to the variety of games and their gameplay. Nowadays it seems all about DLC DRM, online stuff and graphics effects. Gets old real fast.

 

As much as I was a "graphics freak" in the dawning days of PC 3D, I never even thought about graphics quality on the first consoles. And I don't think about graphics now on the PC.

 

A jumble of thoughts to be sure. But I implore the graphics card companies to "impress me"!

[Omega-TI]

 

... I implore the graphics card companies to "impress me"!

 

I think there is one rarely mentioned factor that helps put the brakes on development.

 

Recouping investment costs and maintaining profitability.

 

Cards while more complex today, do not command the insane prices and profits like they once did in the golden era. The cards have to be out there a while before they hit the 'profitable mark'. The companies and investors want to get every last dime out of their investment before they release the next 'greatest thing'. And if they are in the #1 spot at any moment in time, they will be loath to rock the boat.

 

Paradigm shifts or leaps in video technology usually require a whole new set of build engines, to make the new games capable of showing the new formats, that takes quite an investment in time and money, not just from the graphics card designers, but from the software houses and all the other companies involved. That's a lot to risk, especially when there are so few companies in the market anymore.

 

The computer gaming industry has matured, it's not like the wild west anymore with new companies forming in their mother's basements or garages. The level of technology has become too small and sophisticated for the single man operation to make the next 'killer video card'. Game software requires entire teams of programmers, artists, etc. Long gone are the days of the single programmer making the ultimate video game. Thousands of jobs in multiple companies can be on the line, sometimes the best course of action, in many business models is to play it safe and move only when profits start to drop.

 

Then, with so many people happy with just cellphone quality... (just MHO).

[Flojomojo]

I think the jump from nothing to Pole Position was way larger than the jump from Pole Position to something like Driveclub. I'm approaching the point where I have trouble seeing, let alone appreciating, the jump between PS3 and PS4 except for specific things like lighting and shadow complexity. Then again, I still like Atari games.

 

As for CPU and Moore's Law slowing down ... there aren't that many games out there that really tax any modern CPU. The work is being done by the GPU, and that technology seems to still be moving ahead, especially on mobile.

 

Clock speeds aren't getting any faster, but that's OK because that measurement isn't the whole story. It's like RPM (revolutions per minute) on an engine. You care about the power it puts out, not how many times it spins around. Making the processors smaller and therefore more efficient and you have more effective power.

[Keatah]

Maybe we're finally seeing a slowdown in the evolution of the graphics chip. It would be welcome too. I say that because no game out there really pushes the hardware. And it couldn't even if it tried. You've got too many high-level APIs getting in the way. Billions and billions of cycles are wasted by supporting those APIs.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Keatah

[Andromeda Stardust]

@Flojomojo: While it is true that CPUs aren't getting any faster, they are getting more powerful. By adding cores, it's like going from a single stroke engine to twin stroke, to 4-banger, to V6, to V8 and possibly V12. Bigger engines can't run higher RPMs than smaller engines but they sure as hell have a crap-ton more torque. If the game designer can't fully max out an eight core processor, then blame it on bad programming. Different parts of the engine can be subdivided up and assigned different threads, as many as necessary.

 

My desktop machine is running an 8 core AMD FX 8150 Bulldozer @4.2Ghz (Max turbo rating), and those cores as well as the newer AVX instruction sets are extremely helpful at maximizing the speed of deep zoom fractal rendering. And I have a midgrade video card (midgrade as of January 2012) with 96 cell processors, that runs quiet and does it's job. My computer is already pulling nearly 300 watts when the CPU maxed out, so I don't need a 300w video card w/ 1536 cells (which would have been "obsolete" in a year's time) howling like a race car and contributing to the exhast heat behind the desk. Be that as it may, the most modern game I've played on PC is BeJeweled 3 (my mom enjoys it) and we have the Mac version installed on the 2006 Mini (later upgraded to 2Gb RAM, 2.0Ghz Core 2 Duo, and OSX 10.6.8 Snow Leopard).

 

Currently the latest AMD proc has a slightly more efficient pipeline and can turbo to 5Ghz, but that's not enough performance gain to justify buying a new processor. And it's 3 years since Bulldozer came out. I would have fully expected 16-core processors in the desktop segment by now but it hasn't happened yet. Starting to lose faith in AMD. Intel's gone down in price but their still stuck on the i9s.

 

Either way, I think it's safe to say that Moore's Law has finally failed us...

[Video]

I noticed huge differences from atari to nintendo, to 16 bit, even to 32/64 (jaguar) for 2D games, but that was about the peg for 2D games. The graphics ceased to get any better, you just got more complex environments, bigger levels, things like that. Same with 3D graphics, PS2 and 64 are ass ugly (surprisingly the Jag does 3D quiet well, probably due to not really supporting textures at all, kind of how 3D on the SNES/Genesis looked nicer than a lot of PSX games. But still, I noticed a huge jump from PSX/64 to Dreamcast/PS2. And another jump from DC/PS2 to the Xbox/Gamecube. But after that, not really. The PS3/360 didn't really look any more impressive to me. I could notice some of the differences, like more realistic physics, destructable environments, better AI, stuff like that, but graphically, not really (hell, Nintendo didn't even bother that generation, haven't seen a wiiU so can't comment there) And same with Xbox one and PS4, no real graphical improvement. Actually, I did notice better dark color graphics, like they have a better color palate for dark colors, but even with a side by side comparison, it's hard to put a finger on what is different.

 

Like with 2D, now they are going to be working on better AI, more innovative controlls, bigger environments, destructability, things like that.

 

I seriously doubt we'll see much more improvement till GOOD 3D becomes widely available, and then, probably only once your able to actually project 3D instead of having flat screen do 3D. (holograms, maybe even something like holodeck)

 

To be honest, games from a few years ago actually LOOK better to me than a lot of modern crap. It's not that you can't see the potential for the graphical detail, it's just they put so much into the games and choose ass colors till it looks faker than the previous games. Take Blackops 2 to ghost, or Halo reach to halo 3. There's certainly more detail on the later games, but the earlier ones look better.

 

Anyhow, yeah, I think looks wise, we have plateaued. It's time to start seeing other improvements in games.

[cybercylon]

As many have said... ditto on the better AI. If there is another single player Elder Scrolls game, I want the NPCs to be doing different things and saying different things every time you enter a town or village. For example, I am decked out in new fancy armor, so it would be nice to have the NPC say something, but not again when I revisit the same town in the same armor. Their own clothing should change and comments should be rarely repeated, if ever. Right now, if I walk into Whiterun, everyone originates from the same place, says the same things over and over. Not very realistic.

 

Actually, the sandbox rpg's are where we may notice a graphical difference. As fun as Skyrim, Fallout 3, etc were, they are not very pretty games on the console.

[skaredmask]

I think what ever ones notived is the lack of art direction and not a vary wide range of game verify and vary limted use of different game engines.

 

The last Space combat game I've played on console was Starwars Rouge leader 2. Before that was star lancer on the dreamcast. When you compare the differences between a space combat game to a frist person shooter that is mainstream today you'll probly notice that you have different challenges with different game engines one might be better at effects while one is better at rendering more objects on the screen and this is where the game artists and game engineers debate on what engine will they use for there game.

 

This brings up Nintendo and most of there frist party games. While the Wii was'nt as powerful as the xbox360 or the ps3 many people still enjoyed unique and verity art styles that Nintendo used. Great examples of these art styles that Nintendo used can be seen with the Legend of zelda twlight princess compared to skyword sword and even can be seen in mario galaxys and xseeds Xenoblade chronicles. While fallout and oblivion look vary similar cuased thet used the same engine even though are to totally different games

 

I think there isn't enough diversity in gamming as there was in 2000 and before thats why it seems like graphics are leveling off. So you see the same game engines get used cuase they exacle at what mainstream is (FPS) right now.

 

So depends on what you going for but the more realistic you go the more it takes away from the players imagination.

Edited November 6, 2014 by skaredmask

[Bill Loguidice]

I think there isn't enough diversity in gamming as there was in 2000 and before thats why it seems like graphics are leveling off. So you see the same game engines get used cuase they exacle at what mainstream is (FPS) right now.

 

So depends on what you going for but the more realistic you go the more it takes away from the players imagination.

 

I couldn't disagree more. If anything, art styles from 2000 onward have become more diverse because there are fewer technical limitations. It's easy to point to the popularity of FPS and sports games, but the reality is, as with any mass media (movies, music, books, etc.), if you look past the mega blockbusters, you have a rich diversity of stunning visual creations.

 

Want some fairly recent examples? Rayman Legends, Braid, Pac-Man C.E., Flower, Ico, The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker, Okami, El Shaddai: Ascension of the Metatron, etc. The list can go on and on, particularly if you mine all the multi-platform indies that are available.

[+save2600]

Not sure about this rich diversity thing.. all these modern games look exactly the same to me.

[adamchevy]

If it looks just like real life then no thanks. I think games that use my imagination to develop the game, coupled with strong and unique gameplay , instead of life like graphics are a much better experience. I think the industry needs to take a hard look at the homebrew scene and hire some real creative talent.

[Nebulon]

 

I couldn't disagree more. If anything, art styles from 2000 onward have become more diverse because there are fewer technical limitations. It's easy to point to the popularity of FPS and sports games, but the reality is, as with any mass media (movies, music, books, etc.), if you look past the mega blockbusters, you have a rich diversity of stunning visual creations.

 

Want some fairly recent examples? Rayman Legends, Braid, Pac-Man C.E., Flower, Ico, The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker, Okami, El Shaddai: Ascension of the Metatron, etc. The list can go on and on, particularly if you mine all the multi-platform indies that are available.

From what I've observed, there certainly has been a reduction in the variety of approaches to in-game mechanics and visual aesthetic in the modern era. I would argue that the amount of variety from 1975 to 1985 is greater than from 2004 to 2014.

 

 

Two key items that have contributed to this in recent years are:

 

1) There's a very limited number of ways that 3D content can be created for modern systems, so you can expect the various developers' products to look and 'feel' similar to one-another (partially) due to this..

 

2) Investor-driven funding has led to favoring of that which has a track-record of selling well. The emphasis on guaranteed return-on-investment and larger (and more risky) budgets has led to fewer game 'types' and discouragement of new ideas.

 

 

In the early years, Atari's coin-op division set out to avoid duplicating an idea once they had developed it. They placed emphasis on new ideas for each project. Looking at the same era of SEGA arcade games, you can see the same level of raw inventiveness.

 

My diversified list includes:

 

Tac/Scan

Marble Madness

Sinistar

Tempest

Pole Position

Gravitar

I-Robot

Tail Gunner

Tank

Major Havoc

TRON

Centipede

Astro Blaster

Star Trek : STOS (1982)

Mr. Do's Castle

Battlezone

Gauntlet

Venture

Time Pilot

Missile Command

Frenzy

Paperboy

Defender

Warlord

Golgo 13

Q*Bert

Ghosts n' Goblins

Joust

Robotron

Reactor

Zektor

Crystal Castles

Crossforce

Elevator Action

Zaxxon

Space Harrier

Frogger

Discs of Tron

Scramble

1942

Vanguard

Yar's Revenge

Space Wars

Two Tigers

The Glob

Qix

Bubble Bobble

Moon Patrol

Front Line

[Bill Loguidice]

From what I've observed, there certainly has been a reduction in the variety of approaches to in-game mechanics and visual aesthetic in the modern era. I would argue that the amount of variety from 1975 to 1985 is greater than from 2004 to 2014.

 

Of course it would appear that way. From 1975 - 1985 it was relatively easy to break new ground since there wasn't much that came before it. By 2004, you had literally hundreds of thousands of games already created. Arguably, the most innovation then and now has been to changes in controllers and control schemes, not to the games or the activities conducted therein. The other difference between 1985 and 2004 was that one was still relatively small business, while now it's big business, with greater risks. Although we have more games and diversity than ever, there is definitely less risk taking for the games with the largest budgets. That's to be expected, though. It's not like you see movies with $200 million budgets taking big risks. When the stakes are that high, you have to play it safe. Again, all that applies to mass market stuff. The indie market is arguably bigger and stronger than ever and they can take whatever risks they wish.