games

Look at what Nintendo's been doing for the last like 20 years. PS2 level graphics but great game design

I've always felt that photorealism takes second place to good art direction. You look at Half Life 2 and it's dated, but Team Fortress 2 hasn't aged a day despite being old enough to vote.

Make it 10. MGSV is the apex of how good a game should look.

I think photo-realism is nice and all, but I think devs shouldn't focus too much on it. I'm not saying they should avoid it. Just don't obsessive over it, or see it was the main selling point of a game.

I really do appreciate the impressive work that devs have put into games, whether the graphics are on the higher end or lo-fi 8bit or 16bit style.

Personally, I really like cel shaded games, and that's been around a long time already. When I see something that "looks" like a cartoon, my mind naturally thinks of fun. 😃

We got two chokepoints. I feel like graphics have not improved significantly for a little bit that is true. However one problem is way to much stuff can't be re used. So, games will be made with thousands of hours of work done on assets. Then next game will use all new assets for thousands of hours more work. They really need to make some system by which we can keep adding to asset library's instead of just having to make new stuff all the time.

The second is we need way more processors cause when you see good ray tracing it really is a wild step up in quality but it is super resource intensive. So maybe when we get reasonable level biocumputing I dunno. However that will be for first time in a while I feel like graphics really jumped up in quality.

tbh I think they looked good enough by around 2011

I would argue that there isn’t really an important technological development for consumers in about or over 10 years.

I'll take lovingly designed art within old graphics over high fidelity rusty fences any day.

the atmospherics in RDR2 really are bonkers. after a long time away (a year, easy), i was dicking around in the rdr online with a friend a week ago. kind of re-learning how to do basic shit, exploring/remembering places, bow hunting, hand to hand fighting, roping/dragging npcs, etc in a few different areas. neither of us have upgraded our systems since before it came out and neither of us can even run it at max/ultra video settings either.

it still looks absolutely crazy in 4k at like medium/high settings.

they kinda eff'd us, imo, by not including the gta5 director mode thing for recording sequences in game for later render. i didn't really get into playing with that until a few years ago. the amount of high effort stupid videos i would make with rdr online would be mind boggling.

Back in 2002 FFXI had special sequences for making your character that pushed the PS2 to it's limit and still look pleasing today. If graphics stayed like this I would be fine with that.

I've read this same title every year for the past 15ish years

UE5 games like Wukong look amazing tbh. It's like touching grass without touching grass. Do older games also look great? yes of course, but new games also look great. also.

as well.

therefore.

Only Kojima is allowed to do graphics. I like what he's cooking with Death Stranding 2.

They looked good enough a decade ago, PS4 and XBO were dogshit hardware but holding graphics back was actually beneficial, funny enough

Games already looked good enough ~~5~~ 15 years ago

FTFY. Games don't need to have graphics that are better than PS3 games.

I too watched the Jacob Geller video about this

Graphics can be good while also being well optimised but the issue here is a big commercial engine like unreal is designed to cut labour hours not run well. Crapitalism.

Most new graphics technologies could with clever application be used to enhance a game however it may be that it's used to cut dev time. For example:

• upscaling and framegen to avoid the optimisation pass towards the end of development
• raytracing to avoid carefully designed baked lightmaps
• nanite to avoid making LOD's, nanite isn't magic it has its own major issues
• software rtgi also is a cheap way to avoid just using decent baked lights and it ue5 looks awful with so much artifacting
• automatic terrain generation to ynow

The effects aren't really intended to elevate the game but to reduce the cost of labour making them. An engine that both looks good and performs well takes a very long time to develop but instead you get the fuzzy ue5 mess where every game looks the same and runs terribly with perpetual stutter

I feel like unreal 5 is having a much, much bigger impact on movies and motion graphics than it is on video games

Games already looked good enough decades ago.

Halo 1 still looks good. Chaos Theory was mind breaking.

BF1 and maybe BFV are where I'd be happy to end it at. Photogrammetry on the frostbite engine changed the game.

Me playing the original Gran turismo for ps1

"Wow graphics can't get better than this!"

Control is pretty but it does have some noticable weak points:

• Raytraced shadows are quite grainy, I think due to inferior denoising in the RTX implementation shipped with the game. You can actually improve this by modding in newer dlls and stuff for the game to hook into.
• Texture streaming is pretty poor, lots of blurry low res placeholders hanging around long after I've gotten close to them. Particularly noticable with portraits.

Besides, pushing the graphical boundary is also important because it leads to greater efficiency as new techniques are discovered. For instance, raytracing is much easier to implement on the developer side than rasterized lighting, which frees up more time to work on the actual game. But if we rested on the laurels of 2017's finest lighting tech we never would have arrived at that point.