What's the point in bigger and beefier machines when graphics won't improve much?

What's the point in bigger and beefier machines when graphics won't improve much?

Attached: polygon-count-diminishing-returns-consoles.jpg (625x313, 82K)

This image is dumb and the thread is probably bait but you can do more with increased processing power than just dump more polygons onto your character models.

if you believe this image then you are a retard

what an original shitpost OP I'm sure it will get a lot of replies

Graphics with ray tracing are becoming viable, so that's incorrect. Player models have hit a wall and are probably not going to improve all too much, but world models and lighting interactions can certainly improve a lot. The issue now is that very few engines currently in use had any ray tracing support considered when they were made, and ray tracing hardware is not quite ready for full use.

I think it's less about the graphics themselves and more about how much can be handled at one time. It'd be very interesting and cool to play a game where every inconsequential NPC was just as highly detailed and rendered well as the high-poly player. GTA IV is one of the worst offenders of this, Niko is relatively high quality (for the time) and all of the NPCs were made early in development so you've got clipping and extremely low res textures. Even newer games like RDR2 have this, though the gap is being closed quickly.

its 60,000 polygons for one character, but that's the main character, the rest of the world isn't using 60,000 polygons on each thing. Trees and bushes and buildings are still flat.

What's the point in bigger and beefier machines when the gameplay has been going downhill for over twenty years and is now basically nonexistent?

That's the real fucking question, and Yea Forums can't answer it.

Someone post the counter-argument picture with extra details added at higher polygons.

Attached: 1529946739021.jpg (160x160, 3K)

polygons

>graphics won't improve much
WRONG MUTHAFUCKA
YOUR OWN PICTURE PROVES YOU WRONG

Increasing polygons has diminishing returns, but higher processing power affords artists more graphical detail with improved LIGHTING, SHADOWS, WATER, FOLIAGE, etc.

YOU ARE A RETARD

Attached: 1543907868345.png (195x156, 55K)

I don't understand what's the obsession with wanting to rebute this image, sure it's dumb but the point makes sense. The big leap of lowpoly to high poly was already made. Sure here it's badly shown on purpose for baiting but even the fixed image doesn't cut it, it shows details that won't get noticed when the MC is shown from further away and on motion, no one notices that unless it's a cutscene model.

The whole point is that the big leap of low poly to high poly was already made and since then, being impressed by graphics has not been as prevalent, hence, the switch or the Wii for example.

why post all that shit when the first post already said it

Play better games you mongoloid

Image quality depends on more than just polygons of models

That is absolutely bullshit, You can always add more details.

nvm found it

Attached: 6vCXW0G.png (1006x1007, 492K)

This image triggers anyone with any modeling knowledge

Couldn't you just make large games as we know them today, but even larger? Like Sekiro, but with 3 times as many moving parts?

Anyone arguing about processing power and pointing to polygons is a fucking brainlet.

Attached: 1546062358073.jpg (226x223, 6K)

Yeah but I remember when the PS2 came out how everyone was impressed about actual characters looking like humans, regardless of wheter you cared about graphics you were impressed, now you are not going to be impressed unless you are a graphicsfag, people already have an expectation of graphics

How else can you justify the $10k machine the big companies tell you to buy?

>implying polygons matter

Download blender and make a cube with 100k or 1000k tris. Save it as fbx.
Go to Google and download a 4k or higher resolution picture.
Check the file size for both and see why polygons mean nothing.

>added "details"
What a waste of time. Just apply some texture into that shit instead.

Graphics can get better each year or whatever you think will happen, but all these games coming out suck and nothing is going to change that. I don't care how pretty looking they are.

have sex

This should have been the 1st post

BUT I WANT TO ZOOOOOOM IN ON HIS DICC

>counter-argument
That picture just does a better job at conveying the very same concept of diminishing returns. Which was the point of the original picture.
It's not a counter-argument. It's a less lazy illustration.

>picture
Lmfao

Adding more detail might make a game look prettier but when you start playing and everything moves around, jumping, flashing, blooming and casting high res shadows everywhere it will be a shitshow for your eyes always.
I noticed with new games I tend to be overwhelmed by the details.

mods, ban please

Gaming peaked with Galaga

Attached: 51Hi6VuZeRL.png (1920x1080, 34K)

To be ready to train my AI waifu.

Attached: F00L2FOJEOIKCVA.png?width=1200.png (1200x1000, 77K)

That's what Infinite Design is for. point cloud rendering > polygons

>600 TRIANGLES
KINO

Retard

>believe
what is there to believe. its self evident that adding more triangles has diminishing returns which is why most of the work that rendering engines do is unrelated to triangles since its essentially a solved problem

I just want bullets and swords to tear clothing.

FUCKING WHEN

Attached: this.png (711x826, 131K)

>improved LIGHTING, SHADOWS, WATER, FOLIAGE, etc.
What if all those have dimishing returns too?

Even if there were no such things as lighting, particle effects and physics, this image would be misleading, because you could still put up ten times the models going from 6k to 60k polygons on screen. This guy gets it.

Still, I do agree that in the last couple years, graphics haven't become much more visually pleasing, but that's because nobody cares to optimize games anymore. Other programs, too. Every program these days is so incredibly bloated. I have a small laptop that is literally useless because it has "only" 4GB RAM and Windows 10 just idling already drains 2.5-2.7GB. As soon as I open Firefox, I get spammed with the "NOT ENOUGH RAM CAUSING SLOW DOWN" Windows message.

eventually they do but we're nowhere near that point yet
then you can always increase scale

basically like having greater render distances in minecraft or more npcs at once in gta, things like that

Then just come up with the next unnecessary large resolution.

Style >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graphics

its already happening right now, basically whatever sony is saying about their new console is all buzzwords.

Attached: i have no mouth and i must scream.jpg (462x489, 26K)

2B's ass alone has 300k polygons. This image is outdated and retarded. Take an honest look at death stranding or metro exedus and compare it to shit released 10 years ago when this image was made. You'd actually have no new games since 2009 to think graphics arent getting better

Attached: D1VbJEkXgAEq_7e.jpg (1199x696, 193K)

I agree, good graphics are nothing without a solid atmosphere, and sometimes the atmosphere comes from lower fidelity graphics

Right now what you're seeing is a face anything less than a $100,000 supercomputer wouldnt be able to render in a game at a normal fps. What decides the realism of graphics are artists. In OP's image that guy litterally took the same image and just added more polygons without adding detail. You can make a circle out of a billion polygons, but it still wont be any more detailed than a circle. It is up to artists to add detail and realism within the capabilities of the hardware running that model. Take the cover of any video game you can think of with 3d art for example. What you're seeing on that cover is a model that if rendered into the game would run at 2 fps. I'll post an example right afterwards

Attached: nicolas-nino-final-2.jpg (1920x3000, 1.62M)

who cares its a nigger lololol

Wait until they discover what a displacement map is...

In a few years consumer grade Consoles and Computers should be able to render character models like what you see on the right in a game

Attached: vaas-far-cry-3-18127-1920x1080.png (1714x1038, 2.4M)

OP's image doesn't accurately represent a 60000 tri model. It looks like the 6000 tri model with some kind of automatic surface division. With more tris, you would be able to render individual strands of hair and the design of his buttons.