The graphical leap between 1999 and 2009 was astronomical...

games are 100x more optimized now than they were 10 years ago

Compare Uncharted 1 to Uncharted 4
Compare Spider-Man 3 to Spider-Man PS4

Shut the fuck up

>The leap between 2009 and 2019 was miniscule and barely noticeable.
Compare lighting systems and animations from generic 2009 games to now.
There was a huge leap, but it wasn't as obvious as when we added more polygons.
The next leap is gonna be all about speed and size, so hopefully we also get games that improve on physics TECHNOLOGY.

I remember this being first posted on reddit during the Wii-360 era.

But OP still had a point back then. Microsoft and Sony went full retard with their overpriced consoles. Most people didn't even have HD TVs back then so it was completely pointless.

Nintendo, regardless of Wii Sports and Wii Fit, was still cranking out AAA titles that were still pretty damn good up until the 360-PS3 finally went down in price and HD-TV adoption rates started improving.

Attached: pokexd.jpg (640x462, 80K)

Global Illumination is one of those things that really is pushing the current era graphics forward and making them look much better. We're slowly moving from baked lighting (mostly static and often doesn't react to moving light sources) to stuff like realtime raytraced GI.

Attached: global illumination.jpg (1280x640, 41K)

[doubt]
youtu.be/JK1aV_mzH3A

Attached: d63.jpg (200x303, 16K)

Add good textures and lighting in the mix and you'll barely see any difference above a few thousands polys.
This is why Ray Tracing is pushed nowadays, it's the only worthwhile addition to graphics quality since a rather long time.

Nigga, play a high graphical 2009 game and then one from 2019 on the best PC and 4K monitor possible and say that shit again.

>next gen of consoles is supposed to have support for ray tracing
I can't wait to experience all those traced rays at silky smooth 5 fps.

but the left one looks better.

theres no point in doing complex geometry when you have shaders.

low poly = soul
high poly = soulless

Ray tracing is pushed because nvidia doesn't want to redesign its gpu again, and tensor cores can be used in other applications, so if they push ray tracing first, and everyone uses their shit, it locks everyone else out.

see, a tensor core is a 4x4x4 or 5x5x5 (i forget which) matrix shit can do impressive things, but its optimized for machine learning, because machine learning only needs half or less precision currently, the more half the better.
full on ray tracing can be done real time in half or less precision too, so nvidia gets to develop tensor cores while stagnenting their traditional raster cores.

both amd and nvidia are trying to chiplet a gpu, and the tensor cores are doing something that is highly parallel and very multi gpu friendly, ray tracing.
Its currently a race to see who chiplets first,

With that said, voxel cone is better then ray tracing as its been used in a game already and can be done on current hardware while having full scenes look raytrace esque opposed to just having reflexions.

the rightmost is just showing people planely diminishing returns.

Models aren't gonna get much noticeably better. They will be more detailed but not to the point you can tell without looking up close. Textures and lighting is where there's still room for improvement. And, I guess, stuff like foliage and particle effects.

I can deal with both.
I would rather have good art direction that doesn't date itself in 5 years but shits not going to happen.

Can't wait till the PClards cry about consoles being the only place to get ray tracing at a consistent framerate.

But you can already get consistent framerates on the few raytracing titles that are out there on the PC.

Good graphics that run well on current hardware is a selling point, though. Sometimes good graphics period is a selling point. Plus, as we develop stronger hardware, shit that was high end drops. No reason not to squeeze every polygon out you can. Just like how we'll build better and better tech to run our software, we'll figure out all the best ways to make use of it. And eventually we'll all have our own little holodeck rig and nobody will ever leave their houses except for the weirdos that drive the trucks and deliver all of everyone's purchases

Crysis came out in 2007
yes while its not the prettiest game to look at, I bring it up because while playing the game and not sitting there and nitpicking, its REALLY hard to pick out differences in that to todays games.

now you want screenshots sure, its night and day whats different, bigger textures (almost always used poorly) more geometry (almost always never applied to something round, so you can see the pollys) lighting (doing in real time what could have otherwise been faked) you DO get good looking games, better then ever, but its not the big fuck off difference that there would have been even 3 years apart from 2004 to 2007

At 1080p maybe.

I just think that visual design is so much more important than graphics at this point. Playing Mario Galaxy in HD on dolphin is way nicer looking than most AAA games today.

>it's the "retard doesn't understand that not every character needs to have an infinite amount of detail to accurately represent it" episode

poly counts while a non issue, are still implemented in ways that force me to see pollies.

I mean for fuck sake it's been 10 years since tessellation got wide spread hardware level support, why in the fuck do I still see circles/circular objects not getting tessellated?

3d pro artist in AAA. Youre stupid.

I argue proper art direction over ultra real, as ultra real is quickly supplanted and it makes everything look like hell going back to play games.

But isn't that the whole point? You try some shit and figure things out and then you improve and modify. And then you can get shit that looks as good as crysis with a lot less effort.

>but the left one looks better.

Attached: 1550031743569.png (684x551, 666K)

even then, tessellation takes care of everything.
you get an object to the point you want, and then put tessellation on top, let the user select how much they want, and you should have VERY smooth everything if they make anchor points correctly.

>games become massively more complicated
>somehow expect them to simultaneously become more optimized

are you sure you know what optimization is?

And current consoles can't even run current console games 30fps at 1080p. What makes you think the next generation will somehow jump beyond current PC tech when new consoles are always at least a couple years behind in performance.

>crysis
Crysis was not made for 2007 hardware. It couldn't even run on the best 2007 hardware without lowering the settings to low-medium. It's not a good example of what was possible in 2007 because it really wasn't possible.

t. retard that can't into abstract thinking cuz otherwise he'd realise the extra polycount can go into background architecture for sharper environment

Graphics exist to A) adequately represent what's happening and B) set the tone. Games haven't gotten any better at either since 2004, high fidelity is a complete waste of processing power.

What game devs and engine people do is fake shit thats is to resource demanding till they can do it in real time.

while this is great for moving forward, it causes a constant treadmill cycle where you never really get good performance and need to constantly buy new shit just to be back at baseline. every few generations you get ahead of where a well artistic fake would get you, but its a CONSTANT fucking treadmill grind.

why triangles?

Games should return to hand-drawn graphics, all games look so clunky compared to the extreme hand-drawn fluidity of Cuphead.

Attached: cuphead.jpg (474x266, 22K)

And those are current gen consoles based on tech from 2012 yet PS4 is still producing games with some of the best visuals in the industry.

4850, got one for my little brother, was able to run crysis with most settings maxed at if I remember right 45-60fps, was targeting 30 as as far as I was it was the benchmark game and nothing would reasonably come close for years in being as demanding. I think I was running it at 768x1024, or the res just above this as it was done on my spare monitor at the time, which was more then a reasonable resolution for the time.

so yea... you were setting shit to medium/high for a year then you were setting things much higher after that.

Lighting still can improve: youtu.be/kzgdnQVskVA

because 3 points make a flat plane, 4 points make 1 or 2 flat planes.

Technology hasn't progressed though, CPU speeds haven't increased significantly in the last decade and multiple cores can't do everything

>tfw devs will never go back to kino PS2 tier models but now with highly advanced AI and world interactivity

Attached: 1504039556715.jpg (960x540, 100K)

That has nothing to do with his point that diminishing returns are not as severe as OP claims, you absolute spastic.

Because money was pumped into assets. Actual rendering process on consoles still takes massive shortcuts and fails to deliver good framerates.

The Great Graphics Leap that's happening right now is creating the 2D look with 3D means. Only Japan has managed to pull it.

Attached: 1368973778-guilty-gear-xrd-sign-3.jpg (1280x720, 170K)

you don't know anything about computers do you?

>the gen that needed an "upgraded" model in the middle of the lifespan to keep up
>producing some of the best visuals in the industry
It's fine to be a sonyfag but there has to be a limit to your delusion.

I know alot about computers, if you believe anything otherwise you've been fed bullshit by processor manufacturers

600 and 6000 is peak soul

Why don't more games ditch the ugly hyperrealism and go for 2d or nu-2d instead? It looks much better than this crap

Attached: Guilty-Gear-Xrd-Sign_2014_02-03-14_004.jpg (1280x720, 86K)

It isn't only about polygons. There are many more things that make up image. Lighting, shaders, textures etc.

Attached: 1498909719751.gif (350x270, 1.34M)

More cores render faster

complicated and optimized are not mutually exclusive, see doom 2016 as an example of well optimized engine, and see anything betesda shits out as unoptimised as hell garbage.

You are correct in everything you posted. However, the game industry chews up marketing data and outputs a product made with minimum effort to maximize profit by appealing to the more casual, knowledge-impaired populace. Complex AI and a more alive world is definitely the future. Pardon my language here, but I do believe the lack of innovation is, in great part, due to stupid fucking cocksuckers in suits and blue-haired faggy devs focusing on the wrong things. They have done this for decades now, as you've clearly noticed.

Shame we can't do more to hasten the process of innovation for this industry.

Attached: arthur.png (278x271, 226K)

negligible in motion, impressive in still shots.

Nah almost all of the first party games all have rock solid framerates.
Ps4Pro merely delivers higher resolution, that was its goal. The graphics are still more or less the exact same just at different resolution.

Attached: 1543477980525.jpg (675x1200, 301K)

>technology hasn't progressed
yeah i'm sure your decade old GPU runs modern games great, retard.

True.

>Games should settle at the graphical level they currently are and stop spending huge sums of money to improve graphics, and instead focus on making games deeper with more complex environments, better A.I.'s, and more complex gameplay.
This except this should have happened a decade ago, but MS and Sony have done nothing but push grafix as the only thing to care about and now they have to deal with it.

>voxel cone
any games to check it out on?

>triangles
YIKES

every single frame of this game is hand done with VERY specific lighting effects that are 100% fake lights.

Shit looks amazing, but jesus this only works due to the 2d plane and the developers knowing every position of the camera.

Did I say they didn't? I said multiple cores can't do everything, motion and physics in particular which is just as important to the believability of a video game as the still image doesn't lend itself well to multithreading, and the latency the introduced by transmitting data from ram to vram causes alot of problems and limitations too

tomorrows children
kingdom come deliverance

GPUs are the perfect example of diminishing returns, games run twice as slow to look 5% better

I cant remember the game but it was one put out on ps4, going to have to look into that yourself.

youtube.com/watch?v=cuCwyIBOapY

if you want to see the demos of it in action. not sure how it would play with a wide open space, however any kind of indoor/limited space scene should be doable with this.

Which is why we really need a new Darkstalkers. An entire cast of characters who can't even dash or jump without doing all sorts of crazy shapeshifting is exactly the sort of challenge that's needed to push the envelope.

Which is exactly the kind of work developers should be pursuing rather than pushing for more ugly hypperrealism that adds nothing and just makes a turd look like a turd in 4k. It's still a turd, devs.

Quantum Break
CryEngine has it so Hunt: Showdown probably used it too.

also quantum break
if you want the best vxgi solution you should check SEGI on unity.

you must be fucking blind user

Its a racket to push graphics cards and other pc parts. Its not about nor will it ever be about good games. Just buy the latest ABC 5000x infinity blaster, you want to play the latest games, right goy?

SEGI is garbage though. It's more like a proof of concept rather than a production ready lighting solution.

you must be in your fucking teens if you think graphic "advancements' in the last decade are anything near as dramatic as they were before

make a one core do motion and make a other core do physics. have another core do a lighting. make another core do a textures. have other cores combine the other cores work into one.

no... no... what im saying is the only reason that guilty gear looks like that is because its a 2d plane, the game completely breaks once the camera is at any angle the developers don't intend to show, there was a in depth write up in a japanese magazine about how they did this when sign came out.

this is one of those things that will not work in a real 3d game. the best you can hope for in a 3d game is an art style that allows for anime looks but not atrocious 3d failings.

Most of the details you added would be indistinguishable as textures

If only it were that simple

spbp

thanks - i'll check those out
>not sure how it would play with a wide open space
i reckon, if it's too taxing they'd switch temporarily to usual dynamic lighting/shadows shader w/ one main light source in open areas

i don't see why this image is even posted when it just proves the argument that the original image has
is it just for being pedantic?

Imaging being this autistic. The first polygon pic was obviously trying to create the final image but lacked polygons to do so. God you are fucking dumb

explain to me what actual graphical leap could be made to satisfy you then? obviously going from 2d to 3d, textured rendering, programmable shaders, global illumination are bigger steps because the shit didn't exist before. Now that we are at the point that we are at how can you make an equivalent leap? Other than pushing more pixels the next biggest things are raytraced lighting/GI/post process effects, more complex particle and fluid simulations and more advanced softbody physics. NONE OF THOSE are shit people would see and be like oh my god this is such a huge leap. Your initial point is flawed and retarded to begin with. It's like saying things like sub-surface scattering are pointless advancements. What exact revolution are you waiting for?

Ray tracing is computationally expensive for something where pre-baked would suffice 95% of the time. Most environments are non-interactive to begin with. There would have to be huge jumps in gameplay agency to make global illumination something you'd actually want. As it stands, it's all just for lazy developers who want to offload their development budget deficit to your GPU

Because some faggot fedora tipper got triggered by wording

I like this art style hence I welcome games on the 2d plane that don't let you change the camera if that's what I get in exchange. I'll always prefer them over 3d realism that's got nothing interesting going but hey, you can see all the strands of shit on that turd.

I would respect it more if it was that.

game developers and most programer in games are rejects from other industries, the only people who are top of their class quality are the artists, but even then, most of the ranks are filled with 'my first job and ill work for scraps' artists, see bethesda as the reject squad, and the assassins creed team as some of the best for an example.

>voxel cone is better then ray tracing
wat

developers should focus less on fucking graphic and more on gameplay, AI, physics and light

Attached: 1552897040235.jpg (2033x1602, 429K)

>zoomers actually argue against OP
I know you faggots are too young to understand this, but 99 had FF8 and 09 had flipping Uncharted 2. That's a mind boggling visual transition, every year was a huge leap back then, every game release was a push forward technologically, our minds were blown every month. I'm sorry you've missed the most exciting time in the history of video games, but there's no point denying it.

so btfo he couldnt respond

>i'm sure your decade old GPU runs modern games great
My 770 actually does though, that's 6 years old now and it runs new releases on high consistently.

I could see it being an up close render method and having it transition between a less taxing version that gets a decent approximation.

raytraceing is a good decade out at minimum before its viable in real time with minimal fireflies, and even then not good viable. we will need to be able to 3d stack low power gpus before we have the processing power to do real time ray tracing, a hardware breakthrough that tosses everything we are doing to the curb (this is math, so im highly doubting we will have something like this happen) or someone needs to brute force it, which could be done through chiplets.

voxel cone on the other hand gets you good enough effects to really question the need for ray tracing on current hardware.

Watch this
youtube.com/watch?v=HN3FBwkF9WU

>btfo
>post actually agrees and says current progress is barely noticeable, just tries to justify it
Not him, but this is retarded

I don't think anyone is trying to say that it was as big of a difference. Just that there was still a big difference where OP made it sound like there was none.

i present my counterargument

Attached: you: BTFO.png (1279x738, 134K)

you already pointed them out, raytracing and better physics would be the next big leaps in graphics tech, but those require big leaps in hardware to go with them, although we're almost at the point where we can do raycasting after ~10 years of rendering games more or less the same way although I guess we leapt from foward rendering to deferred rendering but that as much bad as it is good

not retarded, the first dude and OP are literally the types that whine that "graphix isn't better than real life" yet.

Attached: brainlet 123432621643564562341234.jpg (903x960, 52K)

Not him, but no

This will be shitposted everywhere now, screencap this.

>there was still a big difference
Is DMC5 that much better looking than Uncharted 2? Now compare Uncharted 2 and Silent Hill 1, that's a decade. Or Silent Hill 1 and Golden Axe, that's also a decade. Or Golden Axe and Asteroids. All of those were major leaps in technology that created new gameplay opportunities. Past decade wasn't a leap, it was just a bit of polish. And even that polish only exists in AAA. Sekiro actually DOESN'T look better than Uncharted 2 does it.

>FF8
square's psx games look like utter shit
should have used sonic adventure as an example

diminishing returns because of the limits of art direction and "realism" are one thing, but saying we should just stop progressing and be satisfied like OP says is retarded. People thought 3d accelerator cards were a fad when they came out just like people say raytracing is a fad, and it's because of this mentality of "what we have already is good enough"

It 100% does. The point of diminishing returns was not that you couldn't squeeze out extra details, it was that the extra details were superfluous. The original image had 60 to 600 to 6000 triangle mesh go from looking like an abstract art piece to looking like an image that replicates what the artist intended with a sense of realism. What the shitty "rebuttal" here fails to understand is that extra details was never the point. The 2000 polygon model on the bottom is actually an example of the diminishing returns the original image presented. There's no leap in graphically fidelity as a visual style, but just an added layer of detail.

No what? He literally says "NONE OF THOSE are shit people would see and be like oh my god this is such a huge leap", he agrees that current progress is barely noticeable.

I work making games and this shit its the most stupid thing I have seen in the month

It's some homo being pedantic trying to 1-up the original post in knowledge while completely missing the point

Attached: Untitled.png (477x353, 121K)

>but saying we should just stop progressing
who the fuck said that? I said little progress was being made, not that anyone should stop trying
Nobody thought 3d accelerators were a fad
Current raytracing hardware IS a fad, because it's not actually powerful enough to raytrace a whole scene, so what's the fucking point? You want to pay 200 dollars extra to see some better puddle reflections?

Why Yea Forums became so luddite?

>NONE OF THOSE are shit people would see and be like oh my god this is such a huge leap.
i once had the kid seeing doom 3 on my pc and saying "oh, i have the game just like that on my ps1 - alien resurrection''
There are always people like that and always will be (normies and nerds)

Literally OP said it, and yes people thought 3d accelerators were an expensive fad for home use.
I know because I was an adult before games started requiring them.

Nope, you dont know what you are talking about

The increase in graphical fidelity from 2009 to 2019 is hardly miniscule. It isn't as stark as that of 1999–2009, but it is large.

meh, had an nes, jesus did snes look good, snes to n64... ok 3d is interesting, n64 to gc/ps2/xbox for the first half ok 3d is getting there, second half, 3d is finally better than 2d for most games to 360/ps3 what the fuck happend for 2 years to ok now games are starting to look good

yea, there was a good long time when 3d started to happen where I wish they would have just made doom like sprite 3d, because at least then we could save processing power, get shit to 60 and have higher resolution images apposed to the garbage we had in terms of 3d

>saying we should just stop progressing and be satisfied like OP says is retarded
No it's not, we should stop progressing in terms of visuals and progress in AI instead. That would create a new leap in quality, not visuals. There's nowhere to leap to in visuals, it's already better looking than real life.

>I want everything on a 2D plane

no, fuck that. Lemme explore a 3D environment you absolute bitch-ass

which games have you worked on?

name the fucking part i'm wrong on.

I cant argue on performance since i mostly agree but voxel cone is prone to more artifacts like light leaking through thin geometry (cloths, flags, doors, wooden planks) and incorrect cube-like reflections due to fairly coarse grid representation of the the environment. Moreover, standard VXGI cant properly handle occlusion or indirect shadows from dyamic lights though admittedly, it has been somewhat improved with VXAL. and if you were to decrease the size of the voxel grid cubes to get a little more details, you'd get ray traced or even worse level of performance.
Don't get me wrong though, its a cool solution but it has its limitations.

and I remember when Quake or Quake 2 came out and everyone started buying them so they could play them and then all games started to require them

2019 lighting and physics are much better than a decade ago. Graphics are more than polygons you dumb shit

>acting like the people who work and AI and the people who work on the rendering pipeline are the same developers

user your brain is deformed I'm sorry. Having developers improving graphics does not take away from other developers improving AI. This even applies on the hardware side too.

New gameplay opportunities will be coming in the form of vr, machine learning and massive simulated persistent worlds made possible by the cloud. Also OP didn't really talk about what difference the jump from 2d to 3d meant when it comes to the types of games we could make. Graphics technology has gone through fundamental changes in the last decade.

Indie stuff, Waylanders currently. A pc game.

You fucking stupid piece of shit. Here we have Spider-Man PS4 vs Spider-Man 3 on PS3.

The difference is astronomical.

Attached: Spider-Man PS4 vs PS3.jpg (1258x1394, 323K)

>>acting like the people who work and AI and the people who work on the rendering pipeline are the same developers
often they are in a video game

>physics are graphics

It's exactly as severe as OP claims. If the poly count already makes the character look like it's supposed to then having higher poly count is diminishing returns you absolute spastic.

>Just like how we'll build better and better tech to run our software, we'll figure out all the best ways to make use of it.
They don't do that though, nobody bothers optimizing games anymore, they'll just slap more expensive hardware into the "recommended" specs.

There is no such thing as a "cloud". It's just someone else's PC.

physics havent changed since the HL2 days

How about games ceasing to exist period? I mean, there's already enough out there to last a lifetime and the older the better so yeah

shame that narrow-minded retards like you are allowed anywhere near a computer, let alone creative studio.

>As a kid thought more power would mean more characters on screen
>Battles with 10000s of enemies
>Fucking less on screen than ever before

Attached: 1560938784484.jpg (471x621, 52K)

it doesn't get worse then raytracing, but it will chug if you let it. the best solution is voxel cube though, and a fine detail/coarse detail lod if not just a separate lighting model for far away objects.

currently with ray traced you have quake which is full ray trace, or you have reflections and some bounce light which can be faked if you are willing to actually try. one of the problems is introducing ray tracing has made devs say fuck it, we won't even fake it unless you have the gpu to do it for real.
unless we have a hardware leap that allows ray tracing to go real time, it's so far off, and devs will never stop making games progress in fidelity, that it just wont catch up. I think a 3d stacked gpu is going to happen, a low clock rate parallel compute monster, specifically to tackle the ray trace problem, either that or chiplet gpus that can have a fast legacy core and a stacked raytrace monster.

too low quality

Attached: bounces.png (1280x960, 326K)

This was the stupidest reply I've read all year.

voxels are terribly inefficient if you have anything that animates

based

unbased

Attached: 1556653870619.jpg (525x478, 18K)

She was cuter on ps3

Attached: 1519599679421.png (560x524, 112K)

ah shit wrong picture

Attached: bounces.png (1280x960, 350K)

>2019 physics
Unironically worse than during the PS2 days because they bake the entire level now and you can't move anything.

no one thought they were a fad, but they did think of them as unnecessary due to most games actually looking better in the software render then the hardware render, I remember carmageddon looks so much better with the blocky software then with the smooth hardware.

>Fucking less on screen than ever before
Spider-Man PS4 is full of NPCs walking everywhere though. And the battles have plenty of enemies as well.

Quake 1 was released like 4 years after the OpenGL standard was created in 92, quake didn't even get a GL port until 97. 93 tons of hardware companies that were trying to get into the 3d market either collapsed or were absorbed by larger competitors. The only market for 3d cards for basically the first 6 years of their life was high end film and television animation and arcade machines. it wasn't til 95 when the voodoo cards released and the glide api was released that it became viable for the home market, and even then support wasn't universal for a couple more years.

When you model the whole area it eats disc space like a bitch. I prefer beautiful flat textures.

Attached: autistic scale comparison.png (2106x772, 2.33M)

I don't play capeshit.

>who the fuck said that?
OP did, you fucking moron with reading comprehension of a retarded weeaboo chimpanzee

see
not talking about voxels/pointmaps, talking about a lighting method that uses them for its calculation

That's because modern consoles can't handle it on top of all the graphics they're trying to push. Consoles are holding back gaming as a whole.

thats why i said "quake or quake 2" but congrats on your amazing memory

>The difference is astronomical
Hello zoomer. No it's not, you just cherrypicked an example

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1920x1080, 287K)

>massive simulated persistent worlds made possible by the cloud
The chokepoint in those massive worlds is the workload, not the processing power. You can already have an infinitely big randomly generated forest, but if you want the world to be interesting you need hundreds of artists to work on it for many years. That's why you're still playing Skyrim, it's not because next TES requires the could

I didn't read the OP

actually it eats fuck all.
many of the textures are reused from building to building, and many of the buildings are copy paste. sure it eats more, but not nearly as much as you think.

pic unrelated

>Consoles are holding back gaming as a whole
Meawhile PC pushes gaming forward with Dota Autochess and other visually stunning games

graphicsfags ruined video games

(OP)
The difference we have made in the past 10 years is fucking astronomical. Kill yourselves you fucking mentally ill boomers.

Attached: Spider-Man PS4 vs PS3 2.jpg (1160x1314, 503K)

it's true. if you actually go back to a 2009 game after playing a 2019 game (assuming both have comparable budgets and art styles) it's surprising how bad games looked in that era.

>1999 and 2009
2 consoles generations released between

>2009 and 2019
1 console generation released between

No fuck that. Go outside if you wanna stare at reality, I want fun games that are actually beautiful to look at.

cherry picking

>comparing a cutscene
Actually play the game and zoom in on Parkers face. It'll look like a PS3 face. Not the one you nitpicked though, more like GTAV

Even if the OP picture is disingenuous, the fact remains that increasing the poly count doesn't guarantee increase in quality. Theres only so many pixels on a screen.

Oh well thanks for educating me user. I still prefer textures though. Just personal preference.

Attached: Dream The World That Never Was.jpg (1200x675, 158K)

Games should stop spending money

>a fucking port
you're the cherrypicking retard here

who cares about graphics if the game isn't fun?

Attached: 1561292631557.jpg (633x738, 76K)

Yeah the jump from CoD4 to Black Ops must've looked amazing in your zoomer eyes

There is no cherry picking you mentally ill boomer. Actually go and play the games. The difference is fucking massive.

Just kill yourself already.

serious sam 4 my dude

bottom picture looks fucking awful for a 2009 game if it was one

You based all your argument in the fact that voxel cone is better than raytracing, wich is completely false. Voxel cone is one of the better options for gi on current hardware but still runs like shit and the results are mediocre at best. The only way to get accurate enough lighting(gi, soft shadows, gi oclussions, reflected lighting, etc) is raytracing. The whole industry used voxel cones all this years for small techniques here and there, but none of those come close to the performance and unified consistent lighting that you get with raytrace.

If you have any papers to support the consistency of voxel cones over rtx in results and performance please show it ro me. That will make my work way easier.

Not every game pushes graphics. Sony exclusives do for example.

An astronomical leap of several generations

Attached: uncharted2-03.jpg (1600x900, 1.25M)

>The leap between 2009 and 2019 was miniscule and barely noticeable.
lol left is 2011 right is 2019. have you opened a game from 2009 recently?

Attached: mk9vmk11.png (1296x840, 1.06M)

Post a PS4 game that looks dramatically better than a PS3 game then zoomie

>not talking about voxels/pointmaps, talking about a lighting method that uses them for its calculation
what?

nah, physics are better now, but also not better in the way people want.

see you cant have physics be a gameplay mechanic unless its extremely simple due to it being a gameplay mechanic, if someone had hardware that can play the game, but would shit itself on the physics part (most people) it would cause the game to fail. to make your own physics system you need a fuck load of money, or you need to use someone else's and that cuts out large portions of the market.

left has more atmosphere while the right is only good for architectural visualization
games should be immersive not real enough to where it's just pictures of real life in textures and real world light simulation
there is no creativity or value in replicating reality 1:1 for video games

2009 games look fucking awful. You clearly haven't played any in a decade.

>he's never seen killzone 2 or 3
>mfw he's this retarded

Attached: 1902830921930891203810289.jpg (500x504, 34K)

epic leap bro

Attached: unleashed.jpg (640x360, 49K)

>outliers

some do, some dont
much like today!

true, but that's beside the point (also, they're fun for kids, not burdened with the jae of 20-25 years history of playing vidya)

Here you go I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Way too expensive and time consuming.

Now Sonic Unleashed PS2/Wii vs 360/PS3
Now THAT was a difference to behold.

>nah, physics are better now
in what way?

That said I miss the old ps2 and earlier rpg way of making levels. Lots of corridors that connect and branch, secret paths and multiple levels, mazes etc. All with their own textured backgrounds. Just nostalgia I guess. Minecrafts retarded tunnel and cave systems remind me of them a lot.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 74K)

wasnt trying to argue you faggot

>gameplay mentioned last
fag

>jae
*jaded feel

>It's good if you haven't experienced good

>I have no idea what you are trying to say.
It's a screenshot of a PS360 game.

Im just a worker you retarded, have no idea how a work enviroment works. Keep telling you that kid

Agreed, they should all take place in your imagination.

Yes, and it looks really really bad, what was your point?

well you are now cunt

>what was your point?
That you don't know what 'bad' looks like because you were born after it

And here's 2001 you dumb fag. We literally currently have AAA games that look like your 2011 picture

Attached: MV5BNmMxYzFhMTktZGI5Yi00M2U5LTljNTctMWU0NmQ0NjkwNjFjXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMzE2MzQyMDE@._V1_.jpg (640x480, 41K)

no im fucking NOT

Looks the same

my argument is its the better option, properly implemented it gives good enough results to question the need for ray traceing
youtube.com/watch?v=cuCwyIBOapY

this is also under the reality that there is no hardware breakthrough that will make raytracing doable outside of brute force, which will either be massive chiplet numbers or 3d stacking low power chiplets, there may be some magic hardware method that makes ray tracing real time, but if it was possible then the billions spent on rendering movies a year would have thought of something by this point.

Uncharted 4 looks 10 times better.

Attached: Uncharted 4 graphics.jpg (3840x2160, 1.58M)

This isn't just games though, look at cell phones.
From 99 to 09 we had major evolution while 09-19 we just had the same phone with marginally larger screen, marginally better cpu and camera.

>and it looks really really bad

Attached: dumbkko.jpg (188x264, 12K)

If you think that's significant you're getting the zoomer stamp

personally like sprites and well done low poly myself

Serious question user, why did the water in Sonic 06 look so good?

it is the only objective truth about art - if person has ever only shown harry potter book and nothing else - they'd think it's the best thing ever until they're introduced to something better written and they see how flawed hp was at times.

>From 99 to 09 we had major evolution
More like devolution.
Phones are meant to make calls, not no any other retarded shit like take pictures or listen to music.

Name 1.
Phones today can play PUBG with 100 players on the same map at 60fps. That's pretty big leap if you ask me.

Any examples? Here's another nice texture from the final boss of kingdom hearts 2. I always thought these buildings looked real good here.

Attached: Dragon.png (846x434, 737K)

It's pretty amusing that phones nowadays are so similar that tiny insignificant shit like a notch is considered a revolution.

It does look a bit better, I agree. But that leap is nothing compared to the one in a decade before, compare Uncharted 2 and Silent Hill 1.

Attached: 369465-silent-hill-playstation-screenshot-you-car.png (320x256, 80K)

Have boomers actually played any games released in the past years?

Attached: Uncharted 4 vs 3.png (647x359, 481K)

If the leap between 2009 and 2019 was as miniscule as you say, retards on Yea Forums wouldn't be screaming how much they dislike graphics of Switch games.

while particles seem to not be physics anymore outside of special cases, more objects have physics attributed to them than ever before due to it being fairly easy to add to objects.

back in the day this shit was pointed out and the devs made damn sure you see it, now its taken for granted.

I'm not going to argue about usefulness of todays smartphone compared to 90s one. I'm just saying there was a process of change due to new technologies being implemented and new designs tried. Now you literally can't tell phones from one another.

>Name 1.
Was that supposed to be hard

Attached: sekiro-2.jpg (830x535, 277K)

There haven't been any worth playing released in the past year.

Actually take your time and play Uncharted 2 and then 4. The difference is massive. Not just "a little bit".

thats just more objects having physics
physics have been exactly the same since the first rigid body solutions like havok started being used over a decade ago

Subhuman muttoid grandpas can't tell the difference between those two images.
Unless the jump is as signficant as the one from SNES to 64, their old eyes can't even see it.

>30yo boomers witnessed the jump from 2D to 3D in just one gen
>30yo boomers witnessed low poly faceless renders of Solid Snake become Leon in RE4 in another gen
>zoomers who were babies when all this happened think more detailed sweat on skin is an 'astronomical graphical leap'

sadly low poly well done is mostly an art exercise, but there was a game that had very hd sprites recently, cant remember the name... its a rougelike space fps if I remember right. looks really well done.

All current gen ""realistic"" games look like shit.
People's skins are way too fucking shiny in them, and the eyes too. Are modern games made by fucking Twilight vampires?

>comparing cutscenes
Have zoomers actually played games?

From Software doesn't make AAA games, and that's also cherry picking.

dang, look at Drake's million-dollar pore modeling

>difference is massive
I repeat my question, is it as massive as the difference between U2 and SH1?

>Have zoomers actually played games?
No they watch internet celebrities play them on YouTube

Kill yourselves, boomers. You're too old for this. Fuck off.

>all games, no matter their genre, gameplay, setting and desired atmosphere, should be one thing, not the other!!!
It's about given options as a developer, not about what you think is better in one moment

Consumers thinking they know what's up is what's wrong with this fucking industry

Attached: 1543066373549.png (720x629, 878K)

very big difference between gameplay and screenshots. in gameplay, you don't see the little things, because you are... you know... playing the game. but sure you want to jerk it to screenshots instead of play the game be my guest.

>Nice results in the most standard and simple test enviroment with static objects

Please, dont be like this. Current raster techniques where made arround 2007, and most of them havent changed.
If you want to keep pushing graphics you need raytrace.

PD: films need accurate, games speed. Thats why

That's small incremental evolution though, not like going from the old nokia brick with an antenna to the tiny Siemens C45 to the blackberry etc.

I can't help but feel that there's just something "off" about his jawline in the left.

Spider-Man PS3 and PS4 are graphically completely different. And you can see it in motion.

Shut up zoomer. You will never understand what actual progress is because you missed that era. Don't argue with us who didn't.

Games should of stop advancing graphically 10 years ago buddy

Shut up boomer. You will never understand what actual progress is because you haven't played any games released in recent years. Don't argue with us who have.

Something about this image just says that it's "soft" maybe the models or it's bones and physics. Textures? Maybe lighting? It's something about the ps2 prerendered videos because i get the same feeling from others from that time. Can anyone explain?

Attached: H_by_sleep.png (503x374, 218K)

>Spider-Man PS3
What even is that you fucking retard. PS3 had a shitload of Spider-Man games.

lighting and particle effects are all processed on the GPU though.

And all of them look fucking garbage, unlike the PS4 one.

>hurr more poly means better grafixs

its blurry

inaccurate cheap lighting, no specular highlights, no subsurface scattering, no ambient occlusion, no lots of stuff.

I played enough to spot your cutscene image didn't I? The one that you didn't spot despite "playing" Uncharted 4? Interesting how you played it if you don't even know what the ingame model looks like.

Attached: 21.png (1920x1080, 1.39M)

I think it's the colors and lighting.
There is slight rim light on everything.

sub-360p resolution, probably

Yes because they were cheap garbage, not because of tech. Cheap garbage is still produced you know. Does GTAV look like garbage to you?

Sekiro looks great, you're just being a faggot

Attached: 814380_screenshots_20190403183635_1.jpg (1920x1080, 963K)

you don't think that films would pay big bucks to halve their render time? hell if they could get 10-100X improvement on render times they would.
there may be something, but its most likely going to be brute force and till that happens, ray traceing in real time is going to be a joke.

there are some other demos, youtube.com/watch?v=dQSzmngTbtw

the way forward is going to be faking ray tracing and it always will till a 3d stacked gpu to brute force raytracing happens because you simply cant math faster, you could math more accurately, I think you could do ray tracing at least for real time, down to 1/4th or 1/8th precision if i'm correct, and still come out ahead of current methods, nvidias tensors do half precision as thats what machine learning needed and they thought fuck it, will work for ray tracing too. if they went to 1/8th precision it would push the core to nearly a petaflop of power, and that may be able to do a full scene in a game better then current methods.

Yeah I definitely feel that it's the lighting that makes it feel "soft" to me. kinda like it's all made of soft clay. I kinda do like how the innacurate lighting lights up his whole body though.

It has good aesthetics but its graphical fidelity isn't exactly current year.

What about this image?

Attached: xehanort.gif (500x281, 1.93M)

That's all that matters though? Fidelity without style is a failure.

not that guy but I wish more games would try to nail proper aliasing.

The same, look at his outline, it's light. Also the lighting everything look like literal rubber, I guess no subsurface scattering?

Lighting techniques and levels of detail have increased dramatically over the last ten years and you're just being blind and thick.

Attached: 435150_screenshots_20190526004929_1.jpg (1920x1080, 1.4M)

>Durr there has been no improvement in 10 years duuurr

Attached: Spider-Man PS4 vs PS3 3.jpg (1002x1140, 361K)

Somebody throw a GTAIV vs. GTAV comparison in here just for shits. That one is easy points.

Here is
youtube.com/watch?v=GWVtZJo-HqI

The amount of dumbfuck zoomers completely missing the point of this post and focusing on on the word “polycount”, as if he’s not talking about diminishing returns in graphics generally. We are now at the point where a fucking handheld can run a game that actually looks like the console version. You might scoff at the resolution or framerate, but the fact is last generation you couldn’t even do that. There was no way a 360 game could be scaled down for a PSP, you’d have to totally remake it. And before that, a PS2 game running on Gameboy Advance? Inconceivable. The fact is these days you can have a mere fraction of the processing power and still manage to run the same game. If PS5/XTwo want to have 8K games running at 120FPS then Switch 2 would only need 1% of the power to run the EXACT SAME GAME with no cutbacks outside of a reduction to 720p 60FPS. Textures, meshes, effects and all would still be fine. Graphics have been an absolute pissing contest for a good while.

80% of the reason the top shot looks better than the bottom is better color grading

Yeah the rubbery look was what made everything look soft to me. Personally I really like it. Also how does this subsurface scattering stuff work in practice? Google has images and the explanation but i'm not really getting it.

Wrong. Everything on the PS4 is better.

PSP had same power as PS2

I personally prefer nice high res textures and shading.

Did I say otherwise you fucking brainlet

You know nothing dude. First read up. A.I is clearly clever enough for a NPC, REALLY!

>GraPHiCS hAVE NoT ImProVed In THe pAsT 10 yEArS

Sit the fuck down boomers.

Attached: Spider-Man PS4 vs PS3 4.jpg (1200x1354, 379K)

Not quite what I had in mind
Still, shows the graphics changes

Light diffuses into materials realistically

That one Spider-Man nigger is practically fuming right now.

youtube.com/watch?v=J5OsJRAn1qI

Top definitely looks far more detailed but I like them both. I do like how colorful the top one is though. I know it's easy for it to look ugly but i like a large palette of colors.

No it didn’t. They were roughly comparable but PS2 was still more powerful overall. And the PSP released 8 years after the PS2 so I don’t know what your point is supposed to be.

this is the perfect boomer test if you can't tell that V has better graphics than IV

>GraPHiCS hAVE NoT ImProVed In THe pAsT 10 yEArS

Attached: Spider-Man PS4 vs PS3 5.jpg (960x1112, 244K)

Not him, but lol you're so butthurt you lost IQ and started speaking gibberish.

Who doesn’t? But when you actually need to compare screenshots side by side to notice a difference you’re basically just paying a premium for peace of mind. Back in the day you didn’t need to do that. You could see a picture of a GBA game and then two weeks later see a picture of an Xbox game and easily be able to spot the differences. Try doing that with, say, Dragon Quest XI on Switch.

Looks like shit.

Ray tracing is pushed so Nvidia can sell you less for more and get everyone on an upgrade treadmill for the next 10 years

All these people posting with

>GraPHiCS hAVE NoT ImProVed In THe pAsT 10 yEArS

when literally no one wrote that. Nice strawman faggots.

No, it hasn't.
The only one critical difference is light filter.

Lighting almost always takes a huge gut-punch in the transition too. Reflections and particle systems too. Usually other bits and pieces.
And framerate and resolution are pretty big fucking pieces, shouldn't be underestimated what they actually bring to the table. It's a huge increase in visible detail.

His point is that this is not a solution to a general problem. It only works in a very limited context. If they manage to pull off a 2D look reliable in a non-controlled environment they've achieved something. This is nothing but the equivalent of a pre-render video.

"Miniscule and barely noticeable" is still a wrong and stupid opinion

>GraPHiCS hAVE NoT ImProVed In THe pAsT 10 yEArS

>GraPHiCS hAVE NoT ImProVed In THe pAsT 10 yEArS

>GraPHiCS hAVE NoT ImProVed In THe pAsT 10 yEArS

>GraPHiCS hAVE NoT ImProVed In THe pAsT 10 yEArS

>GraPHiCS hAVE NoT ImProVed In THe pAsT 10 yEArS

Attached: Spider-Man PS4 vs PS3 6.jpg (3824x4320, 1.94M)

>this retard image again
god, Yea Forums is a such a waste of time

Using this zoomer meme should be grounds for an immediate underage ban. My take on this is that nearly all post-processing except ambient occlusion is pure noise and texture resolution and draw distance are where the bulk of the perceptible difference lies.

>that muttoid who can't afford PC

literally soulless on top and soul on the bottom. What is that shit on top even supposed to be? Lame ass cyberpunk loser must have gotten bitten by the lamest spider ever

Spiderman 3 isn't even visually comparable when you have shit like this.

youtube.com/watch?v=8crOFZrzkjg

>Can anyone explain?
Yes, you are retarded

My favorite part is how we started recreating camera defects via post-processing and called it progress. CA and lens flare are the dumbest shit ever.

graphics of the future right here
dailymotion.com/video/xnrs0q

Every time a shit thread like this is created, please post this.

Attached: Spider-Man PS4 vs PS3 6.55.jpg (3824x4320, 2.02M)

>ITT: user spamming the shit out of his pictures comparing a AAA game by a competent developer to movie tie-in shovelware that isn't even from 2009

Spider-Man on PS3 was a shitty cash grab by a mediocre studio released at a time when people didn’t know how to use PS3’s hardware.

Why don’t you try comparing, oh I don’t know, Ace Combat?

youtube.com/watch?v=8ccWtstrAgY

>5x times more TFlops

how butthurt are you that you've posted the same picture ten times
the bottom one is exceptionally bad for the era, its a cherry-picked example

The artstyle

Attached: 1560532132113s.jpg (250x147, 6K)

I generally agree, though I’d throw in LOD. Particle effects are nice too.

More polygons only means artist are going to waste more time on pedantic details like hair follicles and horse testicles. Meanwhile gameplay stagnates because they have to build it around the graphics, not visa versa.

Personally I am not impressed by state of the art CGI in movies, so why the fuck do I care if a game has the same thing or not. If it plays like shit it still plays like shit, no matter how it looks.

>iT's A cHeRrY PiCkED exAmPlE

Sure thing you fucking boom boom boomer doom.

>Ace Combat
On aviation issuse

youtube.com/watch?v=ecokj6MJTDE

In the modern era the only way to see graphic differences is to load a YouTube channel dedicated to sperging out over this shit who can then explain to you the differences with graphs and zooming in on some pixels.

it is, it looks awful, its also 12 years old

You just described console vs PC graphic differences these days, not differences in games.

Eagle Dynamics couldn’t do good graphics until very recently. Even DCS still has some PS2-tier models in it. That’s why I said Ace Combat.

Graphics whores are a blight on the industry and one of the main things holding it back.

>iT iS, It lOoKs AwFuL, ItS aLsO 12 yEaRs oLD

>the bottom one is exceptionally bad for the era
Not really. The graphics were pretty great, disregarding the framerate and constant pop-up. It was leagues above Spider-Man 2.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 67K)

does retyping a post with alternating caps make it wrong?

I didnt realize it was 12 years old at the time of posting

>OK, yOU SeEM tO havE A Lot oF ASSAUlT to sHarE WITh ThE CLaSS
>dOeS retYpInG A pOst wITh alternaTInG CAps maKe IT WRONg?

Holy fuck you are the most blind retard I've ever seen

Highest concentration of retards per poster of any thread currently on Yea Forums, well done boys

Anyway, this confirms the thesis about slowing progress.

4 years.

Hey all, actual game dev here (32yr-old and 3D character artist) with a bit of info for anyone interested...

I know this isn't going be as satisfying as an answer as some might hope...but you're honestly *all* partially right.

From a technical and creative standpoint, there actually has been massive leaps forward in just last 5 years, let alone the last decade. BUT a lot of that is stuff the average layman or gamers may not necessarily pick up on or even be aware of. There is a metric shit-load of stuff that is going on under the hood that wasn't even remotely possible a decade ago when it comes to materials, lighting, animation rigging/bones, optimization, raw rendering power, etc. Even the very tools and processes we artists use on a daily basis now didn't even exist 10 years ago (a particular example being the Substance Designer/Painter software packages). The move from low rez textures with a single 'specular' map and a super basic 'normal' map to today's full physically-based rendering (PBR) is arguably as big of a technical jump as sprite-art-to-polygons were. We are able to simulate the real world and real human movement in truly amazing ways that make games that are only a few years old look suddenly dated. I'm regularly blown away by what some of my colleagues are developing internally to simulate our reality. This also has a really neat knock-on effect for even particularly stylized games like Overwatch, Fortnite, and Breath of the Wild. Those tend to borrow aspects of that bleeding-edge tech to push their own boundaries in stylization and epic looking set pieces.

However, the flip side is that although there are gobs of awesome tech going on behind the scenes that make your games look better than ever, the honest truth is that as we come closer to simulate reality, the smaller the noticeable visuals jumps will be. You can't really go "beyond" realism without basically just making Star Trek holograms...and we're obviously not quite there yet.

Attached: Untitled-1.jpg (1258x763, 475K)

>The graphical leap between 1999 and 2009 was astronomical. The leap between 2009 and 2019 was miniscule and barely noticeable

Attached: 1561818204497.gif (500x500, 660K)

Are you literally 12 or just that mentally stunted?

>The move from low rez textures with a single 'specular' map and a super basic 'normal' map to today's full physically-based rendering (PBR) is arguably as big of a technical jump as sprite-art-to-polygons were
You could have done PBR at any point, that's a rendering standard, it's not really technology

ArE YoU LiteraLLY 12 Or jUST That mentallY StUnTed?

When discussing graphics, we often forget that the actual leaps in quality weren't as huge as we thought. Because in our collective memory, we still remember the 2006 Sony E3 that was filled with prerendered bullshit like Killzone and Motorstorm, even though the actual games weren't nearly as pretty. The difference between late PS1 games and early PS2 games was about the same as the difference between late PS2 games and early PS3 games.
For example, here's a comparison of DoA 3 on Xbox and DoA 4 on X360. Doesn't look like such a big leap now, huh?

Attached: r8hiEAa7tjw.jpg (1280x1416, 597K)

He's still less retarded than you, I'm pretty sure even blind people have better eyesight than you

>ArE YoU LiteraLLY 12 Or jUST That mentallY StUnTed?

hitman 2016 and hitman 2 is pretty impressive crowd size, mumbai and miami and paris

Even the general public doesn't give a shit about graphics. Graphics never get you first prize. Minecraft, Fortnite, LoL, those are all worth 10 times more than the highest budget AAA while looking underwhelming as fuck.

As a 3D modeler and texture artist it pains me seeing all these retards claim there wasn't a big leap between current gen and last gen.

I feel like consoles are holding graphics backwards, because instead of going up continuosly, they set the same limit for 5-7 years

Attached: JPEG_20190624_211035.png (431x431, 166K)

everything you said could be used to describe CGI in movies. NEAT-O

Basically what I'm saying is that the massive jumps are there, we're just getting better at hiding it?

I dunno, I just love the fuck outta my job and we get to make awesome things on the daily. What I can say though is that it's not as our tech for *making* awesome looking art gets more streamlined and smarter, the effort and money does actually go into building out bigger games, not just on meaningless tech you can barely notice. Sure, we COULD try to do hair and cloth simulate that rivals what you'd see in a pre-rendered Pixar film, but we'd rather spend those resources making more levels, dialog, content, characters, etc. to fill out the world.

Anyway, that's just an artists' perspective. Take it or leave it.

Stay frosty, gamers

the main console vs pc difference isn't even visible in screenshots because pc aims for 60-144 fps while console aims for 15-30

I hate new low poly indie games. it's such a lazy shit

It's probably also a matter of screenshot comparisons vs moving pictures comparison, right? Contemporary games have many more moving parts

Correct, the tech definitely existed, but getting PBR to effectively fit on the average console or gaming computer without it absolutely smoking your system wasn't really a realistic goal until more recently.

*shrug*
Yeah, but a huge amount of what actually goes on in game development is really opaque to the vast majority of players/consumers. We as an industry could probably do a better job of pulling back that curtain a bit more.

High five for a fellow modeler though. Rock on, my dude.

PBR isn't computationally expensive. Arguably storing the extra maps takes more memory, but not much. It's just a standard

REEEEEEEEEE I WANT GAMES TO GO BACK TO BEING GLORIFIED CHESS

Attached: Final-Fantasy-1987-vs-2016.png (940x580, 1.12M)

CG movies are pre-rendered. Games are not.

Most CG movies use simulation tech that requires 24+ hours to render a single frame.

Having state-of-the-art graphics but rubbish gameplay is like having a Ferrari shell on a Skoda. Normies unironically lap that shit up though. As long as it looks like a Ferrari is all that matters to them.

The joke here is that right one is a terrible game.

Heya, also a 3D character artist here. Being helpful is cool but it's also way more fun to rile these guys up. Next time I recommend mixing in bullshit that doesn't make any sense!

Right on the money.
As a single example, CGI films don't have to deal with artificial intelligence systems. That is a giant mess all on its own when it comes to processing power, let alone graphics resources.

Yeah totally it was much better watching 2 pixels bounce around the screen

Talking the times into account, FF1 was an achievement while FF15 was schlock.

That...is likely a more entertaining solution, yes. I'll probably leave that to others more clever than I.

This is a better comparison desu.

Attached: dragon_quest.jpg (1920x2161, 1.47M)

While I can imagine you guys got way more power to work with, like borderline simulating reality, you should consider shifting focus towards creating deeper gameplay. As of recent most AAA games seems to be all style and no substance. No doubt AAA games are graphically beautiful and the visual presentation is impressive, but beyond that, they're stale. The graphics wear off pretty quick and can't compensate for the lack of gameplay depth.

I'd take a game with humble, servicable grahpcs and gameplay with longivity, than an AAA game with mindblowing graphics and gameplay as deep as a puddle.

I never understood how can people find Toriyama's artstyle even acceptable

artists dont get to tell their companies to "focus on gameplay"

I think it's cute.

What makes you think it's either/or? There's tons of games with great gameplay and graphics but also a lot of games have flopped while delivering neither.

Chess are more interesting than your standard JRPG though.

That's a shame, I would imagine that as a team, all members would value eachothers input.

>There's tons of games with great gameplay and graphics
Mind listing examples you think fulfill this?

so how about posting a GTA V on PS3 vs PS4, or MGSV on PS3 vs PS4? This is the definition of cherrypicking

what the hell is voice of reason doing in my comfy pus-bubbling septic tank of concentrated autism?
Get out of here, dad! (for the sake of your own sanity)

vocaroo.com/i/s0EkDdSP8xuN

Attached: 133216541651.png (1024x1536, 2.05M)

There is a point where cutesy must stop, such as a giant monster.

>Posting the same game across different platforms
They don't build the same game from the ground up for different platforms, you fucking stupid boomer.

What point would that serve

>I would imagine that as a team, all members would value eachothers input.
have you ever had a job before?

Why? Not everything must be srs bzns.

MH World, Yakuza, Resident Evil 2, Alien Isolation, Spider-Man, Horizon Zero Dawn, The Witcher 3, Metal Gear 5, GTA 5, I could go on all day.

So I can only speak to my experience, but I think as we plateau a bit when it come to graphic fidelity, you will see the kind of content you're looking for more often. Internally, I'm already seeing the results of that and I think players are starting to take notice of some of the larger hit titles that have come out in the last 1-2 years.

The "evil overlord corporate suits" don't control quite as much as lot of people think (sometimes we just make poor decisions all on our own dumb), but even so, the flurry of graphics tech recently came at the industry really fast, so there had to be a bit of an adjustment period where our tools to making that cool shit caught up. Now we can do that stuff faster, and more efficiently so that the resource focus can shift back towards making it 'good' instead of just making it 'work'.

Consistency is important here. Toriyama's artwork is very consistent, he can draw anything in his own way. That's a skill precious few artists have.

And not everything must be cute.

how old are you?
graphics tech began to plateau ages ago
in the 90s and the 2000s you could make absolute trash so long as it looked good, graphics were moving so fast
you can't get away with Quake-style "this is a tech demo with a bad game included" stuff anymore

>I never understood how can people find Toriyama's artstyle even acceptable

They actually look like they are wearing clothes, and not fetish costumes made out of 1400 scraps of vinyl and leather held together by rivets and buckles.

So what happened to Unlimited Detail?

Never said it must, just that it can. You seem to think it can't.

it was just an idiot talking shit and overblowing half-truths

That image is 100% of every game dev I've met when it comes dealing with the 'gaming community'

I just want to take seriously the enemy I'm trying to kill. Maybe not all of them, but at least the most relevant ones.

Games should just hire talented artists to create an art style and talented designers to create the game mechanics and levels. Those should be the highest priority of any development studio but you just know they spend all their money on middle management, Hollywood actors, and marketing. Modern AAA gaming is a soulless husk and should be ignored until it vanishes

32 here

See:
for more detail

is it bad that I don't understand anything in this post

Well I am 33 and I am a graphics programmer and I haven't seen any massive leaps foward since programmable shaders, only a slow steady increment in GPU power, so I'm curious as to what you think we're doing now that wasn't even remotely possible a decade ago

Why do you niggers keep posting these horribly compressed pictures? Fuck you all

I have, I guess I'm romantizing the games industry. Despite hearing all the horror stories about it, I sometimes want to believe that, in a creative industry, there would be some synergy, cause it really seems like its lacking.

>Internally, I'm already seeing the results of that and I think players are starting to take notice of some of the larger hit titles that have come out in the last 1-2 years.
I really hope you're right man, because all these AAA games keep getting more and more watered down. Especially, when some play like they're borderline on rails. Player agency has almost been stripped away and an open world can't disguise that. Fun, skill and mastering is almost gone in favour of a "cinematic" approach.

This live services approach you guys are going forward with also doesn't encourage much faith.

Even if there was synergy you can't just tell the directors of the project "hey maybe we should change the entire focus of our development process" and have them say yeah ok

I unironically like left more, it has some mood going on and dark tones

agree - Neverhood / Sonic 3D Blast still look great, even if low-res.
Without strong art direction any technical achievements inevitably fade away in their relevance, along w/ the game.

Attached: 2016-02-28_00100.jpg (1920x1080, 210K)

>Gen 6 to Gen 7
>games became blurrier, games went from mostly 60 fps and locked 30 if not to running at 20 FPS
>shimmering artifacts, glowing bloom and FXAA made everything age like shit, JAGGIES FUCKING EVERYWHERE

meanwhile

>Gen 7 to Gen 8 games became cleaner, post FX all became much more subtle
>PBR made lighting much more realistic and less gaudy, games take on a more timeless appearance that will age better
>Aliasing of any kind has been completely fucking eliminated over this generation, any reasonable AAA game now simply does not have jaggies at any point.

I prefer the last leap to the one before it, unlike Gen 6 to gen 7, we got an actual AESTHETIC IMPROVEMENT this gen, not just more bullshit on screen.

Attached: sf.png (732x736, 146K)

>>Aliasing of any kind has been completely fucking eliminated over this generation
yeah by blurring the entire image

higher contrast composition - just correct the black levels of the washed out right one and it will look both well shot, as well as more accurately rendered

Attached: 2016-02-28_00099.jpg (1920x1080, 244K)

>telling an artist to focus on gameplay
k
it's not our fault gameplay designers are shit

You're right. But, now that we're conversing, I'm genuinely curious, how DO you plan your development then? I've heard you use the waterfall model for project management. I assume you work in AAA.

That was gen 7 with its overuse of FXAA. Now we've simply moved on to resolutions that make aliasing a non-issue. Even checkerboarded, a small pixel is a small pixel.

>RDR vs RDR2 comparisons STILL not posted
You manage to disappoint my already low expectations.

Attached: 1514581078434.jpg (720x755, 61K)

Oh
Cool
Thanks for the info user c:

I don't work in AAA, but I don't think they are strucuted like other software engineering jobs because it's not just programming, it's programming heavily intersected with art, game design, and other fields, it is much harder to plan which is why game developers do "crunch" all the time
but there are always people who define the vision for the game and tell everyone else what to do, even in small teams, the art guy doesnt ask the creative director to "lets make a game focused on gameplay"
AAA studios all have their way of working and way of designing games that works for them and usually doesn't change because they're very risk-adverse

Some studios are an huge, creative party with that kind of synergy.
Some are not.
Weirdly, it's not always the ones you might expect to be.

In my opinion, the live-service thing is a growing pain of an industry that has barely reach adolescence. We may or may not grow out of it, but either way it will likely evolve/mature into something else - hopefully something healthier.

My gut says 'games-as-a-service' is a concept that here to stay because frankly the numbers say it works more often than doesn't. I'm not a fan of it myself, but it is what it is.

modern TAA on enhanced consoles is insanely sharp my man.

Go play anything recent (Mk11, HZD, spider-man something like that) on a ps4 pro or xbox one X on a 4k tv and tell me with a straight face it's "blurry" lmao.

Attached: comawn.png (475x477, 293K)

I dunno man sometimes it seems like artists are prioritized higher and have more influence/say in terms of the development and the direction it should go. There seems to be a higher emphasis on graphical fidelity and presentation.

>modern TAA on enhanced consoles is insanely sharp
if you mean temporal anti-aliasing then you're just trading still image artifacts for motion artifacts

>gen 9 could take what we have now and refine it
>instead it'll chase the absolutely worthless 8k meme because oohhh big marketable number

literally all it means is that they'll have an HDMI 2.1 port on it.

Nobody is actually going to make games targeting 8k you complete fucking moron.

I can flat out tell you this is not the case. Programming/engineering spots on game teams make on average about double what an artist does. And even then, their salaries are on the low end for what they could be paid outside of the games industry.

Designers...are a mystery. Sometimes they're overpayed, sometimes under. Salary negotiation as an artists is tough enough, but I can't even imagine what that minefield is like as a designer.

some devs are going for the former, though.
Rockstar with RDR2 and Kojima with DS apparently.

Before this thread goes out, Yandex didn't work, somebody tell me what manga this is.

sure, no problem

Attached: 2016-02-28_00147.jpg (1920x1080, 587K)

>they're very risk-adverse
Obviously, and its really shame it has come to this.

>My gut says 'games-as-a-service' is a concept that here to stay because frankly the numbers say it works more often than doesn't. I'm not a fan of it myself, but it is what it is.
Well I wish you guys the best of luck. Its a shame that AAA games will have to be designed around monetization in the forthcoming future, instead of being projects of genuine creativity.

it was a videogame adaptation of the movie, I don't think it's the same budget

>its really shame it has come to this.
there is nothing stopping anyone from making good games

it looks like we're prioritized higher because visuals are one of the easiest things to get right and are noticed immediately.

True, but I was talking strictly in the context of AAA.

> but I can't even imagine what that minefield is like as a designer.
unique pitch and successful portfolio, i imagine, are the main leverage points (or it's a passion project and they don't give a damn about the sum, so long as production is greenlit)

AAA and risk adversion are inseperable. AAA means they take alot of money to create, and you don't invest alot of money on something that doesn't make a safe return. The problem is there is no middle-ground between this and indie developers. Innovation is supposed to come from independents but most successful indie developers dont expand their operations and make better, bigger, more creative games, they take the money and retire

Also, and this really isn't meant to brag, game artists are incredibly efficient at what we do. We have a fairly structured pipeline with very specific goal posts. As long as we have decent art direction, we can make even the shittiest game look absolutely gorgeous.

Design and engineering have a much more nebulous undertaking that shifts around constantly. As an artist, I can make a character look awesome in a month. A designer could spend a month working on a entire crafting feature that gets suddenly de-prioritized because the entire character inventory system gets completely changed due to a new breath-through in level mechanics. That shit is a regularly a mess.

>The problem is there is no middle-ground between this and indie developers. Innovation is supposed to come from independents but most successful indie developers dont expand their operations and make better, bigger, more creative games, they take the money and retire
Absolutely. The absence of AA can definitely be felt .

I mean there isn't enough of it, but it exist. Things like Cities Skylines, Dying Light, Talos Principle seem to firmly fall into 'AA'

The Surge 2
The Sinking City
Darksiders 3

suless ones for an office/modern building
soul one for ruins/castle interiors

Are you so desperate for (You)s or what?