BIG QUESTION, Please read

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
B

bhuvanesh123

Distinguished
Jun 9, 2008
141
0
18,690
Hello Guys,

I've been playing games from 2006 on and off...... I'd like to know if any others have the same feeling as i do about games.

Good looking games such as FEAR, 2 Thrones, and all came up which i really enjoyed... supreme commander, AOE 3 were nice looking stratergy games that were from the same era...

IMHO, It in late 2007, and 2008, after the event of the 8800gt's launch, there was a tremendous increase in PC gaming, and games looked revolutionary from the graphic department... Crysis, Assassins creed etc, Far Cry 2 came out during this period...Even BF BC2 which came out after 2 years looke awesome...

Its 2014 now, and i've been continually playing On and Off, and finished the AAA games SP mode when ever i get the time(since i have begun working), and recently i went back to playing Crysis, and AC-1 for nostalgia sake, and surprisingly they still look good to this day.

Makes me feel like these new games could easily be handle by the oder cards if they were optimized really well.... So what is going wrong? am i having wrong facts, or the game devs have gotten lazy, or the new DX sucks(because DX 9.0c was the best), or are my eyes are screwed?? I am going to suggest the game development cycle has gotten smaller and smaller, so coding has to be in really high level language to make devs job easier, hence optimization isnt possible. thats my take.....
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
smartkid95

smartkid95

Distinguished
Sep 2, 2009
153
0
18,710
The game designers have been getting lazy. The graphics are TECHNICALLY better because they have higher resolution textures, more polygons, better filtering, and plenty of other buzzwords. However, even though all these new features are all well and good it does not necessarily make the game look any better. I think the games looked more realistic a few years ago even though now the graphics are better. Realistic graphics and good graphics mean two totally different ideas. Right now we are in a transition of hardware generations so I would say wait a few years and after the designers learn how to use what they have they will once again focus on making graphics realistic rather than technically better. That transition happens in between every generation of hardware. At the end of the generation the designers start making the game look realistic, and the begging they focus on using the new technology features. 8800gts can't run new games because they are bogged down performance wise with all of these new tessellation and lighting gimmicks. I would personally be more impressed if they came out with a graphics engine that was so well optimized that it could play on a 5750 and still look awesome. The amount of graphical power we have is a little unnecessary.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
P

Pinhedd

Champion
Aug 7, 2007
10,342
20
56,965


What you may be witnessing is a diminishing return on increases in polygon count. There was a massive increase in visual quality from the ~100 polgyon models of the Quake era to the ~1000 polygon models of the early 2000s. There is a much smaller increase in the visual quality from the 1000 polygon models to the 10000 polygon models of the Crysis era.

The same is true for textures. Noticeable increase from 32 pixel textures to 64 pixel textures, less noticeable from 64 to 128, even less from 1024 to 2048. There's a linear increase in arithmetic operations required to handle the larger datasets yet this results in a logarithmic increase in perceived quality.

To combat this, engineers have been working on new ways to make scenes look more realistic without cranking up polygon counts or texture resolutions to ungodly levels. DirectX 11 added a bunch of new features such as Tessellation which allows for polygons to be geometrically subdivided dynamically based on a control parameter, allowing a huge degree of detail up close without blowing up the space complexity of the same surface when presented far away.

Take Crysis 1 for example, looks great but the shadows kinda suck. Put it up against Crysis 2 (with the patches) or Crysis 3. Take a look at the fine details such as environmental effects, surface depth, shadow accuracy, particle effects, things like that. That's where most rendering improvements have been in the past 5 years.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
B

bhuvanesh123

Distinguished
Jun 9, 2008
141
0
18,690
Yea man, these days when they dispaly what an engine in E3, or a realism of a game, the first thing they focus is on how good acne scars and pimples look on a person's face, and how snow falls in a distant mountain, those are 2 things i almost dun give a dam about..... i kinda feel graphics needn't get any better, its already good enough..... Mass Effect was a nice example of how to keep graphics almost constant, but deliver an outstanding game play with incredible story.......
And you were right on the point, gimmicks is what they are truly...... lightings are amazing on crysis 1, if you remember seeing the sun rays in-between the palm trees near the beach, dam man i was enjoying soda and chips simply staring the game.....
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
B

bhuvanesh123

Distinguished
Jun 9, 2008
141
0
18,690
I may have to disagree with you suggestion on the jump form quake era to crysis era being smaller, It was a leap imo...... but i kinda agree with you on the law of diminishing returns after that era.....
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
P

Pinhedd

Champion
Aug 7, 2007
10,342
20
56,965


I didn't jump from Quake to Crysis, but from Quake to an intermediary in the early 2000s (say, Half-Life 2) and from that to Crysis.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Madmaxneo

Madmaxneo

Reputable
Feb 25, 2014
335
2
4,810
You think the recent diminishing returns might have something to do with the console market? Think about it, the Xbox 360 came out mid 2005 (?) and a year or so later graphics on PC games jumped up a few notches. Since then graphics really haven't changed that much except for some special lighting and extra pixels here and there (to sum it up), and we were stuck with the Xbox 360 and PS3 for all those years. Now the Xbox One and the PS4 are out and their hardware has barely been pushed. I give it another year or so and I believe we will see another jump in graphics quality. It seems to me the console market is what drives gaming graphics quality.
This is only my slightly informed opinion
Bruce
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
B

bhuvanesh123

Distinguished
Jun 9, 2008
141
0
18,690
i am inclined to believe what you say dude. I am also a believer that PS4 does give a run for the money compared to the mid range builds this generation, on apples to apples comparison. (Its a r9 270(non-x) with a cpu as powerful as i3 3rd gen), and in all honesty, i want the consoles to succeed, because its a bigger spending market(VGcharts all the recent games).
So if the games can suck out everything out of the current gen's hardware and make it look awesome, i'll be satisfied with minor tweaks (better texture pack, 4k support) when they simply port it over to the PC.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom