Are Graphical Improvements Slowing Down?

Well get ready to see it, because it's happening.

We've reached perfection son

No shit

I blame this on all retarded developers honestly. I liked graphics of many pre 2012 games because they had a consistent art design. Whatever game I look these days it feels like developers don't know what the hell they're doing

Realistically could it be that we finally don't have the hardware yet?
"the next big thing" just isn't here yet?
and probably won't be here, so long as tech field is littered with niggers and trannies.

Oh, another good example of this?

Compare GTA3 (2003) to GTA 4 (2008).
Now compare GTA 4 (2008) to GTA 5 (2013).

So we"ll maybe have photorealistic graphics in 30 years instead of say, 10?

Graphics as a whole seem to have hit a plateau when you don't look at big name developers, except that there's more 4K support compared to 2012.

Wow, graphical shit that doesn't matter in the slightest and adds almost nothing to the game

I am so excited, wow

A bit but I there is still a lot to be achieved and new stuff does get put in. The difference is that it isn't so much about polygons or textures anymore but rather how things can interact with other object and the player like said.
Dynamic Water and volumetric Fire effects are still very rare as well.

Lighting and effects are being improved drastically. It is no longer about amount of polygons. Lighting render quality can drastically change how a render looks.

I can make modern games look really really shitty just by turning the brightness all the way up. That never used to affect quality. The lighting seems to be a lazy way out for a lot of devs who don't really want to make detailed models or tight textures.

Just give me graphics from 2005, with a higher resolution. Games don't look solid anymore. They look like an oily liquid mess of vomit and despair.

...

My bad. I was thinking of GTA Vice City, but that came out in 2002. My point still stands.

Semi-related, but are people slower in switching over to the current console generation than they were to the previous generation?

Has the PC market changed that much?

2004-2006 was when all the games were made to look drab, brown and abuse of bloom. Games generally have more color now.

Graphicsl improvements? Yes
Artistic usage? No.

Devs are lazier and utilize artistic direction in the lamest ways possible. This is mainly due to games being designed around the constraints of consoles and so while PCs are still trying to stretch their legs and start seeing more games take full advantage of new hardware, all we get instead are bloated pieces of shit that handle memory poorly. The biggest example of this is the smokescreen of pushing resolutions beyond 1080p for no reason at all. The 4k meme is the bjggest culprit but all it means is that tons of graphical resources are wasted stretching shit and slowing games down. If games focused on packing as much into 1080p and getting the most from there, we would be able to see what graphics can really do today with the latest hardware. For sure things are terribly held back since graphics cards from several years ago can run most of the latest games at max at 1080p.

Of course, it's the reason why Nintendo has been reusing the same Mario assets now. What more can they do with them besides change the artstyle?

Meant to say yes on both counts but moreso on usage.

It's not about colour. There used to be a heft to things. They looked like objects you could reach out and touch. Now they look like mirages. If you reached out to touch them, your hand would pass right through.

changing the brightness isn't changing the lighting. its just changing the contrast. lighting improves environment mostly. character detail is already extremely well done in modern games that actually give a shit. Textures are mostly a size issue. Everyone hates 50GB games but they still want better texture resolutions.

Lightning is not just "brightness". It's loads of shaders and clever rendering techniques and postprocessing.

Like how Doom 3 could render believable for it's time dark corridors in space but it was completely useless for anything else due how the rendering worked (it took all the light sources, made several renders with each of them enabled separately and then combined them into one picture). And when you had impressive Unreal Engine 3 where everything looking like plastic shit because everyone uses low resolution textures in what is supposed to be a next gen engine because anything bigger wouldn't fit on xbox360 memory and disks

hell yeah.
what anime is that? looks like garbage

Consoles are slowing us down. But that doesn't stop jews from releasing new graphics cards every year. With planned obsolescence (via drivers;install this driver to play gaem!!) and unoptimized shit games, they sell new cards.

I always thought MGS3 had spectacular fire and lighting effects for a PS2 game.

2012 Haloman looks fucking retarded.

upping the brightness negates what the lighting should be doing. RE7 for example. looks really good at darker settings so the darkness can fill in space where the textures aren't so crisp but up the brightness and you can see how shoddy things actually are.

I suppose 6 million jews really did die in the holocaust then, huh?

And consoles have always been the root cause of everything wrong with vidya, also if you extend allied bombings, its results and fuckwit SS digging theirs and rest of the Germany's grave, yeah and it still wasn't enough.

The problem is homogenisation. In the old days, consoles got console games, and PCs got PC games, and ports were always an after thought, because it took a lot of effort to essentially remake a game from the ground up to work on other platforms. As soon as it became viable for games to be developed with all platforms in mind, PCs started to become consoles, and consoles started to become PCs.

Add in Reach and Halo 5, then we'll get 3 console gens of graphical differences. And OP, it's getting harder and more time consuming to put out games that pushes current gen console hardware to the limit, and it's not helping the no games consoles (PS4 and Xbone)

Compare cross-platform games now with ones that were on both SNES/Genesis or Amiga/Atari.

I hope so, maybe we'll get good games instead

You're on 8/v/ but you think the videogame industry is exactly the same as it was in 2005? You can think SJWs and their ilk.

No, but I know that consoles aren't to blame for everything.
Devs can and do take the easy path when making PC ports.

I know people already replied to you but I REALLY wanted to say this.
You're a fucking idiot.

Doom 1 Doom 2. Quake 1.

Plenty of others.
I suppose you mean "game in the last five years".

What a lot of people don't seem to realise is that consoles suffered from this too. Consoles used to be great, and then they started aping PCs and lost almost everything that made them unique and worthwhile to begin with.

What do you mean?

Singe player and couch co-op games could be an example.

They're slowing down, although graphics still look so unrealistic to me compared to the real world. Devs should work with using photogrammetry more to start making things look photo real, make each individual rock and leaf interactive.

A lot of the genres that used to define consoles are now more or less dead, replaced with mockeries of PC genres like WRPGs and FPS. And local multiplayer is more or less gone.

Think he means specific or unique hardware contributes to creative or unique games, Donkey Kong Country at the end of the SNES' lifespan is a nice example of this, doing more with less.

Can't find a game named Voec. What game user?

look at the image you monkey

Disregard that, I suck cock

It's a shame 2D (outside of fighting games) and 2.5D games are dead. The only 2D games we really get are "retro" hipster games that look like a 16 or 32-bit game with an 8-bit color palette.

Oh shit, that takes me back

Pretty much, can only think of Sega and Nintendo as the ones who were pushing their consoles to the limits back then, and most devs thought they were done with 2D-styled games once the console jump happened, thank Kek for Japan being stubborn.

The catch is retarded developers and art styles. We are NOWHERE near the diminishing returns some retards think (i.e people say there isn't a big difference between 2011 and 2017). We are way past the memory boom so if you want higher resolution textures to make a difference past a certain point you have to try higher resolutions but even then you have 2 things that might happen:
The developer has the artistic skill of a 3 year old
You can't see the difference behind 3 layers of shitpiss filters and a reduced dynamic range filter used to "set the mood".
Yes, and they have been since the inception of video games.
Yes.

Some (most) are lazy pieces of shit that somehow manage to make games look more shit than its predecessors

It happens when you replace all of your workers with illegal shitskins.

This is the type of laziness I expect from fucking hipsters, they make the game into a linear walking simulator with occasional feel-good zombie smashing without all the little things and top of that, being lazy pieces of shit.

Sometimes graphically.
GOTTA HAVE THE NEWEST NVIDIA TO RUN THOSE UNDETAILED 8192X8192 TEXTURES GOY.

Optimization, physics, mechanics, AI, sound, music, art style, gameplay, story should all come before graphics.

I'd rather go back to Crysis level graphics if everything ran smooth as silk and had top notch game design opposed to pretty but poor running movies.

This would imply that modern titles look better than Crysis.

At the end of the day, the cost and work effort to create ever more photorealistic graphics grows exponentially rather than linear with each subsequent level of quality.

Remember Unreal, where reviewers noted that "these are in-game screenshots, not pre-rendered cutscenes" ?

Made in a fucking garage by some handful of older teenagers.

Compare this with modern companies who pay serious dosh to modellers and artists to get their forty-trillion polygon assets.

And they're still shit at it, I don't know how
t. ported GTA 5 vehicle models to san andreas.

I just hate the low vision distance because unnecessary details approach consoles are backing the industry into.
Even worse they try to hide it by throwing 50 different blurs into the game so you won't see how shitty anything except 10 meters in front of you looks.

...

With current gen it still makes sense since while they have 8GBs of ram it's shared with the GPU, but last gen gameplay was genuinely getting changed to accomodate for the cucksole hardware. Everything was an underground corridor shooter because that's the only thing one can make look modern on a machine with a 2006 gpu/cpu and a 2001 everything else. Of course, nobody thought of making a single good game with ps2 graphics because consoletards only buy things that look as good as their potato can do. And then there's the paid online buttfuckery and PC getting much cheaper at once and that gen consoles just became objectively inferior to PC.

The only type of graphical fidelity improvement that has changed any element of a game I've seen is destructibility. Most notably from BF: Bad Company and after as well as R6: Siege. Really it's up to the devs to see what they can cook up with some new technologies. Which we know they won't. They'll just rehash the same gameplay mechanics without putting much thought into the design.

But it's been 10 fucking years since I've played an even remotely realistic FPS that featured dismemberment.

Verdun does a pretty good job letting the bodies pile up. They do clear eventually, but hang around for a really long time, so after a particularly bloody fight in one area you'll often find a trench filled with bodies.

Graphical improvements nowadays are effectively just to make the character models as "busy" as possible by adding an layers upon layers of details. Sometimes I feel that this is not the best way to go, that a more practical (and in some cases conservative) approach to game art and model art would convey the same message without adding twenty screw joints here and there.

I'm NOT advocating "lazy" pixel art.

Good. Hopefully they'll stop pushing high res graphics and push unique art styles and performance… I don't even know why I bother to hope.

DR1 was a game that shoved you into the game world, only for you later to realise it won't be a one-time run. I thought this was genius, when you figure out that you shouldn't hurry everywhere you can start to see all the little things the wrold has to offer.

With AAA games it's not like you're sacrificing that for graphics. They cut corners everywhere now anyway.

ArmA doesn't have dismemberment?

This. Halo design peaked at 3/ODST. It was simple enough to recognize characters at a glance or for the average artist to draw them from memory, and detailed enough to be an improvement on the last game. 4 and 5 went absolutely batshit crazy cramming details into everyone's designs like Bayformers or the new Power Rangers movie. It's impossible for non-343 artists to draw the character accurately without a reference image, and when a lot of action is happening in the game you can't tell what the fuck you're looking at.

What about Reach?

Reach went a little overboard too I think. The designs were more complicated than 3 for no real reason and I personally didn't like a lot of the armor choices. Once I unlocked it, I used the one that looked most like old Master Chief.

Wow. This whole thread. That's very antisemitic of all of you. Can't you all understand that developing graphics takes time and skill? What have you all accomplished outside being entitled bigots on this site? That's what I thought. Modern day games have so much going on under the hood that you can't even fathom. Either make some new graphics yourself, or shut the fuck up.

Thank you. :D

Ironic shitposting is still shitposting

6GB of RAM? Try 600

Play Crysis at max settings, see how your computer handles it. Keeping track of such small details on such a large scale is why stuff like that ain't gonna happen a s a common standard any time soon. And old games already had stuff like that anyways, like Doom even if the corpses are floaty because they're just sprites.

That's not give her the d, who is it?

to the guy who called me an idiot
ur gay

Welp, I guess we'll just keep doing this
t. nintendo

Descartes never actually said that you know?

If you increase by a set value over time, eventually that increase will stop being impressive.
First day you might go double what you have. Next, you're down to a much smaller chunk, and so on and so forth.

Big change lately is the shit style and laziness of many AAA designers.

Also, everyone ITT who says "Diminishing Returns" needs to fucking hang themselves

The reason why it seems graphical improvements are slowing down has NOTHING to do with hardware ceilings or perception ceilings. It has to do with effort and budget. As hardware improves exponentially, so does the required time and budget required to hit the given hardware ceiling.

Back on the C64 for example, it became relatively easy for the average developer to tax out all 38911 of those free BASIC bytes AND the free assembly bytes for their games

Today, its nearly impossible for the average developer to completely tax out the most demanding rigs, so instead they make graphics for lowest common denominator hardware. This saves time, effort, and budget

Right now the trend is towards higher resolutions rather than better graphical effects. Another part of the problem is developers targeting shithole stagnant consoles instead of the PC.

How much better can it get? We're already pretty much capable of photorealistic video games, it's just not always fitting for the game in question, or otherwise worth the time and money.

The problem isn't what kind of graphics are possible to make. Any studio can make ultra-realistic graphics.

It's just that devs want to appeal to the widest audience possible which includes spec restrictions and allowing all those 3rd worlders on toasters or consoles run your vidya.

Does it make it any less true?

If it's hard for them to tax the most out of a system then why are games that look like shit ever more demanding?

Model detail alone does suffer from diminishing returns even with the added surface detail.
The next big frontier is in lighting and physics, not in model detail.

While that is somewhat true, there's just one big problem with that argument: That picture doesn't take into account rendering multiple models at once. You can run last-gen games on this-gen hardware and even then they'll start to drop framerate when the screen starts to fill up with too much stuff at once. You can play fucking Bioshock 1 on an Xbone, and while the framerate will be generally more consistent, on those rare occasions when there are 4 or 5 dudes attacking you at a time, all it takes is one exploding barrel causing a bunch of fire and physics effects and boom, your frames dip from a silky smooth 60 to a last-gen 30. This is a game from almost 10 years ago. Now imagine a similar situation in a game with Serious Sam levels of enemy density. Graphical and hardware power improvements aren't just for making things look nice, they're also for improving the number of moving parts that can exist at once without causing issues. If you REALLY want to impress me, show me a way to run Nuts.wad with zero frame drops. THAT'S something I'd love to see. I honestly don't even know if it's a limitation of the Doom engine or of the computers it runs on, I just want to see it happen.

Source: Peacuck looking to blame everything and anything on consoles rather than actually bother seeing the problems of the industry.

...

I'm so fucking sick of modern devs and their awful awful shaders

No.

It's become substantially more labor intensive to produce what computers are capable of running, and the limit of what computer graphics can achieve in realtime is even more ridiculously out of the average budget.

Neither software nor hardware side has stopped improving, but think of it like this.

Think of old 3D graphics as a rough pencil sketch. Late '90s is a sketch with color blocked in. 2005/6 is a painting with basic values. 2011 is a semi-realistic rendering of the image. 2017 is an intense, detailed render.

Most people would be fine with blocked color if the gameplay is good- maybe even the sketch. That sorta stuff doesn't take long to draw. But the 2017 version? The same thing takes 10 hours longer to draw.

Not only do games have to achieve a hugely inflated degree of detail, but the size of the world that needs to be filled with that detail keep increasing. It's a massive fucking chore and that's why it's only possible for massive money-dump IPs like Call of Duty.

that's voltaire not descartes

Take a gander at siggraph papers.

Except there are other methods of adding detail besides MOAR POLYGONS, and they'll have less of an impact on performance too.

Textures are better now
Textures matter more than polygons

Yes. To the point where in my opinion, Halo 3 looks better than 4 no matter how many crazy techincal specs 4 might have.

We're at the point where we can have graphics that are hard to tell from real life. The next step is to improve efficiency.

This. 4's graphics aren't all that much better technically, but the art style went down the fucking shitter.

No we aren't

look at Halo 1's feet
why does nobody laugh at how shit halo 1 was as a design?
That's not graphical holding back, that's all artstyle, buddy.
They look like sneakers.

Yes, but only because adding lighting, shader and particle effects are EASY while making models more detailed is not. It has nothing to do with perception.

Thanks for not actually proving me wrong whatsoever

Why is the state of programming getting shittier in general?

Textures are so advanced now that they can create the illusion of depth.
Why sacrifice any precious FPS for a little bit more poly?

Retards think they can get away with lazy code and awful design decisions because the solution to every problem is "upgrade your hardware, fucking cisscum."

In the last row, rather than go from 2000 to 20000 polys, you could get a better result (more visually pleasing and less hardware-intensive) by applying textures and shaders to the 2000 poly bust.

Because it's become too high-level and nobody actually understands how shit works any more.

bumpmapping you nigger

ur mom you jewish bastardson

The rate of improvement on the technical side has absolutely slowed down, and this is largely due to Moore's law decreasing in speed (and eventually ending).

Throughout the 90's die shrinks could be leveraged to increase a chip's performance even if the design of the chip was changed very little. Logic gates with smaller transistors have a lower propagation delay and produce less heat, so even when implementing the exact same logic function, a version using smaller transistors will perform better.

When we reach the 5nm node, there will only be ~10 silicon atoms in the transistor. Going beyond this point might necessitate switching to a different material other than silicon, which may or may not be economically viable.

This has effected CPU's more heavily than GPU's, because the propagation delay through logic gates heavily influences the highest clock rate achievable. Since CPU's are oriented towards handling sequential workloads rather than parallel workloads, they are more dependent on a high clock rate to achieve their performance. Whereas with a GPU, you could "throw more cores" at the problem to get better performance (at the expense of higher power consumption and die area).

This is why parallel programming has become a such a big deal since 2006; it's the most viable way of increasing a program's execution speed at the moment. Unfortunately, there are workloads that are not (currently) possible to parallelize, and a lot of older software libraries are single-threaded.

Whether or not the rate of improvement will increase again is dependent on how rapidly game developers / hardware manufacturers can stop using this older technology. A good example of this would be the transition from OpenGL to Vulkan. A Vulkan-based renderer will almost certainly perform better than an OpenGL-based one (because it spreads out the workload amongst multiple threads much better); but it is a large effort to meet feature-parity with a company's pre-existing OpenGL renderer.

This as well. Faggots forget that their software has to run on real hardware and their code should reflect this. Abuse of OOP and people forgetting about the CPU cache have a lot to do with the awful performance of modern games, see gameprogrammingpatterns.com/data-locality.html and vid related.

Truth right here.
We've got photorealistic raytracing rendering (essentially, through the process of emulating the properties of light, things like shadows, AO, etc are emergent to the algorithm; not specifically added afterwards), but efficiency is lacking.
Shit like quantum computers (multistate parallel computing) are actually quite suited to this due to the algorithm essentially emulating the fundamental properties of light (to an extent that's more "emulation" than "hacks" compared to the usual light models), but the best tech to make this possible, for us consumers, is gpgpu.

yeah, we are.
Though, not for mainstream applications such as games.
See attached embed.
All done with a raytacing renderer.

Ok haha.
U mean shit like, normals maps, bump maps, and whatnot?
Textures is a blanket term, but just "textures" (plain rgba images) themselves aren't going to create depth.

It's the process of utilizing data stored in a bump/normal/height map for the shaders, as to perturb the normals (i.e. direction of the surface, which can be per vertex (mesh points), and/or per pixel).
Normal/bump/height maps work per pixel, and create that faux depth, but are just perturbing those normals; so it's illusionary, and that illusion can be broken via the correct camera angle.

There's also approaches like displacement or parallax shaders, and these actually create depth/protrusions; via displacing vertices and/or pixels.

Sometimes more polys (more calls to the vertex shader) are preferable to more strain concerning more detailed textures/bump/normal maps (fragment shader).
Depends on your shader, and what stage of the graphics pipeline you have the most strain for.

Which is noisy as fuck if you do it in realtime, so we use less expensive approximations and make tradeoffs in areas the player isn't likely to notice.

hence

pretty much

Consoles and normalfags killed graffix. When it takes a decade to improve your hardware the industry stands still, and PC is along for the ride. You faggots talking about 'diminishing returns' have no idea what you're missing. Prior to the console apocalypse we had all sorts of tech demos with thousands of AI units run by GPGPU, water simulation, heavily deformable terrain, etc. then it all just rolled backwards with the 360 because it didn't have the horsepower or ram.

NIGGER, have you heard of the "law of diminishing returns"?!

That applies to everything, so graphics gain will be much smaller, especially on weaker hardware and jew publishers wanting to push a game out as fast as possible.

Consoles, lazy devs, and Nvidia have killed graphical improvement. The biggest problem of all three are the lazy devs who, when trying to make a good looking game, have no clue/don't care to optimize it worth a shit so the majority of people can barely run the fucking thing.

my thoughts too, nice.

agreed

YOUR ALL JEWISH BASTARDSONS

YOU'RE

Guess what game this is from, user. YOu probably skipped it because "Hurr that's stupid"

That isn't true

Generally yes. But its not because they can't do better. It takes too much time and money and hits processing power to go more realistic. Plus at a certain point, its pretty useless since gamers don't care past a certain point if the gameplay and the game is shit.

It depends on the faction/area I think. UNSC visual design in general certainly peaked at 3/ODS/Reach, with Isaac Hannaford's fucking amazing art (pictures related) Meanwhile, Covenant visual deigns for weapons and vehicles i'd argue actually peaked at 4/H2A's MP, but their armor/structures peaked at Reach/Wars.

A lot of people hate 343 forerunner stuff but I actually quite like it.

This is incorrect. I dislike 4 a lot in comparsion to the other Halo games, but 4 looks impressive as fuck for a 360 game, it''s got almost gen 8 tier lighting, volumetric, and visual effects.

In MCC, it outright looks like a xbone game, aside from the low res textures.

I disagree.

While it's true a lot of people fell for the /3/ bait image about polycount dimihsing returns, there IS a diminishing return point for polygon counts and lighting/shading/rendering techninques.We've are starting to hit photorealism with faces now, which has always been the golden bar to pass. We've more or less mastered subsurface scattering and facial animation has really picked up lately.

AKA diminishing returns, retard.

That just pathetic.

I think the reason for it peaking in those three games was that the concept art (and in Reach) had a more military feel to it. Some of which you didn't see in alot of scifi FPS games. They had pouches, extra armor for areas, GPS devices, etc. all of it to let you know that these guys were still soldiers despite being in some massive hulking form of armor.

4 and after completely streamlined it and made the Spartans look ten times more generic.

We demos now.

Graphics are miles ahead of everything else and have been for ages, I want to see more devs put effort into audio, physics and AI.

I was wondering how many posts this thread could last without baithoven.png getting posted.

As hardware specs blimp optimization doesn't leading to poorer art design and utilization of hardware. It's why proprietary architecture is a good thing for consoles.

This. People love to put the blame on consoles and the "diminishing returns" theory, but often underestimate how much the obsession with higher and higher resolutions is holding back actual visual improvements.
The worst of all is that it's a never ending cycle, once we reach the point where 4k becomes the norm and the hardware might begin to invest more power in actual graphics improvements, the kikes will start pushing for 8k as the new standard and the goyim will gobble it up.
Unless people start saying enough is enough, I don't doubt we might even start seeing graphics reverting back to 7th gen or even 6th gen level of details just to support the higher resolutions.

Higher resolution is not a meme, it's a necessity for larger screens.

4k is currently a bad joke as the hardware isn't up to the task yet. I'm not saying it won't be common in 5 years but right now dual 1080s can't even maintain 60 fps at 4k.
I have 1440p @ 144hz, I recommend staying over 100fps when possible as 60 vs 100 feels like 30 vs 60

Let me guess, you play mature games for mature gamers such as yourself.

You know what, I won't argue whether 4k is a necessity or not, or if it's a meme or not.
But it is a fact that over >1080p resolutions - be them 2k, 4k or any other - are holding back graphics evolution in level of detail, physics, framerates and pretty much anything affected by performance, in my opinion a lot more than consoles or Moore's Law.
And I'm sure that way before 4k becomes the standard and 2k is outdated, the industry will already begin pushing for 8k or 16k or whatever as the new standard, and good goys like you will again repeat that it is necessary.
Just think where current gen graphics would be today if 1080p was still the aim. Graphics would probably be much more detailed and 60 fps would probably be the standard, maybe even on consoles.

...

I get your point but disagree, AA is a messy hack to fix a fundamental problem with lower resolutions which stops being an issue at higher resolutions.

As I said earlier I think 4k is currently a joke as no hardware can run it well but I look forward to it becoming standard eventually.
Also physics are not tied to graphics in any meaningful way (PhysX still sees only very limited use) so you can't argue that graphics are responsible for shitty physics

not really. you can't really measure improvement by polygons at this point though. the notable changes are be in the lighting and the continued integration of real world assets. granted there are always gonna be bioware-tier devs who make games look way worse than they should

the prettiest game of last year is still an unreal 3 game though, so art direction >>>>>>> graphix

is this fun as a driving game or just as a dick around meme engine?
tfw spintires will never be finished

Graphics don't look much better, but the hardware requirements to render them is increasing exponentially.

Current state it's just physics fun but they are nearly feature complete and have all the tools to make an actual career mode.
There are already some mods that work as mini-careers but they don't provide enough content to justify buying yet.

...

You do realize the era of Moore's law is over now right? Transistors can't get any smaller, there needs to be a new breakthrough somewhere else or CPU's will have hit their ceiling.

How else do you expect them to sell expensive new tv's and monitors to us goyim every year?

Commercial CPUs haven't maxed out yet but they are getting closer, the Intel 10nm is out later this year and current transistors can't be smaller than 3nm.
The other options instead of smaller transistors are:
Bigger chips
Non-silicon chips that can run higher frequency / tempriture
Different architectures and protocols, x86 / x64 are far from perfect
Better cooling

Don't pull an "extra credits" on a topic you don't fully understand.

This picture perfectly shows everything wrong with the look games go for that try to have a realistic art style in the current year + 2
2001 - simple, looks practical like it could be a real set of armor, is easily identifiable, HAS FUCKING COLOR TO IT
2012 - overly designed, lines and creases all over it for no reason, looks like everything else in the game, what the fuck is a color?

Don't embed that crap here

In the size of the textures themselves or how they're rendered?
Could this be fixed with improved UV mapping?

I'm not saying it's a bad plan, it's just not really going to look any better, since it already looks more or less exactly how they want it to look.

Not even in jest, not even in irony, do not link these faggots at all.

er what.. You're completely wrong. There is a huge benefit to going from 1k to 4k. Basically means bigger atlases which reduces draw calls. If anything I'd even say crank it to 8k as the bigger the altas the better resolution per texture (ie. more texle density). The case of Normal Mapping you mainly use for micro detail and for objects that normally wouldn't react to dynamic lighting but you want them to (such as a grill on an exhaust- normally these would be flat and not react to lighting well.)

Polycount on the other hand the more we have the better since a big problem right now isn't so much the details of objects but actually the quantity of objects. Sure you can have 1 really nice hero character, but you can't have more than say 100 of them. This is extremely true for MMORPGs because the more visually advanced ones, if you go into a raid with 100s of characters the frame rate tanks well before the ping ever does because the games not designed for it half the time.

The biggest case for Diminishing returns is the Time/Detail/Cost index. It requires too much time, therefore too much cost because more people are required for the process. The more visually advanced the game becomes, the longer it takes to create working art, and the longer it takes to then implement said art- which in turn delays programmers and trickles down to QA… as such you end up with a rushed buggy POS of a game that cost too much to make, so everyone ends up fired.. Right Crytek?

I agree completely, especially with AI and most importantly animation capture. Its funny how LA Noire invented a revolutionary approach to animation caputre, yet no one (besides Star Citizen- which for all we know doesn't actually work ingame and was purely bullshot) has actually used it. AI we really need to improve pathfinding. A* is too cost intensive, it'd be really nice to design some hardware purely for Path computations as to not slow the game down. Or design a new algorithm (which lets face it, most game programmers nowadays can't do that because they're no longer unlike their 1970s counter parts required to learn advanced mathematics.)

yes we are faggot.

While it is technically possible for games to look like that you have to choose between a 2 meter draw distance or 3 fps on current hardware.

he has proof of it running at 60. Watch the other vids in his channel. If you LOD and are smart with draw calls you can easily get this working at 60. The issue is going to be with the time it takes to make such assets.

Yes, now look at the 2 meter draw distance.

thats because its not an open world demo. Its just to show a section of map.

They could've at least tried to make them looks post 2008.

well, it looks nice but ripples on water render unrealistically as the angle changes, you can tell that the sand is just a texture and all of the textures seem slightly out of focus as if you're looking at them through a smeared lens instead of with your naked eye. i could easily tell it was 3D at the first shot that wasn't a close-up

Halo 2 looks the best.

Halo 3 looks like shiny plastic and Halo 4 has too much going on and is very grey and boring looking.

See my earlier point about Texel density. I agree with you guys though, there is much more he could be doing. Not that it matters though because these sort of work would take months… months for rocks. Yeah great.