Conversation
Notices
-
Sunday, 19-Jan-14 11:30:20 UTC from web
-
@nerthos That is some weird link there o.o But one thing I would love to see is how Next Gen Consoles gonna handle 4k resolutions if they become a bit more demanding in a few years since Sony and Microsoft want there consoles to last 10 years before releasing a new one or atleast what I heard
-
@electroidfire They can't really advance too much in the field of graphics anymore. Just compare DMC4's character models to that of any AAA game from 2013 and you'll see that there's not much of an improvement. The field that must be exploited now is physics, and some games are starting to do it, with dynamic environments like MGR's cutting props system. Really, 4k is just resolution for the sake of resolution. Anything from 1024x768 upwards is completely playable an shows detail, so there's not much of a point on going for extreme resolutions on home systems where screens won't be massive. And the few screens that would benefit from such resolutions tend to be prohibitively expensive and show poor image quality. A 40" LED screen for example, unless you have at least two and a half meters between you and the screen, with 20/20 vision you will be able to see the actual pixels forming the image and the gaps between them.
-
@nerthos I know but I mean in a sense you can tell when something is running in native resolution and when it is upscaled at times depending on the game and I do want to know if they will try to upscale at 4k and if they do I wonder how that may work out but if they don't I can probably understand why since 1080p is the best resolution still and I mean since you can't enchance the image anymore with resolutions, 4k may become lost like 3D tvs but I mean who knows, it may become standard in 5 or 6 years
-
@nerthos And I did sorta notice the quality not being that increased in games from looking at older titles too that came out for PS2 and PC like Silent Hill 3 for example which actually doesn't look that off from some new titles and such
-
@electroidfire I'd say maybe in six or seven years it might become the standard. Developers mostly have to work on things like grass and clothes reacting to gravity, wind and movement if they want better graphics.
-
@electroidfire @nerthos another thing to add is that we are nearing a graphics peak. Regardless of processing ability the amount of time it would take to improve beyond a certain point makes it no longer cost effective to have "great new graphics" and the like. Due to marketing a game stufio can't afford to have their entire art team working around the clock for a year because they had to add sweat mechanics and real dampening of clothes when wet. In short even if the processing power doesn't stop increasing the ability for studios to render at that higher power will.
-
@mylittlesistercantbethisincestual They will eventually just either stop progressing or end up using a few engines developed communitarily by dozens of studios, merging technology from weather simulators and other scientific software into it.
-
@nerthos Well as long as the games can give me a good story and atmosphere, I don't really care for the rest accept optimization too, and cake
-
@electroidfire The point at which graphics stopped being an issue to enjoy a story was reached in the N64 era with games like Majora's Mask.
-
@nerthos What about Final Fantasy too and Silent Hill and Metroid for NES
-
@electroidfire I'm just naming a game to illustrate which point in the evolution of graphics I'm refering to. Back in the NES era ambientation was incredibly limited due to hardware restrictions. While you could enjoy the story, something that ould be done as early as the '80s with text adventures, the hardware didn't allow for immersive environments. There's an issue with modern graphics though, sort of an uncanny valley of graphic quality. You remember the old 2.5D shooters that ran on DOS and Win95, right? They were immersive to a point modern games can rarely archieve. Modern graphics don't really fool the mind into getting really invested on that virtual world. The old 2.5D environments were close enough to reality that people could easily understand what was going on, but far enough from it that the brain could interpret them as a distinct reality and get well into them. I haven't been truly spooked by a game since those old DOS games, despite playing lots of different games.
-
@nerthos Wait, you mean 2.5d like from some of those old Sega CD games?
-
@electroidfire No, Wolfestein, Blake Stone, Heretic, Duke Nukem, Doom and the like were 2.5D.
-
@nerthos Ohhh, okay
-
@electroidfire Basically pseudo-3D relying on sprites and relative positioning
-
@nerthos The current zeitgeist is also a problem. There are too many games such that focussing on one game alone is almost impossible because you think of the next game you want to play or you are bombarded with useless information (aka Internet). That's a problem that I mostly have.
-
@nerthos Wait, wasn't there a 2.5d Alien game for the last Atari console which was the Jaguar?
-
@nerthos i'd rather they spend that time and money developing gameplay and story. As great as graphics can be at conveying the world you're in what's the point if you know nothing about said world or it's not fun to be in.
-
@broniebrown I agree with you there. I tend to download a game and focus entirely on it until I've finished it to avoid that issue.
-
@mylittlesistercantbethisincestual That's why I mentioned the idea of unified engines. Much of the heavy graphic work will be covered already, so it'll just be an issue of making some models and textures and the rest of the development can be focused on gameplay and story.
-
@nerthos unfortunately that's unlikely. Gaming like any other industry is a competition and to share critical assets with everyone would be harmful to said competition. Maybe the sweden industries would be interested though.
-
@mylittlesistercantbethisincestual It has to a point been done already though. Source engine is a good example.
-
@nerthos source engine is a decent example however Source Engine games are all hosted on Steam which takes a cut out of every sale anyways so it's not like it's non-profit. If you're talking about companies selling engines then Unreal is an even better example.
-
@mylittlesistercantbethisincestual Unreal is a great example and I was going to mention it, but Unreal engine games differ a lot one from another to the point it's hard to tell they're running on the same engine.
-
@nerthos it's unlikely though that studios would all switch over. For example the industry giants Battlefield and Call of Duty would never run on the same thrid party engine because they don't want to share anything with their competition regardless of if it's a third party.
-
@mylittlesistercantbethisincestual Never said that all would switch over, just that it's a thing that happened and can happen again, even more so in a situation where there's not much difference between graphics between their engine and the communal engines and going for the latter option can cut off a lot of costs whilst getting the same quality.
-
@nerthos ideally. Unfortunately I wouldn't bet on it but Ideally.
-
