Graphics are moving too slowly, I want the matrix now.

T

tybert7

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
2,763
Only downside is being in some gelatinous stasis fluid, but if I got the world of my choice that would be ok.
 
Graphics would be my last complaint. Computer graphics are literally more than a million times better now than when I first started playing games. A.I. on the other hand doesn't seem to have improved much at all.

So Matrix like graphics aren't that really that far off, unfortunately all the characters in such future games will be still be completely vapid and unintelligent. 2d personalities in a 3d world.

I would also say physics and speech are lagging behind graphics.
 
Graphics and cpu speeds will only get faster slower and slower it seems like. Its because lots of designs are hitting walls now like amd and others. ;)
 
Are you talking about the Matrix world itself, as seen in the movies.. or the 3D CGI used outside of it, to create the "machines"?

Because 'Matrix-like' graphics = 100% realistic CGI, which is only limited by the artist's ability. Because as we've seen with movies like Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children, it's possible to create a 100% realistic world, in graphical horsepower availability.
 
PC game development is coming to a crawl as well. Since many small game companies have been consolidated (bought up by EA and Activision), they are now going for profit -- not for game experience and new technologies.

Now we have to wait for the scientific community to provide us with advances in computing and A.I type development.
 
Jacez44 said:
Are you talking about the Matrix world itself, as seen in the movies.. or the 3D CGI used outside of it, to create the "machines"?

Because 'Matrix-like' graphics = 100% realistic CGI, which is only limited by the artist's ability. Because as we've seen with movies like Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children, it's possible to create a 100% realistic world, in graphical horsepower availability.
Click to expand...

I agree the CGI in FFVII is incredable and I think that in just a few short years we will see that kinda of graphics in the games we play. BUT I also agree that the UI is lacking in MANY ways and THAT should be the next step in making games not graphics. I am happy with where CGI and animation are at today but the AI is behind IMO.
 
Yeah, I havn't been really disapointed with graphics lately, however game play has sucked for a while.
 
There are only like 2-3 titles each year that are actually decent and most of the time they're not even from the big names. Some years I think I'm lucky to play ONE really good game.
 
15 Years, Tops.

Hybrid Ray-Tracing / Rasterization Engines will be the norm in the next 5 years, with 10 years of refinement behind them.

Computational power will be on the order of 1000x times what we have to today.

Common Visual Displays will be extremly long life LED Variants with about 10x times the resolution of today's displays and wall sized.(Think a $500 Sheet that you just stick to the wall)
 
I think graphics is "good enough" these days. At times, it's photo realistic, and most of the time it looks fairly convincing. Gameplay and AI haven't improved nearly as much as graphics in the last decade.

I don't understand the big deal with high resolution gaming, either. Lighting, shaders, textures, models etc. are more important IMO. I'd rather play a totally photoreal game at 1024x768 than one with blocky geometry, ugly lighting and blurry textures at 2800xwhatever.
 
BladeVenom said:
Graphics would be my last complaint. Computer graphics are literally more than a million times better now than when I first started playing games. A.I. on the other hand doesn't seem to have improved much at all.

So Matrix like graphics aren't that really that far off, unfortunately all the characters in such future games will be still be completely vapid and unintelligent. 2d personalities in a 3d world.
I would also say physics and speech are lagging behind graphics.
Click to expand...

And this is different from real life how?
 
w1ngzer0 said:
word. thats a crazy experience :)
Click to expand...

saw a live version of it :D
performed by a cover band :(
but they were really good, they are called "the Machine" :cool:
they travel the world a lot.

but back OT: Nvidia is sitting out a round, because they can.
Ati isnt doing much, who knows why.

next round might be interesting, or it might be a rehash of this round.
There are talks of 1nm transistors created from graphite. imagine a chip on that!
 
Have you seen Dark Sector? That game is incredibly realistic looking, and it's on a CONSOLE! Anyway, I agree with the 15 years statement. 5 years until it's capable, and 10 year refinement sounds realistic.
 
What we need is the folks that made crysis engine working with the foks from bioware for story and character content/voice acting. And hand it to MIT for the personality appropriate AI trees and compiling the code into better running segments for systems today.

Then we will get some photorealistic with lifelike actions and consequences, and an AI so good that every badguy will only have a set path or two that leads to victory. Because a game needs to be fun not impossible. ;)

That is just my opinion though. I could be wrong.

I just imagine a game where after installing it does a test and lets you adjust a slider between grafix and AI.
 
AI is really bad these days. Highly unrealstic. I think graphics still has a ways to go before it's 100% photorealistic. Right now even though Crysis looks great you can still tell that it's relying on a lot of old tricks in order to make it look good, there isn't enough completely new innovations in there, things that no-one thought of before, that makes it look good, it's just a natural step up, not a quantum leap forward.
 
Actually, I think we are still very behind in the GFX department. Engines like UE3 just slap tons of bloom on their UE3 based games and call it Next-Gen. Crytek is at least pushing us forward.
 
The shadow effects are realy the only thing that I see that makes it look any better. Again just my opinion and thats realy what we are talking about here anyway. Some are going to say its the best graphics ever and some are going to be like me and disagree. One thing is for sure its either a love/hate relationship hehe.
 
JimmiG said:
I think graphics is "good enough" these days. At times, it's photo realistic, and most of the time it looks fairly convincing. Gameplay and AI haven't improved nearly as much as graphics in the last decade.

I don't understand the big deal with high resolution gaming, either. Lighting, shaders, textures, models etc. are more important IMO. I'd rather play a totally photoreal game at 1024x768 than one with blocky geometry, ugly lighting and blurry textures at 2800xwhatever.
Click to expand...

Same. I can play any game with mostly high settings on my lowly 1900GT because I don't feel any need to go higher than 1024x768.
 
John Carmack mentioned in 2004 that he thought we'd see Lord of the Rings-quality CG in about 10 years. It seems like a realistic enough prediction to me.

I think the major obstacle is polygonal complexity, which displacement mapping should help to solve. After that, it's just a matter of continually increasing power and memory until it's feasible to generate multiple stages of shadow maps at high resolution and doing very high quality filtering.

Personally, I'm pretty satisfied with the Crysis level of detail. I'd rather have games in the next two years just match Crysis visually so that we have enough horsepower to enable high levels of AA and AF (but shadow map resolution needs to increase at least marginally). To get there, we need bandwidth, which NVIDIA now seems to believe is a non-issue.
 
Wow you guys are really jaded. Where we have come in the last 15 years on graphics has been ridiculously fast. Doom, then Descent (I'm a bit biased for Descent I worked on 1&2), then Quake then Unreal all upped the ante on 3d with texturing lighting etc with software rasterizing alone. Where we are now is literally a 1000 times more poly's alone and being able to do what we do now with shaders, advanced lighting, shadows etc is phenomenal. I remember when ideas like HDR, surface scattering. softedge shadows or penumbral shadows were all pipedreams. Realtime raytracing is a bit off but not that far. Be a little patient.

Cheers

Croaker
 
phide said:
John Carmack mentioned in 2004 that he thought we'd see Lord of the Rings-quality CG in about 10 years. It seems like a realistic enough prediction to me.

I think the major obstacle is polygonal complexity, which displacement mapping should help to solve. After that, it's just a matter of continually increasing power and memory until it's feasible to generate multiple stages of shadow maps at high resolution and doing very high quality filtering.

Personally, I'm pretty satisfied with the Crysis level of detail. I'd rather have games in the next two years just match Crysis visually so that we have enough horsepower to enable high levels of AA and AF (but shadow map resolution needs to increase at least marginally). To get there, we need bandwidth, which NVIDIA now seems to believe is a non-issue.
Click to expand...

The problem with Crysis is that it's highly unoptimized and certain things it promised did not deliver (a lot of low-res textures for one, too much clipping problems). I think we're also behind in the gfx card department, we're sli-ing crossfiring 4 cards together but we're not really getting great results in Crysis. So both the game makers and the graphics card companies need to step up with something new, not just slap 2 or 3 or 4 cards together and adding another 200mhz and call it a "new" product. Too much evolution and not enough revolution.
 
Doom 1, Released in 1993:



Crysis, Released Nov 2007?



I would say we have come a HELL of a long way in 15 years. I beleive in 15 more years we will see a quantum leap forward.
 
I've always wondered what would happen if there were a third major player in the high-performance graphics market. I'm sure what we have now would be nothing compared to the features and performance (not to mention cost) that would exist.

If you want a comparison, take a look at the hard drive manufacturers. They've had a capacity and price war for years now, and the winner is the consumer. If there were only two major HD manufacturers there is no way we'd have the prices and capacities we have now, nor would hard drives be in all of the places they are now.

The truth is that the graphics makers are stagnating. There is no competition happening, so we accept that the nVidia 9 series has no real performance or feature advantages over the 8 series. Sure, the 9 series may cost less, but you'd expect that as it's just a respin of technology that's already been developed. ATI can delay the R700 because the delay really doesn't matter, but if there were as many graphics makers as there are hard drive manufacturers then this delay would be fatal.
 
Sharpie is obviously 100% correct here.

AMD buying ATI made it so it's now just ATI and Nvidia in the graphics market, and with ATI just sitting on its butt, the computer is obviously loosing. I beleive once ATI finnnally gets on its feet and intel starts to enter the graphics market, we will finnally see some leaps in graphics technology that we used to see in the old 9800 pro days..
 
Croaker said:
Wow you guys are really jaded. Where we have come in the last 15 years on graphics has been ridiculously fast. Doom, then Descent (I'm a bit biased for Descent I worked on 1&2), then Quake then Unreal all upped the ante on 3d with texturing lighting etc with software rasterizing alone. Where we are now is literally a 1000 times more poly's alone and being able to do what we do now with shaders, advanced lighting, shadows etc is phenomenal. I remember when ideas like HDR, surface scattering. softedge shadows or penumbral shadows were all pipedreams. Realtime raytracing is a bit off but not that far. Be a little patient.

Cheers

Croaker
Click to expand...


You worked on Descent 1&2?
 
coolxboxgamer said:
Doom 1, Released in 1993:

Crysis, Released Nov 2007?

I would say we have come a HELL of a long way in 15 years. I beleive in 15 more years we will see a quantum leap forward.
Click to expand...

oh yeah! can you imagine thinking that crysis has poor graphics some 5-10 years from now?
think of games that came out in 2000, how many can still play them and be wowed by the graphics.(freespace 2 stil has it!) but some have 640x480 res?

On the ati front, some interesting news about the 4800
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37025/135/

looks like AMD is on the ball.
the next question will be, can the ball perform, and how much will the ball cost.
 
Graphics are moving too slowly, I want the matrix now.
Click to expand...

And its comments like this that explains why we have so many good looking games that aren't any fun.
 
Monkey God said:
And its comments like this that explains why we have so many good looking games that aren't any fun.
Click to expand...

Gameplay and Graphics are 95% independant of each other.

Graphics are a Technological Advancement, gameplay, not so much.

Nothing is harmed by Graphics going up in Quality 500%, improvements only enchance the visual experience and allow for new ways to develop gameplay.


Game play can improve at any time. Even in LOTR quality graphics comes out, someone can use that technology, combine it with imaginatie and fun game play and have a winner.
 
TheBluePill said:
Game-play and Graphics are 95% independant of each other.

Graphics are a Technological Advancement, gameplay, not so much.

Nothing is harmed by Graphics going up in Quality 500%, improvements only enchance the visual experience and allow for new ways to develop gameplay.


Game play can improve at any time. Even in LOTR quality graphics comes out, someone can use that technology, combine it with imaginatie and fun game play and have a winner.
Click to expand...

I disagree I think that it IS harmed when a company can make a game that has no game play value but sell that game for millions just because it looks good. You have consumers that buy the game with previews of stunning graphics just to get the game home and find out there is no game-play value. Crysis has little to no actual game-play value at all its a tool and thats what most people use it for. Yea its great bragging rights to be able to say your system can play Crysis at this level of settings and get XX amount of FPS but still its only a tool. Lemmings had better game-play value then Crysis ROFLMAO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top