Ever higher-res is "cheap", gaming has lost its way?

[whatever7]

Well the game developers can make 480-upscaled on next gen consoles, they can choose to use the CPU power on effect but they choose not to do it.

Isn't PGR3 a 600p game? I really don't think it looks that much better than GT4. The X360 demo unit has the same Samsung monitor I use at home.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Until we can experience games the same way we experience the real world the arguement over graphics and resolution is basically irrelevant ,it is still just various degrees of fake.

It's certainly not irrelevant, because those choices affect how realistic the fake is. You can't just say 'it doesn't matter what resolution you render at, is its all fake' or else it'd be okay to render at 120x80 pixels. Or 10,000x3 pixels. Or to render scenes with the lights back to front so things get darker the nearer they are to a light source. It is fake, and the question is how best to approximate real through fake. Could a sacrifice in resolution improve rendering quality and make the fake ever more real? A very relevant argument, especially on a 3D graphics forum!

 

[dobwal]

Um...you are actually agreeing with what I posted. Moving to a lower resolution doesn't magically allow you to do better graphics because the feature set is still the same. Also your post about reality and movies don't make any sense because CG movies look a whole lot better than realtime stuff. Like I said the GPUs aren't powerful enough to render CG movies in realtime even at 480p so targeting that resolution for a game isn't going to give you better graphics.

The feature set may be the same but the efficiency of use isn't static across resolutions. Tweaking performance on any AAA PC game will show you that is true.

Even, If HDTVs weren't reality we would still move forward in relation to visual fidelty in video games. I doubt that you would agree with the statement that "visual fidelty in video games at 480p is theoretically capped". If you believe so then you must also believe that amount of processing that can be applied to any one pixel at any one time must be theoretically capped.

You can make better graphics at 480p. It just that is probably easier to do so by simply adding more pixels than it is to increase the amount of processing per pixel to aquire similar increases in fidelity. Furthermore, we are at the advent of the HD era so why would one not expect MS and Sony not to take advantage of the situation and make use of the higher resolution that will be the norm in the future.

The OP is right that increase visual fidelity at 480p versus simply increasing resolution. But, why should MS and Sony concentrate on targeting a dying resolution at the dawn of "high definition"?

 

[Onlooker1]

To the person who asked what resolution real life is .. Yes real life is not only stereoscopic, but also 20,000x20,000 pixels, or whatever the current best estimates are. But we can still be totally engaged by the postage stamp TV screen in front of us, showing the most artless home movie, with its 480 lines of res. So clearly, low res by itself isn't any barrier to realism. If we're not providing maximum impact over 480p already then increasing res doesn't bring anything much to the table.

As for gears or war. I haven't played it. I've stood behind some people playing it at a demo kiosk. And sorry, it doesn't come close to TV realism! it may be the most gritty and detailed 720p signal yet, but there is more realism and detail and persuasiveness in someones super-8 video of a child playing cowboys and indians, converted to VHS, and played on a 70s TV, than there is in this wide-bandwidth 720p signal of gears. So I'd say that all that silicon to make gears run at 720p would have been better spent on more geometry and more physics etc (motion blur, or 60fps), over a 480p signal.

 

[London Geezer]

Are you posting just for the sake of posting, or are you actually reading what people are responding to you?

As i said, the resources needed to make that little video of a child playing look real is a lot more than what is needed for resolution increases. And it's not just graphics alone - and that's already tough due to lighting and geometry needed, but animation and physics too.

We don't get "realistic" looking games at 480i/p because the technology can't do it. Not because the extra resources are "all used up by the higher resolution", which, as has been said, is actually quite cheap compared to what is needed to make something look "real" albeit at lower resolutions.

 

[SirTendeth]

Job Posting -

Artist needed to create life like 480P images, if you are God please apply here.

-----------------------

The difference in graphic appeal in most games on a given platform, or even between two platforms, is mostly art direction and talent.

Think God of War Ps2 vs. Kabuki warriors on XBox, or GUN on the 360 for that matter.


Of course the hardware helps to bring the art closer to life like, but but look at the budget for fixed viewpoint, offline rendered 3d special effects, that try to be life like.

It's amazing that we have what we have, at any rez.

 

[dobwal]

To the person who asked what resolution real life is .. Yes real life is not only stereoscopic, but also 20,000x20,000 pixels, or whatever the current best estimates are. But we can still be totally engaged by the postage stamp TV screen in front of us, showing the most artless home movie, with its 480 lines of res. So clearly, low res by itself isn't any barrier to realism. If we're not providing maximum impact over 480p already then increasing res doesn't bring anything much to the table.

As for gears or war. I haven't played it. I've stood behind some people playing it at a demo kiosk. And sorry, it doesn't come close to TV realism! it may be the most gritty and detailed 720p signal yet, but there is more realism and detail and persuasiveness in someones super-8 video of a child playing cowboys and indians, converted to VHS, and played on a 70s TV, than there is in this wide-bandwidth 720p signal of gears. So I'd say that all that silicon to make gears run at 720p would have been better spent on more geometry and more physics etc (motion blur, or 60fps), over a 480p signal.

I agree that you can improve visual fidelity at 480p. What I don't understand is your assertion that it is better to maximize graphics on 480p and forego any increases of resolution.

One, 480p is a dying resolution format? There is no need to target SDTVs as there are being fazed out. 720p vs. 1080p is a better scenario for debate.

Two, why hold the opinion that if there are two paths to improvement then one must be maximized before the other is utilized?

The jump in visual fidelity for the 360 and PS3 isn't simply the results of increasing resolution. More geometry and physics etc is/are present this generation. There is nothing to say that silicon produced with a strict target of 480p would be able to produce better fidelity than current tech and HD resolutions.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

I agree with LB. It's orders of magnitude more power that will be needed to realize "life" at 480p. It makes sense to go to HD now and worry about rendering "life" when it becomes more feasible. The dynamic nature of games makes this even more important IMO. Go check out some games at 480p on a 60" TV and then get back to us. It's not a pretty sight.

 

[Squeak]

Just to make it clear for everyone, when discussing the pros and cons of high resolution, the "only" cons are really higher bandwidth, more fillrate usage (fillrate being the almost negligible today since it's so plentyfull and so many techniques for saving it are invented) and shader time.
So it's only if your game is bandwidth limited or shader limited that you are going to see a benefit on rendering detail.

That said, I'd much rather have plenty of pixelops pp than higher resolution.

One thing that's worth observing is that the perceived impressiveness of higher resolution (depending on the application) falls almost exponentially the higher you get. Good AA is much more important.

 

[ninzel]

It's certainly not irrelevant, because those choices affect how realistic the fake is. You can't just say 'it doesn't matter what resolution you render at, is its all fake' or else it'd be okay to render at 120x80 pixels. Or 10,000x3 pixels. Or to render scenes with the lights back to front so things get darker the nearer they are to a light source. It is fake, and the question is how best to approximate real through fake. Could a sacrifice in resolution improve rendering quality and make the fake ever more real? A very relevant argument, especially on a 3D graphics forum!

You're right it wasn't a very good way for me to make my feelings over this agruement clear. It's is relevant.

 

[ninzel]

To the person who asked what resolution real life is .. Yes real life is not only stereoscopic, but also 20,000x20,000 pixels, or whatever the current best estimates are. But we can still be totally engaged by the postage stamp TV screen in front of us, showing the most artless home movie, with its 480 lines of res. So clearly, low res by itself isn't any barrier to realism. If we're not providing maximum impact over 480p already then increasing res doesn't bring anything much to the table.

As for gears or war. I haven't played it. I've stood behind some people playing it at a demo kiosk. And sorry, it doesn't come close to TV realism! it may be the most gritty and detailed 720p signal yet, but there is more realism and detail and persuasiveness in someones super-8 video of a child playing cowboys and indians, converted to VHS, and played on a 70s TV, than there is in this wide-bandwidth 720p signal of gears. So I'd say that all that silicon to make gears run at 720p would have been better spent on more geometry and more physics etc (motion blur, or 60fps), over a 480p signal.

That was me and I agree that alot can still be done at 480p and thats been my point. My comment wasn't to suggest that I can't get immersed at 480p. Quite the opposite,but it's not the resolution that's immersing me.
I guess this is born out of playing many games now on 360 and still seeing what looks like last gen details. The shader effects have taken a dramatic step up IMO but even in GOW I still see muddy textures and other things that could be greatly improved upon.
Now maybe I'm mistaken about how much of a cost HD takes. I have an HD set that I play HD movies and games on, and I don't see what the hype is quite frankly. I get it with movies because with movies we are already at a point where we are seeing as good as we can see on the little square boxes,but games have so much more room to grow at any res.

 

[Squeak]

We really should be talking about pixels per cm^2 as much as just pure resolution. Any resolution can be made to look blocky if you zoom enough in or blow it up on a large screen.
Notice how mobile phone screens gets by fine with 320x240 because the pixels are so small.
This is much more a "game" of perceived detail rather than actual detail.
That's why AA is so important.

 

[Fox5]

If 480p movies are so great, why are movies moving to high resolution as well with Blu-Ray and HDDVD?

Simply put, higher resolution looks better.

A RTS using "real life" film quality graphics on 480p, you would still have trouble resolving small units, text etc.

It's sort of how, surfing the web is ugly on SDTV.

But there's nothing stopping Devs from doing what you suggest on PC, I suppose. Carmack sort of did with Doom3, which was actually almost targeted at 800X600 initially. It was meant to look great but at lower resolutions. Of course the hardware quickly caught up, but at release it was targeted at pretty low res to be playable.

I have to say, even at 640x480, Doom 3 looked pretty good.
Call of Duty 2 didn't look half bad either.

I've been playing Rayman:RR on the Wii vs. Rainbow Six on the 360 and I see no difference . Neither one fools me more,they both just look like video games. I guess in terms of perceiving realism my mind works with an all or nothing way.

I think you need glasses. They may both look like video games, but Rayman:RR doesn't even look good as far as video games go, the IQ is fairly bad.

BTW, people usually sit farther away for movies than games, so the detail is naturally obscured. Besides that, just because games CAN be made better looking at 480p, doesn't mean it's the easiest way. It's easier to eliminate jaggies and add detail to a game by pumping the res than by making ultra high res textures and poly models, and insane levels of filtering. And based on my experience on the PC, no level of AF and AA can make 640x480 look as good as even 1024x768.

But we can still be totally engaged by the postage stamp TV screen in front of us, showing the most artless home movie, with its 480 lines of res. So clearly, low res by itself isn't any barrier to realism.

Entertainment is entertainment, but I don't know about you, but even on a good set I'm not fooled into thinking the movies and tv shows on TV are reality. At least not SD, HD shows get pretty close to looking like reality. SD looks even faker than an airbrushed photoshop model in playboy.

 

[Crayon]

I am pleased with the amount of good information in this thread.

But I am amazed at the amount of miscommunication in this thread!

 

[ninzel]

I think you need glasses. They may both look like video games, but Rayman:RR doesn't even look good as far as video games go, the IQ is fairly bad.

.

I think you're taking my comments a little too literally. It's tough to explain certain positions on the net.

 

[Fox5]

I think you're taking my comments a little too literally. It's tough to explain certain positions on the net.

Wasn't your statement meant to imply that no matter what the graphics look like, the game still looks fake, like a game, and thus there is no need to focus on improving graphics? I'd disagree and argue that playability and the clarity of the visual information is highly dependent on graphics, if that had been your point.

 

[ninzel]

Wasn't your statement meant to imply that no matter what the graphics look like, the game still looks fake, like a game, and thus there is no need to focus on improving graphics? I'd disagree and argue that playability and the clarity of the visual information is highly dependent on graphics, if that had been your point.

Not that we shouldn't focus on graphics at all,but look also at the whole gaming experience. By that I mean sound,physics, a lot more attention to AI, interaction etc. And certainly the last thing I was worried about from specifically a graphics standpoint or even thinking about before this gen was resolution. I was thinking more in terms of improved animation,lighting,details etc.
Ultimately games aren't near real not just because of graphics,graphics are in fact relatively advanced because that's where the magority of the focus has been. The things for me that break immersion are bad AI for example. Of course AI doesn't really sell well on a box art on game trailer.