What do you see the next gen consoles doing Graphicly?

P

Paul

Veteran
Graphicly as in will the games look more photo realistic or go that CGish look like DOOM3.

There are obviously two types of graphical styles that im seeing.. And i'll show you pics of each.

Here's a picture of the CGish look

tenebrae2_tb-base_02.jpg


As you can see it almost looks like it's made of 'clay' almost and like you could bend and move it. As seen in DOOM3, and it looks like HALO2 is going this way as well, by looking at the textures for the walls.



And here's a pic of the photo realistic look. Although this picture ISNT totally photo realistic, but you get the idea.



stalker_030703_03.jpg


Personally, I like the CGish look more. I dunno.. it just apeals to my eye more. Your thoughts?
 
I think 'CG-ish' look (where every surface has pronounced bump mapping) will be a quickly passing fad, just like it was in offline rendered CG. I actually can't remember the last time I saw a CG production that had anything resembling that look.

To me, much more pretty and more impressive is the nature scene from the 3DMark 2003. I'd like the games of the next generation to look like that (or even better)
 
I think it more or less relies on what type of game it is. In a game like Panzer Dragoon you have a lush outside world being rendered by beautiful textures and some amazing effects. In Doom3 you have mostly indoor based scenes that are very dark and gloomy. Each have a look that look great, but I would have to agree with marconelly. The nature scene in 3dmark2k3 does look beautiful. I don't expect Final Fantasy: TSW graphics or anything like that, but FFX CG graphics are probably what to look forward to. I would like to see rendering power like that put to use on a photo realistic type game such as a racer. You'd be able to have 40 - 50 cares on screen at once and still have vivid detail all over the track. I can just barely imagine what future games that devs will come up with to take advantage of the power. In the next gen I'm sure it will come down to art style much moreso than previously before and it will be a time to see developers truly get a chance at something they've always wanted to do.
 
I say the next generation will look more CGish but mostly due to the artists and programmers skills, remember people have to model these things. I however thing that things will get more natural look to them as to save modeling time they use complex particle and physics engines to use machine power rather than pure model compexity.

IE : Trees will have real leaves that react to wind/hits & grass that does the same. Smoke and sparks that are effected by character movment (was ment to be in U2k3 but it just disapeared), those kinds of things.

I would like to see rendering power like that put to use on a photo realistic type game such as a racer. You'd be able to have 40 - 50 cars on screen at once and still have vivid detail all over the track.
Click to expand...

That is what I am talking about, trees, grass, cloth, sparks, smoke the roads surface detail all generated on the fly to make to world look extremely detailed.
 
Hmmm it will play pong at 1million frames per sec and it will play doom 3 at 1000fps ... and it will do some fake upgly as sin version of a pre rendered movie (ff , toy story something ) and everyone will say its the second coming . then pc cards will be faster than it.. then fan boys fight over which system is the best ... then they fight over the generation thats coming and the cycle starts all over again ... am i right :D
 
Neither approach is particularly "photo realistic". The high texture-detail, high-polycount, less-bumpmapped approach looks 'photorealistic' only in still screenshots. They rely on using lots of scanned-in photographs to provide high-detail textures. Although this looks extremely good in screenshots, when animations or lighting move the texture away from context, they tend to look unrealistically "flat".

Another approach focuses on impressive lighting effects over polycount and texture res, as seen in Splinter Cell, Halo 2, and perhaps Deus Ex 2 and Starcraft Ghost. While it looks very cool, no one will ever call it realistic. I think we'll be seeing quite a lot more games with "lighting-focused" rendering engines on the Xbox, since Xbox does lighting very well but doesn't have the power to do photorealistic textures. (None of the current-gen consoles do)

The DOOM3 rendering approach combines lots of textures and dynamic lighting with a lot of bumpmapping, and a very "dynamic" feel to the game engine. Although it does not look as realistic as the "photorealistic" approach in screenshots, it gives a much better impression in motion because everything is dynamically lit and bumpmapped, and things just look much more fluid when animated.

I think consoles will tend to move toward the lighting/bumpmapping type of rendering engine. You can already see from DOOM3 and Halo2 that the current-gen of consoles is moving in this direction. The next gen of consoles will be much better equipped to pump out the lighting effects (High Dynamic Range lighting would help a "Halo2" style game tremendously) and bumpmapping required for this rendering approach. On the other hand, the high-resolution "photorealistic textures" approach to rendering relies too heavily on memory size and bandwidth, two of the traditional disadvantages of consoles.
 
BoddoZerg said:
Neither approach is particularly "photo realistic". The high texture-detail, high-polycount, less-bumpmapped approach looks 'photorealistic' only in still screenshots. They rely on using lots of scanned-in photographs to provide high-detail textures. Although this looks extremely good in screenshots, when animations or lighting move the texture away from context, they tend to look unrealistically "flat".

Another approach focuses on impressive lighting effects over polycount and texture res, as seen in Splinter Cell, Halo 2, and perhaps Deus Ex 2 and Starcraft Ghost. While it looks very cool, no one will ever call it realistic. I think we'll be seeing quite a lot more games with "lighting-focused" rendering engines on the Xbox, since Xbox does lighting very well but doesn't have the power to do photorealistic textures. (None of the current-gen consoles do)

The DOOM3 rendering approach combines lots of textures and dynamic lighting with a lot of bumpmapping, and a very "dynamic" feel to the game engine. Although it does not look as realistic as the "photorealistic" approach in screenshots, it gives a much better impression in motion because everything is dynamically lit and bumpmapped, and things just look much more fluid when animated.

I think consoles will tend to move toward the lighting/bumpmapping type of rendering engine. You can already see from DOOM3 and Halo2 that the current-gen of consoles is moving in this direction. The next gen of consoles will be much better equipped to pump out the lighting effects (High Dynamic Range lighting would help a "Halo2" style game tremendously) and bumpmapping required for this rendering approach. On the other hand, the high-resolution "photorealistic textures" approach to rendering relies too heavily on memory size and bandwidth, two of the traditional disadvantages of consoles.
Click to expand...


all i know is that the development of next generation of videogames are going to be so bloody long and expensive.....
 
all i know is that the development of next generation of videogames are going to be so bloody long and expensive.....
Click to expand...

It happened to movies long ago, it's about time it happened to videogames.

Any medium of entertainment will inevitably lean toward big-budget, expensive productions as it matures. It happened to music centuries ago (orchestras are not cheap), happened to movies and then TVs, and now it is happening to videogames. It's natural that once a medium becomes sufficiently sophisticated, it will require an incredible amount of effort and coordination to create high quality product. As technology advances, we will see videogaming dominated by big development houses that can spend years and millions creating amazing-looking games. But just like music and movies, there will always be "indie" productions that are very cool, though ugly and clearly low-budget.

Of course, there will not be any "indie" games on console. There haven't been since the days of Atari. The licensing fees on console are big, and there is no such thing as a no-budget console game. Small budget, wickedly fun games have been the domain of PC (and Mac) games since time immemorial. :p

By the way, check out Avernum:
http://www.spiderwebsoftware.com
 
I agree, with the DOOM3 aproach, noone would confuse it for being real. Although it looks MORE appealing than a photo realistic type of game.

I like the whole CG thing, and I hope it stays. In the end though, photo realism will win, eventually graphics will get up there with FF the movie or even beyond.
 
All I'm saying is, both pictures posted in this thread really look nothing close to being realistic. I fully expect next gen machines to go quite beyond that in shader sophistication and surface reproduction. Again, as I've said, we already have an example of things to come in that nature demo. Shiny-metal-bumpmapping will prosper in this gen (mostly on Xbox, probably) but I don't see that lasting for long. Next gen must be capable of producing something a lot more sophisticated.
 
This is how I hope some games will look like:

840.jpg


874.jpg


I would say it's not impossible for the next generation to achive the above quality.

Fredi
 
That heli pic is wow..

But the bathroom one.. Im sure a Radeon 9800 PRO pushed out can do that picture.
 
i guess we'll have to see how PS2 (or any other console) compared to the current PC graphics on the day of release... the same will be for any next gen console.

the thing is, Sony's consoles are getting more and more distant from PC-like architectures, which means they just won't compare... just look at PS2, it still pushed more polygons than any other piece of hardware out there until not too long ago....

with PS3 the difference between architectures will be even more accentuated, PS3 should be able to do things that will take years to reproduce on a PC, still a PC out at the same time will have advantages over PS3, mostly on memory size methinks... it's always like that, PC's have the capacity to dump more and more memory... still i think one day we will get to the point where having too much memory slows down the system instead of making it better.... then we will have to come up with new ways to do things, namely procedural textures and lighting for example...
 
If PS3 or Xbox2 can push graphics like THOSE... that'll be impressive ^^

I would assume, though, that FP32 is nowhere near enough precision to make a whole planet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Discussion about lighting (usage of lighting techniques).
2
Replies
21
Views
3K
Frenetic Pony
F
Z
Its not just me, games used to be better
7 8 9
Replies
173
Views
10K
cheapchips
C
Cyan
What are the games that blew your mind when you saw them *spawn
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
5K
Deleted member 87499
D
G
Does being messed about by women or people in general, turn you bitter?
Replies
16
Views
1K
Grizzly Teddy
G
B
How do "lead platforms" work?
Replies
13
Views
2K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
Back
Top