What will PS3 Xbox2 Cube2 graphics look like?

Amen to Ben and Alex...

.. For they speaketh the truth. We're definatly hitting a point where the graphical jumps in the future will not seem as impressive to the average consumer. While the technology will definatly evolve and we have a long way to go untill we have full photon mapping, true World Simulation, ect - to the consumer looking at this on a TV it'll be unimpressive. As the display technology is killing the immersion.

Shadows and lighting are prime example. Sure they're technically advanced, but on a standard TV the effects aren't noticable. They will be even more so on a HDTV, and will be absolutly amazing eventually when we system that ingetrages head/body movements and we can swing our head around and see the shadow interact to our actual movement in our actual perspective field.

Like someone mentioned a world with indivdual leaves and hundreds/thousands of onscreen items. Sure, thats great, but it's going to be not only a blurry mess, but unusable without a new paradyne in control.

You try fighting an 'immersive' thousand orge army using the same old controls, looking from the same restrictive and slow reactionary 3D viewpoint. It's not going to happen.

Exactly, the next big leap as Ben stated will be the move to HDTV, then 3D displays as Alex stated.

Untill we reach a point where NeuroScience and Engineering have allowed us to merge machine and man flawlessly, we will have a point of diminishing returns that are based on display and controls.

 

I'm not trying to say it doesn't look better.

I'm saying the observable graphical leap is growing less as time moves on. Like look at the second picture Zurich posted. That looks almost FMV quality. You can clean up the image and whatnot, sure, but how much noticable difference are you going to make between generations?

Go look at GT3 and PGR. Apparently PGR uses up to 5x as many polys in their cars - does it look 5x better? Whereas in first-gen titles, you add 5x as many polys - you were definitely going to notice the difference, because you were going from 1,000 polys per frame, to 5,000 polys per frame - there was plenty more detail that could have been added.

Do you understand what I'm saying? I'm not saying games are going to look worse, or the technology's going to slow down. I'm saying the difference is going to become less noticeable over time.

 

> Maybe the next gen graphics will look like the FMVs seen in FFX. If so, it would be kinda disappointing.

Are we getting jaded lately? Seriously, if we see this at 60fps with an engine to support it in-game with physics, shadowing, some 8-16+ full screen rendering passes for CG style motion blur and depth of field etc - and all this in ~3 years.. Hot dam.







Couldn't find any better captures, but the idea should be clear. Real-time cutscenes might approach the current state-of-the-art CG, but in general I believe you're in for a disappointment.

 

There are night and day differences between FFX real time cut-scene and FFX rendered movie.

Blame that on the real-life car model and Blame that on the artist. Why take excuses on diminishing return ? If Developers set a limit for themself, sure it will look like we hit diminishing return. If their reference hasn't change (car model in this case) surely it can't look any better, same goes with other game.

BTW an improvement of 4000 poly per frame is pretty small, and the image improvement reflect on that.

But we are not there yet. You are only saying this because you compare it to the really primitive state that real time 3D CG was in one or two generation ago. The progression is still linear, though. We are not on diminishing return yet.

 

I still think we are. Look at Soul Calibur and then any of the brand new fighting games coming out.

It's becoming more about artistic direction than technology.

 

If technology keeps advancing the way it has been the last few decades, then the leap between the PS2 and PS3 is most definately going to be larger than the leap between PSOne and PS2. Probably twice the difference, in fact.

What will the graphics be like?: Hard to say really, but I imagine the polygon counts are going to be absolutely amazing, to the point really where 33% of the number wont even need to be used. The big jump (probably wont be so apparent on the Sony hardware, because we know they're lazy when it comes to texturing) will occur in texturing from what I can tell. You're going to see ultra-high details, along with amazing resolutions to create an even higher 'photo-realistic' look. I'm not guessing any specs, because logic says I'll be way off, but I can imagine the image quality and realism will match something like Toy Story but with more realistic texturing (Instead of that fake plastic look).

 

Why are we discussing the best looking last gen games, FMV sequences and movies when looking at diminishing reutrns(DR from here forward ). Is there any sort of consensus as to what the best looking game last gen was?

I'd say OoT for the N64, what would people suggest for the PSX?

Compare them to Doom3 or Halo2 and factor in that they likely aren't going to be the best looking games this generation.

The rift between Doom3 and current CGI is considerably smaller then the one between the best looking last gen games and the best looking games this generation. You could certainly argue that D3/Halo2 looks better then a good deal of the CGI/cutscenes we have now. We are certainly at the point of DR.

The major advantages CGI has over current gen technology are shader effects, poly counts and resolution/AA. Current hardware already has a lot more potential on those fronts then what we have seen exploited, D3 and H2 are going to push things a lot more, but even they aren't going to be fully exploiting current hardware.

For shader effects if you were to simply combine the top layer shader from Morrowind with the techniques utilized in WaveRace for waves with Mario's distortion effects you would be at nigh CGI level quality(in some instances better then what we have seen). Those are using current examples, and ones that the XBox could likely pull off all at once. Compare them to last gen and CGI all side by side and see where the bigger rift is.

Poly counts are another area that CGI has a major edge over games currently also. But polygons reach the point of diminishing returns quite quickly. You take a sphere with 30 polys and compare it to one with 300 there is a much larger difference then there is between one with 300 and 30,000. When you reach the point of decent approximation incresing counts two orders of magnitude won't make nearly the difference that the prior single order did.

Resolution and AA will be largely solved simply by moving to HDTV standards. This is where the largest leap in visual quality will come from next gen.

Lighting, particularly radiosity, and ray tracing are the two big b!tches, but compare a radiosity renderer to the lighting in Doom3 and the rift isn't close to as large on a visual basis as it is on a computational one. Think of the most complex lighting example you can from last generation and compare it to D3 or H2, we are at the point of DR.

Is there a long way left to go on all fronts in gaming? Absolutely, and I'm greatly looking forward to seeing them realized.

Sure, if you compare what the PS2 is capable of then the rift between last gen, this gen and next gen may come out looking a bit off, but compare the best of the best from the respective generations and we are certainly seeing a slowing down in the improvement.

Look at the best 3D game from the 16bit gen, StarFox, and compare it to the best from last gen. It was a much larger leap in visuals then the rift between last gen and this one.

 

Yay, BenSkywalker and I agree on something.

Good post.

 

Heck, even if you compare the best looking PS2 games so far this gen, the shrinking difference between the FMV cut scenes and realtime ones is obvious. Just how many people thought MGS2 trailer was all pre-rendered, and it's the same thing all over again with SH3.

I absolutely agree that for all effective purposes next gen technology will catch up with pre-rendered graphics and the sole deciding factor will be artistry, knowledge and time of people making the graphics.

 

I'm curious what everyone thinks are the best real-time graphics on the various 32-bit + platforms. My choices would be:

Saturn - Panzer Dragoon Zwei
PlayStation - Not enough experience to judge
N64 - Conker's Bad Fur Day

Dreamcast - Shenmue II
PlayStation 2 - ICO
Xbox - Dead or Alive 3
Gamecube - Starfox Adventures

Don't just look at technical aspects, but artistically as well. Only consider released games.

 

Saturn - Radiant Silvergun / Panzer Saga
PlayStation - MGS / Silent Hill
N64 - never really played it much

Dreamcast - Ikaruga / Shenmue (yep, I like it better than S2)
PlayStation 2 - MGS2 / ICO
Xbox - Dead or Alive 3
Gamecube - Starfox Adventures

 

GC - Resident Evil
Xbox - Rallisport Challenge / JSRF
PS2 - Final Fantasy X / Kingdom Hearts / ICO

Sorry for the ties, but its hard to pick an overall winner when certain games excel at their own genre.

zurich

 

There's definitely diminishing returns. There's only so much graphical goodness you can show at a low resolution and framerate. Just watch the cinematics for FFX or Warcraft 3. They look good, but you can clearly notice the low resolution blurriness of everything - TVs suck! Heck, even watching feature film DVDs (Lord of the Rings w00t) it is obvious that the TV resolution is nowhere near as good as a movie theater.

Now watch the trailers for SH3, Halo2, or DOOM3. It's clear that, by the end of 2003, the TV screen itself will be the main bottleneck for console systems. Unless HDTV becomes super powerful, fast, PCs will quickly beocme much better (graphicaly) than consoles. What's the use of having a PS3 that can render a million polygons per scene with unified lighting in real-time with 6x FSAA, when you are still limited to a blurry 640*480 resolution? If the PC can render a scene with less polygons, and maybe only 2x FSAA, but run at 1600*1200, there is no way the console can compete in graphical quality.

The bottleneck of console game visual quality is already starting to make the transition between rendering power and display device. It's not there yet - most console games still don't run with antialiasing - but certainly by the time of Xbox2 the TV will become a horrible limitation.

 

I've never been one for high resolutions. I'm the kind of gamer that turns every eye-candy on, maxes out everything, and runs it at 640x480. If its ok, then bump it up to 800x600, etc.

In other words, using cel-shading on the Xbox as an example, I'd much rather have this @ 640x480,



Than this @ 1080i,



zurich

 

Saturn- Burning Rangers (horrid framerate though)
Playstation- Metal Gear Solid, Chrono Cross
n64- I have no clue
Dreamcast- Sonic Adventure 2, Guilty Gear X
Playstation2- Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance
Gamecube- hmmm, Rogue Leader
Xbox- Wreckless, Jet Set Radio Future, Dead or Alive 3

 

I seriously see little point in moving to higher resolutions before we have reached, say, Square CG-level graphics in-game. Most of you are obviously bitten by a very nasty resolution/texture resolution bug. The overall look is so much more dependent on proper motion blur (not the fakes ones we see in-game today), depth of field and various post-filters - not to mention an absolutely insane amount of lightsources with "offline" level shadowing - than on higher-than-TV resolution, which does little more than pointing out how obviously game-ish the graphics are.

 

Watch FFTSW and Toy Story both back to back on VHS and then a progressive scan DVD player. There is a huge difference in both FFTSW and Toy Story, despite one being significantly superior on a CGI level.

Yeah, living in reality tends to do that to you

DoF is annoying and horrendous for gaming. The biggest problem with it is your focused field tends to cover a certain given area, the same area that your display will occupy when you are gaming if you sit at optimal distance. Sure, if you sit three feet away from a 50" TV then DoF can be a great tool, but I don't know of anyone that does.

Motion blur is a cheap hack to cover up for a lack in framerate. I'll take a locked 60FPS without motion blur over 24FPS with it any time. My desired ultimate goal in gaming visuals is certainly better then primitive tricks used by Hollywood to give illusion of fluid motion..

Take Doom3 and recall that it is a console generation prior to what we are talking about when looking for the HDTV impact. Increase the poly fold ten fold and tripple the amount of shader effects used and point out where the biggest flaw will be on a TV, resolution will most certainly be a major issue at that point.

Aliasing is a rather serious artifact that is all too common in games, and resolution is the best way to deal with.

 

Ben, I completely agree with you there. My point is though, that for this gen and probably a good deal of the next gen, resolution will trade off with effects/detail, much like how a PC game can run with eyecandy@640 and notsomuch-eyecandy@1024.

If thats the case, I'll take FFTSW on VHS over Tron on DVD (although artistically Tron's beautiful!)

Next gen, I dont think we'll be at the point where we can have mind blowing graphics AND 1080i at the same time. I think developers will be more concerned with making every 640 and 480 lines of resolution as pretty as possible.

Maybe by 2007+ when HDTV tuners become standard we'll start to see a console built ground up for 1080i gaming.

zurich

 

Actually, motion blur is one of the things that used well in the movies gives the motion that cinematic, artistically unnatural feel. It's one of the things that makes movies more interesting to look at (together with more pronounced colors, shadows, contrast). Just compare the movies with 60FPS TV camera footage. TV looks too close to real life - boooring

 

The VHS to progressive DVD comparison is a bit dubious, IMO. One could argue that even regular DVD looks better than VHS. ...But considering that DVD is a compressed video format, that already makes it an apples-to-orange comparison to the output of a video game console (full bandwidth digital video- no compression). That said, one can argue that just plain ole NTSC has some life left to it, with regard to videogame image quality (albeit a bit trivial given the increased proliferation of HDTV). What was all that blather supposed to mean, you ask? Put simply, the image quality on a videogame console has the potential to be superior to either VHS or DVD as an output format- conventional TV resolution is not the hard limit at this time as one would expect, even though HDTV undebatably offers higher image quality through higher resolution. It is full TV resolution, realtime computer-generated graphics, afterall. No analog bandwidth limits (as in VHS) and no video-compression/smoothing/artifacts (as in DVD). Maybe we will see it in the next generation consoles, but right now, if you see videogames that have blurry textures (any whatsoever, and no matter how close-up they are) or limited color pallettes, that is a giveaway that the full potential of regular ole NTSC isn't being utilized. A console that has outgrown regular TV image quality is one that can trivially handle unlimited, uncompressed textures onscreen that are sharp under all circumstances with full 24-bit color in the textures themselves (no CLUTs and no 16-bit color textures).

...But on a much larger level, the real bottleneck is not the hardware at all but the average skill level of artists (and on a similar level, the development tools available to the artist to create media). True, there are artists who can turn out spectacular stuff, but the average videogame artist still seems quite challenged to output photorealistic animations that exhibit believable physics interaction, even when working on "unlimited" developer hardware resources and offline rendering to make a fmv cutscene. In that respect, the end product will always be held back by the skills of the people working on the project and the tools available to them, regardless of what the videogame console is capable of. A lot of growth can happen right there, and that hasn't anything to do with the architecture of future game consoles. Maybe that growth will top out prematurely altogether, as the monetary returns of a "mere" videogame project will just never justify that degree of graphics/content development.