When looks are no longer enough

[mckmas8808]

Graphics are 'topping out' in the sense that they are reaching a point of diminished returns. Game makers are putting more into visuals than they are getting out.

Now this doesn't mean that eye candy can't (or won't) improve; it just means that the returns on graphics investments are shrinking. So, as academia seems to be saying, it makes cents to pour one's resources into areas with better yields, like AI.

Bulllocks!! So, it's okay to look at the next-generation and say graphics are at a point of dimishishing returns? Has Mass Effect, Bioshock, Heavenly Sword, Naughty Dog's Jungle game, etc released yet?

I mean for heaven sake can we at least wait until the PS3 comes out to see their 1st party work and wait until 3rd party devs put more focus on next with the PS3 and X360? Come on guys A.I. and animation will be very very important but lets not say graphics have hit diminished returns.

 

[Shark Sandwich]

While I would love better AI in games, I can't see this being a big factor for most gamers. The purpose of enemy "AI" in games is to provide some small resistance to the gamer, regardless of how injured our outgunned the enemy might be, and then die in a cool-looking way. How can you improve on that? Should your enemies call for help? No sensible enemy, when confronted by some ultimate killing machine armed with chainguns and rocket lanuchers, would stand a chance unless he cooperated with allies to surround you. If you tried to attack an American military base, do you think you would just fight soldiers one-on-one? Of course not. You'd face a fight against dozens of soldiers, all highly-trained, and all communicating with each other. A scenario like this would make a terrible game because you wouldn't stand a chance. Even if this sounds like a cool idea to you, think about it this way: would anybody who isn't a hardcore gamer want to play a game like this? Most gamers would get their asses kicked within 3 minutes and then play something else.

How about better AI for NPCs? This was supposed to be one of the big selling points for Oblivion. Geeks like myself quivered with anticipation at the possibilities of Radiant AI. We were told stories of how all NPC actions were dictated by their needs and desires. NPCs would even steal from each other if they were hungry and poor. Then Oblivion was finally released and none of the stories were true. NPCs were just as stupid and lifeless as they've always been. People in Oblivion will stare at walls for 5 hours and then wander aimlessly through the streets. Most of them don't eat at all, let alone steal from each other in order to buy food. I can kick all the food off an orc's table and throw a carafe at his head, and he'll pretend like I'm not even there. Lo and behold, Oblivion still sold millions and got nothing but 9's and 10's from gaming publications. Looking at Oblivion, would you expect game developers to say "our game needs next-gen AI"?

Unfortunately, AI has always just been a buzzword that marketing people throw around. The bottom line is that most gamers just don't care, and likely wouldn't want good AI anyway. For every geek like us, there are 50 dumb teenagers who only want prettier explosions and lots of blood.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Descent 3 had great AI. Outgunned bots would often flee to the side of larger bots, which really added to the experience. As for radoing for coordinated help, ever played Metal Gear Solid?

 

[scooby_dooby]

Bulllocks!! So, it's okay to look at the next-generation and say graphics are at a point of dimishishing returns? Has Mass Effect, Bioshock, Heavenly Sword, Naughty Dog's Jungle game, etc released yet?

I mean for heaven sake can we at least wait until the PS3 comes out to see their 1st party work and wait until 3rd party devs put more focus on next with the PS3 and X360? Come on guys A.I. and animation will be very very important but lets not say graphics have hit diminished returns.

The fact is the returns are diminishing, and will always diminish between generations. Each step up, will show less improvement than the last. That's not to say we won't see a huge jump, but technically returns are dminishing.

I do agree with the sentiment with regards to AI, if I were to rate thing on their realism, GFX like FN3 would be around 7/10(pretty close), while the AI in most games would be a 2/10 at best. We've never seen anything remotely close to realistic AI and there is a TON of room to improve there.

Next gen is all about 3 things to me, GFX, AI and Animations. Physics I feel are already pretty damn good, I don't think they can bring as much to the table as the other 3.

 

[mckmas8808]

The fact is the returns are diminishing, and will always diminish between generations. Each step up, will show less improvement than the last. That's not to say we won't see a huge jump, but technically returns are dminishing.

I do agree with the sentiment with regards to AI, if I were to rate thing on their realism, GFX like FN3 would be around 7/10(pretty close), while the AI in most games would be a 2/10 at best. We've never seen anything remotely close to realistic AI and there is a TON of room to improve there.

Next gen is all about 3 things to me, GFX, AI and Animations. Physics I feel are already pretty damn good, I don't think they can bring as much to the table as the other 3.

I agree with you in a way. Those three things should extent to four. Physics will be a nice additive.

But how do you know graphics are diminishing? Remember when people here thought that the FFXIII video was totally CGI? Now that we now most of it was real, what's so dimishing about it?

MGS4 is looking heads and shoulders better than MGS3. It's a far leap (like you said) and not dimishing. What's dimishing about Gears of War? Have we ever fought monsters the look as detailed and nice as Gears of War's? Of course not.

Why do people act as if the game we see today are the best games will look throughout the PS3's and X360's lifetime? Doesn't Rainbow Six: Vegas look WAY better than the last Xbox offering?

Come on be serious. :|

 

[OtakingGX]

The returns are diminishing though.

8 bit

16 bit

32/64 bit

128 bit?

I don't know anymore

Graphics are getting better, but developers are spending inordinate amounts of time creating them. It's like an exponential relationship between time required to make a game and graphical complexity. Yes, we'll soon be able to render each and every hair on a character's head, but at what cost to development budgets?

 

[pc999]

Bulllocks!! So, it's okay to look at the next-generation and say graphics are at a point of dimishishing returns? Has Mass Effect, Bioshock, Heavenly Sword, Naughty Dog's Jungle game, etc released yet?

I mean for heaven sake can we at least wait until the PS3 comes out to see their 1st party work and wait until 3rd party devs put more focus on next with the PS3 and X360? Come on guys A.I. and animation will be very very important but lets not say graphics have hit diminished returns.

The article didnt said it had happen, just said that since we have the power it will happen (slowly) this next gen against (later games in) this gen and against next next gen games.eg a game like assasins is what I call a true next gen game as it gives you new and great gfx (with a lot of WOW factor, althought I personally think there is be much more room to improve it just by tech), also animation, physics, complexity/size of maps etc... but it also have new AI for control a whole walking city in diferent things and this game is only possible because of the work with AI.

While I would love better AI in games, I can't see this being a big factor for most gamers. The purpose of enemy "AI" in games is to provide some small resistance to the gamer, regardless of how injured our outgunned the enemy might be, and then die in a cool-looking way. How can you improve on that? Should your enemies call for help? No sensible enemy, when confronted by some ultimate killing machine armed with chainguns and rocket lanuchers, would stand a chance unless he cooperated with allies to surround you. If you tried to attack an American military base, do you think you would just fight soldiers one-on-one? Of course not. You'd face a fight against dozens of soldiers, all highly-trained, and all communicating with each other. A scenario like this would make a terrible game because you wouldn't stand a chance. Even if this sounds like a cool idea to you, think about it this way: would anybody who isn't a hardcore gamer want to play a game like this? Most gamers would get their asses kicked within 3 minutes and then play something else.

Dont you think it would depend on the kind of game, I think that this in a RTS that would be great, but in a FPS it couldnt be a one man army like and realistic at the same time unless if you can do some special things (that AI cant like resist more to hits, higher tech, super powers), in a spy game is completely possible (even some reporter revealed this/last (?) year a video of special forces showing breachs in security of top USA bases).

Personaly I would love to see that AI in many games.

IThe point with improved ai is more lifelike ie: unpredictable.

Alone is not sufice for good AI but I agree it is because of that many want better AI. A factual example is Serios Sam that they are so many so it is hard to predict yet the AI is really basic and just good for this kind of game.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

I don't think graphics are in any way reaching a point of diminishing returns.

Some of the upcoming examples of games that we've seen simply look amazing. We're still attempting to get life-like 'rag doll' interaction, realistic reflections from windows, visors, water, etc.. as well as life-like waves and particle collision.

Sorry if this is more 'physics' based than strictly graphics, but I don't see how you can separate the two. The realistic physics make the graphics better... that's the entire point of them to begin with.

And that's where I think the next gen goes before it attempts to do anything revolutionary in the AI aspect. Interactive environments that are realistically effected by the player and then reflected in a visually impressive manner on the screen.

Since we don't have that yet, and since that all is essentially 'graphics' related, I'd say that we are a long way from the point where looks are no longer enough.

 

[mckmas8808]

The returns are diminishing though.

8 bit

16 bit

32/64 bit

128 bit?

I don't know anymore

Graphics are getting better, but developers are spending inordinate amounts of time creating them. It's like an exponential relationship between time required to make a game and graphical complexity. Yes, we'll soon be able to render each and every hair on a character's head, but at what cost to development budgets?

What is the 128 bit game you are trying to display? Was it the Xbox Call of Duty? This next gen you should compare screenshots to other screenshots. It's all about what you see in motion. Have you seen the Snake from MGS4 salute compared to the Big Boss salute from MGS3?

Compare those two pics. Like I said eariler don't compare a whole generation (i.e. Xbox) to first gen 360 pics. Let's do that in 3 or 4 years from now.

And like pc999 said true complete next-gen games are all about graphics, animation,a nd physics. Those three things will prove that the machine's power is needed.

I don't think graphics are in any way reaching a point of diminishing returns.

Some of the upcoming examples of games that we've seen simply look amazing. We're still attempting to get life-like 'rag doll' interaction, realistic reflections from windows, visors, water, etc.. as well as life-like waves and particle collision.

Sorry if this is more 'physics' based than strictly graphics, but I don't see how you can separate the two. The realistic physics make the graphics better... that's the entire point of them to begin with.

And that's where I think the next gen goes before it attempts to do anything revolutionary in the AI aspect. Interactive environments that are realistically effected by the player and then reflected in a visually impressive manner on the screen.

Since we don't have that yet, and since that all is essentially 'graphics' related, I'd say that we are a long way from the point where looks are no longer enough.

Preach on my man. Preach on. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[TheChefO]

I don't think anyone is saying we don't need to focus on graphics anymore. Merely that in addition to graphic improvements, we need to also consider Artificial Intelligence in games that match the visual improvements and don't get left behind. Users will expect graphical imprvements as well as marketing departments as it makes it easier to sell the game than to explain behind the scenes stuff like ai improvements. The idea is devs are targeting an experience and graphics fidelity is merely one portion of that experience. Along with that is AI, Animation, Physics, Sound, Story, Voice acting, & Environment.

All of the above need to improve along with the graphics. If one is left behind, the experience is not fulfilled to it's potential. Or as Jim Rome would sample: "Don't forget Mock Moda!"

 

[Shark Sandwich]

Graphics are getting better, but developers are spending inordinate amounts of time creating them. It's like an exponential relationship between time required to make a game and graphical complexity. Yes, we'll soon be able to render each and every hair on a character's head, but at what cost to development budgets?

There's a really interesting (and opinionated!) article about this here http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/crash.html
He says that essentially, people play games only for the novelty of the experience. Gaming has become so huge by constantly offering new experiences. We started off manipulating blocky symbols with a joystick (Atari), then we could control actual human-looking characters in interesting environments (NES), 16-bit gave us dramatically better graphics and sound, 32/64-bit gave us 3D environments to explore, and PS2/XBox gave us "adult" games (games like GTA that 20-somethings wouldn't be embarrassed to play). It's almost like the industry has been running as fast as it can just to keep from falling on its face.

What's next? As a 360+HDTV owner, it saddens me to say that I've seen nothing on the 360 that's fundamentally new. It's just prettier versions of games I've played before. It's cool at first, but the novelty wears off very quickly. For the majority, who own SDTVs, the experience must be even more lackluster. So what can this generation give us that will sustain and grow the industry in the way previous generations have?

Descent 3 had great AI. Outgunned bots would often flee to the side of larger bots, which really added to the experience. As for radoing for coordinated help, ever played Metal Gear Solid?

It's been a long time since I've played Descent 3. That sounds interesting though. As far as Metal Gear Solid, I'm glad you brought that up, because I think the AI is spectacularly bad in MGS. MGS is an example of precisely the kind of artificial stupidity that needs to exist to make games playable for most people. You can kill 50 guards, and yet the worst that can happen is that you'll have to hide for 30 seconds, at which point everybody will forget that the world's greatest special agent has just killed 50 of their comrades and is hiding somewhere inside their base. There are parts in MGS where you can see a guard walking straight toward you, yet he can't see you because you're outisde his 15-foot cone of vision.

Do you see what I mean? MGS is a perfect example of where it would be trivial to create much better AI, and yet it would also make the game less fun. I keep hearing "better AI!" as something this generation is supposed to make possible, but is that what gamers really want?

 

[TheChefO]

Do you see what I mean? MGS is a perfect example of where it would be trivial to create much better AI, and yet it would also make the game less fun. I keep hearing "better AI!" as something this generation is supposed to make possible, but is that what gamers really want?

Agreed people don't want "human ai" - they want tough ai that is challenging but can be "figured out" and they want ai that isn't "broken" ie: getting stuck etc.

 

[mckmas8808]

I don't think anyone is saying we don't need to focus on graphics anymore. Merely that in addition to graphic improvements, we need to also consider Artificial Intelligence in games that match the visual improvements and don't get left behind. Users will expect graphical imprvements as well as marketing departments as it makes it easier to sell the game than to explain behind the scenes stuff like ai improvements. The idea is devs are targeting an experience and graphics fidelity is merely one portion of that experience. Along with that is AI, Animation, Physics, Sound, Story, Voice acting, & Environment.

All of the above need to improve along with the graphics. If one is left behind, the experience is not fulfilled to it's potential. Or as Jim Rome would sample: "Don't forget Mock Moda!"

But everyone knows this. Kojima has spoken at great lengths about players having real natural motion along with better graphics. Actually he said they aren't even going try for super realistic characters. He wants to focus on things that you don't see and also the natural motion of the characters.

But to go from what you said to saying that graphics are diminishing (of course you didn't say this, but someone else did) is something that I can't accept as an opinion.

 

[pc999]

Just by curiosity how many of you think that we need a better masterchief than this one

http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/734/734817/img_3585251.html

Personally I cant think that there is any good reason to invest more in gfx or how can that make a any better game, and the kind of investiment that would need to one even notice diference.

There's a really interesting (and opinionated!) article about this here http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/crash.html
He says that essentially, people play games only for the novelty of the experience. Gaming has become so huge by constantly offering new experiences. We started off manipulating blocky symbols with a joystick (Atari), then we could control actual human-looking characters in interesting environments (NES), 16-bit gave us dramatically better graphics and sound, 32/64-bit gave us 3D environments to explore, and PS2/XBox gave us "adult" games (games like GTA that 20-somethings wouldn't be embarrassed to play). It's almost like the industry has been running as fast as it can just to keep from falling on its face.

What's next? As a 360+HDTV owner, it saddens me to say that I've seen nothing on the 360 that's fundamentally new. It's just prettier versions of games I've played before. It's cool at first, but the novelty wears off very quickly. For the majority, who own SDTVs, the experience must be even more lackluster. So what can this generation give us that will sustain and grow the industry in the way previous generations have?

That is completely true IMO (that is why I think that assasins is a true next gen game), althought in some cases for some people the others factors (like story) are also getting a bigger role.

 

[TheChefO]

But everyone knows this. Kojima has spoken at great lengths about players having real natural motion along with better graphics. Actually he said they aren't even going try for super realistic characters. He wants to focus on things that you don't see and also the natural motion of the characters.

But to go from what you said to saying that graphics are diminishing (of course you didn't say this, but someone else did) is something that I can't accept as an opinion.

I wouldn't say everyone knows this. In fact I'd say one of the few that might know this and actually may be acting on this is Kojima with mgs4. At this point it seems to be one of the very few (if not only) next gen game that is looking to improve every aspect of it's presentation. Hopefully it will be fully realized and not just PR speak from Konami.

On the graphics front, the issue others are bringing up is return on investment. It costs too much to get that extra graphic edge that will push the game into the realm of better graphics that the average joe can see the difference. I run into the same issue with clients at work, where my tools allow me to get to a certain point very quickly. After that it is slower to get to the next level of realism and slower and slower etc. Now if the client doesn't mind the additional time then I can do my best to get to that level of realism, but everyone has a budget. So most of the time it's a "thats good enough, thanks" situation. It's up to us as gamers to decide what is acceptable and what isn't in this gen. But then some other dev could get a bigger budget and blow their competitors out of the water with their offering so devs/pubs must also consider that angle as well. Basicly artists need better tools/libraries. The middleware scene is a joke at the moment and I've proposed my ideas on the situation for how they can efficiently get to photorealism. That will be the key to the next leap in graphics. In this gen, I don't expect much more than mgs4/GoW. We may have different styles or techniques, but overall quality I don't think will be much above the RT mgs4 demo this gen.

 

[mckmas8808]

In this gen, I don't expect much more than mgs4/GoW. We may have different styles or techniques, but overall quality I don't think will be much above the RT mgs4 demo this gen.

Is this a joke? You think Gears of War and MGS4 is the best we will get next/this generation?

You do know that MGS4 will come out within the first year that the PS3 is on the market right?

 

[TheChefO]

Is this a joke? You think Gears of War and MGS4 is the best we will get next/this generation?

You do know that MGS4 will come out within the first year that the PS3 is on the market right?

Yes I do know that mgs4 is supposed to launch 2007. I don't expect much more than what those two offer in quality. Don't confuse that statement with 0% improvement. I don't expect the overall quality of the graphics presented in those two games to be significantly outclassed this gen. I could be pleasantly surprised but I doubt Devs will significantly trump those efforts this gen. At this point we're getting into opinions here and it's quite pointless to argue my "significant" vs your "significant".

 

[mckmas8808]

Well I can't wait to see what you think of game coming out in 2008 and 2009. You will be amazed.:smile:

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Just by curiosity how many of you think that we need a better masterchief than this one

http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/734/734817/img_3585251.html

I do. The gun model is nothing interesting, and the reflection in the visor is only beginning to get to the level that it should.

Now, if those bullet scars on his armor were a result of an actual firefight, and they would increase/decrease according to damage/health limits in the game, then we'd be moving in the right direction.

As it is, it's my understanding that those battle scars on his armor are simply static. Which is hardly impressive.

So yes, I do think we "need" a better Master Chief than that one. As much as we "need" to play games at all, that is.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

On the graphics front, the issue others are bringing up is return on investment. It costs too much to get that extra graphic edge that will push the game into the realm of better graphics that the average joe can see the difference.

And you think it's going to be cheaper to develop noticably improved physics or AI?

If not, then essentially what you are saying is that video games are dead because there's no significant room for graphical enhancement and physics/AI are going to result in even greater development costs or result in no noticable improvement.

And if so.. I'd like to know how you come to that conclusion. Developers already know how to make pretty games. Making them pretty is essentially a function of time/money/effort. But they don't know how to make noticably improved AI or interactive physics for realisitic environments.

So I doubt that going in either of those directions would prove to be less costly. Especially less costly for a noticable improvement.