Can anyone explain this era of graphics?

[AMDCam]

Hey, I've been waiting and waiting for something ultra realistic, and I know we have the power now. Playstation looked wonderful but we knew there was something better for the future. PS2 looked great but there was still room for improvement. But from PS/N64 to PS2/Xbox/Gamecube there was a HUGE upgrade in graphics. Now I'm sorry but according to logic, a new system with more than 4 times the power of the last gen systems should look about the same as PS compared to PS2, but even better. So why does every game I see coming out still not amaze me? Doom 3 was great, but what the hell? Everything still looks fake. Why are developers going into detail enough to show every leaf on a tree but not enough texture to make that tree look like it's real? You see screenshots of new games and it is amazing, but nothing bigger than Doom 3. HDR is unnoticable and sometimes makes things look worse, and making grass move more realistically is not as cool as seeing a screenshot of a city that you can't tell is fake. Why do buildings, people, and objects still look so fake? The only thing we've gotten perfect are mountains, skies, water, and one time we got cars right (GT3 ONLY). So what the hell is happening? SCREW DETAIL, I WANT REALISTIC GRAPHICS!

 

[wazzledoozle]

You stand alone, gameplay>graphics.

This game looks pretty much photo-realistic:
http://www.alanwake.com/screenshots/Alan_Wake_014.jpg

Check out the high-def 66 mb trailer here-
http://www.3dgamers.com/dlselect/games/alanwake/alan_wake_video_hires.wmv.html

 

[Silverstone]

Game developers only care about money....that being said games are often rushed out far too soon which is why the same old same old...

The technology is now here to make incredible games, it may take a few more yrs for a release to come out that'll blow people away as they all try to compete month to month for your dollars.

 

[Thermopylae_480]

Alan Wake doesn't look all that impressive from the preview. The textures weren't all that great, and I don't think the system they were running it on could handle it to well. It looked like there was no\low AA or AF, and at one point the frame rates got noticeably slow. The movement of objects was not all that great, and the cars looked especially cheesy, and those cloaked figures at the end looked like they wore static cloaks. The lighting I admit was spectacular, but it just looks like the same old same old. I'm still holding out for Unreal Tournament 2007, for some truely amazing graphics.UT07 @ Gamespot.com

What I would like is a really spectacular RTS with an ingrossing story. I like Generals its pretty good for multiplayer, but the story line sucked and its has more bugs than Windows ME. I haven't seen a really great RTS with a decent story since Homeworld, and perhaps Homeworld 2. I'm begining to get rather board with the continous influx of FPS, I would really like something new.

 

[zAAm]

I agree with wazz - gameplay > graphics. A great game should have both. Although even very good games with reasonable graphics are good in my book. The problem now is that a VERY small percentage of game buyers currently have these super PC's with dual 7800GTX's to run super-polygon scenes with dynamic lighting, FSAA, AF and then super quality textures as well that'd probably not even fit in the memory of a 512MB card.

I agree with you thermopylae on the textures though, look at UT2004, model detail was moderate but textures were HUGE (hence the 5GB installation) and the game looked great. Now games like Doom3 have shittier textures than Quake3 even at ultra quality and all they do is write some bump mapping code to make up for that. So the game looks good from far but if you're close to an object it looks horrendous...

 

[Deleted member 3]

Processing power is one thing, creating an engine that actually makes optimal use of it is another. Creating detailed models and textures is VERY time consuming. They'd be wasting so much time on details and only 1% of the games can actually see them since most people have a previous generation mid-end card, if you just want to see some impressive graphics download various demos, your 6800 for example has some nice ones available. And UT2k7 demos look amazing as well.

Expect some amazing graphics on the xbox360, PS3 in a year or 2, by then their capacity might be used. Same goes for PC's btw.

 

[AMDCam]

Alright cool, I thought the Xbox 360 and R580's could do quite a bit better than original Xbox's, but the release games just look cheap. I actually said that on another post, something like "hopefully in a couple years developers and artists will learn how to use the power enough to make lifelike graphics". And to Wazzle, I don't know if you're blind or what but that "photorealistic" picture looks completely fake to me. See, I mean if you look at a Bob Ross painting you almost can't tell if it's real or not, if you look at a car in Gran Turismo 3 you almost can't tell if it's real or not, I don't mean because it's beautiful it's realistic. In that picture the only real looking things is the road, and sky. So I don't think I "stand alone", unless everyone is as ignorant to realism as you. It's not hard to tell it's a video game, even though it does look good. Anyway, thanks guys for helping me out on my question

 

[Deleted member 3]

So I don't think I "stand alone", unless everyone is as ignorant to realism as you.

I think you're the one missing some things, like your whole topic states it's about games. If you want realism join the army instead of playing some game. I could recommend the Iraqi army or perhaps Iran or Israel or something, plenty of realistic action there.

Realistic graphics aren't what make a game fun, it's gameplay. A game has to be challenging, be fun, balanced, have replayabilty. Looking at a tree that looks like it's real doesn't keep you playing for 2 years, a good community and good gameplay does. Good graphics are just a welcome extra.

 

[AMDCam]

actually graphics make games fun to me. And what a coincedence, I'm in the Marines (delayed entry), so I'm not basing my life off video games, I like realistic looks, I don't play games for gaming, if I want fun I'll hang out with friends. I would buy C&C Generals again if the graphics were updated, it can be the exact same game. Ever heard of Source? Like Counter Strike

 

[Deleted member 3]

Then why do you play? If you like graphics you can always watch movies which had huge budgets.

Personally if I'd want to treat my eyes I'd download pr0n.

 

[intel igent]

Personally if I'd want to treat my eyes I'd download pr0n.

sounds good to me

 

[AMDCam]

I play because movie animation is done with, I mean the technology's out there but no one can make realistic things yet (except back in the early 90's when everyone actually cared about animation like T2 and Jurassic Park), like Matrix Reloaded, T3, and other cheap 3d animation movies. Gaming graphics take a lot more, they have to be rendered live, you can explore each model instead of watch it, and do whatever you want and customize it, plus it takes more to create 3d models in games than it does in movies. That's why I like playing games over watching movies for good animation, plus why would I build a system like I have if I wanted to just watch movies?