Why has the evolution of graphics slowed down so much?

Why has the evolution of graphics slowed down so much?

I mean in 20 years graphics have advanced tremendously, but in the last 5-10 years the progress has been pretty minimal.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=I8RYYi6F3fc
youtu.be/A3sBZ5Nr4hc?t=45
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

le diminishing returns face

Because the more realistic it gets the more it slows down. You can only make things look so realistic and still have good performance. Forget what fags say about consoles. They don't hold back graphics only the graphics that we get when the game comes out. But the research and development for better graphical technology is always moving.

The jumps from Gens 5 to 6 to 7 were much larger than from the PS3 to the PS4.

Also in all fairness, Crysis ran like shit on consoles and all but super PCs when it came out, whereas Doom 2016 runs at 60fps on consoles.

capitalism mostly.
not that i'm a commie bastard.
i just think we need to keep our capitalists and corporations in check and get rid of the jewish bankers who don't give a shit about this country's people.

yeah well the game made in 1997 is the only one in that image that that has fun gamepl-

oh its quake 2, never mind.

you called?

oh wait, I guess this isn't a face

Business, companies like Nvidia or AMD easily have the knowledge to produce hardware that's 5x timer better than our current, but why? From a business point it makes more money to reduce the improvment and sell marginal better GPUs yearly.

Capitalism is destroying every aspect of human life

Not enough return on investment, and why bother trying to push for better graphics when there's more money to be made on portable bullshit anyway.

Shut up Nintendrone, grafix are all that matter.

In order to advance further technology dictates we make use of the three dimensional capabilities of our eyes themselves. To do this: VR

Basically... You better buy a fuckin headset so that the price goes down. I want one and poor as shiet

>Wanting eye herpes

Yes. Stop being herpephobic and buy a VR headset, you bigot!

AMD is deliberately sabotaging themselves by not selling 5x better performing products

Idiot.

This is true, once we have photo realistic graphics; graphics companies will go out of business.

That is when we start seeing all the built to fail graphics cards.

Because during early 3D most of the graphical progress was put in creating better meshes and textures that have much greater impact on overall quality of the assets, while now - in post processing that is more power consuming but is required for perfecting the image.

>view distance
>crysis infinite
>doom one room or """fog"""

Cause consoles.

pretty much this.
developers are too afraid to make games exclusive for PC now and so games are dumbed down for consoles, it's a shame.

PC gamers should probably play something other than free mobas if they games catered to them.

graphics don't matter, the lack of TECHNOLOGY is a sure sign of game industry devolving or rather moving towards microtransactions and online models as opposed to creating actual interaction that doesn't amount to that between consumers.

Because the visuals used to be limited by hardware, now it's limited by production costs

if everyone was able and okay to pay 150 bucks for an average game I'm pretty sure they'd look better

can you imagine how long it'd take to make all of the assets for a photorealistic game?

Riddle me this, you glorious faggots: Why do graphics even matter?
That Quake 2 cap looks about as good as any game ever really needs to be for gameplay functionality.

I think your image is too large OP, you should try shrinking it down to 320x240 to make the differences between games easier to see.

Not that long since most objects are modeled in high poly anyways. Then they just bake a normal map and apply that to a low poly model to make it look high poly. Asset making doesn't take that long if you know what you're doing.

youtube.com/watch?v=I8RYYi6F3fc

are there really people who still want muh graphics. Instead of finally good gameplay?!

There's an incomparable, humongous difference in quality of GAMEPLAY between Crysis and Doom 2016, considering that Crysis was awful while Doom is pretty good.

...

Casuals and marketing

>games are dumbed down for consoles
Definitely not. Consoles are much more powerful than the average consumer's PC. Just look at the Steam hardware surveys - Most play on integrated Intel shit and 720p resolutions.

If anything, it's the consumers holding back PC gaming. If suddenly everyone bought a GTX 1080, there would actually be a market for these kinds of products.

Law of diminishing returns.

A bicycle that is twice as advanced and twice as expensive goes only a little bit faster.

A processor that is twice as efficient or twice as powerful can have graphics with twice the instructions, but this makes a game that looks only a bit more impressive.

Either we wait for a similar technological advancement to PBR to provide better graphics with the same load (which is rare) or we just make our graphics chips more and more powerful until we can bruteforce raytracing.

PBR's pretty good though user, I'm more than satisfied with the graphics of games like MGSV, the actual lighting quality, fidelity and effects are already there, just needs more polygons (and to stop supporting Xbox360 and PS3)

Texture quality and models don't matter anymore. What we need now is better, procedural animations and better lighting

we need better AI

Do we really need to go through this again?
Counting the "mom's computer" crowd when talking about PC gaming is like counting mobile shit when talking about gaming as a whole.
The entire industry is broken down on a logarithm: of the 100% of people who play vidya, only 10% are real gamers, and only 1% can be called hardcore.

...

That's a cutscene. Call me when those graphics are the same in game on all NPCs.

There comes a point where just adding more polygons and higher-res textures doesn't produce a very substantial improvement. We're kind of at that point right now, and I don't think it's a bad spot to be in. Take the FF7 remake for example
youtu.be/A3sBZ5Nr4hc?t=45
personally I think that looks pretty damn good for shaded polygons. The next "evolution" is probably just making these effects more performant.

As more processing power becomes available, the slower is the progress towards realistic graphics.

It all comes down to asset creation, in the past, creating a character could take a couple days. Now it can take a few weeks or more for a 15k-20k poly character.

In the past textures were 128 o 64x64, now we are dealing with 2k-4k and even 8k textures, much more texture space, much more details allowed meaning more development time.

>cutscene
>can clearly see shadows from the hair being rendered real time due to their different updaterate

PBR isn't popular yet, it's apparently a completely new take on graphical rendering that'll BTFO of the Blinn-Phong lighting model that's currently used in 90% of games.

Though SSAO is only a relatively new thing, as is HBAO that was invented a few years back for SC: Blacklist.

The OpenGL API is also a bit of a burden, as there's very little debugging functionality available - a problem rectified with Vulkan and the LunarG tools.

Because PC used to be the the limit for everythign and there used to be always 2-3 devoloper that used that
Now days people only care for the console money instead of making a "statement"

TL DR: Consoles, duh.

cutscene doesn't mean it isn't being rendered real-time you slipshit

It means the hair isn't physics based, it's just an animation

>They don't hold back graphics only the graphics that we get when the game comes out.
You right, they hold back the whole game.
In many case stuff had to be downgraded or cut because consoles wouldn't support it.

PBR has been used in most games since the last few years. stop copy pasting what you read on the net.

High poly doesn't include textures and texturing and details are what counts in realism. Having higher polycount usually does jack shit.

The reason the evolution of graphics has slowed down is because model quality isn't as relevant as texture quality, and texture quality is barely visible on a 300x200p screenshot cherrypicked to look as bad as possible versus a 300x200 screenshot of the most advanced game of 2007

2 things : console and laser

The more the laser's technology improve, the more we can build powerful chips for our graphical cards. Each time that this technology progress,then there is a jump in the quality of the graphical cards.

We are waiting for some progress, now.

Also, most games are bought on consoles nowadays which means that the developers have to develop something a toaster would be able to run.

My computer is 5 years old, it used to be good and now, despite being far behind, it still way better than the lastest consoles. Even if a new console would be released tomorrow, it would use shitty, several years old, hardware sin order to not be too expensive.

No, that's not accurate. PBR relies on multiple factors which some games haven't implemented. The majority of games still use Albedo + Normal + Specular for everything, as opposed to PBR's Colour + Normal + Roughness + Metallic

>have no idea what i'm talking about
>the post

Fucking
Consoles
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>real gamers
lmao

The fact is that there is not a market for games which require high end graphics cards. Developers need to dumb their games down to the level that 400$ budget PCs and can play them, so that they actually have a market. My point is that if everyone had a GTX 1080, games would look a lot better in general.

It's actually easy to make high poly assets, especially with photogrammetry. The irritation comes from reducing the size and optimizing without the quality going to shit i.e. texture seams and finding the right shader parameters.

>hair isn't physics based, it's just an animation
nvidia hairworks in witcher 3 showed that preanimated is better

SSAO has been around since Crysis 1 actually.

Noone said it wasn't, but that means her hair isn't as impressive outside of the pre-animated sequences

That's why using cutscenes as an indicator of visual quality is retarded, it's literally a bullshot