Video games: The future bottleneck?

[Agonizel]

Hi community,

 

For a time I've been feeling like games are not evolving on a graphical standpoint. What I'm saying is totally baseless and based on subjective impression, so be sure to correct me if I'm wrong.
Could it be that developers aren't innovating the graphical fidelity of their games anymore?

Aren't we just focusing on increasing resolution (1080p to 4K) and performance (60 to 144fps) with our new hardware while games keep looking the same?

 

I feel like - in the close future - the only bottleneck to PC gaming will be games themselves.

In 2030, will we be sitting with our 500$ budget build of consumer-grade 18 cores 8.0ghz  pentium intel cpus and our puny little 5000mhz gtx 3050's with 56GB of VRAM while games will be looking & running the same as it already did in 2014?

[FastRDust]

everything will be step by step, HDR will be mainstream, Higher resolution and framerate.

and when better hardware comes around the corner the game engines need to be rewritten to make use of it all.

 

Higher Texture fidelity and maybe even Physics in everything from ground to smoke, rain and snow.

Maybe even Wind will be calculated.

 

The first bottleneck will probably be budget limitations of the consumer.

 

Eventually the games will so  much more complex that a bigger budget is needed to create them, which means the cost wil go up for consumers and will result in games of around 120 ~150 range...

 

Excluding DLC of course.

[MatteoX10]

I think some games will get a lot more realistic and why should higher FPS not matter ? I heard that the human eye can see up to 1000FPS. I'm not sure but a 1000FPS in VR and 8K (wich doesn't make a lot of sense), Will feel very responsive and realistic, even if the graphics won't get better.

[Peskanova]

37 minutes ago, Beer_Nontitju said:

Hi community,

 

For a time I've been feeling like games are not evolving on a graphical standpoint. What I'm saying is totally baseless and based on subjective impression, so be sure to correct me if I'm wrong.
Could it be that developers aren't innovating the graphical fidelity of their games anymore?

Aren't we just focusing on increasing resolution (1080p to 4K) and performance (60 to 144fps) with our new hardware while games keep looking the same?

 

I feel like - in the close future - the only bottleneck to PC gaming will be games themselves.

In 2030, will we be sitting with our 500$ budget build of consumer-grade 18 cores 8.0ghz  pentium intel cpus and our puny little 5000mhz gtx 3050's with 56GB of VRAM while games will be looking & running the same as it already did in 2014?

Nah, just games are at console tech mercy, just look new games on PC , look better than any time, hairworks shit like that are improving, but now we have a few walls, high refresh rate to tv's, strong gpus for consoles (1050ti or 580 is not strong compared a 1070 or a 1080)

FPS+HZ to the sky is the way to go and dont worry about 4k or shit like that, pixel density rules, 1440p (on 24-27 inch gaming screens) will be a norm on PC's the following years and even on consoles (if they want higher refresh rate)

We need a new console generation with a new gpu's we are not bounded by lazy developers (since with a engine like UE or Frostbite you can output near hiperrealism models)

I've studied videogames programming , and designers with zbrush dude.... Its not lazy designers , they model better than any render on any game, then strip the hd skin on a lower resolution model (what you see on a game) thats the trick, but dude they model on a better quality than you see on a game... so they do more work than you see to look better with a gpu that cant output their hd models.
This is not even character modelation , this is sculption, It cant be on 3d its a fake 3d because a normal gpu cant render things like this (so many pixels here)

 

So there is a huge road to videogames but just think to render a smooth 144fps scene how a tech can be, this is the peak of tech dude, anything uses 144fps even on a proffessional level, even movies are easier to render, you just let a rack of big machines and its done, on a game it needs to perform all the time like that.

[Jurrunio]

How many years of games did you compare?

 

World of Tanks for example, is a 2010 game with a heavy graphics update in 2018.  Currently the game still has 2 renderers, the 'standard' one is the same one used in 2010 with optimizations, in other words its 2012 form. The 'improved' renderer is made in 2018. The difference between these two is MASSIVE. The devs (Wargaming) made a video on its graphics evolution so you check that out.

[Lathlaer]

58 minutes ago, Beer_Nontitju said:

What I'm saying is totally baseless and based on subjective impression, so be sure to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

As you wish.

 

What makes you even think that in 2030 games will look exactly like in 2014? Jesus, that is 16y old difference.

 

You know what came out 16y ago? Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness. Go check out some gameplay screenshots.

 

Now compare that to the Rise of the Tomb Raider. That is 14y. Difference. If you wanna see 16y, wait for Shadow of the Tomb Raider which will have its premiere sometime next month.

 

How about comparing Metal Gear: Sons of Liberty to Phantom Rain?

 

Or, dunno, Witcher 1 to Witcher 3?

 

Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect Andromeda?

 

Dragon Age 1 to Dragon Age Inquisition?

 

Morrowind to Skyrim?

 

Fifa Football 2003 to Fifa 18?

 

What exactly makes you think that games are not progressing?

 

[FastRDust]

4 minutes ago, Lathlaer said:

 

As you wish.

 

What makes you even think that in 2030 games will look exactly like in 2014? Jesus, that is 16y old difference.

 

You know what came out 16y ago? Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness. Go check out some gameplay screenshots.

 

Now compare that to the Rise of the Tomb Raider. That is 14y. Difference. If you wanna see 16y, wait for Shadow of the Tomb Raider which will have its premiere sometime next month.

 

How about comparing Metal Gear: Sons of Liberty to Phantom Rain?

 

Or, dunno, Witcher 1 to Witcher 3?

 

Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect Andromeda?

 

Dragon Age 1 to Dragon Age Inquisition?

 

Morrowind to Skyrim?

 

Fifa Football 2003 to Fifa 18?

 

What exactly makes you think that games are not progressing?

 

Also not forgetting that big games have that time as a Development cycle with changing hardware  to program with

 

And not to forget that the devs have a limit in hardware specs that they can use for consoles.

you can make an awesome game but if 1% of the gamers have a machine that can run it, well your never making back that money.

[Cookybiscuit]

Basically this:

 

It's a gross simplification but the point is that graphics have been hitting the point of diminishing returns for quite some time. There is a seven year gap between GTA 4 and GTA 5 on PC/Xbone/PS4, compare that to the same seven year gap separating something like N64 Goldeneye and Halo 2. But even so, I don't think graphics are even 10% as important as art style and direction. It's why Super Mario 64 is still appealing to look at in 2018, and why something like Kane & Lynch 2 looked like shit on release and continued to look even worse as it aged.

 

All this said, pretty graphics don't make a game good.

 

 

[Lathlaer]

Just now, Cookybiscuit said:

But even so, I don't think graphics are even 10% as important as art style and direction

Yeah, I noticed that as well. Basically games that have been designed with the best "photorealistic" graphics that was available 10-15y ago have aged poorly. Meanwhile games that have this specific artistic direction to make them unrealistic on purpose have aged better.

 

Also, mesh isn't everything. Shadows, lightning and interactions between objects is also important and this is improving as well. I care not only how the controlled character's face looks like but whether their clothing gets wet when I go during heavy rain, whether they leave footprints on snow or sand and how it looks like when they are handling objects. When they drink - is the glass just magically emptying itself when they bring it to the mouth or can I see the liquid pour? Face animations, do they squint when exposed to full sun? Is the scabbard of a sword really attached to my character or is it levitating on my back?

[Jtalk4456]

1 hour ago, Beer_Nontitju said:

Hi community,

 

For a time I've been feeling like games are not evolving on a graphical standpoint. What I'm saying is totally baseless and based on subjective impression, so be sure to correct me if I'm wrong.
Could it be that developers aren't innovating the graphical fidelity of their games anymore?

Aren't we just focusing on increasing resolution (1080p to 4K) and performance (60 to 144fps) with our new hardware while games keep looking the same?

 

I feel like - in the close future - the only bottleneck to PC gaming will be games themselves.

In 2030, will we be sitting with our 500$ budget build of consumer-grade 18 cores 8.0ghz  pentium intel cpus and our puny little 5000mhz gtx 3050's with 56GB of VRAM while games will be looking & running the same as it already did in 2014?

to some degree I agree with you, but i also think you're missing a few key factors. 

1. a $500 build will not have 18 cores at 8.0 ghz. Moore's law has been broken by diminishing returns and I think without a breakthrough into quantum computing (eg. not consumer products) we will be lucky to see a chip hit base of 6.0 in the next 15-20 years. 

2. While most people play normal 2d games that you're referring to, in the future, VR has the potential to change the way we game. And VR has a long path of potential improvements visually, plus it takes a lot more powerful computer to play, and lets not forget the hopeful potential future of whole room holographic games

3. Graphics have come a long way right now, which is why we're seeing a resurgence of games like undertale, where the graphics don't have to be movie quality, because people have gotten used to that. They want better story and better gameplay. That's not to discount games with good play and good graphics, but the desired traits of most gamers are changing. 

[Guest]

Tbh I think we’re limited by our eyes at this point. 

I mean, name a AAA game that fails terribly in terms of graphics when compared to the others. 

 

Texture resolution and polycount on models HAS been going up. In addition they have been using and improving ways to add detail without actually having it. (Ever hear of a normal map? There’s several types of maps.) 

[Taja]

Well, when i see games from 2010 and games from 2018... It is night and day difference. And even then, one of the reasons games are always "behind" hardware is because thats how tech works. They make games for "older" hardware because most people have older hardware.

Just like the stuff become mainstream months to years after it exists in enterprise/luxury markets.

[PlayStation 2]

6 minutes ago, Taja said:

Well, when i see games from 2010 and games from 2018... It is night and day difference. And even then, one of the reasons games are always "behind" hardware is because thats how tech works. They make games for "older" hardware because most people have older hardware.

Just like the stuff become mainstream months to years after it exists in enterprise/luxury markets.

A problem with games leapfrogging hardware is that they usually don't take advantage of new features well or at all and tend to be poorly optimized, like Crysis.

Games absolutely have to and should be built around a common feature set that wouldn't leave out too many older cards while giving newer cards something to show off.

[xAcid9]

On 8/10/2018 at 6:50 PM, Beer_Nontitju said:

For a time I've been feeling like games are not evolving on a graphical standpoint.

It got slower, not a total halt, mainly because of the rise of mobile games and indie games. Real time ray tracing will be the next big thing.

 

On 8/10/2018 at 6:50 PM, Beer_Nontitju said:

Could it be that developers aren't innovating the graphical fidelity of their games anymore?

Nah, there's still some dev that pushing the graphical fidelity. Kingdom Come looks better than Witcher 3 in most cases and they're just 3 years apart.