Have graphics stagnated?

STOP POSTING THAT SHIT PIC

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

This proves nothing

/thread

We're getting there, but there's always work to do.
Polygons, textures, lighting/shadows, effects, physics then animations.
A final step should be AI as things that move and act realistically will add to the graphical effect.

>mirrors dont even reflect things
wow we've truly reached the absolute pinnacle of graphics in video games

They've improved to the point where devs have to pool all their money and resources into graphics to make a game look good, and then there's no time left for actaully making the game fun.

Models have.

Textures are close.

Lighting and shadows are almost at their peak. But those are also the most graphically taxing things as well. So most people never get to see the full potential of lighting effects.

Graphics are hitting their limits, but things like physics, and optimization have a ways to go yet.

Exactly, OP's pic doesn't either. The 60k tri model in OP's pic is shit, there are not nearly as many details as there could be with that many tris, it's misleading.

The difference between 6k and 60k tris is pretty fucking significant if you know what you're doing, OP's pic doesn't do it justice because that particular 60k tri model is garbage.

The unfortunate truth. Game play stagnates, less and less interesting games come out.

that stupid image is dumb

you don't just smooth the edges with more triangles, you add more details

I've honestly been fine with graphics for awhile now, games look pretty great nowadays

I'd rather see advancements in physics, animations and A.I though.

That's the next logical step, and i'd rather AAA developers push those instead of graphical fidelity.

Lighting still has a long way to go, and really fine detail is basically a no-go with current hardware unless you want performance to take a shit. But your average consumer probably has reached the point where they aren't going to notice most improvements, and the costs of better tech and more detail aren't worth it to your average developer. So graphics are going to stay roughly at this level for a while, while hardware improvements will mostly go to increasing resolutions and performance.

Yeah, that image has been debunked. It uses an upscaled version of the 6k model to represent the 60k, so obviously it's lacking in details.

>A.I

t. robot

You can't justify the 10 times investment from 6000 to 60000 even if the picture on the right could possibly be photorealistic

You're dumb if you don't think dimishing returns applies to almost everything though.

Textures
Resolution
Effects in general.

Just look at TV's, resolutions have to progressively take bigger leaps because the bottleneck is starting to become our own eyes.

>optimization have a ways to go yet.
people throw around the word "optimization" without understanding what it means
hardware development has stagnated, we're over-optmizing things at this point, but we're never going to have truly better lighting unless we have more power

this, we still have a long way to go with bump mapping and tessellation. Also did the person who made this image not realize that more polygons = more on screen models, more evenly dispersed polygons for huge maps etc.

Just what I needed.

This pic is the only right answer

Yes the have. Anyone saying that there is no difference between a 30k polygon model and a 100k polygon model is a retard.

We need high polygon counts, especially for VR.
Thankfully there's games like star citizen that lead the way.

Normalmapping is good but not enough.

Increasing thenumber of polygons means you can have multiple highly detailed statues on the screen at the same time. It's still progress.

Second model is the best

no, the point is the 60000 poly model is basically an upscale of the 6000 poly one

Every time this image gets posted people conveniently forget what purpose display resolution serves.

well that's an issue we'll probably never come across, any more polygons would go towards more details like strands of hair, the fabric of the clothing, wrinkles on the face etc.

Your image is bait, you can add polygons without improving the thing

Now the key that many developers miss, is that textures + lighting are more important than polycount and objects, to make a game look good.

We need to focus more on new rendering techniques like raytracing, instead of a higher polycount.

>textures + lighting
This is why Dark Souls will always look better than DaS2 and 3.

This image is retarded.

yeah exactly, the upscale just uses an algorithm to smooth out the edges and make it look blurrier

Almost the entire medium is stagnant.

...

>make thread
>go for a shit
>come back to 40 replies
Hook, line and sinker. I love you faggots.

I know you are just retarded but I will waste my time on you just for the sake of it.

>When it comes to the impact of pixel density, much depends on the distance twixt eye and screen. Apple’s rough definition for its handheld Retina displays was 300 pixels per inch viewed at 10-12 inches. In fact, human vision can probably discern up to 900 pixels per inch at that distance. Likewise, I’m not sure if Apple really sticks to any particular definition for its Retina displays these days. But the concept is obvious enough.

as long as a game has good lighting/colour language and physics then that's all you need, essentially

lighting/colour estalbishes mood and physics always makes a game feel abit more interactive and tangible

marry those two together like in F.E.A.R and you get some good shit, kinda makes you forget that the textures in that game were pretty average but that's fine

>the human eye can't see past 1080p
I'm surprised this meme is still a thing

Plenty of games have good graphics and fun gameplay.
>Crysis
>Serious Sam 3
>The Witcher 3
>Metro: Last Light
>Stalker
>Far Cry 3+4

Those are just off the top of my head.

>We need to focus more on new rendering techniques like raytracing

What world do you live in where raytracing is new? It's fucking ancient (though, let's face it, most graphics related stuff was developed in the 70s and we're simply hitting the milestones of the hardware catching up to Maths).

Raytracing is the most brute-force approach there is and nothing short of increasing the computing power is going to make it viable for real-time rendering.
Not the photorealistic version 3D software uses, anyway.

>Far Cry 4
I really wanted to like that game. Played for a few hours, the only fun bits I remember are flying a wing suit over a base then parachuting down and shooting the shit out of everything as I descended, and riding an elephant and smashing shit up. The rest of the time I was bored as fuck. Wasted potential. Nice graphics though.

With the 60000 polygons you could add tons of NEW details to the 6000 model. Details thet weren't there before. Like 6000 model did to 600 model. Instead it just smoothens out already existing edges. It's inefficient use of resources.

Where do you think textures come from? They are all bakes from high poly models.

More polygons = better, allows more REAL detail, not just faked detail that is easily detected when the eye epends more than second looking at it, especially in VR

Ray tracing isn't an easy feat man, there's a reason pixar needs so many damn supercomputers just to render mere scenes for their films. Shit's taxing on processors, not to mention crazy expensive

no but this board sure has

>What world do you live in where raytracing is new? It's fucking ancient (though, let's face it, most graphics related stuff was developed in the 70s and we're simply hitting the milestones of the hardware catching up to Maths).

How fucking retarded you are?

OLED technology is ancient to and we still not even close to the consuer level of usage of it.

RayTracing may be not new technology as well but the point, just like with OLED, is to bring it to consumer level aka REAL TIME.

Nobody cares what you can do on your server farm, nobody cares how much accurate super-precise shadows in 99999kx99999k picels you render it is still offline rendering.

The point is to bring these ancient tehcnologies that once used only for expensive CGI into real-time with more powerful hardware

Dumb consolefag

way to misunderstand his post

I won't be satisfied until we have 4k photorealistic textures in every game

>good lighting
Most games don't have this, they have baked lighting with zero interactivity. As you see in the gif, dynamic lights can make shit pretty frantic
>FEAR textures are bad

Actually it looks better than the smeared shit 7th gen games had as textures.

Even now PS4 games have like nearly no anisotropic filtering, and end up looking like utter shit at a distance

>that backpedaling
>?from a 3rd person

kek
Classy behaviour after getting told.

almost missed this truth