BEHOLD!! Not my preview!! New Screens!!

[Vagrant0]

Please stop personal attacks. There will not be another warning and I don't care who I have to toss out because of it.

 

 

Console hate doesn't belong here. If you don't like the graphics and want to claim the game is crap because of them, then just don't buy the game.

 

But here's the thing... If you don't buy PC games, companies will just stop making them. At that point you won't have console ports, you'll have no ports and have to play the game on console. PC exclusives for big name titles are becoming less and less because consoles are becoming more capable and time and again console sales are primarily where most of the sales come from. Many publishers and even people in the industry have decided that PC gaming is dead... and in some ways they're right. PC gaming as in PC exclusives is a lost cause save for a few genres, and this list is getting smaller as consoles become more advanced. That's reality... Deal with it.

 

Graphically. games won't get much better than they are now because rendering and design limitations are hitting that edge of the Uncanny Valley. Which is why more and more games are striving for stylized graphics (D3, Bastion, ect), and are going for less realism. This will likely continue until point cloud rendering is more accessible and works with animated bits. Even so-called next gen games, like Crysis 2 have the same issues mentioned if you look close enough. Again... deal with it.

[stars2heaven]

I know it's off topic....but what you linked to is really cool Vagrant0! Just sayin....

[Vagrant0]

I know it's off topic....but what you linked to is really cool Vagrant0! Just sayin....

This version is probably more applicable

[jedimembrain]

well.. my point wasn't PC vs console at all.. I think both will look almost exactly the same like F3 on console and PC .. But I am sorry for calling the ajrunke an idiot .. that was completely un called for :facepalm: .. I get agro with graphics talk but thats no excuse... *zips lips* .. btw I lubs my bad grammar :D Edited October 18, 2011 by jedimembrain

[Tuco404]

Graphically. games won't get much better than they are now because rendering and design limitations are hitting that edge of the Uncanny Valley.

 

 

People have been saying that we're stepping into the uncanny valley for years, but nobody is saying that they wish we had the facial animations/graphics of the last generation.

 

Here's a good example:

 

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID10940/images/MirandaMassEffect.jpg

 

If you feel revulsion from Miranda in Mass Effect 2, it's not because we're in the uncanny valley, it's because you don't like girls. Certainly you don't think that last generation models look better.

 

http://static.gamesradar.com/images/mb/GamesRadar/us/Features/2008/05/GTA%20IV%20Hooker%20Beauty%20Pageant/042308_gtabeauty_obs_winner--article_image.jpg

 

I keep seeing the argument that we're not going to improve our graphics, but nobody is saying that we haven't been continually improving our graphics. Do you expect TES6 to have similar graphics as TES5? Because you'd be silly to think so. When the next console generation comes out you'll see the next big jump in graphics. Today's texture sizes and polygon count will look as laughable as the GTA3 picture I linked.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Tuco404

[ajrunke]

okay... i thought Jedi was going overboard with you saying your an idiot an all... but all i had to do was look at what you call ass, and it's obvious that your the ass... seriously? I looked at the first pic, and I refuse to look at your opinion of the rest because your opinion is THAT bad...

 

The people on this forums are very childish...Stating opinions makes people "ass"? Look at that bear/troll and tell me that it doesn't look like ass.

 

This (PS2)

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Alv5uQaDcDs/TjMofkWbqCI/AAAAAAAAG_w/O_tUYANkt78/s400/God-of-War-II-starts-off-on-the-right-note-with-an-epic-boss-battle-featuring-the-Colossus-of-Rhodes-which-last-pretty-much-the-entire-first-level%252CJ-9-94005-13.jpg

 

looks better than the creature in this

 

http://videogamewriters.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/screenshot_268654_thumb_wide940.jpg

 

That creature's teeth aren't even modeled. They're just textures onto a flat surface....

[Vagrant0]

I think you're missing the point. It's not to say that there won't be marginal improvements as time goes on, but rather that we are still approaching that cliff of how detailed we can make things while still have them work practically with the environment. For example, there is a marked progression of appearance from Oblivion to Fallout to Skyrim, in both environmental detail as well as character models. But this progression is nothing compared to the jump from Morrowind to Oblivion, or Daggerfall to Morrowind. Sure, one 'can' argue that the limited progression is because of console hardware limitations... But when you look at the last 6 years in PC gaming, there have been relatively few graphical improvements across the board.

 

There is only so much detail you can cram into a model as long as you're using polygons and texture maps. There is a point where the graphical artist cannot add more detail without multiplying the rendering demands for that object, and where creating multiple LOD meshes for an object to slowly get more detailed stops being a practical solution. Additionally, stretching textures on a model as it moves will remain an issue because to solve it you would need to rig clothing unique bones or bounds to tell the game how much stretch and movement that part of clothing should have before it starts pulling on other bits. For pre-rendered CGs this is less of an issue since the mesh and texture can be tweaked at every frame to flow more naturally, but for a live game, the model has to move based on a pre-planned method of deformation. Sure, animations could be improved to reduce stretching, but that becomes exponentially harder as you add more animations and things which are subject to that animation. All of which, at the end of the day, might be pulling work load and funding from other areas of the project in order to ship the game. As modders, we forget that time and budget constraints are a factor. We can work on fine-tuning out mods and models as much or as little as we want, and don't have to be too concerned about how well it works with others. An artist in a production house may be more talented, but has to work within far tighter constraints.

 

@Arjunkie

You're comparing a highly blurred and softened image of a battle where the only two shapes are the character and a boss with a full environment of several thousand elements, many of them off-screen but still being processed. First, the image is significantly zoomed out and blurred, so model detail is far from being clear, and still the boss still has many places where detail is painted on (ridges on knuckles and waves in hair), compared to the Skyrim one where the primary complaints are that the parts of the characters outfit have some texture stretch/blurr. Even if the teath were modeled individually, you wouldn't be able to see it in that screenshot anyway. As for it being a flat surface... Highly doubtful given that the top jaw does seem to have modeled fangs and a concave interior (judging from the slight curvature of shadow in a space 15 pixels wide), and I would assume that the lower jaw has atleast a modeled ridge of teeth despite being angled into direct light. And again, we're talking about an area which probably won't be looked at for long. Ask yourself, is being able to give a bear a thorough oral exam worth pulling graphical resources and model fidelity from the rest of the model? Is it even an area which is practical for a graphical artist to spend the time and effort sculpting each tooth to where it resembles actual teeth and isn't just a pointy jut of polygons?

 

And oh, hey... There's that uncanny valley thing.

[akin12]

The bear looks great, why would any half decent 3D artist waste polys on something like teeth when you can easily just alpha map them.

[Tuco404]

I think you're missing the point. It's not to say that there won't be marginal improvements as time goes on, but rather that we are still approaching that cliff of how detailed we can make things while still have them work practically with the environment.

 

Here's my point: We're not near that 'cliff' and the people saying that we are today are no less silly than the people who were saying that 5 years ago.

 

Are graphics increasing linearly with time? No, but there's a lot of improvement to be made. Only way to find out is wait and see, but mark my words, the next generation of consoles will achieve a new plateau in gaming technology.

[Vagrant0]

I think you're missing the point. It's not to say that there won't be marginal improvements as time goes on, but rather that we are still approaching that cliff of how detailed we can make things while still have them work practically with the environment.

 

Here's my point: We're not near that 'cliff' and the people saying that we are today are no less silly than the people who were saying that 5 years ago.

 

Are graphics increasing linearly with time? No, but there's a lot of improvement to be made. Only way to find out is wait and see, but mark my words, the next generation of consoles will achieve a new plateau in gaming technology.

The thing is, is that valley exists because of a gap between the technology to create something and what it is we are trying to create. As technology improves, the gap gets a little more narrow, but we move further to the edge of it. CGI movies with realistic characters are probably the best example of this. CGI movies are done with what is usually a nearly unlimited rendering budget, but are limited by the sophistication of tools and talents in building the scene.

 

Gameplay footage may be moving closer and closer to CGI quality, but realistic CGI quality hasn't improved much in the last 6-10 years since there are countless other factors in play than just graphical resolution. Even with Avatar, a movie with a ridiculous budget, made extensive use of motion capture, and had non-human, stylized characters... There were still moments where the characters felt flat, somewhat creepy and inorganic. Not quite Polar Express inorganic, but still not to the level of a living actor.