Are you impressed by the newest best graphics anymore?

[Cronozilla]

Honestly, we're to a point, especially if you look at the latest iterations on CryEngine 3 and Unreal Engine 4, and even idTech 5 where ... it looks good enough to do just about anything. The only thing we can do going forward is things under the hood that will affect performance, but maybe not visual fidelity.

I think the most important thing that can be done from a graphics standpoint now is remove the artifacts that are distracting. Like aliasing, blurry textures, etc.

Because when it comes down to it ... the only difference between the current generation and the next generation, outside of many more particle effects, is going to be the reduction of imperfections in the presentation. The style is pretty much set ... we're not really currently limited in the style we can display, unlike on N64 or PS2.

So, yes, from a technical standpoint, I find advances in graphics technology very cool and exciting, but it's maybe not in the same areas most people think of.
For example, I'd find graphics processing of soft bodies more exciting than a better poly-count, because it's implications are greater and it's legitimately something of an improvement.

To really improve the fundamental way graphics look ... we'll likely have to switch to a non-polygonal system to achieve that.

[Menegrothx]

Isn't the FPS limited on current consoles? 30FPS/720p rather than 60FPS/1080p, or something like that?

[isiolia]

Isn't the FPS limited on current consoles? 30FPS/720p rather than 60FPS/1080p, or something like that?

Depends on the game. There are 60fps and/or 1080p games for current consoles, it just isn't the standard. Many first-person shooters on them are indeed 720p (or lower) and shooting for 30fps (or often lower), along with a narrower field of vision that cuts down on what they need to render (it's also more appropriate for sitting back farther from the screen).

Beyond3D has a fairly decent list of observed native resolutions for the PS3 and 360 here.

[WallCrusher]

I don't think its necessarily a question of being "impressed", but whether the graphics have a certain draw to them, which realistic games tend to... look very similar to one another, because they share the same art direction. In my opinion, as differences in graphical leaps with each new console generation diminishes, the developers will need to start turning to other aspects such as style in order to break the mold and reach newer heights. It will be just like with the SNES and the like, where they'll have to find new ways to create impressive visuals by working within their limitations.

As an example, I recently replayed The Wind Waker a couple months back, and I have to say that I was impressed as to how well the game still looked. The graphics have aged very well, and its mostly due in part to the art style. Can we say the same for these realistic 360/PS3 games 10 years from now? ...Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Chances are though, a game like Red Dead Redemption probably won't look as visually impressive like Valkyria Chronicles 10 years from now.

[Valkyrie-Favor]

For starters, find an alternative to polygons.

Graphics this gen have been a mixed bag. Stylized games have never been better, but the games that were supposed to look realistic seemed really wooden and clunky. Maybe it's an uncanny valley thing. Our textures are more detailed but it's far from being realistic. Everything looks like it's made of plastic. It all depends on the art direction. Angi's Philosophy looks incredible, but that's not because it looks realistic. When a game aims for realism, it's going to miss. It's not going to look like real life no matter what. Even if we get screens that are so high-res we mistake them for windows, it will still be off. Art is made by artists, but artists can draw only what they perceive. That's why we can never have perfect visual realism.

What I'd like, rather than more detailed scenery, is more detailed physics and animation. Once you get that engine running at 60fps you can perfect that lip synching. Capturing the way things move and interact will do a lot more for immersion than anything else, in my opinion. If clothes move like cloth, hair moves like hair and human faces have real expressions, I don't care if there are jaggies.

(Also, why are movies still 24fps? We have games running in real time at 60).

[AppliCotton]

No.

And I can't elaborate without talking about the things this topic is apparently not about. Yes, I'm thoroughly impressed by the graphics on something like Arkham City; but Batman can jump off the screen and take a sip of my Coke for all I care, I'm not gonna buy and/or play the game.

And the reason is because the vanguard of graphics seems to be inseparably linked to this drive to imitate physics, realistic lighting, etc.., which in my opinion translates into uninteresting games.

[isiolia]

(Also, why are movies still 24fps? We have games running in real time at 60).

Because that's what was standardized for film when audio started to be included in the late 1920s. Things have been kept compatible. Plus, part of what can make video "feel" like it's a movie is that 24fps movement because that's what we all grew up seeing.

The Hobbit is being filmed at 48fps, and with digital project set to take over completely in the US within a few years, chances are good that higher framerates will become common.

[Erik_Twice]

Stylized games have never been better, but the games that were supposed to look realistic seemed really wooden and clunky. Maybe it's an uncanny valley thing.

I think the reason is simply that such complex designs are impossible to animate. The more real, the more muscles, the more shapes, the more difficult the relation between them. It's just difficult to move and look well and the more realistic , the less you can apply basic principles of animation like exageration or stretch and squatch. That explains the woodyness and clunkyness.

[Menegrothx]

Chest high walls, invisible walls and other objects which linearize level design and prevent player from freely roaming and exploring the game world often make impressive graphics seem a lot less impressive. Many new FPS games seem to have that (FPS map design 1993 vs 2010.jpg), and from what I've read, seems like Final Fantasy 13 is nothing but one long corridor leading from cutscene A to cutscene B

[Pingfa]

Personally it doesn't matter much to me how 'advanced' game graphics are these days, but I am impressed still by graphics that make good use of a system, even if it is the SNES or N64. I do believe it is important that a game is not an eyesore - if it is offensive to the eyes, that is going to negatively influence one's enjoyment. However, I can disregard jaggies or low resolution textures, to me a game can still be pleasant to look at provided everything blends well.

Also, I honestly find most games today an eyesore. I very much prefer the average look of a Dreamcast game than most modern games, simply because I can't stand how ridiculously bright and shiny the average game is today, especially Xbox 360 games. I hate how developers bloom everything up to try and cover up low resolution textures - in all honesty, I would rather see really low resolution textures than the shiny shader-fest that most games are these days.

I think if things were a bit more PC centric we might see more that really stands out on release, but with most stuff being designed around the 360...not so much.

Indeed, another thing I hate is how often PC ports look terrible as most are Xbox 360 ports. The problem isn't with the Xbox 360 itself, it's because developers think they need to cover up all the imperfections by blobbing wallpaper paste over it.

At least we have this to look forward to: http://www.arma3.com/surveilance/imagery/