Why did videogame graphics make such a massive leap forward in 2000-2008 and then stop progressing for the next 15 years?
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
Why did videogame graphics make such a massive leap forward in 2000-2008 and then stop progressing for the next 15 years?
Unironicaly the power of the emotion engine, and then came the power of the cell
got past the point of diminishing returns
Because you people want meme refresh rates and 500 fps at Ultra settings
instead consoles settle at 25fps
Consoles are what push graphics and engines forward. Without it you'd just be playing CSGO and Valorant.
>Consoles are what push graphics and engines forward.
no, that's another casualty, they don't even do that anymore
the PS4 and xbone weren't better than PC's at the time, and thats the same case for the PS5 and Xsex, which launched when RTX cards had been out for 2 years and the 30 series was around the corner, which then shit all over PS5 performance
PS6 and the next xbox are just gonna be 4070 tier graphics in 2026, whilst everyone else has moved on
All rtx has ever done is take console games and add reflections. You wont ever get another crysis because the idea of pc gamerss 4080 running a game at 30 frames would be a pr nightmare. People want 300 fps not graphics.
>You wont ever get another crysis
you actually had this with Cyberpunk and RDR2
And all a 4070 is doing is playing console games at higher framerates. There are no pc games pushing graphics forward. It's all done by consoles. What are the best looking pc games? RDR 2? Cyberpunk? They're made for consoles and wouldn't exist otherwise.
>There are no pc games pushing graphics forward
shit video. take an object and cover half of the pinhole or something. move something side to side inside the projection. now that would be a REAL demonstration.
wow it's nothing...
>consoletroony doesn't understand camera obscura
many such cases
>Cyberpunk? They're made for consoles and wouldn't exist otherwise.
>cyberpunk ran so badly on PS4 and XBONE that they had to stop selling it
>cyberpunk also ran badly on PS5 and XBONE
>the only version of cyberpunk that's been OK to play since day 1 is the PC version because you can adjust the settings to improve performance
>now the PC version is so far advanced that it has new tech that the PS6 probably won't have
it's hilarious how often people say "graphics aren't advancing!" and as soon as you mention raytracing, AKA realistic lighting, they go "that's a meme that doesn't count!"
you homosexuals would have called dynamic lighting a meme back in 2003
3d acceleration is a meme.
>cyberpunk also ran badly on PS5 and XBONE
it didn't? It also ran badly on pc
Games like Splinter Cell couldn't function without dynamic lighting. There's nothing like that for raytracing.
Because if you do that with current games, literally nobody will be able to run it.
Imagine if the only option you had in RT is Path Tracing, no questions asked.
Ok, there you go. You people dont want graphics. You want meme refresh rates.
No I mean, it's will literally unplayable.
Just like Crysis and FEAR was at the time with everything maxed.
The problem is that path tracing is an all in option.
Sure, you can cull the number of bounces and everything but it's still lots of calculations.
that's why games only do reflections, shadows and local lights now as separate options and slap that on top of the rasterized stuff.
But everyone on console could cause they have raytracing. But 70% of pc gamers use a GTX 1060 and play Valorant. That's why consoles push graphics.
What consoles have is not path tracing. It's just ray traced reflections of very bad quality.
It's been like that since forever.
The only actual "meme" that turned out to really be a meme is PhysX.
Also remember tessellation and that Dragon statue tech demo? That's easy as shit to run now.
This is not entirely wrong. Consoles benefit PC's more than they benefit from PC's.
PC games push the newest technologies while consoles optimize existing technologies. Optimizations help everyone. See the Call of Duty AW tech paper. It's an amazing read.
In the PC space this pressure exists too, it’s just from VR. The need to render a scene twice at 90Hz with high FOV and resolution and minimal judder is responsible for the largest modern optimization push. VR is nice because it manages to be both cutting edge meme tech AND require ridiculous performance above and beyond what regular games require, so half-assed tech that looks good but only at 30FPS with temporal upscaling is under constant pressure to become performant because VR devs want to be able to use it.
literally this.
games look insane, at 30fps though.
>Because you people want meme refresh rates and 500 fps at Ultra settings
Crysis at launch run 15-25 FPS at 1080P. Forget about 4K.
It got good graphics (4K60 FPS Ultra settings) like 8 years after release.
Industry started hiring women and troons
This thing happened.
Then devs started engineering their shit so it'd run on it. Resulting technological stagnation.
The era of casualization coincided with this phenomena, meaning especially big AAA publishers started streamlining, outright dumbing down their games mechanically and challenge-wise. Why put any effort and produce "art", when the brainless masses will eat your Wii shovelware or the annual Call Of Halo rehash sequel / DLC and make you ten times more money?
this poster is a FRICKING moron
This shit already happened with the first xbox, just look at Thief 3
True. The whole XBL and Halo are prime examples of this shit as well.
But this' not a matter of who did it first, but which generation as a whole resulted the big paradigm shift and portrayed the new wave the strongest.
The 6th console generation (PS2, GC, Xbox Fat) is widely considered the peak of the vidya's golden age for a good reason:
Tech was mature enough to provide neat, clean visuals, and games themselves were still very diverse, even within the seemingly same genre.
Most games were offline, and thus they needed to be polished pre-release. Only very few products were yet even designed with a planned obsolescence in mind, and instead most devs wanted their games to become long-living cultural phenomena, that would keep on living not only in people's minds, but also in practical terms via the community content.
Fast forward to the 7th gen, and you now got all main consoles going online, enabling not only the DLC phenomena, but also the "lol we just patch it later! :^)" ideology. Wii also started appealing to the literal non-gamer crowd, the real deal "casuals" in other words, which ended up being so profitable in the end that the other big two followed suit. What twisted this timeline further was the fact that instead of making distinctly different vidya for these normies, most publishers instead opted to downgrade their existing "hardcore" video game franchises and keep selling them.
To add salt to the injury, 7th gen also marked the era of "equally shitty multiplat releases". Where as during the previous generations ports of the same game could look and play vastly different, now many publishers instead chose to pick up the weakest target hardware, make one (1) version of the game, and make that the fit-all release. There was still some minor alterations of course, as Wii was so behind the MS and Sony's hardware at this point, but it was too common to see 720p / 30fps / bloom&blur AAA games all the way until the mid-2010s.
Also the whole "PC gaming is dying" bullshit
Dying every year since 1993!
Halo looked better than anything on pc in 2000
It really didn't. It also played like absolute ass.
Slow as frick, generic as frick.
Also it's a 2001 game, at which point we had a ton of waaay better looking and playing vidya.
Halo looks better than this
>slowly walk through corridors and shoot headless chickens
yeah it's easy when you cheat and give morons the idea that they are playing a game
sam looks like puke and the big environments with waves of braindead enemies are a total meme
Xbox launch game.
>It really didn't.
it really did. same doesnt even have tessellation ffs, let alone good animations
>Halo CE
>plays like absolute ass
It did. Halo had relly good art direction properly utilizing low polygon models and cool shaders (ie reflections). Master Chief model is pinnacle of the art direction utilising limited resources to teh max.
>360 era die
>PC mustard rice start crying games are unoptimised trash
Face it, the 360 is the only thing that kept shitty devs in check
That's a nice tale, but who are you quoting?
Majority of all vidya could still be played on a 2GB GTX 750ti.
Modern zoom zoom devs wasting millions of polygons on some NPC's pubic hair + coating it in 8K PBR textures only proves that optimization and art-directing is dying.
>a 2014 cards could play the majority of games of a 2005 console and a 2013 media center with the power draw of a game boy color
Shocking.
This game runs on a gtx 960 and still looks good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=aXRTbLCJH40
Everything has to be real time open world and that is massively expensive to compute.
The 14nm barrier. Short version, for ages improvements in microchip design was stalled by quantum bullshit, but we've figured out workarounds now and things should start improving again.
because you're wrong. video game graphics are improving more than ever, it's just that there are diminishing returns in how we can actually perceive these changes. I can assure you that in terms of % polygons there has been a bigger leap between 2020 and 2023 than between 2002 and 2010, it just becomes harder and harder to actually see any difference. this is always the case when something becomes increasingly high resolution (not talking about screen resolution)
the difference between a WAV file and a 320kbps mp3 file is leaps and bounds beyond the difference between a 64kbps MP3 and a 320kbps mp3, yet the bifrst audible difference happens in the latter.
that said, modern lighting engines are often the culprit because devs have still not learned to properly utilize them.
>moronic audiophile analogy
you're just proving OP's point you know
what's wrong with your reading comprehension?
i just stated that the deciding factor is human perception. it is a fact that on a pure technical level the fidelity is increasing by a tenfold of what it used to be. i think you're somehow misunderstanding that I made a statement about how much better flac sounds than MP3 when I didn't?
You are a moron. Graphics have stagnated new devs are moronic and don't know how to make games look good. Who cares about how many polygons it has if it looks like shit.
>using more polygons than you can perceive
Nothing stopped you from making a model like that back then. The problem is nothing is stopping you from using a model like that today.
Gameplay also stopped progressing too around this time. Almost every shooter in the past 15 years like CoD4 with gimmicks such as battle royale. Third person action games play like either Gears of War or Uncharted.
Hell, even the UI. It's always the same ugly, consolized "minimalistic" shit. I hate what's become of the industry.
to be fair, weird stylized ui looks a lot better at low resolutions.
all the competents graphics designers left the gayming industries for real life companies who got nothing to do with gayming.
RDR2 was the first game since Crysis to really dazzle me with its visuals, and that was a rather marginal improvement for 11 years difference. Then compare Crysis to Tomb Raider or Crash Bandicoot, that is the same amount of time between, and the improvement in visuals is colossal.
>and the improvement in visuals is colossal.
When you start at 0 it's extremely easy to improve.
0 is something like Space Invaders.
The average 2006-2012 game doesn't look particularly good by today's standards. Have you tried taking off your nostalgia goggles, and actually tried those games today?
>average
That's not really fair though, the average game today has shitty mobile game graphics, we should be comparing the best of the best.
I replayed MGS4 recently and it still holds up.
homie, literally nothing has changed post-2008.
Double so post 2012.
If anything, we've gone backwards, with even muddier image quality and lots of cut stock effects.
the next leap forward is path-tracing but Ganker cant stop seething about it.
Global illumination which utilizes path tracing is already the current standard.
NVIDIA started dominating.
The real secret is to play the old games at modern resolutions and framerates so get best of all worlds.
It’s partially a question of how the fidelity is realized. Modern game engines don’t look substantially better than what we were getting a decade ago. But a decade ago, that fidelity required a lot of pre-baking of things like lighting, materials, etc., to achieve acceptable performance. This meant that while scenes looked just as nice, they weren’t able to be nearly as dynamic or interactive. Modern techniques have improved video game graphics not by making them look better, but by making them look just as good WITHOUT baking everything, which in turn enables more interesting gameplay choices.
I’m not a fan of the game, but it’s worth pointing out: a game like Fortnite could not have existed in 2013. You could have made a game that would look like any random screenshot FROM Fortnite quite easily, but maintaining that level of performance in a fully dynamic and destructible environment of that size would have required major graphical downgrades.
It’s almost like Ganker spent a decade whining about how devs prioritized MUH GRAFIX over actual gameplay, and now that a focus on bullshot-tier fidelity has taken a backseat to considerations that actually DO enable more dynamic gameplay, Ganker just wants to MUH CRYSIS about foliage rendering crispness and temporal artifacting.
>Fortnite could not have existed in 2013
Funny since it's a game that started in 2011
It released in 2017. Its development required the development of UE4, which was released in 2014. At the time, that was a “next-gen” rendering engine (and in many ways still is, UE5 is too new to have any substantial titles out to demonstrate its capabilities). Fortnite could not have been developed with UE3/UDK. Much of Battle Royale’s current visual fidelity also depends on major changes pushed to UE4 for it, that revolved around dynamic rendering systems and a move away from the legacy baking workflow, like mesh distance field rendering and shadows, dynamic global skylights, etc. Again, these are features which do not make games look better. They are features which enable games to look as good, but with more dynamic environments/less baking.
>I’m not a fan of the game, but it’s worth pointing out: a game like Fortnite could not have existed in 2013.
Red Faction. Yeah its graphics is worse but Fortnite is not about best graphics iy is deliberate step into cartoonish graphics that work and look ok on shit machines.
> then stop progressing for the next 15 years?
mostly because you're moronic. crysis's sequels looked better than the original, DICE games always had phenomenal visuals and tech, 4a blew whatever the frick came out in those eras, even ND manages to push hardware extremely well.
You have failed to consider OLD GOOD NEW BAD.
>Why did videogame graphics make such a massive leap forward in 2000-2008 and then stop progressing for the next 15 years?
The same stupid thread ovr and over and over again. Why don't you just have a nice day and be done with it? You'd save us all a lot of time.
Investors in publicly traded companies realized how profitable games could be if you made shit for the lowest common denominator instead of enthusiasts, and devs went from being teams of nerdy white and asian STEM guys with some artists mixed in to being millennial diversity hires.
dudes only buying games for $50 bucks and only willing to shit money for expensive hardware setups as opposed to game developers are not really 'enthusiasts'.
I have no idea what you took away from my post or what you're trying to say.
im saying the 'LCD' whos willing to shit hundreds in microtransactions and DLC for COD 2021 are actual enthusiasts as opposed to the spergs who scream that COD MW2 is a PC bad port (also give me free DLC)
>some ironic weeb chink who spends $3000 a year on gachashit phone games is the enthusiast
>not the guy who spends 2 or 3 times that amount on parts and various games every year and actually plays video games
Okay.
We need to destroy consoles asap.
Tell all your friend to sell theirs and get a PC gaming instead.
TCD (Total Console Death)
Programmable render pipelines being introduced.
Corpo israelites getting their money grubbing hands on anything that sells well. Why invest in making something better when you can rehash the same old shit, create a problem and sell the solution?
>Why did videogame graphics make such a massive leap forward in 2000-2008 and then stop progressing for the next 15 years?
Temporal antialiasing and other temporal effects.
>M-muh GRAFFIX!!!
You Black folk don't care about fun video games.
No reason you can't have both.
They are two separate branches that eventually converge. Good graphics ultimately help immersion and can enhance the gameplay.
On the other hand graphics alone are just a tech demo.
The primary "massive leap" in graphics during that time was due to HDTVs replacing 480i CRTs. If you look solely at PC games, it was more of an incremental progression which then stagnated as every single thing went cross-platform