281
Small, incremental improvements don't make shockwaves like the old massive tech leaps used to.
(lemmy.world)
Ignorance is bliss.
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2025
281 points (96.4% liked)
Gaming
3792 readers
704 users here now
!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.
Our Rules:
1. Keep it civil.
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.
2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.
I should not need to explain this one.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.
Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Logo uses joystick by liftarn
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I mean, how much more photorealistic can you get? Regardless, the same game would look very different in 4K (real, not what consoles do) vs 1080p.
Let's compare two completely separate games to a game and a remaster.
Generational leaps then:
Good lord.
EDIT: That isn't even the Zero Dawn remaster. That is literally two still-image screenshots of Forbidden West on both platforms.
Good. Lord.
It is baffling to me that people hate cross gen games so much. Like, how awful for PS4 owners that don't have to buy a new console to enjoy the game, and how awful for PS5 owners that the game runs at the same fidelity at over 60FPS, or significantly higher fidelity at the same frame rate.
They should have made the PS4 version the only one. Better yet, we should never make consoles again because they can't make you comprehend four dimensions to be new enough.
I wouldn't mind like a new style of controller like maybe a fleshlight with buttons on the side or something
tbf I went from Wii to PS4 and shit a brick
Ironically, Zelda Link to the Past ran at 60fps, and Ocarina of Time ran at 20fps.
The same framerates are probably in the Horizon pictures below lol.
Now, Ocarina of Time had to run at 20fps because it had one of the biggest draw distances of any N64 game at the time. This was so the player could see to the other end of Hyrule Field, or other large spaces. They had to sacrifice framerate, but for the time it was totally worth the sacrifice.
Modern games sacrifice performance for an improvement so tiny that most people would not be able to tell unless they are sitting 2 feet from a large 4k screen.
One of the reasons I skipped the other consoles but got a GameCube was because all the first party stuff was buttery smooth. Meanwhile trying to play shit like MechAssault on Xbox was painful.
Had to, as in "they didn't have enough experience to optimize the games". Same for Super Mario 64. Some programmers decompiled the code and made it run like a dream on original hardware.
The programming knowledge did not exist at the time. Its not that they did not have the experience, it was impossible for them to have the knowledge because it did not exist at the time. You can't really count that against them.
Kaze optimizing Mario 64 is amazing, but it would have been impossible for Nintendo to have programmed the game like that because Kaze is able to use programming technique and knowledge that literally did not exist at the time the N64 was new. Its like saying that the NASA engineers that designed the Atlas LV-3B spacecraft were bad engineers or incapable of making a good rocket design just because of what NASA engineers could design today with the knowledge that did not exist in the 50s.
when i was a smol i thought i needed to buy the memory expansion pack whenever OoT fps tanked.
This is true of literally any technology. There are so many things that can be improved in the early stages that progress seems very fast. Over time, the industry finds most of the optimal ways of doing things and starts hitting diminishing returns on research & development.
The only way to break out of this cycle is to discover a paradigm shift that changes the overall structure of the industry and forces a rethinking of existing solutions.
The automobile is a very mature technology and is thus a great example of these trends. Cars have achieved optimal design and slowed to incremental progress multiple times, only to have the cycle broken by paradigm shifts. The most recent one is electrification.
Has anyone ever really noticed how samey everything looks right now? It's a bit hard to explain, because it's not the aesthetics of any kind of art style used, but the tech employed and how it's employed. Remember how a lot of early 3D in film just looked like it was plastic? It's like that, but with a wider variety of materials than plastic. Yet every modern game kinda looks like it's made using toys.
Like, 20 years from now I think it would be possible to look at any given game that is contemporary right now and be able to tell by how it looks when it was made. The way PS1 era games have a certain quality to them that marks when they were made, or how games of the early 2000's are denoted by their use of browns and grays.
My guess is a lot of convergence to a smaller set of known game engines. Godot, unreal, unity, plus a few others and some in-house like valves source.
I could be wrong but I presume in the past almost every game was made with its own custom engine. Now a lot of them have the "unreal engine" look.
But I'm not complaining. Looks great to me and leads to better performance and fewer bugs in the long run. Of course there are some caveats
Oh yeah this isn't a complaint, because I think it looks good. It's just I notice it, and it probably is from almost everything being made on UE5 these days. However, I think MGSV was one of the first games to have this particular look to it, and that's on its own in-house engine (FOX Engine). It could just be how the lighting and shadowing are done. Those two things are getting so close to photorealism that it's the texturing and modeling work that puts things (usually human characters) into the uncanny valley. A scene of a forest can look so real... And then you put a person walking through it and the illusion is lost. lol
Yes, definitely. It has to be that they're all using the exact same engines and methods or something.
And they're shocked that no one bought the PS5 pro for 800 dollars
Kind of like smartphones. They all kind of blew up into this rectangular slab, and...
Nothing. It's all the same shit. I'm using a OnePlus 6T from 2018, and I think I'll have it easily for another 3 years. Things eventually just stagnate.
I miss physical keyboards on phones
Maybe make the rectangular slab smaller again?
I would love to have a smaller phone. Not thinner, smaller. I don't care if it's a bit thick, but I do care if the screen is so big I can't reach across it with one hand.
I was hoping that eventually smartphones would evolve to do everything. Especially when things like Samsung Dex were intorduced, it looked to me like maybe in the future phones could replace desktops, running a full desktop OS when docked and some simplified mobile UI + power saving when in mobile mode.
But no, I only have a locked-down computer.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The question is whether "realism" was ever a good target. The best games are not the most realistic ones.
A Link to the Past > Ocarina of Time
Fight me
not really. plenty of great games have visual fidelity as a prerequisite of being good.
i dont think rdr2 would be such a beautiful immersive experience if it had crappy graphics.
So many retro games are replayable and fun to this day, but I struggle to return to games whose art style relied on being "cutting edge realistic" 20 years ago.
I dunno, Crysis looks pretty great on modern hardware and its 18 years old.
Also, CRYSIS IS 18 WHERE DID THE TIME GO?
STALKER is good, though I played a lot of Anomaly mostly, and I'm not sure that STALKER was ever known for bleeding edge graphics
load more comments
(7 replies)
Idk, I'd say that pursuing realism is worthy, but you get diminishing returns pretty quick when all the advances are strictly in one (or I guess two, with audio) sense. Graphical improvements massively improved the experience of the game moving from NES or Gameboy to SNES and again to PS1 and N64. I'd say that the most impressive leap, imo, was PS1/N64 to PS2/XBox/GameCube. After that, I'd say we got 3/4 of the return from improvements to the PS3 generation, 1/2 the improvement to PS4 gen, 1/5 the improvement to PS5, and 1/8 the improvement when we move on to PS5 Pro. I'd guess if you plotted out the value add, with the perceived value on the Y and the time series or compute ability or texture density or whatever on the x, it'd probably look a bit like a square root curve.
I do think that there's an (understandably, don't get me wrong) untapped frontier in gaming realism in that games don't really engage your sense of touch or any of the subsets thereof. The first step in this direction is probably vibrating controllers, and I find that it definitely does make the game feel more immersive. Likewise, few games engage your proprioception (that is, your knowledge of your body position in space), though there've been attempts to engage it via the Switch, Wii, and VR. There's, of course, enormous technical barriers, but I think there's very clearly a good reason why a brain interface is sort of thought of as the holy grail of gaming.
Having a direct brain interface game, that's realistic enough to overcome the Uncanny Valley, would destroy peoples lives. People would, inevitably, prefer their virtual environment to the real one. They'd end up wasting away, plugged into some machine. It would lend serious credence to the idea of a simulated universe, and reduce the human experience by replacing it with an improved one. Shit, give me a universe wherein I can double-jump, fly, or communicate with animals, and I'd have a hard time returning to this version.
We could probably get close with a haptic feedback suit, a mechanism that allows you to run/jump in any direction, and a VR headset, but there would always be something tethering you to reality. But a direct brain to machine interaction would have none of that, it would essentially be hijacking our own electrical neural network to run simulations. Much like Humans trying to play Doom on literally everything. It would be as amazing as it was destructive, finally realizing the warnings from so many parents before its time: "that thing'll fry your brain."
Tbf, it's kinda bullshit that we can't double jump IRL. Double jumping just feels right, like it's something we should be able to do.
Yeah, no, it'd likely be really awful for us. I mean, can you imagine what porn would be like on that? That's a fermi paradox solution right there. I could see the tech having a lot of really great applications, too, like training simulations for example, but the video game use case is simultaneously exhilarating and terrifying.
I agree generally, but I have to offer a counterpoint with Kingdom Come: Deliverance. I only just got back into it after bouncing off in 2019, and I wish I hadn't stopped playing. I have a decent-ish PC and it still blows my entire mind when I go roaming around the countryside.
Like Picard said above, in due time this too will look aged, but even 7 years on, it looks and plays incredible even at less-than-highest settings. IMHO the most visually impressive game ever created (disclaimer: I haven't seen or played Horizon). Can't wait to play KC:D 2!
Factorio and Balatro
load more comments
(2 replies)
The improvement levels are the same amount they used to be. It’s just that adding 100mhz to a 100mhz processor doubles your performance, adding 100mhz to a modern processor adds little in comparison as a for instance.
Well, that's what Moore's Law was for. The processing power does increase massively over each generation. It's just that at this point better graphics are less noticeable. There is not much difference to the eye between 100.000 and a million or more polygons.
We've basically reached the top. Graphics fidelity is just down to what the artists do with it.
I disagree ( that we have reached the top).
Go watch a high budget animated movie (think Pixar or Disney) and come back when real time rendered graphics look like that.
Yea games look good, but real time rendering is still not as good as pre rendered (and likely will never be). Modern games are rife with clipping, and fakery.
If you watch the horizon forbidden West intro scene (as an example), and look at the details, how hair falls on characters shoulders, how clothing moves in relation to bodies, etc, and compare it to something like inside out 2, it's a world of difference.
If we can pre render it, then in theory it's only a matter of time before we can real time render it.
yeah but the right hand pic has twenty billion more triangles that are compressed down and upscaled with AI so the engine programmers dont have to design tools to optimise art assets.
It just works™
Don't get me started on Horizon: Forbidden West. It was a beautiful game. It also had every gameplay problem the first one did, and added several more to boot. The last half of the game was fucking tedious, and I basically finished it out of spite.
load more comments
(8 replies)
view more: next ›