ballzac Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) 1992 - Wolfenstein 3D 1997 - Goldeneye 64 2002 - Unreal Tornament 2003 2007 - Crysis, COD4 2012 - Crysis 2, MW3, BF3 Am I the only one who is a little disappointed with such a slight improvement in graphics of the latest offerings? Every five years, the graphics, AI, and gameplay has improved immensely. Compare any of the other 5 year differences, and you'll see much greater improvements. Wofenstein and doom, then five years later goldeneye and perfect dark. Unreal tornament 2003, and five years later Crysis, an unbelievable difference. Okay, so I'm cheating slightly, my 2012 list actually all came out in 2011, but I think they're pretty much going to be the best on offer for the year in terms of graphics (I'm using fps games as a benchmark because they tend to be graphically superior to other genres). My video card was under $300 when I bought it five years ago, and it has no trouble playing the latest games on high settings (except bf3 which I think is more due to inefficient game design than superior graphics). There are certainly differences. The textures are a little cleaner. This appears to be more due to improved antialiasing than actual higher resolution textures, I'm not sure but that's how it appears to me. The main other difference I notice is what I think is an OVERUSE of motion-blur. It goes beyond improving the realism and ends up looking...well...blurry. This is fine for Crysis 2, because it is such a stylised game and it actually enhances the comic-book effect. In BF3, however, it just looks silly. MW3 has more subtle motion-blur and I think it works well in that game. My theory? Xbox and PS, the main competitors of the PC in the gaming market, are not planning on bringing out new consoles for another 5 years or so. Game manufacturers want the best bang for their buck, so they design multi-platform games. The simple fact is that this would be impossible if they increased the system requirements of the latest PC games. When COD4 and Crysis came out, the PS3 and XBOX360 were new. Granted, Crysis is a PC only game, but COD4 was developed as a multi-platform game and was the main commercial competition for Crysis as a PC game. So COD4 and Crysis were both produced to push the latest hardware to its limits. That is simply not the case with the latest offerings. Edited January 13, 2012 by ballzac Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alice Posted January 13, 2012 I'm not too concerned about it, but then I'm just a lowly console gamer . I guess I can accept that the PS3 is pretty much pushed to its limits now. If the gameplay is good, and the framerate is high (especially on a big tv), then I'm happy. I guess because PC gamers fork out heaps for the latest gear, they expect developers to entice them with gaming that pushes it to the limit? Seems fair enough to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dionysus Posted January 13, 2012 if you start from catacomb 3D (1991) you can maybe wait 'til next year to see a better 5 year improvement, i don't really believe it will be too significant though, seems the average gamer cares more about online options and in-game physics than anything else these days. when we are able to game as a photorealistic counterpart of our-selves i will be impressed, until then... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ballzac Posted January 13, 2012 I reckon graphics are VERY important to most gamers. I don't think people would be forking out for new PC hardware or the latest consoles if it wasn't a priority. I mean, a nintendo64 is Capable of producing most of the gameplay elements of a modern fps but could not come close to replicating the graphics. The N64 also could never compete in the physics department, but when you compare the Crysis and COD physics engines and the relative popularity of the games, it seems that accurate physics is not hugely important to most gamers. The COD physics engines give an impression of accurate physics by using predetermined events (which works well for campaign but not so much for MP). The Crysis engines are incredibly accurate in the way crashes happen and explosions send bits of junk flying, without any predetermined sequences. I always feel like I could never be impressed by graphics again, but it is usually at about the five year mark where a game comes out that astonishes me and reminds me why I like games, lol. I guess I've come to expect it and not really impressed at the moment. On the plus side, it extends the life of my video card and hopefully in another 5 years there will be some top notch games that will make it worthwhile for me forking out some money for the latest graphics hardware. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
