[Blink]

http://home.ripway.com/2004-3/85769/splintercellrealistic2.jpg
I feel kind of freaked out by the idea that I can actually picture that as a next generation console's graphics. It looks so good right now, but it would be easy to accomplish with the next xbox and ps3(maybe revolution, though it sounds like the revolution will go the same direction as the DS, innovation over power). Here's a good example of why I think that...
http://www.altpop.com/stc/pics-large/sm64ost.jpg
Super Mario 64 concept art, turned into...
http://cubemedia.ign.com/cube/image/mariosunbroll_052902_14.jpg
practically what we saw in Super Mario Sunshine. If this kind of thing continues, we're going to keep seeing huge boosts in console power each generation, and will reach that level of realism quite quickly. What do you think?

[golden_djiin]

i think the only way that would be cool,is in virtual reality games...other then that,to weird....that made no sense,did it?:lol:

[Blink]

I think I understand. You mean that graphics that realistic would seem freaky unless it was in a game based on being realistic, but that having those graphics in all games would just seem weird. Right?

[golden_djiin]

sorta...i think that it would be freaky watching on a TV,but fun watching it through just your eyes,not your eyes watching a screen.virtual reality-like.but yesh,having those graphics in all games would be unsanitary...like on kirby,poke'mon,and halo games...well,halo would be plain scary.

[Nick Presta]

It's only a matter of time before VR becomes something everyone can use.

And the graphics of the XBOX2, PS2, N5, won't be THAT much different. Just smoother, more detail, and finer graphical fixups.

It's not like a jump from N64 to Xbox.

[Mars Djinni]

I don't think Virtual Reality should become a video game idea of the future. It might sound like an excellent idea, but really, it isn't very great once the games come out. VR brings realism into the games. Look at the games like GTA. In VR, you can see your "arm" raising the gun, pulling the trigger, etc. It could scare the players or even make them enjoy killing off other people. The realism is too much. If the Video Game companies even intend to creat Vr technology, it should be a small improvement in graphics at a time. Just to get the players to get used to it more.

[Sea of Time]

Graphics will get loads better, I hope. Graphics are the central point to a great game system in my opinion.

[Andross]

Actually, games are, because then there'd be nothing to play on it. Graphics are secondary.

As for graphical capabilities, advances will be slow for consoles due to their release schedule. You'll see "leaps" in the graphical capabilities of systems, but only because they are being upgraded from three year old components.

Due to the fast advances in the PC sector with graphics (PCI-Express) and processing power (AMD Athlon 64 3800+ Socket 939), expect the quality of consoles to hit a brick wall by the next NEXT gen systems. They already are starting to hit some, and it will take some more accidental finds (such as how the heck to make parts even smaller) until more advances come along.

We won't be seeing ultra-realism for games next year just yet folks.

[l3lueMage]

I have noticed, the better graphics and more complex games get, the worst the camera angles and movements get(except first person lol) and so anyways, I have also noticed there is always a console that doubles the previous, ex: dreamcast had N64 had 62MB graphic card 128MB graph caard, xbox has 256

I read this insider where they talked about the N64, they called it N64 because it sounded better than N62, also leading people to believe it had a 64bit graphic card, when really it had a 64 bit.

but other than that they have always doubled eachother, so i hope the next will be 512. then 1024 so on, I also heard that its either 3000 or 5000 which is max and cannot improve anymore.

[Andross]

Umm, you really don't get the concept of the graphics cards and stuff. First of all, the MBs a graphics card has means nothing. It's all about core MHz power and the things it can do. The more MBs it has merely means that it uses more power. It doesn't always mean it's better.

Most cards won't be climbing any higher than 512MB, but those are virtually non-existant; I'm not even sure if there is such a thing. With PCI-Express out, there'd be no need.

It's really just the features and certain specs that people look for. How fast can it render polygons, how large can the picture be without the detail degrading, how does it handle dynamic shadows, etc.

[l3lueMage]

Andross, actually there is a few 512MB cards out, and one super one everyone has been going crazy about is out, although its AGP so it doesnt really matter, I have a 256PCI express >_>

[Andross]

I vaguley remember seeing 512MB ones, but that usually means it uses more power nonethless. It isn't a true representation of a card's power.

[Tachyon360]

Currently, only the Wildcat line from 3DLabs has 512+ megs (I believe their largest is 768). ATi, however, is releasing a new version of the X850 that has 512 megs.

Anyhow, if graphics aren't central to a new system, how come we're not still using the PSX, the N64, and the Sega Saturn? Sure, more storage leads to more innovative and extensive games, and new player contol options lead to new gameplay advances, but then why didn't they just update those systems to hold more data and offer new controllers? The thing is, even though gameplay quality is a very important part of what makes a good game, if graphics we're a major factor as well, there would be much less pressure to make more powerful, graphics-pumping systems than there is now.

And Bluemage, don't confuse color bits with memory bytes. The xx-bit systems you keep hearing about refer to how much memory, in bits, is alloted to colors and alpha-channels. The XBOX, for example, may have 256-bit graphics, but it only has 64 megs of RAM. (Andross covered a somewhat different point, FYI.) Higher-level graphics won't do diddly squat without the RAM to hold all the data and CPU/GPU power to cruch that data.

And Andross, PCIx is just a new standard for data transfer between the GPU and southbridge (or northbridge, in the case of AGP). More speed leads to a smaller chance of a bottleneck, but more RAM leads to a smaller chance of the data running dry and greater ability for the developer to include higher-quality textures and models. While we won't be seeing much improvement in the performance with todays games, just wait until developers add paralax mapping, dynamic models (for truly realistic destructible environments), and vastly more complex physics engines.

[Andross]

I said games were a central part because, simply put, without games, there is no system. I'm not talking about gamePLAY, I'm just talking about games. I said graphics are secondary, as in, they are the next most important thing.

[Tachyon360]

Well, of course. Consoles are all about games. Without the games, it's little more than a fancy, proprietary computer with very limited use.

Still, even though games in and of themselves are what consoles are for, better graphics are central to the development of new systems nonetheless.

[l3lueMage]

Tachyon360, on Mar 14 2005, 03:24 PM, said:

Currently, only the Wildcat line from 3DLabs has 512+ megs (I believe their largest is 768). ATi, however, is releasing a new version of the X850 that has 512 megs.

Anyhow, if graphics aren't central to a new system, how come we're not still using the PSX, the N64, and the Sega Saturn? Sure, more storage leads to more innovative and extensive games, and new player contol options lead to new gameplay advances, but then why didn't they just update those systems to hold more data and offer new controllers? The thing is, even though gameplay quality is a very important part of what makes a good game, if graphics we're a major factor as well, there would be much less pressure to make more powerful, graphics-pumping systems than there is now.

And Bluemage, don't confuse color bits with memory bytes. The xx-bit systems you keep hearing about refer to how much memory, in bits, is alloted to colors and alpha-channels. The XBOX, for example, may have 256-bit graphics, but it only has 64 megs of RAM. (Andross covered a somewhat different point, FYI.) Higher-level graphics won't do diddly squat without the RAM to hold all the data and CPU/GPU power to cruch that data.

And Andross, PCIx is just a new standard for data transfer between the GPU and northbridge. More speed leads to a smaller chance of a bottleneck, but more RAM leads to a smaller chance of the data running dry and greater ability for the developer to include higher-quality textures and models. While we won't be seeing much improvement in the performance with todays games, just wait until developers add paralax mapping, dynamic models (for truly realistic destructible environments), and vastly more complex physics engines.

Actually the Radeon Company has just released a 512MB card, but I do think that the more memory it takes somewhat improves on the Graphics...but Tachy PCIx is faster than AGP and that is why PCIx cards take half the speed of AGP cards and are still a bit better.

[Andross]

And thus the only reason there are new consoles every three years.

But once they hit brick walls in performance, who knows. It depends on how fast they start developing graphics even more, because that hasn't hit the brick wall just yet. PCI-Express isn't the final frontier, as you probably know already.

[Tachyon360]

l3lueMage, on Mar 14 2005, 06:42 PM, said:

Actually the Radeon Company has just released a 512MB card, but I do think that the more memory it takes somewhat improves on the Graphics...but Tachy PCIx is faster than AGP and that is why PCIx cards take half the speed of AGP cards and are still a bit better.

Last I heard, they were only demonstrating it at large LAN parties and haven't made final plans to release it. I don't keep up with the specifics, though.

Anyhow, you contradicted yourself (and I never even so much as implied AGP can outperform PCIx in the same tier or performance [such as 1x, 2x, etc.]), so I take it you're a bit confused (though I could be, and often am, wrong about that). This page explains PCIx vs PCI and AGP in laymen's terms. Y'know, just in case you might want to read it.

[l3lueMage]

something like that, but close enough lol, anyways i wonder what will happen when the graphics are perfect, all systems combine to 1 o.o wiat sorry my mistake, after comes VR