Graphics Question

[Spokane]

Why is it that when a system comes out and then matures over the years its games also start to look better graphically?

Why isn't the systems power used to its full advantage at the start. Instead it gradually goes up over its life instead of harnessing its full power its whole life.

[ThyDarkAngel]

One can elaborate but it's mostly due to the devs experience with the system by that point and the fact that, again by that point, many engines/graphical/programming tools are made available and standard.

[Spokane]

I really can't wait to hear what Segata has to say, that's my main target for this whole topic really. But I was aware of that stuff, I was just wondering if there are any other reasons.

[ThyDarkAngel]

Yeah, he owns the 'techie' side of things around this place.

[Segata Sanshiro Jr.]

Theres a bunch of different reasons.

For one, the developer might not know how to use all of the features of a particular card. This might mean the card is great at pumping out filters or particles or that the card needs visual assets loaded in a specific order. As time goes on the specifics of the card become more clear, in working with it you notice quirks that you could code the game around to make it better.

Another thing is knowing all the chips in the system. even if you know everything about the GPU theres things that could directly improve performance that you might not know about. A CPU thats hard to work with might hold you up at first but after you've worked with it and understand it better you could use it's quirks to make the game better.

The designer them-self might just get better at making things as a system or as a designer. Once you've drawn something its easier to go back and draw in details, its the same with models. Once a texture or shell is done you could always go back and add a mesh or add more specifics.

So to answer your question on its most basic level, its because developers are learning to use a new set of tools, they've used similar ones but because these work differently they need to approach things differently.

[Bluecast]

Yeah a PC is cut and dry you know what's out there. Every console is like a new toy and different. So you often discover a new switch and new feature. PS2,N64,PS3,Saturn were assholes to program for. Like trying to get a drug addict in rehab they refused help and fought you all the way.

[QWERTY]

Every console is like a new toy and different. So you often discover a new switch and new feature.

Would these be all the different filters?

[Martin]

Yeah, new hardware, new quirks. In the past, even hardware bugs have been utilised for games towards the latter years of a console's life. Those are the Super NES games that won't work on your emulator (because it does not know about/emulate that bug), etc.

[KiBa]

To take a bit of a philosophical turn, a console, functionally, is analogous to a human brain. I am not claiming that a computer can think, but that just as a person is born devoid of a complex mental life and it takes years to learn to map all the possibilities inherent in the structure of the mind and the world it is in, so to do our machines contain an inherent potential complexity that initially exceeds the grasp of its creators. Hence, we learn to utilize machines in increasingly better ways till we reach their natural limits, and this is because our creations in some way reflect their creators, us, and so they mirror our image, as it were. It may be said that all human artifacts, including game consoles, are extensions of our own process of self-discovery, and so it is not surprising that their lifetime should in some way resemble our own. It's ultimately love, really. As we love ourselves, so do we transform the world around us into models of the self, not narcissistically, but in accordance with appropriate self-respect, and also so that we can come to love others. This is why, in this context, successful consoles ultimately exist as they do, travelling along no other course but to increase in inner complexity and thereby improve in their purpose over time. It's philopaichnídisophy. This is also why Nintendo calls their consoles the Wii and the Wii U.

[Axm]

Id honestly be fine if the current gen lasted another 6 years. Graphically I like what I see and dont need much more. I might even prefer Wii U next gen if PS4 and Xbox 3 turn our to be too graphically intensive for my taste.

[south carmain]

Id honestly be fine if the current gen lasted another 6 years. Graphically I like what I see and dont need much more. I might even prefer Wii U next gen if PS4 and Xbox 3 turn our to be too graphically intensive for my taste.

I could do with a higher resolution output and textures, the current gen looks fine on 19-24 inch screens put when on higher screens you can already see the image stretched, on 40 inch screens it looks terrible

oh and it would be nice to have less slow downs, even Jet set radio had a few

[Axm]

I have a 47' and things look great in 1080p. It always depends whats playing. Theirs good and bad looking games this gen, and with devs finally being able to maximize on the hardware id like to see more of the good end of the spectrum for a few more years.

[south carmain]

I have a 47' and things look great in 1080p. It always depends whats playing. Theirs good and bad looking games this gen, and with devs finally being able to maximize on the hardware id like to see more of the good end of the spectrum for a few more years.

I guess I'm just picky because at that size I think it looks terrible to me no matter what the game, the textures and ouput are just too small and with the advance of pc's it's really starting to show

[Martin]

Try playing an actual Mega Drive on a 1080p set. Looks like LEGO. Huge, perfectly-defined blocks! Personally, I'm fine with current visuals. They'll get somewhat better as time goes on, but as it is I think most games look great. I have a 32" Toshiba Regza, 1080p. I think when stuff actually renders in 1080p, it looks gorgeous on my television. Of course, most games (on PS3/360) render at 720p, and are upscaled to 1080p at some stage during the journey to your screen.

I'm even fine with this upscaling. I notice that it's not 1080p, but I don't care because it still looks quite clear. Maybe I just have a nice television that scales stuff well? I don't know. Of note is that the 360 does it's own output scaling. Your 1080p set will never have to do any of it's own scaling when running 360. On PS3, it's a different story, and totally down to how nice your television is.

As for framerate drops, I'd be all for totally smooth framerates of course, but to me it's not a big deal. I like my shooters to run at 60fps (COD-virus, literally can't stand FPS lower than this now), and I'm OK for more adventurous games to aim for 30fps. If they can maintain 30fps, cool beans! I'll take some stuttering if things get heavy. So long as I'm not constantly battling a jerky update and screen tearing and whatnot - I'm good.