Graphics are about as good as they're going to get (or need to), Valve's Doug Lombardi has told us, during a recent catch up.
Discussing PC gaming and where it's going Lombardi offered, "One thing we're already seeing now and something that's important for the future is multi-core processing.
"CPU manufacturers don't have big sexy campaigns with a character that represents a new processor like we see on the GPU side so it's sort of gone under the radar. But for us it's a great opportunity to put more things on screen, to pull off more complicated AI routines, to have better physics simulations and whatever."
Being of the male race we know that great looks can easily turn heads (and cause accidents) but what happens when you want a little conversation under the sheets. Good looks don't count for much then.
"For a long time the GPU side has been leading the charge towards brighter, shinier games, and it usually ends up that whoever has the best looking game at shows like E3 usually gets game of the show. We've always looked at that shaking our heads thinking it's not always about the graphics. We've all seen games that looked really pretty and got all these awards but then it comes out and there's not much of a game there."
Best example? Portal. "Before it came out, Portal failed to convince all those who like nice graphics," says Lombardi. "But when it came out it had really solid gameplay and a clever story, and so it won over 30 Game of the Year awards.
"It's more about what you can do in the game. Graphics have started to top-out now. We've got really great-looking games but what we want are more intelligent, more visceral games and the multi-core processors are going to be the way that we get there on PC."
Pretty games that can hold a conversation? Sign us up now. Look out for the full interview with Valve's Doug Lombardi later this week.
Couldnt agree more. A good looking game can hold our attention for as long as it can but a game with good gameplay, good story and good writing well that can stay with us forever.
Not that I want to see a bad looking game with poor textures and framerate but has good gameplay. Thats why games like Half Life, Bioshock and Shenmue are still held in such high regard long after they are released.
No pressure then Valve, im only expecting the next installment of Half Life to be the best of the lot.
Couldnt agree more. A good looking game can hold our attention for as long as it can but a game with good gameplay, good story and good writing well that can stay with us forever.
Not that I want to see a bad looking game with poor textures and framerate but has good gameplay. Thats why games like Half Life, Bioshock and Shenmue are still held in such high regard long after they are released.
No pressure then Valve, im only expecting the next installment of Half Life to be the best of the lot.
yep, graphics do not make the game despite what Sony and the ps3 fanboys want you to believe. i played hl2 again recently and it is still my favourite fps and no-one in my opinion has come close to it. perhaps tech cant be pushed much further than what they achieved with hl2 apart from improving graphics, and maybe thats why there is no hl3 yet as it wouldnt be much of an improvement over hl2?
i wonder how long it will be before people come on here and bitch about the ps3 conversion of the orange box?
We are getting into the realms of diminishing returns with graphics, but we're obviously still a way off from photo-realism.
As good as Crysis looks, it's rarely 'awesome' in that it doesn't inspire awe. Good graphics are rarely truly impressive anymore.
But there is still a lot to be done graphically in terms of destructable environments & dynamic material that can be frozen/set on fire etc and not just triggered by scripting, but caused by the actions of the player. We've seen this in games, but only in a very basic sense so far.
That's utter nonsense. Graphics will continue to improve as long as ATI and nVidia are still coming up with new technologies. Only an idiot would claim that graphics are never going to get any better, because that gets said every few years and then something happens that ups the benchmark again. Real-time lighting, then pixel shaders, and next it'll probably be real-time raytracing.
Developers can only work with the technology they have.
That's utter nonsense. Graphics will continue to improve as long as ATI and nVidia are still coming up with new technologies. Only an idiot would claim that graphics are never going to get any better, because that gets said every few years and then something happens that ups the benchmark again. Real-time lighting, then pixel shaders, and next it'll probably be real-time raytracing.
Developers can only work with the technology they have.
He wasn't saying visuals wouldn't get better.
The point is less and less people are giving a shit about how detailed the pores are in the face of your protagonist.
Couldnt agree more. A good looking game can hold our attention for as long as it can but a game with good gameplay, good story and good writing well that can stay with us forever.
Not that I want to see a bad looking game with poor textures and framerate but has good gameplay. Thats why games like Half Life, Bioshock and Shenmue are still held in such high regard long after they are released.
No pressure then Valve, im only expecting the next installment of Half Life to be the best of the lot.
yep, graphics do not make the game despite what Sony and the ps3 fanboys want you to believe. i played hl2 again recently and it is still my favourite fps and no-one in my opinion has come close to it. perhaps tech cant be pushed much further than what they achieved with hl2 apart from improving graphics, and maybe thats why there is no hl3 yet as it wouldnt be much of an improvement over hl2?
i wonder how long it will be before people come on here and bitch about the ps3 conversion of the orange box?
Amazing how someone always manages to bring up (and slag off) Sony into a thread that has nothing to do with it.
Its Microsoft and the OpenGL people who drive the technology as much as NVIDIA and ATI/AMD.
More recently there has been a bit of a brain drain from MS to Intel because of the Larrabee project (MS graphics enginneers dont think the MS is "pushing" enougth).
Ray tracing will proably start to become more effective more time, but i still that rasterization is here for a good while yet.
Yes, this is merely echoing Nintendo's thoughts on the subject and hence why the Wii is so incredibly successful. Still plenty of room for them to maneouvre though when the Wii 2 eventually gets released.
Amazing how someone always manages to bring up (and slag off) Sony into a thread that has nothing to do with it.
I was going to comment on that post in something the same way but thought 'what's the point?'. As you say there was no mention of Sony or Microsoft in the story but some muppets still can't resist the urge. If anything it speaks volumes about the poster.
I was going to comment on that post in something the same way but thought 'what's the point?'. As you say there was no mention of Sony or Microsoft in the story but some muppets still can't resist the urge. If anything it speaks volumes about the poster.
Or, that it speaks volumes on how the community is viewed as a whole?
man has a point gameplay is the key i mean i'm still playing deus ex and am addicted to castlevania and these games aren't the best lookers but their gameplay is still miles ahead of some of these graphically superior games.
Amazing how someone always manages to bring up (and slag off) Sony into a thread that has nothing to do with it.
I was going to comment on that post in something the same way but thought 'what's the point?'. As you say there was no mention of Sony or Microsoft in the story but some muppets still can't resist the urge. If anything it speaks volumes about the poster.
well to be quite honest it's all that seems to drive consoles games these days, and its all sony and ms bang on about.
have a dig all you want, did i insult your mum or something? does it make you feel intelligent? i do apologise for crossing the cvg forum police.
This is not a console specific story. The gaming graphics race is not console specific. It's not only Sony developers who push high end graphics as a selling point.
Wise up, grow up, dry up.
Anyway...
We seem to have the "Graphics can get no better" argument very five years or so. We get high colour graphics, then we got filled polygons, then we get 3dfx.
There'll be something else.
In 10 years, we'll look back condescendingly on titles like Crysis, Bioshock and the like.
Why is everyone moaning about Sony and MS being obsessed with graphics?
EVERY time there is a step up in graphics the first people to experience it are PC owners. EVERY time.
Sony and Ms just tend to model their consoles around current PC tech. They've got noet to do with it.
Graphics will still be important. I remember that interview with Kojima were he said that the next advancement will be in the 'organic' side of graphics. Fully destructible and manipulatable environments that change and grow in real time will be the next thing they look at.
I know the guy from valve was only really talking about the actual picture, and from that perspective hes sort of right. In the long run though, they've only scratched the surface so far.
Even the actual drawing and rendering of graphics isnt at its best yet, otherwise people wouldnt ever moan about pre renders at game shows would they?
graphics dont matter. aye right. why did you all buy HDTVs then?
good point but standard def tv's are just way below what is required, the tech hasnt really evolved an awful lot. hi def tv's only affect the resolution not how many polygons are on screen or the quality of textures or anti aliasing.
dont get angry now people, but sony had the right idea with the multi core cpu that in theory allows greater use of AI, physics and the like to improve the game play not just graphics.
Valve are a perfect example of a dev which pulls of amazing art direction, while still managing to make their games look bloody great. Along with great characters, A.I. and animation.
Couldnt agree more. A good looking game can hold our attention for as long as it can but a game with good gameplay, good story and good writing well that can stay with us forever.
Not that I want to see a bad looking game with poor textures and framerate but has good gameplay. Thats why games like Half Life, Bioshock and Shenmue are still held in such high regard long after they are released.
No pressure then Valve, im only expecting the next installment of Half Life to be the best of the lot.
yep, graphics do not make the game despite what Sony and the ps3 fanboys want you to believe. i played hl2 again recently and it is still my favourite fps and no-one in my opinion has come close to it. perhaps tech cant be pushed much further than what they achieved with hl2 apart from improving graphics, and maybe thats why there is no hl3 yet as it wouldnt be much of an improvement over hl2?
i wonder how long it will be before people come on here and bitch about the ps3 conversion of the orange box?
Amazing how someone always manages to bring up (and slag off) Sony into a thread that has nothing to do with it.
Exactly what I was going to say... "graphics do not make the game despite what Sony and the ps3 fanboys want you to believe"? Really? Sony and PS3 fanboys specifically want you to believe that? I've never heard that before. What about graphics whores or PC elitists?
LittleBigPlanet has the most buzz around it at the moment of any PS3 game, and it's hardly a graphical masterpiece...
yep, graphics do not make the game despite what Sony and the ps3 fanboys want you to believe.
Actually the PS3's GPU is if anything slightly less capable than the 360's GPU (I program these things) but the PS3's Cell processor is able to process more stuff than the 360's CPU. Therefore the PS3 is more likely to be able to acheive what Doug is talking about. Its too bad Valve appear to have already dismissed the PS3 when it comes to their game releases......
What about games such as GoW, GTA4? These games have both gr8 graphics and gr8 gameplay...surely the best games are the games that hit both looks and gameplay?
However it's not always about graphics...Halo 3, The Sims etc are great games with graphics that are decent but won't blow you away.
However if Halo 3 released with SUPER good graphics and the same gameplay it would be even more popular...the best games are those which find a balance between the two.
yep, graphics do not make the game despite what Sony and the ps3 fanboys want you to believe.
Actually the PS3's GPU is if anything slightly less capable than the 360's GPU (I program these things) but the PS3's Cell processor is able to process more stuff than the 360's CPU. Therefore the PS3 is more likely to be able to acheive what Doug is talking about. Its too bad Valve appear to have already dismissed the PS3 when it comes to their game releases......
valve are stuck between a rock and a hard place as they dont have the man power to just start working on the ps3 without dropping something else. could you imagine the uproar if they ditched PC development in favour of the ps3?
you are probably right about the PS3 cpu but it might be a little too early for it or it could be the tool that allows people to learn the techniques that get put to full use next time round.
i think its about balance, devs cant afford to concentrate on one area to make a truly great game. if anything Valve are one of the few devs that get this, i think they are helped by not having publishers breathing down their necks so games only go out when ready.
Logically there will come a point (not necessarily anytime soon) when graphics simply can't get any better, as they come so close to imitating real life....
the "more intelligent" games come with the improved hardware, as do the better graphics.
the hardware will always evolve. if it comes to the stage of "topping out" then they will just get more efficent. which means better graphics anyway.. until the next revolution comes. valve are spouting s**t, they should shut up - they never push the envelope graphics wise.
what do you mean? their facial animation system was light years ahead of anything at the time and even now most games cant compete. does that count as graphics or not? i dont know but it affected the way characters looked. their physics system still stands up today as well so perhaps they dont go gung ho over graphics but the certainly dont hold back in other areas.
also, they contantly add graphical features to the source engine such as HDR when that wasnt widely used. they take a sensible approach and only update to advanced features when users have the hardware.
Logically there will come a point (not necessarily anytime soon) when graphics simply can't get any better, as they come so close to imitating real life....
And then they will be dead boring and so will come packaged with hallucinogens to enhance the experience
Good graphics don't matter much either when every game has the same art direction. Every sci fi shooter looks a bit like Halo which just stole it's look from Aliens. Every military FPS looks gritty and plays about the same. Animations have not kept up either, throw in a lame predictable story and no thanks.
Oh so every sci fi shooter rips off halo, which only ripped off Alien? Halo has ripped off almost everything that preceded it, in fact Halo and its bastard children are the among the most unoriginal things out there.
I have to agree. Im a graphics whore and I see no reason to upgrade my 8800GT to one of these new power sucking monster cards. Okay i cant max out some games, I dont really care anymore.
Also Half-life 2 still makes me sit back and go wow. Not cause its visually stunning, but because of how they use that engine to build their characters and worlds. They just add "More"
Still I would love to see what they can do with a new engine based on recent tech
it is all about the gameplay, every1 knows that but graphics are not close to being topped out one bit and is the thing that gets us totally immersed into a game along with sound etc. Now i may be wrong but this may be all talk so that valve have a reason to not bother making a new engine for episode 3 etc. (they may b making 1 i dunno)
"One thing we're already seeing now and something that's important for the future is multi-core processing."
isn't the CPU of the system Valve seems loath to develop for (PS3) multi-core? *scratches head* maybe there's something i'm missing. i'm not really a tech whiz.
One thing we're already seeing now and something that's important for the future is multi-core processing. CPU manufacturers don't have big sexy campaigns with a character that represents a new processor like we see on the GPU side so it's sort of gone under the radar. But for us it's a great opportunity to put more things on screen, to pull off more complicated AI routines, to have better physics simulations and whatever.
Interesting to see his enthusiasm for multi-core when Gabe Newall originally slagged off the concept!
Every sci fi shooter looks a bit like Halo which just stole it's look from Aliens. Every military FPS looks gritty and plays about the same.
Can I point out that Halo looks nothing like Alien. Have you even watched the Alien films?
And I would also like to take time to say that Valve FPSs do not look like the norm. TF2? Portal? Half-Life?
Indeed. The idea of Halo being the father of any other game stuff (gameplay, art direction, concept, you name it)in this planet makes me laugh.
awesome im not the only person who thinks this
i just finished all 3 last week and i gotta say i have no idea why pepl love this game or why everything is kinda compared to it. 1 and 2 were so bad i dont even know how i was able 2 finish them, 3 was so much better but then still only playable. many will say the multiplayer but socom and cod4 are miles better srry abt the rant but i just dont c it
As much as Ninty annoys me with their current console, I do understand it was a big risk that paid off.
Now we have decent waggle-sticks, we need a an advanced VR headset & console. Also a full body suit with pressure pads to simulate physical in game reactions & when you play the game on very hard setting the suit actually kills you, like in real life! How about a portable version of that console, could you imagine being on the London Underground with a few people playing that.
Anyway, it's time for me to go back in the padded room. There is no dsl line in there.
LMAO im sorry to say valve has never made a decent game , half life 1 was hot but the sequel and everything they released after that sucked and yes the graphics are mediocre to say the least.
Graphics are one if not one of the most important aspecs of any game today.
if gamers didnt care for graphics then companies like Nvidia or ati which sell very expensive GPU just so that you can play better looking games on your PC with be out of business and they are not they make countless or products each year and they all continue to sell like hot cakes all over the world, sounds like a pathetic excuse for poor people and those who cant afford the best.
next thing will be HD isnt needed sd is just fine LMAO.
But there is still a lot to be done graphically in terms of destructable environments & dynamic material that can be frozen/set on fire etc and not just triggered by scripting, but caused by the actions of the player. We've seen this in games, but only in a very basic sense so far.
Well, all of that would fall under the term "physics simulations", wouldn't it? (Contrary to popular belief amongst both gamers and developers, the science of physics doesn't only include gravity. For that matter, realistic lighting would come under "physics simulation", too.)
I definitely agree that we're moving towards games with more realistic physics. Besides the aforemention destructible environments and dynamic material, I think we're also eventually going to see much more realistic behavior of weather, fire, electricity, liquids, gases, and so on.
Of course, there are already a few games that have tried their hand at some of these, such as BioShock with its impressive water effects (IIRC they hired both a programmer and a artist entirely for the water).
LMAO im sorry to say valve has never made a decent game , half life 1 was hot but the sequel and everything they released after that sucked and yes the graphics are mediocre to say the least.
Graphics are one if not one of the most important aspecs of any game today.
if gamers didnt care for graphics then companies like Nvidia or ati which sell very expensive GPU just so that you can play better looking games on your PC with be out of business and they are not they make countless or products each year and they all continue to sell like hot cakes all over the world, sounds like a pathetic excuse for poor people and those who cant afford the best.
next thing will be HD isnt needed sd is just fine LMAO.
You should probably do some research before making inaccurate statements like that.
Valve are a perfect example of a dev which pulls of amazing art direction, while still managing to make their games look bloody great. Along with great characters, A.I. and animation.
Yeah, they basically just admitted 'Portal looked like shit' when it's actually a pretty good-looking game. Loved TF2 graphics as well, and I honestly couldn't say anything in the Orange Box didn't look great.
Anyway, graphics, A.I, game mechanics, etc will all continue to improve - just an example, but look at the games PS2 pumped out before the PS3 was released and compare them with its first-generation games!
Just imagine how games (not just their graphics) will evolve in the next 20 years...that's if the world doesn't just implode by then.
I have to disagree that graphic have reached their peak. I think they will continue to develop, however, at a slowing pace. However, I do think it’s time the whole PC based gamming industry got real about this. How many people rush out and buy the latest hardware just to get the stunning graphic some games promise?
This is something I think the games industry need to address as a whole. Call me an old fart but I’m tired of the constant tweaking and upgrading it takes to stay ‘Compliant’ with the latest games. Sometimes I just want to buy the game I want, stick it in my computer and play the damned thing. Hell I’ve even considered buying a Playstation or an Xbox!
And yes, I want good story lines, I want to be able to go back and play it again and again and find new way, and new things each time. I want a huge environment, which doesn’t require supercomputing power to render at a reasonable frame rate. I’m happy to sacrifice some detail for this. That’s why I can go back and replay greats like Deus X , Half life, Thief, FarCry and have so much fun doing so. Because, even though they looked quite good, they had damn good storylines.
The two funniest posts I've seen on here are the ones claiming that:
'Gabe Newell is an idiot'
and that
'Valve have never made a good game'.
Its comments like those that make me realise what an astoundingly effective tool the internet is for allowing the opinions of morons to be heard. The two posters in question must have game collections full of such wonders as 'Crazy Frog Racer' and 'Leisure Suit Larry - Magna Cum Laude'.
Gabe Newell is right, there isn't a great deal more to be done to make a game's graphics stand out from the crowd. OK - there will be advances but they won't be as immediately striking as comparing Crysis to Sabre Wulf, for example.
I think the other thing Gabe Newell is implying is that games don't actually entertain as much as they should. The meaning of the word 'game' is 'an activity providing entertainment or amusement'. It doesn't mean 'increasingly shiny but non-interactive tech demo'.
I've been gaming for over 30 years and often return to older games via emulation or by playing them on my various 'vintage' systems. Clearly, many of these games can't hold a candle to todays games visually, but compare the playability and a lot of the modern stuff doesn't even get close.
Call me a bluff old traditionalist, but I like to actually play games rather than just sit there watching them. If I want to simply sit and watch something, there are movies out there that do the same thing, only many times better and for a fraction of the price.
I think they're proving their own point. Left 4 Dead will run on the "good old" (but still brilliant) Source Engine. It's been so long since HL2 appeared, and changed our worlds. Believeable physics, that actually made gameplay elements. HL2 is still worth playing through again. And it doesn't look or feel dated. It has "adequate" graphics, they do their job wonderfully, without overdoing anything just for the sake of it.
I think (and hope) L4D will be a great success. Commercially, as well. We've all seen the comments that "It won't look good". No, it won't be Crysis. But it might just be fun. How wonderful of Valve to say "We've got confidence in our tech, we'll give you a game that's about the gameplay, not the looks."
If the world was run by the morons that bash anything that isn't hi-tech graphics (yet moan when they have to upgrade), then L4D will fail miserably. So would CounterStrike. I've already preordered L4D on Steam, making sure my green goes to the company that best serve my interests as a gamer.
He has a point. Dead Rising wasn't perticularly amazing in the looks department but having hundreds of zombies on screen made the game awesome. I wish developers would exploit the more powerful CPU's like we have on the 360 and PS3, rather than spending loads on something that looks perticularly fancy.
Ok, we don't want anything too shabby but the likes of COD4 proves you can have graphics of moderate detail at high speed. If only there we're more AI on screen at once, all fully tactical. It would have made it much more intense.
ATI and NVIDIA are having a negative impact on gameplay as they force developers to spend far too much of their time and budget competing on graphical realism and effects. Hardware needs time to mature and for the software to make the most of the increased processing power it provides. It's almost better for console users as the developers have to make the most of the hardware thats available with PC the experience can be widely different depending on the system you can afford.
When I stop seeing those NVidia logo's as part of game intro's I will believe totally that gameplay is king. If a company is so in bed with NVidia it has it's logo in it's game's intro, I can't see how graphics will stand still.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
