"I’m not so fussed about what’s in the box, I’m more interested in the games," says Jamie Fisher.
“I’m not so fussed about what’s in the box, I’m more interested in the games” as it should be, games are the most important thing and that is what in my opinion MS is forgetting at this point.
Absolutely games do come first but if you're developing a AAA masterpiece you do need the horsepower to make the games visuals stand out & the game to perform well.
Both consoles have that power now.
I been saying this for years.
no way PS5 generations is gonna offer photorealism. More like PS12. Look at last gen and this gen. This gen is basicaly last gen 2.0. Just higher resolution and pixels. We now living in age of diminishing returns. We are still stuck on TFLOPS. We need to reach exaflops of computation power on a single silicon or whatever replaces silicon to even get close to Avatar movie graphics in REAL TIME. So defo PS5 gen wont achieve this. I would say in 20 years time we may. If we can find a better silicon alternative.
Games like Horizon on 4k actually looks really realistic. Maybe not ps5 but I think it'll around ps7 wich would be 15-20 years time.
Photo realism in games would require real world physics (mathematical nightmare) 8K possibly 16K rez, 1:1 animations with full skeletal, and muscle simulation, character models with triangle numbers in the billions (maybe a new model rendering technique will be required) solid 120fps+, rediculus textures that will need to be lifted from the real world, it will have to have real atmosphere, weather, temperature, fauna, flora, full realtime destruction/envitoment interaction simulation and the list goes on. The tech and software needed for all the above (and many more) requirements do not even exist in an R&D lab today let alone on consumer level harware like a console. Even timeline estimates are not going to be enough because we simply dont have the knowhow today. Oh and Avatar doesnt even come close to 2D photo realism (movies) let alone to fully realtime- interactive 3D photorealism (games), and they used Supercomputers to make it.
Solidstatesnake horizon looks amazing, playing it in 4k but is nowhere near looking realistic. it doesn't even achieve cg level yet. dunno why people are disagreeing with UltraNova, everything he/she said below is correct as is boomtube.
@milohighclub because u say anything remotely negative about Sony u get disliked even though i wasn't being negative. I was just being logical. Sony fantards will dislike ur comment. Look at my other comment when i say negative truth about switch and xbone. I get tons of likes. Im assuming they were mostly Ponies who love to press the negative and positive buttons. N4G is more like PS4G
Sony is very focused on bringing many quality exclusives. Microsoft is trying to follow suit, but at the moment it's not working as good. Microsoft have an incredibly deep pocket, they just need to decide Xbox is a crucial business. I've owned PlayStation systems since PS3 (PC prior to that), and am just waiting for the justification to also buy the Scorpio. It appeals more because of it's power, but I need exclusives and also see proof that most games run significantly better and look superb compared to the PS4 versions. Regarding the Switch, I'm also waiting to see if it gets more support. At the moment it's hard to justify a buy with only Zelda. So perhaps a price cut would do the trick... but in general I do not think Nintendo created a great console. It's okay - but I don't think it's enough to compete. The Wii U was the first step in their demise, Switch is the 2nd step. If indeed it fails, Sony or other companies might actually acquire them to get ownership of Mario and Zelda.
I don't think they are forgetting the games. Every year they show new IP's. I think their main problem is they need more 1st and 3rd party studios to create exclusives for their system. Games that are XB1/Scorpio only and not on the PC in any shape, way or form. They can still make PC exclusives as well. Once they figure this out and get to it, they will be fine.
I maybe wrong but i think the biggest problem for all console is the CPU. Its seems the biggest bottleneck. Not the GPU or RAM, but the CPU. Maybe with the PS5 they can find one that is cheap and good.
If the devs are willing to put the time in the CPU doesn't need to be a bottleneck, they can offload AI and other calculations to the GPU. The problem is that this can't be done in a portable way that works on all platforms so it's much easier and less time consuming to just let the CPU handle all those things...
CPU was an issue this generation because no one wanted to go with IBM anymore. GPU performance has become the more important component when it comes to gaming. And Intel had a lock on performance and TDP for CPUs which caused a price monopoly for a while for devices that needed a lower TDP with the best performance possible, at a budget price. Next gen, AMD has Ryzen up and running which while likely stay behind Intel as far as overall gaming performance goes, but will offer everything any of the console manufacturers need for a competent CPU. If we were to look at things today the PS5's CPU will likely be based on the Ryzen 5 1500x 6-core / 12 threads or Ryzen 7 1700 CPUs 8-core 16 threads (I don't know why they just didn't name then the Ryzen 6 and 8). Either will be a huge step up from the current batch of CPUs in the PS4 and XBO, and they're both a big step up in consistent performance from the FX 8300 series. It really just boils down to price, which is why I'm leaning more towards a Ryzen 5 1500x laptop equivalent, which should cost less than the expected $229 price for the the desktop version. Give it 3 years time and it should be had for a much more PS5 friendly price. On top of that the current i5-6600k which the R5 1500x should be comparable to, runs games with a GTX 1080 without hitting any real bottleneck on 99% of games, so that CPU should be fine in the PS5 especially since games are coded directly for it.
Yep. CPU is the bottleneck this time, but it wasn't always that way. There's always going to be something that is the bottleneck for the system, depending on the situation.
Why the heck are we talking PS5? Please just stop with this nonsense. It hasn't even been remotely discussed by Sony. We might as well just talk about the PS6,7,8,9,20 while we're at it. This site is exhausting.
Sony already released a trailer for the PS9 https://www.youtube.com/wat...
I really don't see a PS5 box and if I am right that console manufacturers abandon console hardware in favor of tv apps, then that would be awesome
@Kallisti I don't liked. The frame rate is too slow.
@agent4532 I'm sorry, but in no way would that be awesome. If you were to ask me, going that route would spell the downfall of the industry
It doesn't really matter what we have today. The next generation requires 10-15TF in horse power in a current thermal envelope of a console. Everything else will be just a very almost invisible benefit over what we have today and probably not worth the money. Photorealism start somewhere at 15TF I'd guess. With that ballpark number, CPU speed is irrelevant. I am curious if will see another "halfstep" or the real thing. It's somewhere in reach in 2-3 years. We'll see. But fact is, to make a tangible difference, the next step must be exponential faster than todays 5TF.
We have now consoles with cheap and good CPU. Enjoy them or wait forever for something that will never be.
They have signed on for AMD Zen/Ryzen CPUs for 2018/2019 to start development for PS5/XB4 I believe. Either way though they are going to go with the small scale CPU cores like Jaguar with Big GPU. Even a Zen variant of a Jaguar sized core should be a pretty big boost between the two generations. Might go for more threads this time around. Since PS3/XB360 it has been 6 threads used for programming. 2 for the OS. With some resources scaled differently later on. Biggest thing for the 2020 generation of PS5/XB4 and maybe new Nintendo thing is that RAM will be stackable by then and maybe affordable. So massive bandwidth is an option on the table.
screw photorealism, I want fun games at 60fps
Why not...... Both?
because we can have fun games at 60fps first before we ever think about photorealism at 60fps?
Because we are nowhere near real-time photorealism even on the most powerful PCs available. Rendering a photorealistic scene takes hours, if not days, unless you have a render farm at your disposal. We have to get from hours/frame to 30 frames/second before we have real photo realistic games. Here are some excellent examples of photorealistic renders http://www.blenderguru.com/...
True. Also not all games require photo realism
Indeed. Nothing wrong with both!
I partially agree with your statement. You're right. Fun is way more important than realism. I'll take a fun game over graphics any day. But I don't think 60fps is tied to fun factor. Horizon zero dawn is running at 30fps. And it's fun. 60fps definitely would make it run smoother. But I'm definitely not complaining about it or other 30fps games. As for the article, it's a captain obvious statement. But games were photo real back on PS2 with GT3. It's just that it was limited on full world detail that we expect from realism. In order to reach that goal, games are going to need to raise the resolution, have better global illumination and shadows, better textures and better animation and lip sync. As some games today come close but then, uncanny valley sets in. Motion capture is better until I start noticing things breaking down. Eyes not blinking at intervals that I expect. Hair not flowing fully even in simulated weather that also needs improvement. And A.I. routines that should give NPCs life instead of just standing there. In real life people move even while in place. Oh, and physics on objects need to improve based on the material in question be it wood, steel or cloth. If you took pictures right now, some games definitely hit photo realism. They just need to expand on those above areas i mentioned.They'll get there eventually. But definitely a captain obvious article from gamingbolt.
This gave me a smile. Yeah, all those things need improvement, and yet, all those games which do things like that are brand new and still the minority. Time flies fast these days. Will we ever reach something where we will be satisfied?
it will still be a rare breed on consoles as long as gamers go giddy on forums and talk about how pretty games look. what is the first thing people talk about with uncharted? how amazing it looks. same with horizon. as long as console gamers say 30fps is perfectly acceptable why wouldn't they aim for that? insomniac did a study and proved graphics sell, that's why they now make 30fps games.
The game still got to be good though. I like Uncharted because of the story and gameplay more than the graphics.
"what is the first thing people talk about with uncharted? " The amazingly well realised characters. "same with horizon" No. Robot Dinosaurs and excellent/fun combat and interesting story. Or is it only MS games that get praised for things that are more than skin deep? You say graphics sell but that doesn't add up with the success of Minecraft and the Wii. If it were all about graphics we'd all be on high end gaming PCs.
The 60fps obsession is just that. An obsession. Stable 30fps in most action type games is fine, as long as it never dips. For others a higher framerate is desireable (sports, racing, twichy action shooters). Not every game needs it, though. You'll find out, once you get older ;) BTW: If you'd actually play HZD, you'd have a hard time believing, this is a 30fps game.
I like how you assume devs aim for 30fps purely so they can improve graphics. Really shows how clueless you are.
Lol, now we have Liqu1d trying to convince everyone they purposely aim for 30 fps. Yeah, it has nothing to do with the hardware limitations at all.
I'm not sure why you assumed it was either or.
@kneon I wonder who the clueless bellend was that disagreed with you there. Then again, who gives a f*ck, as no doubt there will be more to come. It's N4 nutcases afterall. You're 100% correct, You need physically based ray tracing to produce photo realism, and even then a single scene or a still image takes hours to produce.
I got used to 144fps and now 60fps seems slightly choppy to me. I'd go for 300fps juuuuuust in case (but we'd need monitors/tv's that support that too)
Photorealism is a lot further off than you think. Nothing takes away from it like having models with high texture detail, that look like they're made out of plastic when animated. Maybe games should lay off the graphic improvement just a touch, and start working in much, MUCH, better real-time physics processing instead.
I remember when PS2 was supposed to have "Toy Story quality" graphics, and when Xbox was supposed to have "Toy Story 2 quality" graphics... lol. I still haven't seen that quality yet, but Unreal's,"A Boy and His Kite" tech demo is getting really close to Toy Story 1 quality everything. Nvidia's GDC physics demo is what you're in need of then, and FL12.1 HW is set to do just that now that game engines can add support for these HW accelerated rendering techniques.
I havent seen a side by side, but Ive got to think that the latest Ratchet and Clank stands up to Toy Story.
Games today are a reasonable facsimile, perhaps, but still not close to full Toy Story quality. Geometry, texture resolution, lighting, physics, shaders... pretty much everything but animation still falls short of being as detailed on current HW (including Pro and Scorpio). I'd even hazard a guess that The Unreal demo still isn't completely there yet.
And the now current gen consoles were supposed to have Avatar level graphics. I remember seeing those articles a lot in 2010-2011
You guys disagreeing with the Toy Story bit are delusional. just look at A Boy and His Kite, and even that demo had lod changes on objects. Toy story doesn't. Toy Story doesn't use normal mapping either. Toy story doesn't show polygonal geometry when zoomed in. There's a lot of difference, and that demo recommends 6 3.3ghz cores, 980ti, and 24gb of ram. For Christ's sake, just look at some screenshost side by side! But somehow... somehow... you guys believe that R&C is as complex as Toy Story? Like I said, it's a reasonable facsimile, but it uses tricks like all real time graphics still have to. Toy Story doesn't use tricks. It's the same as believing checkerboarding is the same as native because that's just a facsimile too.
We will definitely not hit photo realism this generation or next generation. All you need to do is look at current pixar movies, those are close but still not photo realistic, some parts are. I say we still have at least two console generations to go before we get close.
Ratchet and Clank on PS4 is probably the closest I've seen come to animated CGI movies so far. And even that showed some traits of limited rendering abilities when the lighting or AA hit just right, and there were compromises on certain objects in the scene. The real issue here is that in games, you don't really need excessive detail where everything is photo perfect, or even look like CGI stuff. That kind of detail takes a ton of time to actually create, so even if the power was there, the chances it was ever implemented is slim to none until better tools come out to make it possible. When you look at photo realistic 3D images, they can take hundreds of hours to create, and days to render. A server farm with a 3D movie can take several hours or days to render a single frame. but the real kicker is that the hardware available to consumers can not even render many of the techniques that are used in photo-realistic renders, because those things simply aren't available even in the commercial market. That's why they take days to render. There's a link above showing a bunch of photo-realistic pictures. The one with all the jars probably took a week or more to render assuming he had a modestly decent PC/Mac. Glass and all those reflections and distortions of light are extremely processor intensive, and right now, there is no way to achieve that in real time. The power isn't there, and the hardware processes to do it in real time simply don't exist. It's not just about Teraflops, there hardware has to be capable of handling those kind of calculations in real time, and some of the things in 3D rendering are complex physics calculations which take hours to complete. It all comes down to light and reflections, and light and reflections are extremely complex, and compound the more you have.
Exactly my point, Rain. that's why I mentioned Nvidia's GDC presentation dealing with FL12.1 HW, physics and lighting. The specific HW seems to be coming down the pipeline, and that means engines with support for advanced physics and lighting HW... inside both XB1 and Scorpio... means devs will not be as limited when programming on MS' machines. PS4/Pro don't have these accelerators, or the move engines to support them, so they will have to emulate the HW, which is part of the problem you describe when talking about photorealism. But yeah, thanks again for proving my point, which is we don't have Toy Story quality graphics yet, and we're not even close to it with even Pro/Scorpio levels of power. BUT... at least MS' can say that they have the accelerators to begin the journey towards the Nvidia tech demo on their machines, and this is why I maintain the belief that XB1 will look as good or better than PS4 when these engines support the HW. The first step, making these rendering techniques available to devs, is finally under way.
I think you marginalized my point. The hardware required to do it in real time doesn't exist. The new processors add new processes to do small things quickly, and they can be complex, but we're talking very advanced forms of physics and lots of prediction of how light would react. I know that Toy Story graphics don't exist in consoles or PC. I wasn't trying to say that something is anywhere near that level, even today after so many years from it's release. I don't think it's really necessary to acheive such a high level of graphics on most games, and at some point, it becomes cost prohibitive to actually make the content to do so. The kind of "accelorators" which I assume you mean hardware processes, aren't going to be on the Scorpio either. The newer chips can do more, but they do it more through brute force than native processing. I assumed we were talking about movie production CGI or photo realism when I made my comment. If that isn't the topic, then my post is off base. Scorpio is going to be able to deliver good graphics. Photo-realistic in real time is not going to be possible though. It's not even possible on PC with the most powerful cards available. They can look good, but there is always some flaw which makes it obvious that it's rendered....typically in the lighting or aliasing. And for the record, I wasn't trying to disprove your point. I was adding to what you said, by giving my own thoughts on where graphics and hardware are at the present time. It wasn't based on consoles, rather general availability of hardware.
No rain, it is you who marginalized mine... because you didn't listen to a word I said the whole time I've been posting. • FL12.1 HW is for physics and lighting acceleration. I never said that the XB1 contained a render farm's HW. • I never said Scorpio would be Toy Story quality either. I even said A Boy and His Kite wasn't there yet, and listed the specs of the machine used to run it. My point was that we're still not to the level of realtime Toy Story yet, and Sony and MS marketed 16 year old machines as being capable of that quality.
In that case, you missed the point that I was adding to yours. You don't need to be so hostile about it. I'm simply stating that the hardware isn't there yet. Just like you are. But, Your original comment specifically cited NVidia's GDC physics demo, which will still not be able to deliver anywhere close to what Toy Story offered so many years ago, and is nowhere near what modern day CGI movies have to offer. So, because of that, it seems like you are both stating that it isn't there yet, but that demo brings it close, which isn't really the case. NVidia and AMD use "tricks" to get the kinds of details they do for games, but it's not straight pixel rendering like you seen in movies where they use multiple passes over various rendering techniques to achieve the final result. Games use filters and special techniques to achieve a facsimile of what you'd see in movies. Because of this, it will be a long time to get where Toy Story was, because these processes are meant to be fast, and get an acceptable result, but due to their nature, will have inherent flaws that will crop up and bring on the uncanny valley effect. My reason for bringing up R&C, beyond you also doing it, was to actually make my point. R&C is about as close as we've come in consoles so far. The style of graphics has something to do with it of course, being more similar to Toy Story than more realistic games, but to say that even though games aren't at that level yet, they are getting to the point where it can look damn great, and at times, be hard to tell the difference if you aren't actually looking for it. There were times in R&C where it did look like a CGI movie, but overall, there were flaws that showed it as being a real time render on a GPU.
You are right about the points you're making, Rain. Also, sorry if I was a bit frustrated. We're much closer to an understanding of each others perspectives. To clarify, I'm saying that the first steps towards real time physics ang lighting renderers are finally coming, but they require the HW accelerators found in FL12.1 compatible GPUs in order to work well. Devs can emulate the function of the accelerators on other HW, but it isn't nearly as efficient. You mentioned that Teraflops aren't all that matters, and I contend that the FL12.1 HW in the XB1 and upcoming Scorpio GPUs will contribute towards future games looking at least as good on XB1 as they do on PS4. Hear me out. XB1 will see an unknown amount of extra efficiency over PS4 in games programmed with advanced physics and lighting engines like the one Nvidia showed off. Conversely, PS4 will see some measure of reduced efficiency because the FL12.1 HW will have to be emulated before Nvidia's physics will run. One goes up, the other down, and the potential end result could be very close performance. Another example of HW accelerators doing similar things is those patented by Cerny for checkerboarding. Many people feel it's nearly indistinguishable from native 4K. 4.2TF can't look that good without the HW for checkerboarding. In theory, MS thought ahead when they built the XB1, and they were helping AMD to build up to Vega this whole time. If you look at XB1's GPU design, it's apparent that the more contemporary the AMD GPU, the more they process information like the XB1. Obviously, there are differences because advances are made after the XB1 began production, but there are many similarities as well. Similarities not found in the PS4 architecture. Unfortunately, MS thought too far ahead. XB1 should have been launched with Win10 and DX12 but they were not ready. This put MS in a position of having a less capable machine while running old engines. Old engines are finally on their way out the door though, and by 2018 holiday, Nvidia's tech may put into the wild, lending some truth into my hypothesis. Anyways, Rain, I'll talk to you later.
You mustn't have played any current game pushing the envelope, then. We are close today. A lot will happen in 3 years down the road. Software and render tech is improving constantly.
On PC, there has been some incredible graphical showcases, but every time the standard gets higher, our eyes get better at distinguishing the fake from reality. I remember how the original R&C looked just incredible when I played it for the first time, and same for the ones on PS3.... But now its jarring to see how much they were not as incredible as I remembered them to be. Personally, I think alone the draw distance is the biggest thing preventing full photorealism, because we always tend to keep the draw distance at acceptable levels, but that means stuff at distance are almost never visually stunning.
We are nowhere near photo realism. Movies can't even get there perfectly yet and you think games will be there in three years? Not gonna happen yet. Give it another 10 years and we will be getting closer.
The problem is, PC games don't really push tech much. They brute force scale old tech. I will say, without consoles, there would not be such a pus to actually advance software and algorithms. With a locked HW you have no other ways but improve the way how you do things. And a lot of that goes actually back into the PC market. The biggest improvements are made in SW and well, something feeds back into HW (more general purpose shaders where there where more fixed HW before), but code which became actually faster shifted the focus back to SW. Now it's really how fast can you do a lot of calculations because algorithms are so much more flexible.
PC does photo-realism now, console will this fall when Scorpio launches.
no it doesn't.
"PC does photo-realism now" Please, smh Devs don't put the effort to make their games visually stand out from consoles games. They're pretty much identical, the only difference that stands out is performance.
Agreed. The closer we get to photorealism the more every single detail that isn't quite right will stick out. A screenshot of a fairly simplistic game scene like a car on a race track or an office can look photorealistic now but a very complex setting like a stormy day in the woods with animals running around won't look photorealistic in motion. Higher resolutions and framerates will only increase the awareness off the little details pushing photorealism further away.
I'll take great art style that lasts than realistic which doesn't age very well. But really Gameplay >>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>& gt;>>> graphics.
Except graphics is part of the gameplay... and good graphics + gameplay = even better.
For me too much realism in graphics will end up ruin the fun.Better to focus resources in AI development,physics..to enhance gameplay!
Little hint: AI or physics programmers hardly write shaders. (ha ha... this actually not entirely true in a world dominated by compute shaders ;P but you'll get the point) ...lets just say, rendering code, instead.
I give more valor to great art drawing style than achieving art style by photo realism.
It's not the hardware.... It's the software taking advantage of the hardware that's the problem..... Some of it is developer support .... used to be developers had legit excuses as the tools just weren't there and devs didn't have the money and time (or desire) to write bare metal code to give support for a CPU structures more than four and let bandwidth was super narrow(expensive)...... Fast Forward...... today 2017 and the future........ Gaming Community have been Making games on 2 consoles both with more than 4 cores and having to squeeze the gaming life out of those CPUs (plenty of games on those two system).... We have all the major Game Engines on PC (some on the consoles ) supporting more than 4 core processing in their engines for AMD and Intel ...... using Vulcan and DirectX 12 which helps ease the pain (sometime as easy as just with a click on a box in a column) with all that bare metal binary programming needed for direct access to all the cores and the technology to control whats going on in the hardware.... Basically, there is no excuse now for developers not to support multicore processors regardless if its on the GPU or CPU and stop making games like its 2008 ( almost 9 years since i7 cpu family first came out ....really) and start making games using today's technology.....
photorealism depresses me, i loved cartoony style games, yeah ik they still make em but the times were 90 percent of games had animated esk styles like in the nes/snes days is gone and seems like even more now in the future with devs just focusing on the most realistic strain of hair on a persons head. :(