Are Games the Next Chokepoint?

I was just wondering what you guys thought? It seems like the computer technology is starting to advance faster than the games that can max it out.

I mean within the next couple of years we could see 4.0ghz quad processors and 2gb 512bit sli/cf video cards in laptops, yet the most advanced stuff out now can more than handle any game at maxed settings.

Some of the games out now look lifelike (or even better in some instances). So how much better can games start to look before they reach a chokepoint and won't require anymore resources?

 

Well part of the issue is that consoles have become so important in the game development business, that games tend to be multi-platform now, therefore the PC versions are going to reflect many of the same graphical and CPU qualities as their console version brethren. Almost all multiplatform games tend to be playable at max graphics (or equivalent 360/PS3 graphics) on an 8600GT level graphics card unless you bring into the equation higher screen resolution and anti-aliasing. Still many PC versions have higher texture resolutions/geometry as well as the typical enhancements like better AA, texture filtering, resolution options, and unlocked framerate. I think Far Cry 2 is a good example of this process where you have similar PC version but with lots of graphical enhancements (DX10 shaders, better textures, geometry) to really make sure the PC version does look the best. Also one advantage of PC multiplatform games is the lower price, and there are cases of console versions just not running very well graphically like Last Remnant. It's got terrible slow down on the 360, but on the PC, even if you have a computer with a weaker GPU than in the 360, you can still lower the graphics and get smooth performance. No matter what with the 360 version, you're pretty much stuck with it. And let's not forget to mention that if you game on a lappy, it's portable Also mouse and keyboard just feels alot better than a gamepad for FPS and RTS.

 

No I don't think so BC mainstream cannot play games at all maxed out settings espacially for PConly games, as mobius1aic said.

Not everyone plays games on Dual 9800M GTX 1GB SLI, not even on a desktop.

 

Not sure whether games are reaching a chokepoint, but it's quite clear that the bottleneck of most modern systems is the hard drive.

When SSDs become mainstream we'll see how it goes.

 

The sheer complication of computers and the confusing nature of graphics cards especially only deter many people. However it must be noted that games such as The Sims series, Spore, and many other similar games are purposely developed with very low end graphics in mind, supporting even laptop integrated graphics processors because the demographic that wants to play them doesn't really know or care about what's in their laptop. They just want to play the game without any hassle. I think devs really need to take a broad look at the number of people out there with laptops. Most of them are going to have an IGP, many with older machines sporting Intel GMA950s and X3100s. I'm betting that Sims 3 will most certainly support the GMA950 and X3100 because it's in EA's financial interest do so since it makes it accessible to as large an audience as is feasible without lowering the overall quality to a level that people would expect much better of. I'd really like to see a market survey showing the number of laptops sold in any particular region (or the world if possible) by what kind of graphics system they have, the categories being Intel GMA950/Intel GMA X3100/GMA x4500/ATi Radeon HD 3100,3200/Nvidia Geforce 8200,9400M/ATi dedicated graphics/Nvidia dedicated graphics. Just think, almost every AMD based laptop sold since August or so has a pretty decent GPU (Radeon HD 3200) if not a better dedicated one. Every new Macbook has a Geforce 9400M. Then most Intel notebooks sold in recent months have the X4500. It's a huge market if you can get through to the customers with these notebooks. And after it just came to mind, I wouldn't be surprised if EA is planning to make sure the direct download version of Sims 3 is workable on netbooks which of course have taken off considerably as well. If only many of these users knew about the wonderful back catalog of classic PC games that would run good on their computers.

Alot of casual gamers don't want to have to own a computer plus a console just to get their puzzle or Sims fix, and their notebook makes alot of sense to play a quick game on. Also AMD and Intel need to be on the move to improve IGP performance at a quicker and more constant rate. I hope that within a year or 2 that DAMMIT (AMD+ATI=DAMMIT lol ) will have a new IGP in the 3650 class of performance unless their fusion concept manages to make that mark instead. That way the graphics in computers on a most basic level are improving at a rate that makes them more attractive as a gaming and entertainment option especially for those who are on the go, needing a thin and light laptop. In 2 years I expect to be able to buy a 14.1 inch computer with this level of specs for about $500 to $700: 2.0 GHz quad core on 32 nm similar to those we have now that cost hundreds just for the CPU itself, 6 to 8 GB DDR3 SRAM, 500 GB HDD, Radeon 3650 level graphics on the IGP on a smaller than 40 nm process as well as LED backlighting on the LCD screen. It sounds like a tall order now but the tech already is there, it just needs some improvements and time to be in production to drive down costs.

 

When high end cards run cooler and are cheaper, i might agree with the OP.

 

I think it will be awhile. Theyre saying around 3 years and games will look like the cinema. The reason we pc users mostly get passdown games from console is simple, because most pc users will steal the game that just came out, online. Look...it just happened with Demigod.

Even when games get to their maxed settings, I think technology will still be moving forward with games in some way shape or form

 

Perhaps PC developers will see the potential of developing something like the Wii remote? Although I am more than just a casual gamer, I bought the Wii because I knew it was the only console my girlfriend would enjoy using. We have great laughs with it. A PS3 would be a waste of money, for that price I can build a high-end PC and every PS3 game costs as much as two PC games.

IMO, the only advantage of console gaming in general vs. PC gaming is the ease of setup, portability and ability to play with many friends at a time. With the Wii as an exception, control in the PC is always better (you can plug in an Xbox controller on the PC, but cannot use a proper mouse/keyboard in the Xbox or PS3 I think). And of course, a PC is much more upgradeable.

 

One more advantage of PC gaming when it comes to the good ol laptop: better power efficiency. My Asus G50 has TWICE the GPU graphics horsepower of an Xbox 360 or PS3, not to mention has a 1366 x 768 screen, keyboard, all the stuff (except mouse and ear phones ) that consumes less power than either console as it uses no more than 125W since that's the max load of the AC adapter. The latest revision's of the PS3 and 360 still consume over 150W if I remember right and then you need to add up the amount of power the TV or monitor you're using as well. It's too bad lappies are not more upgradeable.

 

Notice how I didn't mention mainstream in my post. I'm talking about the most advanced technology that's going to be coming out in the next few years. It just seems like the gaps jumped between games is starting to slow a lot.

I mean look at the difference between snes and n64. That was a lot bigger than ps to ps2 (which was also bigger than ps2 to ps3 imo). I know comparing consoles is a little offtopic, but it's easier to see the difference that way.

 

At some point, games just are realistic enough. For example, I know the Wii doesn't have as much graphical punch as the PS3, but the games look great to me, even though I also play the very same game (Fifa 09) at a friend's PS3.

 

Actually no, for notebooks we will never see SLI 512 bit cards, at least not in anything that's less than 2 inches thick. 512bit ring bus would take a huge amount of power, and I don't think that's the direction that GPU makers are going to go in. Also 4Ghz quads in notebooks, that's possible, but within the next few years we should have 100Ghz+ CPU's in desktops/notebooks with several hundreds of cores.

But as others have said, the point is that not everyone has the computing power for most of these games, and price is a huge factor, that along with the knowledge of PC components that probably 99% of pc users don't have.

That's why I really like the ION platform idea. You basically give everyone an extremely cheap platform that allows anyone to play a game even without the knowledge of the hardware. If something like the ION becomes a huge success, game companies WILL design games with it in mind, and most likely optimize their game for the platform so users can have a good gaming experience without any of the knowledge of the hardware.

Another thing is that games right now don't really look THAT great. Compared to even 4 years ago, it's quite amazing, but there is a HUGE amount of room for improvement graphics wise. Most games still use very generic approaches to texture mapping and pre rendered lighting mixed with HDR or mere bloom with color correction to create a generic effect. Crysis was the only one game I know of that actually tried full real time lighting, real time shadows, parallax occlusion mapping, had a MASSIVE view distance, full dynamic day/night cycle, and a full physics system with full object collisions. And look what happened to this game? It performed quite poorly for the majority of systems, so clearly we aren't where we could be in terms of computing power.

 

Are you saying that the gaps between better graphics in games is slowing?

I dont get it..

snes came out in 91, n64 in 96 (thats a 5 year gap) ps also came out in 96. 11 years ago, golden eye007 was released.

Within the next 5 years I cant even imagine what video games are going to be like.

 

I think it's GOOD for PC's and gaming. You no longer NEED top end hardware to play a game with reasonable settings. I am a PC enthusiast, but can't begin to fathom how much I've wasted in money just to play the next round of "must have" titles that ended up not being so "must have".

Not to mention notebook PC's gaining favor over desktops because of their low power consumption and portability of course.

 

I'm saying the quality is slowing. I mean WarCraft III can be played with pretty much any graphics card that comes with any budget pc that you can get. But if you pump up the graphics to max everything and play some custom maps with crazy spells and whatnot, it looks almost as good as some of the more recent rts games. CSS still looks pretty good on max, even compared to some of the newer games. And both those games are OLD (not as old as golden eye, but still old)

 

Both those games look like 2004 technology, sorry to say. I fired up Warcraft III just recently because I decided to give DotA a try and was amused at how it looked, compared with today's RTS's like C&C games, World in Conflict, and CoH (which is fairly old still).

 

Quad core i7 FTW

I see console architecture being able to use OS's the thing of the future to be honest.

 

CSS is not that old. Came out just 5 years ago. If you compare it with crysis on highest settings, then yes its not as graphically enhanced.

Thats not saying that crysis is compared to css at all. But not every household system could run CSS in 04. Just like not every system can run crysis today.

I know CSS is a remake of CS, but still.

With CSS in 04 and crysis in 07, thats only a 3 year gap compared to snes to n64s 5 yr gap

And for recent rts games...there is no way WC3 runs close to the graphics as new rts. Look at empire total war or demigod. Empire total war was last months best selling game btw

 

Ah, COH probably would have been a better example than wcIII, kinda forgot about that game.

Offtopic, but the wings are taking the cup this year

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUwbJEwm2zk&feature=related

they only get better...

 

I think in 10 years we can expect lifelike graphics as a standard

 

Maybe there will be a World War with video games one day

Lol..

As in the video game hehe

 

In order to render the enormous amounts of data, such huge amounts of raw graphcs horsepower are needed. Honesty I think Crysis is pretty optimized for such lush visuals, it just takes a proper system to get those lush visuals at max graphics settings. The fact that it could run on minimum settings at decent framerate on a Radeon HD 3200, Radeon X800 of Geforce 6800 yet could max out into this amazing looking world that of course requires a very powerful graphics card to get it. At least on Nvidia systems the game scales pretty well too. And yes, as far as techniques go, Crysis is the best of them. Far Cry 2 actually has some higher resolution textures than Crysis (barely higher), but the textures in Crysis look better simply because they are using better looking techniques and shaders. Add to that techniques such as parallax occlusion mapping and a noise filter based shadowing system that works in both DX9 and DX10 and you got the best looking FPS made so far, or at least with Crysis Warhead. The lighting is more properly colored, especially during the beginning of the game when you get that first glimpse of far distance during the sunrise. The lighting and color was spot on in accuracy.