# End Of Gaming and End of Graphic Cards / Console



## zatang (Oct 29, 2008)

This thought is going in my mind since few years and today i thought to share it with you. Although its a very common thought and it may have been discussed here. I have not checked the older posts, so if it is a repetition, then please ignore this post.

So the issue is that there is an end to the graphics and gaming technology. All Gfx card and all consoles are going towards cinematic realism in graphics and games. So, theoretically speaking, the day we achieve perfection in graphics, i.e., a game looks nothing different from a movie/video and playing the game is looking watching a movie. So, whats beyond that level? I presume there's nothing better than that?

In Hollywood movies, we have truly achieved that realism and we can create CG characters which look like a real person (a real human or real animal). Only the problem is that they are pre-rendered and they can't be controlled like a video game.

So, the industry is moving in that direction to achieve their realism. So, a day will come that a game and a movie would have no difference except that the game's character would be controllable by keyboard. I can't explain in words.  Its like u have a dog and asking him to do different tricks. Means, no difference from a actual person, will all body movements, facial expression, shadows, lightning, environment and everything of the real world.


----------



## Faun (Oct 29, 2008)

and then came DC Mini


----------



## desiibond (Oct 29, 2008)

There is no end to gaming. 

If you think that games reach that end that you think just by making it great in realism, then you are wrong. 

Best example, NFS Carbon and NFS Prostreet have more eyecandy than NFS Most Wanted but NFS Most Wanted's storyline made it a superhit

Similarly, Far Cry 2. Ubisoft concentrated a lot on gameplay than on creating stunning graphics that could burn any GPU (like Crysis) and look at it. It is the hottest game available right now.


----------



## zatang (Oct 29, 2008)

desiibond said:


> There is no end to gaming.
> 
> If you think that games reach that end that you think just by making it great in realism, then you are wrong.
> 
> ...



Don't get me wrong. Gameplay has nothing to do with photo realism of the game. Ofcourse, a game with better gameplay is better than a game with better graphics. But you don't need to change your console or graphic card to play a game with better gameplay(if its playable on your card or console in the first place) but you sure need to change your graphic card or console to play a game with better graphics


----------



## desiibond (Oct 29, 2008)

A gaming consoles life is around 7years. That means for 7 years, game developers will be writing code to make the game run on the console. Look at PS2 for example, even todays games are playable on a PS2. But the same does not apply for graphics card. Due to hundreds of chips availble, game deveopers does not concentrate on making the game run on evey single card on the planet. They just design the game to run on PCs.

And now if you take PS3, it has been around for 2yrs and still nobody has utilized it's full potential. And even after 4-5 years it will run strong. That is the advantage that consoles have. They don't die easilyt and they won't choke.By the time they choke (maybe after 5-6 years), their successor will be on the street.


----------



## alexanderthegreat (Oct 29, 2008)

zatang said:


> a game with better gameplay is better than a game with better graphics.



I agree! Look at Thief 1,2(made for Win 98). Graphics are laughable but the game is still alive and popular! Look at Duke Nukem series 3D! Then there's Age of Empires I, Diablo II, even freeware, small-games like Little fighter II, Toribash etc.

@zatang: I disagree with your statement in the first post. Playing a game is never equal to watching a movie! In a movie, the protagonist knows what to do, how to pull things off, etc. I mean the stiryline is perfectly linear. In a game, YOU get to decide what kind of ending do you want, or, in case of linear gameplay, YOU get to decide if you want to convert, kick, punch, bite, ionize-with-beamsp), spray-paint-with-bullets, put a lightsaber through someone, or nuke 'em into orbit(my favourite)! Take your pick! If you think it's like asking a dog to do tricks, you haven't ever been immersed in gaming (or played an immersive game). There can never be an end to gaming. 
There can never be an end to graphics cards too! The pixel based display can never match the finer, sharper, complex, ever-detailed real world!


----------



## Cool G5 (Oct 29, 2008)

Let them try as hard as possible, real is real.
Earlier I use to game a lot, but now I think it's better to leave it if you cannot to afford the upgrade.

And even Life is a game, play it


----------



## Psychosocial (Oct 29, 2008)

He's saying that we dont need to change consoles or grafix cards to play better games..... eating candies while having diabetes eh ?


----------



## zatang (Oct 29, 2008)

Alexander, you're not getting me. I am not comparing it on the concept. That i already mentioned that movie is pre-rendered and you can't control its characters. I am just comparing it for the visual thing. Means no visual difference when you are playing a game or watching a movie or video



alexanderthegreat said:


> I The pixel based display can never match the finer, sharper, complex, ever-detailed real world!



Now why do you think so ? We are going towards reality. Every now game is more graphically realistic than its predecessor. We buy latest consoles only because they provide better photo realism than their earlier versions. 

Otherwise, PS2 has one of the best gameplay, why buy PS3 or 360 ?


----------



## Ethan_Hunt (Oct 29, 2008)

zatang said:


> Now why do you think so ? We are going towards reality. Every now game is more graphically realistic than its predecessor. We buy latest consoles only because they provide better photo realism than their earlier versions.
> 
> Otherwise, PS2 has one of the best gameplay, why buy PS3 or 360 ?


You are confusing gameplay & console which are 2 different terms. Gameplay is obtained from a specific game & not from a console. The only reason why people tend to buy newer consoles is because the older product gets lesser games titles & then gets abandoned eventually. I would have still stuck with my PS2 provided they would bring newer titles on it. Like say God of War 3. At some point you need to realise that graphics become secondary & pure fun takes over.


----------



## skippednote (Oct 29, 2008)

Gameplay > Graphics


----------



## zatang (Oct 29, 2008)

allwyndlima said:


> You are confusing gameplay & console which are 2 different terms. Gameplay is obtained from a specific game & not from a console. The only reason why people tend to buy newer consoles is because the older product gets lesser games titles & then gets abandoned eventually. I would have still stuck with my PS2 provided they would bring newer titles on it. Like say God of War 3. At some point you need to realise that graphics become secondary & pure fun takes over.



I never talked about console in particular. I think i am not able to clarify my point or people are not able to understand me. 

Lets make it very simple 

Nvidia or Ati brings a graphic chip called 'Ultimate X' - This chip provides the graphics as real thing. Means just like watching a video or movie.

Now, whats next in terms of Graphics, what can be better than real ? Leave aside gameplay


----------



## m-jeri (Oct 29, 2008)

^^^

well u have been talking abt a ultimate card for 2D realism.... then there is 3d games dont u think??..

actually what u are trying to say is pointless...considering the fact that we are afterall humans... we create..innovate new systems and methods...

the near-realistic CGI will not stop.... or even maybe... after that the gfx race will stop and the gameplay will be taken to another level...after all a gamer immersed in 3d world is gameplay...

so the limits are endless..


----------



## alexanderthegreat (Oct 29, 2008)

@zatang: But there just CANNOT be any gfx card that manages to render the real thing! Think about it: The graphics cards actually present the picture using pixels of the monitor. They compute the contents of the pixels! Now the question is "how many pixels can you use(or rather cram)?". Let the answer be anything! The real world is NOT limited by pixels! You just cannot depict the details of every single electron in a picture which shows a whole human. Supposing you do manage it in a Sci-Fi future, how much time would it take for scientiststo break the electron into into still smaller pieces?
Conclusion of my blabbering: The virtual world has a unit (a smallest quantity) whereas the real world is much x 10^infinity more detailed than the virtual world! It does not have a smallest quantity(NO unit! Nay! Zip! Zero! Nada!(wait, I've copied this from somewhere I think)). So, the virtual world cannot depict the real world "really" because not only are we reaching the bar, the bar is constantly raising itself. There will always be room for improvement!

One more thing, the PS2 is not the best in gameplay, the PS3 has got a sixaxis controller which is much better! Even better is the Wii(I love saying its name... Wii.. Wii.. Wii.. Wii.... )!


----------



## zatang (Oct 29, 2008)

alexanderthegreat said:


> @zatang: But there just CANNOT be any gfx card that manages to render the real thing! Think about it: The graphics cards actually present the picture using pixels of the monitor. They compute the contents of the pixels! Now the question is "how many pixels can you use(or rather cram)?". Let the answer be anything! The real world is NOT limited by pixels! You just cannot depict the details of every single electron in a picture which shows a whole human. Supposing you do manage it in a Sci-Fi future, how much time would it take for scientiststo break the electron into into still smaller pieces?
> Conclusion of my blabbering: The virtual world has a unit (a smallest quantity) whereas the real world is much x 10^infinity more detailed than the virtual world! It does not have a smallest quantity(NO unit! Nay! Zip! Zero! Nada!(wait, I've copied this from somewhere I think)). So, the virtual world cannot depict the real world "really" because not only are we reaching the bar, the bar is constantly raising itself. There will always be room for improvement!
> 
> One more thing, the PS2 is not the best in gameplay, the PS3 has got a sixaxis controller which is much better! Even better is the Wii(I love saying its name... Wii.. Wii.. Wii.. Wii.... )!



Your explanation is very good and it does make a point. But what about those characters which were there in Hollywood movies and made using pure CG (for e.g the mouse Stuart Little)

I am not asking about 2D or 3D, i am just considering the realism in the games


----------



## skippednote (Oct 29, 2008)

It would be better to wait and watch rather than spend time on discussing such things........till then game on with wat you got...


----------



## alexanderthegreat (Oct 29, 2008)

zatang said:


> Your explanation is very good and it does make a point. But what about those characters which were there in Hollywood movies and made using pure CG (for e.g the mouse Stuart Little)
> 
> I am not asking about 2D or 3D, i am just considering the realism in the games



There! You just said it! Be it Remy or Stuart Little, they were created using *pure CG!*. They do not exist in the real world(Or at least it says so on the disclaimers of those movies). So, they are not real at all! So if games copy *Unreal* things, they are *Unreal*, not real!



			
				bassam904 said:
			
		

> It would be better to wait and watch rather than spend time on discussing such things........till then game on with wat you got...


Would've acted on your advice dude, but I'm pretty bored right now! Today's a holiday, so the only thing I can do to keep the brain busy is to stay half asleep and convince people that they're wrongtwisted while trying to stifle yawns! Say, no mods are gonna have problems with me either because Posts are not counted from this part of the forum! Too bad there is no smiley for sleepiness!


----------



## DigitalDude (Oct 29, 2008)

Wii


_


----------



## Crysis900 (Oct 30, 2008)

@zatang:-Anything can happen in the future. You just cannot predict. In the future it may even be possible to play games using our arms any legs like if we move the game  character  may  move and such consols may even allow us to do anything in the game just like a virtual room. I think that games look far better virtually than real becoz if games are real then what is the use of calling it a game. BTW IF YOU CANT EFFORT SOMETHING THEN YOU SHOULD WAIT FOR ITS PRICE TO DROP DOWN. And a real gamer always finds a way to continue gaming.


----------



## Faun (Oct 30, 2008)

Crysis900 said:


> In the future it may even be possible to play games using our arms any legs like if we move the game  character  may  move and such consols may even allow us to do anything in the game just like a virtual room. .



Then I will take sanyas from games. IMO we will play games like DC Mini. Everything will be controlled by thoughts.


----------



## Hrithan2020 (Oct 30, 2008)

alexanderthegreat said:


> @zatang: But there just CANNOT be any gfx card that manages to render the real thing!
> Conclusion of my blabbering: The virtual world has a unit (a smallest quantity) whereas the real world is much x 10^infinity more detailed than the virtual world! It does not have a smallest quantity(NO unit! Nay! Zip! Zero! Nada!(wait, I've copied this from somewhere I think)). So, the virtual world cannot depict the real world "really" because not only are we reaching the bar, the bar is constantly raising itself. There will always be room for improvement!



True, u can never really achieve depict the real world.But,enough to fool human eye.(which has a very poor resolution,10^-4m? and can see only 6 million colors)


----------



## hahahari (Oct 30, 2008)

well after that they will try to reduce the size and power consumption and stuff.. life will go on.


----------



## alexanderthegreat (Oct 30, 2008)

Hrithan2020 said:


> True, u can never really achieve depict the real world.But,enough to fool human eye.(which has a very poor resolution,10^-4m? and can see only 6 million colors)



But we are talking of reality, dude, human eyes have been fooled much earlier! Do you recognize the fact that we are able to see moving pictures due to our "faullty" eyes? Yet another reason why Gfx cards can't die! Frame rate has to be increased and increased and increased to infinity!



hahahari said:


> well after that they will try to reduce the size and power consumption and stuff.. life will go on.



Instead, they are already trying to show what you can't see! Don't believe it? I'll point out High Definition videos to you!


----------



## Hrithan2020 (Oct 30, 2008)

alexanderthegreat said:


> But we are talking of reality, dude, human eyes have been fooled much earlier! Do you recognize the fact that we are able to see moving pictures due to our "faullty" eyes? Yet another reason why Gfx cards can't die! Frame rate has to be increased and increased and increased to infinity!
> Instead, they are already trying to show what you can't see! Don't believe it? I'll point out High Definition videos to you!



But,we still can pretty much differentiate between a real picture and an snapshot of a game.So, I'm talking abt a time in the future it'll become really difficult to distinguish between real-life and game videos.[The real-life video as seen on a PC,not directly].(Can't always say the same abt CGI in movies).Obviously, i know that a moving picture consists of frames.
But,what did u mean by increasing the frame rate to infinity?

BTW,can't a human distinguish between a HD video and a 480 p one?


----------



## alexanderthegreat (Oct 30, 2008)

Hrithan2020 said:


> But,we still can pretty much differentiate between a real picture and an snapshot of a game.So, I'm talking abt a time in the future it'll become really difficult to distinguish between real-life and game videos.[The real-life video as seen on a PC,not directly].(Can't always say the same abt CGI in movies).Obviously, i know that a moving picture consists of frames.
> But,what did u mean by increasing the frame rate to infinity?
> 
> BTW,can't a human distinguish between a HD video and a 480 p one?



Pretty much difficult, yes, but still nowhere near impossible(that matters. that was what zatang was talking about!).

Oh, and I meant that the real world does not work using frames! The CG graphics imitate the real world using frames. Thus, to achieve perfection, CGG(let me call 'em that) will have to use infinite number of frames per second! <<<THAT is impossible! See what I mean?

About that HD question, full-HD certainly contains more details than a human eye can distinguish. They're also talking of using BD discs to ship raw uncompressed videos in movies! 
Offtopic: I certainly am not able to tell HD video movie trailers and normal movies apart(WITHOUT using a computer to resize and check for a pixelized-effect)


----------



## Hrithan2020 (Oct 31, 2008)

alexanderthegreat said:


> Pretty much difficult, yes, but still nowhere near impossible(that matters. that was what zatang was talking about!).
> 
> Oh, and I meant that the real world does not work using frames! The CG graphics imitate the real world using frames. Thus, to achieve perfection, CGG(let me call 'em that) will have to use infinite number of frames per second! <<<THAT is impossible! See what I mean?
> 
> ...



Well,when u are shifting to bigger monitors, you will certainly see the difference.Abt the RAW format, it is true for 480p video itself;u may not be able to distinguish between a good quality,properly encoded video vs the same resolution RAW video.(esp. when not comparing pic by pic,which we can't unless we pause every sec or so).

Since "frames" have no relevance with the real world, I didn't see any reason to say that u will need infinite frames to represent the real world. There are far more limiting factors which comes into picture(going by the same rule,u can say infinite resolution,infinite color)...


----------



## alexanderthegreat (Oct 31, 2008)

Hrithan2020 said:


> Well,when u are shifting to bigger monitors, you will certainly see the difference.Abt the RAW format, it is true for 480p video itself;u may not be able to distinguish between a good quality,properly encoded video vs the same resolution RAW video.(esp. when not comparing pic by pic,which we can't unless we pause every sec or so).


So you do see! Finally! Another soul converted! 


Hrithan2020 said:


> Since "frames" have no relevance with the real world, I didn't see any reason to say that u will need infinite frames to represent the real world.


You will! you cant simulate the real world totally(NOT for human eyes, totally!) with Crysis runnin on an 82845G Onboard using 3DAnalyzer!


Hrithan2020 said:


> (going by the same rule,u can say infinite resolution,infinite color)...


Let's see... yup you can! In fact, I've already mentionaed it earlier! Time for another thread to die out slowly, eh?


----------



## Hrithan2020 (Oct 31, 2008)

alexanderthegreat said:


> You will! you cant simulate the real world totally(NOT for human eyes, totally!) with Crysis runnin on an 82845G Onboard using 3DAnalyzer!


Read carefully dude.I said there was no relevance in say that "u will need infinite frames to represent the real world",not that u need only a finite frames to represent the world,got it.U can never simulate the real world totally.(But enough to fool the best senses in the animal kingdom,eventually)At least, we agree on that.



alexanderthegreat said:


> Let's see... yup you can! In fact, I've already mentionaed it earlier! Time for another thread to die out slowly, eh?



Sorry abt that.I see u had already mentioned abt resolution.


----------

