The end of bad graphics?

Do you think that this is the end of bad graphics and polygons in general?
 
 

Unlimited Detail is believed by many to be the one of, and possibly the most significant piece of technology of the decade.

It is best explained as follows:

Every time a new 3d graphics card or games console (Nintendo, Xbox, Playstation) is built, they make it more powerful in order to run more geometry (Put more objects on the screen and make them look more rounded). Games today still have a long way to go before they look like 3d movies (Shrek, Nemo, Toy story); billions are spent every year on R&D to make hardware more powerful. Unlimited Detail is a software algorithm that gives unlimited geometry. When we say “unlimited geometry” we really do mean it. It really is Unlimited, Infinite, endless power, for 3D graphics.

Nope, pretty sure that shit doesn't animate

no, i think there will still be some games that will be coming out with bad graphics. a game called two world came out in like 07 and the game was horrible to play. the graphics were bad and there was lagging to it.

" @hondorondo: not with games like deadly premonition out there "

Nope.
 
There will still be some subpar and crappier looking graphic games that gets pushed out. Dragon Age is a good contender, and MW2 doesn't look nearly as gorgeous as other shooters to compensate for 60 fps gameplay.
 
Edited: Jesus christ, thats some gorgeous graphics. Maybe next time I should actually read the post for once. =/

NEVER

" Nope, pretty sure that shit doesn't animate "

"Nope, pretty sure that shit doesn't animate "

" @heat said:

" Nope, pretty sure that shit doesn't animate "

That's an interesting conclusion. I could see that being an issue. "

Graphics are not important to me. Gameplay is important, but graphics aren't. I could play a PS3 game that looked like a 2600 game as long as it was fun.

Here are a few reasons why this "breakthrough technology" isn't as much of a breakthrough as you might think. 
 1. With games like Crisis as the example, polygon technology is already so far along that this stuff doesn't matter because its already to late. With the speed at which technology advances, 10 years from now it wouldn't be surprising if games look extremely close to how pictures or movies of real people do. 
2. Its not as unlimited as they might like to make you believe. All it's doing is using math to calculate what dots need to be shown for the resolution that you are running at which isn't really that big of a deal. 
3. They also say its all done in software. But that is where the whole animating problem comes in. Its not going to animate in software, end of story. For it to animate its going to most likely need a shit load of power attached to it. 
4. All this doesn't even matter because the resolution of the screen is going to be the limit which is the same with polygons today. Therefore, there is no real improvement.
5. The final reason why this is stupid is that the video and site seem to be pretty old. So if this indeed was as big of a breakthrough as they say it is, shouldn't it have caught on by now?

As long as theres still a Wii game, bad graphics will exist

"Graphics are not important to me. Gameplay is important, but graphics aren't. I could play a PS3 game that looked like a 2600 game as long as it was fun."

" @hondorondo: not with games like deadly premonition out there "

That's the worst idea, ever. It doesn't matter how great graphics technology gets, there will still be games that fail to meet whatever standards us gamers at the time have. If you took a game that looks like shit now to 2001, it would be considered jaw-dropping photo realism. Same goes for the other way, we could see a "shit" game of 2015 and be amazed no matter what. Standards evolve with time, that'll never change.

It's detailed, but it also looks like ass.

"As long as theres still a Wii game, bad graphics will exist "

" @hondorondo: not with games like deadly premonition out there "

I regularly wonder when the industry will switch from polygons to a graphics technology on a pixel-basis. It is interesting, as this thread's comments show, that people cannot even imagine other ways of computer generated imagery other than using vertices. 
 
I have always believed that pixel clouds may replace polygons at some point, and I have always wondered why Outcast (1999) never generated interest in alternatives to polygons. Very interesting, thanks for the info!

" @nk19 said:

" @hondorondo: not with games like deadly premonition out there "

Rogue warrior is worse. "

I like how the dudes say "unllllllllllllimited"

It was an interesting video...but it seems too good to be true

" Nope, pretty sure that shit doesn't animate "

hmm.. a lot of talk about this is there on the internet, but there's no solid proof or application f the technology.
Nothing much is gonna come from it I guess

As long as there are bad artists; there will be bad graphics. Also artists don't have unlimited time to make unlimited assets- There's a reason God of War 3 is the shortest one.
 
Also this is such a weird idea to get my head around. Firstly I won't believe it until I see it on my own home computer, second how do you animate or even model something like this? Surely you can't use regular old Maya or 3DS. Wouldn't they have to invent new software tools, or maybe even new consoles for this to interest anyone? This is a bit like inventing a car that runs on hydrogen when there are no hydrogen petrol stations.
Would you have to start from square 1 as far as shading n lighting are concerned? In this video especially you can see shadows jittering around all weird. What about reflections? What about transparency?
How does hit detection in games work?
They really need to hire some proper artists to show this off.

" That's the worst idea, ever. It doesn't matter how great graphics technology gets, there will still be games that fail to meet whatever standards us gamers at the time have. If you took a game that looks like shit now to 2001, it would be considered jaw-dropping photo realism. Same goes for the other way, we could see a "shit" game of 2015 and be amazed no matter what. Standards evolve with time, that'll never change. "

There will always be bad graphics.
 
Because bad graphics are the default for any game.

So many people didn't even read the topic post.

"Bad graphics" is relative to context.  
 
speaking of context....

As technology changes, so will our standards and what we consider "bad".

You think an entirely new framework requiring a whole new pipeline will make graphics look better? Bro, the transition alone would make graphics worse for a couple years. Everything would be gaudy and shiny until people figure out what the hell they're doing. Now I understand a lot of retards don't mind if a game is ugly as hell as long as all that ugly shit is super detailed, so for them, this is a dream come true. Gears of War 4, whoa bro that cartoon looking meatheat has even more scars awesome bro high five bro. Art direction will still be lacking in a significant way. The great thing about this tech, though, is it gives people who make movie graphics a window of transition because in theory this would allow them to do the same things they've been doing but in games.

" As long as there are bad artists; there will be bad graphics. Also artists don't have unlimited time to make unlimited assets- There's a reason God of War 3 is the shortest one."

A lot of people look at this obtusely and go "look at Pandora why can't games do this". Well the thing about that is, it took like 5 fucking years, and also, a programmer didn't have to scope over every inch to make sure there weren't any tearing or interaction issues with your player character walking through it. That factor alone, something you wouldn't detect at all in a trailer, would probably take longer to work out than the graphics themselves. That's why Killzone 2 the trailer and Killzone 2 the game had a 3 year gap in between.

Hey guys I am going to take a nap, when a game comes out that looks better than Uncharted 2 comes out, wake me up.

Even if that tech is legit, it wouldn't replace a good art design team. The technical is only one side of it. Some games are rendered nicely, run on good engines, have good framerates, etc., but still don't stand apart aesthetically.  Crysis is probably the most extreme example. Yes, it looks great, but it's mostly just the foliage that makes it stand apart. It's not really an interesting looking game.  Impressive in its own right,  but not as vibrant or unique as something like Bioshock or, taking the example even further, Super Mario Galaxy, which isn't nearly as impressive technically, but I thought, more exciting to look at.  Point is, there will always be something to bitch about.  As soon as we adjust to photorealistic graphics, we'll find some other limitation to focus on.     

I'm just going to assume you haven't watch the ER.

" @ZanzibarBreeze: Why can't it all be important?  
 

" @nk19 said:

" @hondorondo: not with games like deadly premonition out there "

Rogue warrior is worse. "

" @The_Laughing_Man said:

" @nk19 said:

" @hondorondo: not with games like deadly premonition out there "

Rogue warrior is worse. "

guys these are low budget titles, it's expected   Nier however, is getting quite a buzz and god.. that game looks awful "

I'm curious how many of you actually watched and read up on the technology. 
Also, I feel those who did watch the video are being a little too dismissive to the technology.  I think it will have a place for it.  Lets say it doesn't animate so great, combine it with polygon technology and it could map out the sky or background, non interactive and non animated surfaces or something.   

" Hey guys I am going to take a nap, when a game comes out that looks better than Uncharted 2 comes out, wake me up. "

Graphics smaphics, if a game doesn't have good Art sense it'll still look bad.