Are video game creators holding back?

Question

I think we are at the point where we have the technology to make video games as realistic as watching television. But do you think that video game makers hold back on the graphics so that they can keep selling better and better versions of the same game in order to keep making money? I mean, hey, I ain't mad at em its a good money-making tactic. But I just wonder whether or not they have the ability to make video game graphics television-like....just a thought.

Answer 1

game's are defeintly reaching Uncanny Valley ( look at Heavy Rain, coming soon to PS3) but it will take an extremly powerful machine to reach the otherside of UC.

Cryisis is currently considered one of hte most visually stunning games out thier, it takes a top of the range PC to get the best visuals, anbd even then you cna still tell its jsut an image made by your PC.

over next 10 years expect to see some stunning stuff with realtime RayTracing, 8/12 core CPU's, Hybrid CPU/GPU's ( Larrabee AMD Fusion) etc.

even fixed hardware liek PS3 still has room for improvemtn,s wiht Uncharted developers(IMO one of hte best game consoel grpahics to date) have said developers only know how to use 30% of the consoels power.

which is one of hte problems, theres so much power but with great power coems great...amount of work to knowck out high poly models, good AI sytems, PhysX engines etc, its just very hard work. Crysis cost  tens of millions to produce, more than some movies.

Though in relation to Sports games your probabaly correct. they manage to make the same game every year.

Sniper what the h**l are you going on about, Photosynth is a panarama software for stitching photographs, it has nothing to do with game's. i thought you were maybe meaing somehting else, but the link confirmed you were talking about the photo software.

Answer 2

That's a very good money making strategy. I think that it could be possible. But also, with better graphics it could be costing them in making more room for memory, data. The chips that they use to make it need enough. Also, the crudier the graphics the more room their is for the actual game. Some people don't care about graphics, more for the gameplay. However, I agree with you on that strategy. I believe that is totally plausible. Good Graphics are time consuming.

Answer 3

they could get close, the problem is that most people do not have the computers to match the graphics

for example, DOOM 4 is coming out soon. The game creators had to dumb down the surface textures, because the highest version took 3 disks on the xbox 360!

many people dont have the graphics cards on their computers, and game systems are barely adequate.

so, in order to sell more copies, they make their products more accessible

Answer 4

yes. your presumptions are correct. a video game that closely mirrored reality is definitely possible. it would probably take 3 years to make a game, and they would have to use photosynth technology

I am assuming you are refering to a PC game since consoles don't have nearly enough power. PC technology IS good enough now. I could build a PC to run that kind of game for around $4,000. People think that having such high resolution graphics would require a supercomputer, but photosynth technology eliminates the need for anything more than already exists.

There is one problem though, the two guys who were working on photosynth got bought by microsoft, so unless microsoft makes the game themselves, it won't happen.

Answer 5

No, simply because the consoles and 99% of home PCs couldn't run something THAT high quality. The consumer base for a game that graphically strong would be tiny. Look at Crysis. Awesome game, near photo realistic graphics... but very few people can play it even on the lowest settings, and it failed hard money-wise.

Answer 6

no they are not that good yet even though they always make out they are in presentations such as those in e3. its not the game designers holding back with graphics. its the actual games machines. yes they are powerful machines capable of amazing feats but in reality they are nowhere near as complex as you make out. i mean in terms of outstanding graphics take crysis. its the best graphical game engine in the world but it takes an ultra powerful computer that is many times more powerful than a ps3 or an x-box 360 to run it at anything that shows it potential.

Answer 7

Well if you compare the first game to be released on the 360 to the most realistic one there is a dramatic change but I think where at the point where (in my opinion) graphics is no longer a standard for video games and is no longer something to be concerned about. However games like Killzone 2 Have some of the most realistic  graphics ive ever seen. So system wise I think games defenetly could look better but I think developers aren't worried about it any more so is more focused  on making the games fun and worth buying.