When will CG hit the wall?

[Eerie]

As someone who plays video games more than 13 years already (yeah, I`m a noob :smallamused:), and mostly likes first person shooters, I see an enormous progress in 3D graphics since the days of DOOM 1. Games like Crysis looks very nearly real.

This, in combination with the fact that 3D graphics in movies already can look perfectly real with big enough budget, brings me to a conclusion that in a few years computer games will look like filmed movies.

At which point, it will be pointless for me to buy new video cards in particular and new computers in general. Further improvement of conventional computer graphics will be physically impossible, because humans will no longer able to see the difference.

Do you think my conclusion is right? And what impact will hitting this wall bring to the industry?

[Emperor Ing]

I imagine that'd happen. Then, we'd have to buy HD video games. :smalltongue:

[Eerie]

I imagine that'd happen. Then, we'd have to buy HD video games. :smalltongue:

And then? There is a limit to the size of pixel that you can distinguish, and I think we already passed it.

[kamikasei]

That's when they start looking into 3D goggles, haptic feedback, and the like.

[Eerie]

That's when they start looking into 3D goggles, haptic feedback, and the like.

But that won`t be conventional CG anymore. It won`t be graphics that will improve.

[DomaDoma]

Honestly? I don't see a need for graphics to be any better than they are already. In fact, when it comes to RPGs, the graphics of, say, Final Fantasy VI and Chrono Trigger are amply sufficient to convey the game. How about they put that energy into the game engine instead?

[kamikasei]

But that won`t be conventional CG anymore. It won`t be graphics that will improve.

No, but the industry that at the moment makes graphics cards, etc. will find new things to sell to us. You said:


At which point, it will be pointless for me to buy new video cards in particular and new computers in general. Further improvement of conventional computer graphics will be physically impossible, because humans will no longer able to see the difference.

If the power of video cards plateaus, that doesn't mean you won't buy new computers - computers will still get faster and there are things other than the graphics to apply that power to (physics, AI, etc.). There will be other gimmicky things for games to tout the way that now they tout improvements in graphics, and those things will require specialized hardware continually upgraded just as now graphics do.

My point is that the industry isn't going to simply collapse - either the hardware or the software. It'll change focus.

[Emperor Tippy]

CG will continue to improve until you can render in real time a world that is indistinguishable from the real world.

[kamikasei]

CG will continue to improve until you can render in real time a world that is indistinguishable from the real world.

I'd like to invoke the law of diminishing returns and the like to argue that past a certain point it'll be more worthwhile to developers to focus on pushing other areas of improvement rather than graphics where the quality will already be way beyond good enough... but I think audiophiles demonstrate that people can be convinced to continue paying for improvements that can no longer meaningfully affect their experience.

[Jimorian]

... but I think audiophiles demonstrate that people can be convinced to continue paying for improvements that can no longer meaningfully affect their experience.

What, you mean that $455 I paid for a Power Cord (http://www.audioconnect.com/html/nrg-5.html) might not have been worth it? :smallconfused:

:smalltongue:

[endoperez]

Look at the development of art. Computer graphics have gone through symbolic period (Ultima IV, roguelikes) where symbols were used to display complex images and situations. This could be compared to Egyptian or South-American picture-languages, where e.g. human characters can be recognized but they aren't realistic.
Computer graphics have went through several periods of representative graphics nearing realism, first in 2d and now in 3d graphics. Possibility of producing realistic results didn't mean that this was pursued or that this was useful. Just look at the horrible 90s games which used filmed actors instead of graphics, and which sucked horribly.
Traditional, realistic art is now considered traditional instead of the norm. Impressionism, abstractionism, kubism and other non-realistic styles are numerous. Perhaps these will start to take bigger and bigger share of the games market. Look at Okami to see what this might look like.

There's my 2c as a guy who's going to study 3d-modeling for games, at least until I can try to get to an animation school (again :smallfrown: ).

[thubby]

the biggest improvements in graphics won't come from cramming polygons in tighter, it'll come from mathematical definition of our world, and the horsepower to process it. for example, it takes a super computer to properly process the motion of a cubic yard of water. much of the problems with todays graphics come down to things like that.

[Tirian]

I'd like to invoke the law of diminishing returns and the like to argue that past a certain point it'll be more worthwhile to developers to focus on pushing other areas of improvement rather than graphics where the quality will already be way beyond good enough... but I think audiophiles demonstrate that people can be convinced to continue paying for improvements that can no longer meaningfully affect their experience.

There is a crucial difference. If you're considering whether to upgrade to the googlephonic stereo with the moonrock needle, you're going to be playing the same music as you did on the old system. But if you decide that a DirectX 9.0a video card is real enough performance for you, you have excluded yourself from virtually every major PC game published in the last three years.

So, to answer the OP's question, you can stop buying new computers and video cards when you are satisfied to replay all the games you have bought up to that point. Then there is the question that you didn't ask: when will the game designers realize that they broke through that wall some time ago and start focusing on gameplay instead of framerate again? I don't know that one, although it discourages me when companies like EA take the position that their declining sales are because of piracy and not because they are no longer designing around the specs of the standard PC hardware setup. It was a rude awakening for me when I bought a new midrange computer six months ago and found that I *still* couldn't play Oblivion -- a game published two years before -- and I'm sorry to say that Bethesda does not seem as sad about that as I am.

[Querzis]

It was a rude awakening for me when I bought a new midrange computer six months ago and found that I *still* couldn't play Oblivion -- a game published two years before -- and I'm sorry to say that Bethesda does not seem as sad about that as I am.

Sorry to tell you this but I think you've been had because I bought a midrange computer (it cost me about a 1200$ dollars) 4 years ago and I could play Oblivion on it. I buyed a new graphic card since then because the graphic were crappy but I could play it before anyway. Unless you buyed an office computer designed for work with a really crappy graphic card, it just shoudnt happen. Or maybe we just got better computer in Canada, I dunno.

Anyway, I agree with DomaDoma. As far as I'm concerned, the graphic were already perfect with the PS2, the X-box and the gamecube...hell I dont even really see the difference there is supposed to have between the Wii graphic and the two other consoles but we are talking about computer here so whatever. So the graphic are already perfect as far as I'm concerned and I see absolutely no need to further improve the graphic when the gameplay is so much more important...but I'm sure thats what most will do anyway. Even if they wont be any real difference, many game companies will still try to improve the graphic. Though maybe when the few companies who focus on gameplay get most of the profit, they will finally get a clue.

[bluish_wolf]

I refuse to acknowledge 3d as true games. Long live sprites!

[Eerie]

Well, people, when I wrote industry I mostly meant hardware. Gameplay surely still have places to go...

[Emperor Tippy]

The wall in graphics is really a software problem, not a hardware one. You can get a graphics card and monitor that can do 1080i HD, the problem is that programming graphics that detailed is a bitch. 20-25 gigabytes of data for 3-4 hours of gameplay. So even if you were willing to take the time to code graphics that detailed a game with 30 hours of gameplay would take up 250 gb's or so. Which means that precoded graphics aren't really realistic. What needs to be created is a program that will generate the graphics on the fly from a (relatively) simple data set.

The world or environment can be created the same way.

The biggest problem is creating a physics chip that can do real time modeling. We are talking supercomputer levels of processing power.

[Revlid]

My belief is that eventually, graphics and game engines will become better than reality. Rather than simple flippancy, this refers to their ability to generate perfect simulations of things real life could never express. An example of this would be, say, the appearance of an Elder God.

Then, with the release of the GeForce: Rl'yeh Graphics Card, the end of humanity comes to its beginning.

[Darkone8752]

It was a rude awakening for me when I bought a new midrange computer six months ago and found that I *still* couldn't play Oblivion -- a game published two years before -- and I'm sorry to say that Bethesda does not seem as sad about that as I am.
Either:
A.Your midrange computer didn't include a graphics card made i nthe past 4 years.
Or
B. You got screwed. 6 months ago $750 would get you a wolfdale 3.0ghz dual core with 3 gigs of 1066 ram, a 250gb harddrive, a nice board, and a 8800GT. Enoguh to run even Crysis on higher settings, and make any game less then that scream by.
Or
C. Specific Hardware/Software problem. Test it on other games, or on another computer. If it runs fine on the other/ Other games run bad, its something installed or configured wrong.

On topic- Graphics cards will continue to "improve" as they have functions other then rendering- Many also perform physics calculations, which- using a dedicated physics processor- are MUCH more powerful then a regular computer. Similar to the different between rendering with a CPU, and rendering with a GPU- a picture that takes my aging 1.8 athlon 10 minutes to render could be done in 2 by my horrible, horrible radeon 9200. GPU's will also use new archictectures to become more efficient, giving better performance, and taking less space- as well as making fullsize GPU's that no longer need huge cooling ports- and incorporating "extras" That are important to gaming. Such as a dedicated AI processor, a Physics Processing Unit, ect ect.

Also, fluid motion is significantly more difficult to model then basic physics :P Look at Euphoria Engine. Its MASSIVE, but made real time and usable for games. Even out best suportcomputers can't accurately model more then a certain flight time/distance for bullets.

[thubby]

on a related note to Tirian's problem, there have been issues with anti-piracy features stopping legitimate play. for example, i couldn't play FEAR when i first got it because I have 2 disc drives, among other things.

[Tirian]

Sorry to tell you this but I think you've been had because I bought a midrange computer (it cost me about a 1200$ dollars) 4 years ago and I could play Oblivion on it. I buyed a new graphic card since then because the graphic were crappy but I could play it before anyway. Unless you buyed an office computer designed for work with a really crappy graphic card, it just shoudnt happen. Or maybe we just got better computer in Canada, I dunno.

First, I won't deny that I didn't get what I wanted, because I specifically asked if the machine could play Oblivion and the grunt said that it would.

But half of the midrange machines today have the graphics chip embedded on the motherboard, which isn't true of the midrange machines from four years ago (which is part of the reason that midrange computers now cost half of what they did four years ago). Lower power consumption and you don't have to pay the nVidia tax. And while the Transform and Lighting software algorithms are not comparable to the hardware-based performance that I'd get from a $100 card, I have a hard time saying that a 400mHz chip is a part of a "business machine".

But that's beside the point. For the past twenty years, a new "budget" computer could play two year old games. But there is a day of reckoning coming for graphics cards as the cost of every other component is dropping through the floor. There was no hesitation to paying $70 for a good graphics card for a $1200 system, now there is hesitation to paying $100 for a good graphics card for a $700 system. The game producers have got to start recognizing that people are getting off the train and that not lowering their baseline graphics means that they have a smaller pool of customers to draw from.

[Indon]

To give a simple answer I haven't seen come up, I think it'll be right after we climb out of the uncanny valley.

[Oslecamo]

No. Move graphics may seem really realistic when it's a monster jumping from one side to the other, where you really can't focus your vision.

But in a game, where you interact with the enviroment several hours, you start to notice better all the little errors.

[chiasaur11]

My belief is that eventually, graphics and game engines will become better than reality. Rather than simple flippancy, this refers to their ability to generate perfect simulations of things real life could never express. An example of this would be, say, the appearance of an Elder God.

Then, with the release of the GeForce: Rl'yeh Graphics Card, the end of humanity comes to its beginning.

We can only hope spore will create enough genital monsters to immunize us to disgust and terror. Otherwise, the only humans left will be 4chan members.

[VanBuren]

First, I won't deny that I didn't get what I wanted, because I specifically asked if the machine could play Oblivion and the grunt said that it would.

But half of the midrange machines today have the graphics chip embedded on the motherboard, which isn't true of the midrange machines from four years ago (which is part of the reason that midrange computers now cost half of what they did four years ago). Lower power consumption and you don't have to pay the nVidia tax. And while the Transform and Lighting software algorithms are not comparable to the hardware-based performance that I'd get from a $100 card, I have a hard time saying that a 400mHz chip is a part of a "business machine".

But that's beside the point. For the past twenty years, a new "budget" computer could play two year old games. But there is a day of reckoning coming for graphics cards as the cost of every other component is dropping through the floor. There was no hesitation to paying $70 for a good graphics card for a $1200 system, now there is hesitation to paying $100 for a good graphics card for a $700 system. The game producers have got to start recognizing that people are getting off the train and that not lowering their baseline graphics means that they have a smaller pool of customers to draw from.

...So you actually expected to be able to play Oblivion with an integrated graphics chip? Look, I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but even the most basic gamer should know to ditch one of those faster than a live grenade.

I'm probably proving your point here, but the fact is that if your sales guy told you that it could run Oblivion, he was either lying or assumed you'd get a real video card.

[Darkone8752]

...So you actually expected to be able to play Oblivion with an integrated graphics chip? Look, I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but even the most basic gamer should know to ditch one of those faster than a live grenade.

I'm probably proving your point here, but the fact is that if your sales guy told you that it could run Oblivion, he was either lying or assumed you'd get a real video card.

Aye. And like I missed saying earlier, 1200 isn't a midrange computer- thats a top end, at least when it comes to gaming. 750 is High end for gaming, and if you don't care for maximum settings, 350-450 should suffice. Then again, I'm going by "Build it yourself" prices for just the CPU with no monitor, speakers, mouse, or keyboard. But then again, thats reusable even in a major upgrade.

Also, as said earlier, it takes alot of work to make graphics that aren't rapidly moving creatures free of those little blemishes :P

[Dervag]

We can only hope spore will create enough genital monsters to immunize us to disgust and terror. Otherwise, the only humans left will be 4chan members.Do they count?

[chiasaur11]

Do they count?

Technically, as far as we know.

[Lord Fullbladder, Master of Goblins]

Just think: the fourth spacial dimension is just waiting to be explored by experimental game designers!

[Maxymiuk]

I'll actually put out a tentative theory that eventually we'll see a regression in graphics - or rather, return to a more aesthetic, stylized look we know from earlier 3D games. That is, once gamers start complaining loud enough.

See, the issue as I see it currently is that games are becoming far too visually busy, to the point where their "awesome graphics" are actually interfering with gameplay. Examples off top of my head:

Dawn of War: There's four Defilers charging and spewing flame everywhere, the Farseer has unleashed and Eldritch Storm, Banshees are backflipping all over the place, Basilisks just started dropping shells into the middle... and I'm sitting there, eyes glued to the squad selection window, because that's the only way I can still tell how the battle is going.

Quake 2 (ok, so rather old, but that only means I can blame it for being one of the precursors of the trend): you know, there was a reason why tourney players would turn off most graphic options, and that reason was rocket trails. And the machinegun muzzle flash. And the plasma gun. And the monotone level design. But mostly the rocket trails.

FarCry: after five minutes of getting shot at from no apparent direction I was ready to put the entire bloody jungle to the torch.

Dungeon Siege 2: At higher levels even a minor skirmish became a huge blob of multi-hued energy discharges and bloody chunks. I can only assume that the heroes were doing absolutely awesome things somewhere under all that.

Fable: Light bloom! On a cloudy day! At the bottom of a dungeon! My eyes!


I can't vouch for current-gen games, since I only now managed to save up enough to get a non-crappy computer, but if I'm to judge by gameplay videos or LP's that pop up here or there, it's only getting worse.

[Eerie]

I can't vouch for current-gen games, since I only now managed to save up enough to get a non-crappy computer, but if I'm to judge by gameplay videos or LP's that pop up here or there, it's only getting worse.

You should at least play Half-Life 2: Episode 2. It`s amazing. Or Portal.

Can`t vouch for Crysis yet, just started the first level, but it looks even better.

Maybe you just need better computer?

[Maxymiuk]

You should at least play Half-Life 2: Episode 2. It`s amazing. Or Portal.

Can`t vouch for Crysis yet, just started the first level, but it looks even better.

Maybe you just need better computer?

And how would making my computer capable of displaying even more flashy graphics improve matters?

I'm not complaining about lowered frame rates that come from advanced graphics. I'm complaining about the visual overload that comes with (increasingly many) games using advanced graphics.

And while I haven't played Portal, the screenshots I've seen indicate it uses a simple but distinct graphic palette - i.e. a stylized, individual aesthetic - that goes a long way towards defining the game's tone.

[warty goblin]

I'll actually put out a tentative theory that eventually we'll see a regression in graphics - or rather, return to a more aesthetic, stylized look we know from earlier 3D games. That is, once gamers start complaining loud enough.

See, the issue as I see it currently is that games are becoming far too visually busy, to the point where their "awesome graphics" are actually interfering with gameplay. Examples off top of my head:

Dawn of War: There's four Defilers charging and spewing flame everywhere, the Farseer has unleashed and Eldritch Storm, Banshees are backflipping all over the place, Basilisks just started dropping shells into the middle... and I'm sitting there, eyes glued to the squad selection window, because that's the only way I can still tell how the battle is going.

Quake 2 (ok, so rather old, but that only means I can blame it for being one of the precursors of the trend): you know, there was a reason why tourney players would turn off most graphic options, and that reason was rocket trails. And the machinegun muzzle flash. And the plasma gun. And the monotone level design. But mostly the rocket trails.

FarCry: after five minutes of getting shot at from no apparent direction I was ready to put the entire bloody jungle to the torch.

Dungeon Siege 2: At higher levels even a minor skirmish became a huge blob of multi-hued energy discharges and bloody chunks. I can only assume that the heroes were doing absolutely awesome things somewhere under all that.

Fable: Light bloom! On a cloudy day! At the bottom of a dungeon! My eyes!


I can't vouch for current-gen games, since I only now managed to save up enough to get a non-crappy computer, but if I'm to judge by gameplay videos or LP's that pop up here or there, it's only getting worse.

Funny, this visual chaos is one of the things that most excites me about modern graphics.

Dawn of War really feels like there is a battle going on because of the stuff flying everywhere. It wouldn't be nearly as fun to play if it was two lines of grunts firing at each other. Granted having a billion explosions going off does make control a bit difficult, but then it's the middle of a gigantic freaking battle with a billion explosions going off, control should be difficult.

I never played Far Cry, but I have played Crysis, and some of the jungle sequences rack amoung my favorite fights of any FPS ever. It makes maneuvering, observation and tactics much more important, and also leads to a great feeling of paranoia as I try to figure out how many enemies are out there and where they all are. It is also the first game I have ever seen that has sufficient graphical fidelity to make camo actually work, and I fail to see how that can be a bad thing.

[Maxymiuk]

Funny, this visual chaos is one of the things that most excites me about modern graphics.

Dawn of War really feels like there is a battle going on because of the stuff flying everywhere. It wouldn't be nearly as fun to play if it was two lines of grunts firing at each other. Granted having a billion explosions going off does make control a bit difficult, but then it's the middle of a gigantic freaking battle with a billion explosions going off, control should be difficult.

Admittedly, it does look cool, but for me it still raises a question of what's the point of having great effects if I have to actively ignore those effects in order to play the game effectively.


I never played Far Cry, but I have played Crysis, and some of the jungle sequences rack among my favorite fights of any FPS ever. It makes maneuvering, observation and tactics much more important, and also leads to a great feeling of paranoia as I try to figure out how many enemies are out there and where they all are. It is also the first game I have ever seen that has sufficient graphical fidelity to make camo actually work, and I fail to see how that can be a bad thing.

Crysis puts emphasis on stealth, tactics, and a planned approach. A visually "busy" environment is conductive to that style of gameplay (until you're busy tromping through the bushes looking for that gun the enemy flung away in his death throes, but anyway). FarCry on the other hand was a fairly straightforward run'n'gun that stuck hundreds of trees everywhere you went. Which hampered you, but - oddly enough :smallmad: - not your enemies.

[VanBuren]

Crysis puts emphasis on stealth, tactics, and a planned approach. A visually "busy" environment is conductive to that style of gameplay (until you're busy tromping through the bushes looking for that gun the enemy flung away in his death throes, but anyway). FarCry on the other hand was a fairly straightforward run'n'gun that stuck hundreds of trees everywhere you went. Which hampered you, but - oddly enough :smallmad: - not your enemies.

Not true. Far Cry--though mainly early on in the game--encouraged a certain level of stealth. Nothing was more satisfying than swimming under the wooden dock they hung out on and killing them from below.

[Albub]

I have a feeling it'll get to the point where CG will be better than real life, but if you see it you go insane. Or something. They'll make a movie about it.

Honestly though, they might get to a point where resolutions are way beyond the point where it's distinguishable to the human eye. Then they'll develop a cyber-eye that can distinguish the difference and sell both. it's a fool-proof way to make bux.

[leperkhaun]

That's when they start looking into 3D goggles, haptic feedback, and the like.

In japan they have a 3d tele already. Requires glases and only a couple shorts broadcasted a couple times a day supports it.

[Zarrexaij]

We can only hope spore will create enough genital monsters to immunize us to disgust and terror. Otherwise, the only humans left will be 4chan members.I resemble that statement!

I wish developers would stop focusing on "LAWL BLOOM LAWL HDR LAWL PHOTOREALISTIC GRAFFIX" and focus on the damn GAMEPLAY and STORY.

Seriously, I can name a lot of freaking games that look great, but the plot is next to nonexistent and the gameplay really isn't that good, but I'd stir a bunch of crap since they tend to have a zealous following of squirrely 13 year olds and Internet tought guys (hint: I'm not thinking of the Halo series. That actually has a plot).

I wish more games would become more like interactive books that you can determine your fate instead of this "Tell me I'm pretty!" ubergraphics and uberphysics bull****.

That being said, I'll sum up my post: I don't give two ****s about how pretty a game is, pretty graphics doesn't make up for ugly gameplay and lack of plot.

[thubby]

I resemble that statement!

I wish developers would stop focusing on "LAWL BLOOM LAWL HDR LAWL PHOTOREALISTIC GRAFFIX" and focus on the damn GAMEPLAY and STORY.

Seriously, I can name a lot of freaking games that look great, but the plot is next to nonexistent and the gameplay really isn't that good, but I'd stir a bunch of crap since they tend to have a zealous following of squirrely 13 year olds and Internet tought guys (hint: I'm not thinking of the Halo series. That actually has a plot).

I wish more games would become more like interactive books that you can determine your fate instead of this "Tell me I'm pretty!" ubergraphics and uberphysics bull****.

That being said, I'll sum up my post: I don't give two ****s about how pretty a game is, pretty graphics doesn't make up for ugly gameplay and lack of plot.

you act as though the 2 are somehow related...
in terms of actually making a game they are 2 totally different things, you actually have different teams for both!
the simple fact of the matter is, graphics are mechanical, if you're willing to pay the money to do it right, it'll get done, and it will look good. no matter how much you pay the "writters" (i guess thats the term), there is no guarantee it will work.
mechanics are much the same, either they use an old standby, and hope they don't fall into the role of "X... in space". or try something new and hope for the best.

[Anteros]

Of course the team making the graphics is not the same team that is writing the dialogue, but that doesn't mean the two things are unrelated. Companies have a certain budget to alot when making a game. Unless it's a mega company like Blizzard or EA, the amount of money you are willing to pay to make the game look pretty will be directly subtracted from the amount of money you have to hire and pay writers.

If I have 3 million dollars to make a game and I pay Stephen King 2.5 million to write my script, you'd better believe I will have a great script but ugly graphics. The same is true in reverse. Age of Conan has one of the most stunning graphics setups I have ever seen...but Funcom isn't a huge corporation, and it's obvious that the gameplay and writing departments suffered in order to bring us those pretty pictures. As a result we have an absolutely beautiful game that barely runs, even on my system. (4 gb ram, 1gb graphics card) This is becoming a pretty bad trend within the game industry lately. I'm all for games with great graphics...but not at the expense of the game itself.

[VanBuren]

I resemble that statement!

I wish developers would stop focusing on "LAWL BLOOM LAWL HDR LAWL PHOTOREALISTIC GRAFFIX" and focus on the damn GAMEPLAY and STORY.

Seriously, I can name a lot of freaking games that look great, but the plot is next to nonexistent and the gameplay really isn't that good, but I'd stir a bunch of crap since they tend to have a zealous following of squirrely 13 year olds and Internet tought guys (hint: I'm not thinking of the Halo series. That actually has a plot).

I wish more games would become more like interactive books that you can determine your fate instead of this "Tell me I'm pretty!" ubergraphics and uberphysics bull****.

That being said, I'll sum up my post: I don't give two ****s about how pretty a game is, pretty graphics doesn't make up for ugly gameplay and lack of plot.

Seriously. With all the time they spent on the Source engine and on HDR, you'd think Valve wouldn't spent just a little time on Half-Life 2 (plus eps)'s story, right?

[sikyon]

the biggest improvements in graphics won't come from cramming polygons in tighter, it'll come from mathematical definition of our world, and the horsepower to process it. for example, it takes a super computer to properly process the motion of a cubic yard of water. much of the problems with todays graphics come down to things like that.

I'd like a source for that.

It completly depends on what physical models you are using. something the size of micrometers could take a supercomputer years of time to compute for microseconds of interaction time using the most advanced quantum mechanical methods. Or it could use standard classical equations which are fully relevent and be done in seconds on your 3 year old machine.

Anyhow, graphics won't hit a hard point. It's simple: If the realism gets to good to distinguish from the real world, they will expand the monitor. If the monitor gets too big, they will expand into 3d. Soforth.

[thubby]

Of course the team making the graphics is not the same team that is writing the dialogue, but that doesn't mean the two things are unrelated. Companies have a certain budget to alot when making a game. Unless it's a mega company like Blizzard or EA, the amount of money you are willing to pay to make the game look pretty will be directly subtracted from the amount of money you have to hire and pay writers.

If I have 3 million dollars to make a game and I pay Stephen King 2.5 million to write my script, you'd better believe I will have a great script but ugly graphics. The same is true in reverse. Age of Conan has one of the most stunning graphics setups I have ever seen...but Funcom isn't a huge corporation, and it's obvious that the gameplay and writing departments suffered in order to bring us those pretty pictures. As a result we have an absolutely beautiful game that barely runs, even on my system. (4 gb ram, 1gb graphics card) This is becoming a pretty bad trend within the game industry lately. I'm all for games with great graphics...but not at the expense of the game itself.

I disagree completely. there is no cost-performance relation with writing. if you spent 2.5 million on a story from king, you'd get the same thing as if you paid him 1, or 100, because he's only so good a writer.

[kamikasei]

I disagree completely. there is no cost-performance relation with writing. if you spent 2.5 million on a story from king, you'd get the same thing as if you paid him 1, or 100, because he's only so good a writer.

And if you pay him less than his time is worth, he's not likely to put much effort into what you're commissioning.

You do need to budget enough on the writing that those you're paying will have the time and freedom to put real thought into it instead of slapping together something half-assed on their lunch break because they're moonlighting on the level design team to pay their bills.

[turkishproverb]

I disagree completely. there is no cost-performance relation with writing. if you spent 2.5 million on a story from king, you'd get the same thing as if you paid him 1, or 100, because he's only so good a writer.

That's the funniest thing I've ever read.

YOu really think a writer who's not making livable money is going to have TIME to wrote a 2.5 million dollar script? Or that they're going to do their best work if they feel you undervalue them?

That bit of humor might actually be more offensive than anything ever put on non-pay TV.