Are we approaching a graphical plateau?

[Zenpai]

I touched upon this briefly during my Mid-Generation Upgrades blog post, but I would like to delve into the topic in a little more detail.

 

Are we approaching a graphical plateau? As in, is gaming’s current visual level as high as we’ll ever be able to reach?

 

Don’t get me wrong, I know that it is always possible to get better. Better performance, improved framerates, higher resolution… but in terms of raw visuals, as in the graphical quality of the models, textures, lighting, effects… have we reached a peak?

 

One need look no further than Uncharted 4 and the (yet unreleased) God of War reboot to see how far we’ve come since the original Playstation. Heck, with some time and effort, even the Playstation 2 could deliver some pretty amazing visuals – just look at any Final Fantasy or Kingdom Hearts game. The Playstation 3 refined those amazing visuals and the Playstation 4 brought them to near perfection.

 

With digital distribution, hard drives standard in every console and tons of space in Blu-Ray discs, even storage constraints are no longer a limitation. So my question today would be: other than raw performance, can games look even better?

 

The answer would be yes. We still haven't reached photo-realism, so technically, yes. The thing is - is photo-realism desirable or even possible?

 

Well, it is certainly possible... the thing is, it would make the costs of producing a game even higher than what they already are. And with Season Passes, tons of DLC, microtransactions and loot boxes creeping into every AAA game to make up for the increased expenses (and let's face it, to satiate the publishers' greed), photo-realistic gaming would probably come with a hefty price - literally.

 

 

The thing is: do we really need our games to look THAT good? I mean, don't get me wrong, I love good-looking games just as much as anyone, but if the price for those absurdly gorgeous games is to be preyed upon to our last dime... I would gladly give up that crazy amount of graphical fidelity.

 

And honestly, I think I'm far from being the only one who thinks so. One need only look at the best-selling consoles of all time: the Playstation 2 and the Nintendo DS. As said before, while we couldn't see each character's individual pores or have crazy flashy particle effects or anything like that, the Playstation 2 was perfectly capable of delivering gorgeous visuals and animation. One could more easily see it in Japanese games, who are king when it comes to delivering great visual experiences even in weaker hardware.

 

One video I always like to point to is this one by Extra Credits, where they perfectly explain the difference between graphics and aesthetics:

 

 

 

 

Then we have the Nintendo DS. Were the visuals pretty blocky? Sure. But then, why did it sell so much? Because again, graphics aren't what "make" a game. What makes a game is a good story, good presentation, ease of use, and most importantly, good gameplay.

 

Look at, for instance, the rise of indie games. Masterpieces like Minecraft and Undertale sold like absolutely crazy despite having the graphical capabilities of games from the 90s. Why? Because they didn't need super high-fidelity graphics to deliver a worthwhile experience. Because they realized what truly matters in a game. And so, the developers were able to make a huge profit despite being small teams with very little budget making extremely retro games in this day and age.

 

To be honest, I think many people in the gaming community took admiration for good graphics and turned it into an unhealthy adoration. It is true that we all love great-looking games, and it's also true that they're the easiest and fastest thing to spot in a game, but... even if you have that... are you going to keep playing that game for hours and hours and hours or even revisit it years down the line just because it looks super good?

 

The answer is no. You're going to keep with the game because it gave you a worthwhile experience. Which is all that matters.

 

 

So personally, I would be more than fine if graphical progression just stayed as it is. Games look more than good enough and if people are complaining that AAA games are milking them dry right now, imagine if they did become photorealistic.

 

I'd rather just buy my game and be left alone to enjoy the complete experience, thank you.

 

See you guys next time!

Edited November 13, 2017 by jrdemr

[snakebit10]

I love were we are graphically with games. I would be lying if I said I wouldn't at least like to see what photo realism looked like in a game. I am sure it would be costly.

 

You point out some good examples of best looking games in Uncharted 4 and the new GOW but for me Horizon Zero Dawn is the best looking game so far. I am sure the new TLOU will push the boundaries of the  PS4/PS4 Pro. 

[xZoneHunter]

Developers will always push the boundaries of graphic fidelity and scope of a game. It's not good for any business to remain stagnant. This is especially true with games since developers and publishers love to showcase the performance of their games and people love it as well. 

 

Sure, having crispy looking graphics isn't the most important part for many gamers and as you've mentioned games that look like crap can be a hit with the public. However, people have come to expect quality photo-realistic graphics from AAA developments and will only expect more in the future. I'm not sure if the PS4 pro and the newly released xbox one x are considered a success, but seeing Sony & MS decided on releasing a mid gen upgrade clearly proves people do care about the looks of a game. Why else would someone pay 500$ for an x1x instead of opting for the cheaper version?

[UlvenFenrir]

Two things you want to have in mind:

 

1. To have a photo realistic open world with ton of things to do and see just isnt possible. The framerate would dip and the game wouldnt even run. Im not an expert on how these things work but im pretty sure thats why you only see photo realistic “walking simulators”.

 

2. Raw graphics can only take you so far. Ever wonder why certain games aged so well even after 10 years? Not because of graphics but because of the art direction. A game like cuphead on the xbox is gonna look amazing 20 years from now, because of the art direction, not the graphics.

[starcrunch061]

I don't know if we're at a graphical plateau, per se. But I think we are at the point where further enhancement will hardly wow the rank-and-file gamer. 

 

2 hours ago, UlvenFenrir said:

2. Raw graphics can only take you so far. Ever wonder why certain games aged so well even after 10 years? Not because of graphics but because of the art direction. A game like cuphead on the xbox is gonna look amazing 20 years from now, because of the art direction, not the graphics.

 

 

Hallelujah! If only poor Square Soft would get the memo.

Edited November 13, 2017 by starcrunch061

[Dav9834]

On the topic of are we hitting a plateau. Depends on if you're talking about consoles or PCs. 

 

Consoles, no, plenty of room for improvement. As long as PC graphics cards can continue, consoles have a good amount of time to catch up. 

 

PCs, yes, yes we are. 

Sure in a way with graphics cards you can just keep adding more(thousands lets say), and you'll have more to work with. 

But CPUs, no. You only see that in specific machines. And you won't see it in a PC or console. Same goes for RAM. 

 

This is because we're at the end of Moore's law. Have been for a while. 

The transistor size can only get so small before they misfire and you get false logic(a transistor is like a switch. To make it simple, I'm sure everyone has seen arching before. Like a tesla coil. Well imagine if light switches were too small that they did that. You're lights would flicker(ok ya I know it would eventually fry, it's just an example don't fry me) and that's not what you want), that's the issue. 

 

Good news atomic computers are actually real, and in some given decades we'll see them in our own PCs when they're stable(and after intel starts having problems with traditional chips(they need to make money!)). 

 

I think the minimum transistor size is within approximately <7-10 years away. So expect a lot more coverage. 

 

But once that hurdle is overcome, really the only thing that is different from the real world and gaming is the amount of data.

 

So as long as quantum computing becomes a household/pc/console reality someday, don't expect us to plateau forever. (I do expect a "dark age" in between, until either quantum computing or something else takes its place. I expect a "bubble burst" in the industry during that time)  

 

Money will be the deciding factor, both in cost to us, and to the manufacturer of when(after its a stable technology). 

 

So it's a yes and no answer. Yes you'll see less difference every year(I think we already have for a few years now(PCs)) until you don't at all.

 

But also no it's not a permanent plateau. 

 

 

 

 

For more information on transistor size watch this easy to understand but really informative video(I already knew a lot, but it would have been nice to have this video back when I was in the beginning of studying electrical engineering ><) 

 

 

 

[Zenpai]

12 minutes ago, UlvenFenrir said:

2. Raw graphics can only take you so far. Ever wonder why certain games aged so well even after 10 years? Not because of graphics but because of the art direction. A game like cuphead on the xbox is gonna look amazing 20 years from now, because of the art direction, not the graphics.

 

Hence why I put the Extra Credits video in there ?

[Elvick_]

Have CG movies hit it yet? I don't think so, I'm still blown away at some new films that come out with how they look. The fur, especially wet fur, in Zootopia was one of the most incredible things I've seen. So no.

Video games will only approach the plateau when CG itself does. Character models, faces, have a loooooooooong way to go. Particularly animation. Even Naughty Dog still struggles, The Lost Legacy had some wonky ass facial animations, specifically with Chloe. You can put that on the fact it's $30 and not a full game, but if it's not easy to hit their standard then we've not yet made it to where it's easy to do convincing, high quality animations. Which I think would indicate when when actually hit a plateau.

I don't think photo realism would be the goal anyway, so it's irrelevant. You can actually make things look far better than that. So why limit yourself? Take Everybody's Gone to Rapture, it's pretty clear cut aiming to be photo realistic. Down to the trees, colors; trying to be as real as possible. And it's visually *dull*. It's very boring to look at, it looks good, but it's boring. The game looks it's best, in my opinion, when it's raining. Then you look at Horizon, which has art direction. It's not aiming for photo realism, it's stylized realism. It looks a thousand times better. Everywhere you look the game looks mindblowing, at least for me. Except, the faces. The faces need a lot of work.

While realistic things can be stunning and beautiful in person, the effect is muted in photographs. So computer generated is no different to me. Unless VR could pull it off, then it might hold the same feel. Seeing Niagara Falls in person was an incredible experience, looking at pictures of it isn't anywhere near as impactful. But looking at Horizon, I look around in awe just as I did looking at Niagara Falls from a boat right up in there.

An RPG like Horizon has worse facial animation than Uncharted because it's got far more dialog to work with. It has more characters to animate and design. Open world games have more required to render, so tend to not look as impressive as linear games (though I think that rule Guerilla has broken, I was far more impressed with Horizon than U4 or The Lost Legacy, which are beautiful games in their own rights no doubt, but Horizon is just on another level for me).

We're a way off.

I think we're at a point where "good enough" is easily achievable though. Though "good enough" for me is Final Fantasy XII quality graphics and art.

[Dreakon13]

Every generation feels like "how much better can games really look than this?"

 

And developers always seem to find a way.

 

So for lack of good YouTube videos to cite, I'll just say we're probably coming close to the plateau for this generation of consoles... devs always seem to max it out near the end... but ever?  Nah, they'll find a way.

[Dav9834]

22 minutes ago, Elvick_ said:

Have CG movies hit it yet? I don't think so, I'm still blown away at some new films that come out with how they look. The fur, especially wet fur, in Zootopia was one of the most incredible things I've seen. So no.

Video games will only approach the plateau when CG itself does. Character models, faces, have a loooooooooong way to go. Particularly animation. Even Naughty Dog still struggles, The Lost Legacy had some wonky ass facial animations, specifically with Chloe. You can put that on the fact it's $30 and not a full game, but if it's not easy to hit their standard then we've not yet made it to where it's easy to do convincing, high quality animations. Which I think would indicate when when actually hit a plateau.

 

 

This is not correct because CG movies/clips are pre-rendered. It's not on the fly. 

Rendering a single scene can take hours for professional studios. 

 

But you can't pre-render a lot in a game nowadays(PS1 FFs had pre-rendered hand drawn backgrounds, that's why they still hold up(at least imo)). 

 

So no, CG movies/clips can go much much much farther than gaming graphics, if you have the patience when the speed of making a pre-rendered CG scene becomes longer because of the lack of computer power as we get closer to hitting the transistor minimum size. 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2017 by Dav9834

[Elvick_]

24 minutes ago, Dav9834 said:

 

This is not correct because CG movies/clips are pre-rendered. It's not on the fly. 

Rendering a single scene can take hours for professional studios. 

 

But you can't pre-render a lot in a game nowadays(PS1 FFs had pre-rendered hand drawn backgrounds, that's why they still hold up(at least imo)). 

 

So no, CG movies/clips can go much much much farther than gaming graphics, if you have the patience when the speed of making a pre-rendered CG scene becomes longer because of the lack of computer power as we get closer to hitting the transistor minimum size.

I fail to see how that's relevant.

You don't think the ability to render is going to keep improving over time? That's just false. No shit CG films are capable of more, but games now look better than CG at it's infancy. I didn't say that games are going to reach CG film any time soon. In 500 years, if we still exist as a species, you think games won't look as good ingame as Zootopia? K. Technology improves, technology gets cheaper, the ability to do more and more is not going to stop anytime soon.

CG films haven't plateu'd yet. So how would games have reached that point already? They haven't.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Elvick_

[Dav9834]

4 hours ago, Elvick_ said:

I fail to see how that's relevant.

You don't think the ability to render is going to keep improving over time? That's just false. No shit CG films are capable of more, but games now look better than CG at it's infancy. I didn't say that games are going to reach CG film any time soon. In 500 years, if we still exist as a species, you think games won't look as good ingame as Zootopia? K. Technology improves, technology gets cheaper, the ability to do more and more is not going to stop anytime soon.

CG films haven't plateu'd yet. So how would games have reached that point already? They haven't.

Ok first I was talking about realistic expectations.

 

In 500 years I can't fathom where we'll be. By then I doubt "graphics" would even be a commonly used word for this, but rather something else because I just can't imagine us not having a completely different way to play in 500 years (vr, ar, etc.) so sure 500 years from now anythings game. 

 

But in the end for today it still comes down to whether you can render that quickly for a game on the fly. 

 

Which brings us back to why the necessity of "power" in a pc/console is necessary for continued gaming graphical enhancements. Which can AND will most likely plateau. 

But for how long is the question. 

 

Read my previous post on the full matter of transistor size. Let's put it this way, if no new hardware came out, and it was still the ps4(and graphics cards stopped too). 

How long until you see game development hit its peak graphical efficiency(including a stable framerate of at least 30 frames per second(otherwise sure you could wait 5-10 minutes for 1 frame to render in a game with graphics that mirror CG films)) with ps4 hardware. Or let's say up to 95% efficiency. 10 years? Maybe more? Maybe less? I surely don't know. But we may find out for ps6!

In fact I'd say it's highly likely! Because by then a traditional transistor will definitely have reached its minimum size(unless the ps5 comes and goes quickly. Of course PCs will feel it first before consoles. 

 

 

But if you want to talk about 500 years from now instead of 15-20 years, go ahead.

Stay in fantasy land, and I'll be here with everyone else talking about what's realistically relevant for us and/or our children. 

 

Edited November 13, 2017 by Dav9834

[HellcoreFire]

I'ts gone far enough, I don't want to be killing too realistically looking pixels.

[ImplyingYouCare]

I don't think plateau is the word you're looking for. What we're coming towards now is called diminishing returns. Graphics will keep improving, but we aren't going to see the huge differences between generations that we've seen in the past. What you're going to see in the future is that games will focus more and more on aspects other than graphical fidelity because of how expensive it's becoming to make games. The good news is that this means we'll hopefully see more stylized games in the future along with games that run better.

 

I'm just going to go ahead and quote one of the people from Guerrilla games because he said this very well.

Quote

About the actual issue at hand; there really is a diminishing returns issue in games. Every time you double the amount of polygons, the subject will only look marginally better than the previous generation did. The difference between PS1 and PS2 was enormous. The difference between PS2 and PS3 was smaller, although still very significant. The difference between PS3 and PS4 is clearly noticeable, but it's not as big a leap as previous generations were. Future generations will no doubt offer smaller changes in graphical fidelity, and put more focus on added features.

 

Game graphics can still get loads better, but the improvements won't come in the form of higher poly counts. At least not by much. Look forward to stuff like realtime global illumination, particles, dynamics, fluids, cloth and hair, etc. It's not necessarily stuff that will make screenshots look better, but it will definitely make game worlds feel more alive.

 

Also sorry OP, but there's no way I'm watching a video by Extra Credits. Maybe they've improved since I last watched one in like, 2013, but they were really awful back then and I've still only ever heard people talk about how wrong they are all the time. I don't really feel like potentially getting angry at bad youtube videos right now, maybe later. 

[Galactic Hyper Balls]

it wont hit a high spot, graphic cards just keep getting better until we run out of resources to make this stuff

 

Games in 4k are great but they eat up the GPU, CPU, RAM etc etc.

 

watching a movie in 4k isn't has hard on the device where gaming is.

 

1080p on ultra settings look great and 1440p is crisp.

 

Wonder how long these X1x will run and how soon will the mother board fry up and melt with 4K on a 500 dollar console. 

 

 

 

 

[RadiantFlamberge]

IMO, 1080p 60fps is better than 4K 30fps.  Higher resolutions aren't worth giving up performance over. Longer draw distances for less pop-up, some FX, & more stable framerates (preferably 60) matter more.

[Superbuu3]

Takaki the guy who made Senran Kagura previously said he wanted to make boobs that made you want to touch the. With such dreamers aiming for such heights we wil never hit a plateau.

 

He also came out with this line (don't read if you are offended easily):

Quote

Special Message from the Producer, Kenichiro Takaki:

The Senran Kagura series will continue to run non-stop.
That is the calling of a NINJA.
They run faster and jump higher than anyone.
They can easily jump over people’s expectations.

These games still have the potential to grow big and large.
Just like the girls’ chests.

Tits are life, ass is hometown.

 

43 minutes ago, gameoverDude189 said:

IMO, 1080p 60fps is better than 4K 30fps.  Higher resolutions aren't worth giving up performance over. Longer draw distances for less pop-up, some FX, & more stable framerates (preferably 60) matter more.

 I agree with this I want high and stable frame rates before we up the resolution.

[Z1MZUM]

No because the "consumer" market want things shinier every year, I don't think the "Gamer" market cares that much.

[AJ_Radio]

Creativity and innovation pretty much plateaued in the late 1990s and early - mid 2000s.

 

Since 2006 - 2007 we have mostly seen games that are "better" versions of what already existed. I see Grand Theft Auto V as being a far superior version of what Grand Theft Auto III was in 2001. In Grand Theft Auto V you still steal cars, you still go on side missions, you still watch the characters develop and grow throughout the main story. But you strip the game down to it's foundations, and it's no different from Grand Theft Auto III.

 

Starcraft II is still widely popular with Twitch.tv streamers and still has competitions. But it's simply a more polished version of the original Starcraft that released back in 1998.

 

The point I'm making here is creativity died down around a decade ago, so companies like EA do their best to put out a product with excellent graphics.

 

Are we going to see another DOOM? Are we going to see another Super Mario 64? I honestly don't know. Those games set the bar so high because there was literally NOTHING else like them at the time. There's a good reason why both games are still being recognized as some of the most innovative video games of all time.

 

But from what I've seen as a long time gamer, especially with this generation of AAA games, they just borrow everything their predecessors did and expand on the open world and throw in more content to keep the average consumer busy. Assassins Creed Origins really isn't all that different than how the original Assassins Creed was back in 2007. Sure, the game plays better, the graphics are far superior, the combat is much improved, the consistency is less jagged. But can you guys say it's a completely different and new experience from the older Assassins Creed games you played?

 

Super Mario 64 took the biggest and best known gaming franchise in history and put Mario in 3-D. It completely changed the way platformers were played, because everything before that was popular were 2-D platformers kids were used to playing on Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis. The first time I saw Super Mario 64 in magazines back when I was just a kid in the mid 1990s blew me away. There was literally nothing else like it.

 

Today I can definitely say I played games like Wolfenstein II The New Colossus, Star Wars Battlefront II, Destiny 2 and Middle Earth Shadow of War in the past. Granted they are all sequels to well established, big franchises, but I see literally no innovation coming out of the AAA industry these days. It's always the tried and true approach, anything new and different is too big a risk with them.

 

This is my two cents. Big budgets don't mean shit when it comes to creative talent and pushing new ideas forward. It's the people who come up with the concepts and brainstorming on paper.

 

Right now I just see a lot of talking heads who really don't do much other than push forth what's already been established in the past. This generation is full of them. And I wouldn't be surprised if they were just as dull and idiotic as the current Apple CEO who thinks he can continue to ride the success train that Steve Jobs before him provided.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Spaz

[DarkSoleride]

On 13/11/2017 at 1:58 PM, Dav9834 said:

On the topic of are we hitting a plateau. Depends on if you're talking about consoles or PCs. 

 

He is talking about consoles since he talked about PlayStation, PlayStation 2 & 3 so would be console, PC is unfair as it is constantly evolving rapidly where as console are in a graphic lock for ex amount of years until a new hardware release

[Dav9834]

4 minutes ago, DarkSoleride said:

On 11/13/2017 at 8:58 AM, Dav9834 said:

On the topic of are we hitting a plateau. Depends on if you're talking about consoles or PCs. 

 

He is talking about consoles since he talked about PlayStation, PlayStation 2 & 3 so would be console, PC is unfair as it is constantly evolving rapidly where as console are in a graphic lock for ex amount of years until a new hardware release

You're right it doesn't depend.

In my post I detail why it's all relevant, time is the only difference(albeit small). 

Eventually a plateau will be hit, or we get quantum computing before it happens. 

It's one of the most important things we tend to not comment on. Kinda like pharmaceutical companies not creating many new antibiotics(yes they can/have). It's a hard reality to swallow because the thought of plateau-ing is alien. 

[AJ_Radio]

It's been a few years since I read this thread but the person who made the OP made a point regarding digital only purchases. I saw the link he provided for this thread so I'm going to try to revive it.

 

There's a lot to be said by watching some recent gameplay footage from the newest Ratchet & Clank:

 

 

I will say this. This game is pretty much the most impressive cartoonish looking title I have ever seen. The graphics are phenomenal. Everything is crystal clear. Going by a quote someone offered from a guy at Guerilla Games:

 

Quote

 

About the actual issue at hand; there really is a diminishing returns issue in games. Every time you double the amount of polygons, the subject will only look marginally better than the previous generation did. The difference between PS1 and PS2 was enormous. The difference between PS2 and PS3 was smaller, although still very significant. The difference between PS3 and PS4 is clearly noticeable, but it's not as big a leap as previous generations were. Future generations will no doubt offer smaller changes in graphical fidelity, and put more focus on added features.

 

Game graphics can still get loads better, but the improvements won't come in the form of higher poly counts. At least not by much. Look forward to stuff like realtime global illumination, particles, dynamics, fluids, cloth and hair, etc. It's not necessarily stuff that will make screenshots look better, but it will definitely make game worlds feel more alive.

 

 

Compare the PS5 exclusive to what IGN posted back in 2015 for the Ratchet & Clank game on the PS4:

 

 

The biggest notable difference I see is the jump to 4K, 60 FPS for Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart. While the video that IGN posted is only in 1080p, because back in 2015 that was the best you were going to get before the PS4 Pro came into the picture.

 

However, I think the leap from PS4 to PS5 is even smaller. There is definitely little in terms of graphical fidelity when you compare the two Ratchet & Clank games. When I played Ratchet & Clank on the PS4 right when it came out I already thought it looked fucking impressive. Seeing early gameplay footage for Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart on the PS5 looks even more impressive. But the overall leap is considerably smaller than it was going from PS3 to PS4, and PS2 to PS3. So, in a sense, we are getting diminishing returns.

 

Right now I think developers are focusing more on features and making the games run a bit smoother. 60 FPS is a big jump from 30 FPS, I will fully admit to that. Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart, based on the gameplay footage I have seen thus far has what looks to be a more vibrant world than Ratchet & Clank did on the PS4. It is however an early - mid era PS4 release. Some of the late PS4 games such as Ghost of Tsushima when played on the PS4 Pro and PS5 look almost identical, with the only notable difference being a higher framerate with which to play.

 

Whoever at Guerilla Games that made that quote was completely spot on. I am impressed with how far gaming has gone, but at the same time I don't hold the same earth shattering feelings I once did when I was a teenager. Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart looks awesome and I'm sure like with any Ratchet & Clank game, will be fun to play. But I am no longer sold on the graphics alone. Games have to have much more than that, they need to be more than just entirely story driven.

 

But me being a retro and indie gamer at heart, I'm part of a dying breed that will likely die off by the next decade.

[Crispy_Oglop]

I love topics and ideas like this, thanks for posting @Zenpai! There are so many different directions we could go in and so many factors that could influence how console gaming progresses (gaming in general really), it makes for a really interesting discussion.

 

@ImplyingYouCare and the quote they cited really stuck with me after reading it and I definitely agree that there is a diminishing returns issue a play. If we also assume that the gap between future console generations will incrementally be much smaller than say PS2-PS3-PS4, then it makes sense that the experience of playing games between them will feel more similar. I think games between generations will continue to look similar enough, bar some nice effects and performance enhancements for a the forseeable future. But I would also assume that companies would recognise the plateau too and start investing more in new ways to innovate and drive hardware / cloud computing tech forward.

 

I would personally like to see VR tech really start to leap forward and become something that over time becomes a standard aspect of gaming for everyone, in the same way that generally owning a TV might be a standard inclusion into a bedroom or lounge.

 

In terms of the far future, there is a short movie I caught on YouTube a few years ago now, which really made me think about were we are headed in terms of lifestyle technology. I actually think this is one of the most feasible and believable directions we could go in in terms of streamlined technology and how our bodies and senses interact with it. The theme is similar to a Black Mirror episode, but the tech itself is fascinating.

 

 

[Eraezr]

To me, a true graphical plateau would be when the average AAA game is able to achieve asset rendering consistency. The graphical detail of character models looks consistent with every environmental texture or asset, every insect and enemies, every nondescript items like books, lamps, doors, bulbs, leaves and so on.

 

Games like Watch Dogs are disorientating in this regard. The water graphics on a wet road would look really good but the character and car models would be meh. In FFXV, Lunafreya's hair is fantastic but the canyon textures are like early-PS3. From the PS4 generation, the game that came the closest to graphical consistency for 3D was The Order: 1886 (at least, from everything I've played).