Pinnacle of graphics in gaming released in 2007

Graphics wise, nah, not much changed, better lighting and higher res is the only answer we got.

compare this to 4k ea star wars battlefront endor

Witcher 3? Even shitty MMOs like ESO? There's so many I can't even bother to list them all.
Take your pick, Crysis was impressive as a tech demo game, it was barely atmospheric or good looking though.

Google your own pictures/videos.

If you're talking about when Crysis released, I was talking about graphics possible on a consumer desktop. There were plenty of actually photo realistic demos that rendered in real time.

>no transparency AA
okay fag

Unironically this. As shitty as modern EA games are, something like Battlefront 2 (new one) running at 4k looks just stunning, Crysis looks like a game from 12 years ago next to it.

Diminishing returns.
There's a much larger difference between a 50 poly model and a 550 poly model than there is between a 550 poly model and a 1050 poly model

>4k ea star wars battlefront endor
You mean PRE-RENDERED BULLSHIT like this? You seriously belive their not going to downgraded it?

Attached: 1LQNmij.jpg (3840x2160, 1.51M)

>Higher resolution. Textures in game are much better.
Higher resolution/better texture resolution are the result of technological progresses in both display and memory technologies.
>ray tracing
Already a thing since the 90s
>anti aliasing
Same as higher res
>volumetric lightning
Lighting again
>Bigger maps so you need more resources.
Same as higher res
>Smarter AI, better programming and much more.
Not graphics related.

So pretty much no progress, except that we can now put more pixels on the screen so it looks less rough.

witcher 3 is shit even w2 had better graphics

Well i have to agree on this one. But still. We came from Crysis to fucking fortnut graphics. It looks like it came out of 90-s cartoons. And then we have new Need for Spirts and other high tech games. It has changed. But not a lot.

>.jpg

>muh compression

Well yes. But graphics can change. Like lookbat Minecruft. It doesnt realy have god tier graphics but it still looks good for blocky graphics style. Graphics depends on developer and experience. But yea. I agree again. We havent moved a bit.

>rear wheel on vehicle not rendered

You should also mention that past this point, the computing power required for the polygons you add grows exponentially.

Crysis has to be the game that leverages 4K the most.
All this foliage everywhere really doesn't like 1080p.
I was blown away the firt time I tried it.

W2 had better atmosphere.
W3 has more "realistic" graphics.

Take your pick, it's not a definitive answer.

this looks like diarrhoea

>pinnacle of graphics in gaming released in the 1980's
>graphics have barely improved since 1980's
>at most they even got worse
>yet for some reason you now need 8gb ram, 4gb gpu and a 6 core 3,8ghz cpu to run modern games on medium
And don't even get me started on holographic games that haven't existed since the hit arcade game "time traveller".
It's like we're took 10 steps back, and never ever progressed since the 80's/90's.

Attached: 4-1024_1060.jpg (1024x576, 46K)

is this serious?

Attached: senua's_sacrifice.jpg (3840x2160, 1.43M)

>>graphics have barely improved since 2007
you must be absolutely blind if you think that garbage looks good.

That's not even a game.

>Someone fucking explain this.
You're wrong, that's what's going on here.

I played it. Its far better than crysis maxed

Add better lighting (the only improvement since 2007) and it would look like a 2019 game.

>being this retarded
holy shit

You know, you're not forced to post if you don't have arguments user.

no arguments are needed against retards like you. phones these days have better graphics than in OP, but autistic idiots don't see it, it's like face-blindness for autistics but for graphics instead.

>phones these days have better graphics than in OP
Imagine believing this.

Whatever you say zoomer aspie

Because they know they have their addicted customers by the balls. Nothing needs to be optimized. Gaymyers not only have an inelastic demand for gayming products, they end up becoming shills, little marketing drones that work for free

graphics faggotry is retarded, games have looked good enough since like 2001. modurn graphics are a waste of system resources.

Developers got lazy. No one is actually doing any low level engine work anymore.

>recommended = max settings

>You mean PRE-RENDERED BULLSHIT like this?

3D scanning is the newest fad. Just like photo-realistic textures were a fad in the Max Payne / Mafia 1 days, it's gonna take some time before game creators learn how to tone it down and make it blend well with the overall style of the game. Battlefront and current games using 3D scanned assets are only the first generation, that's why it looks so uncanny / fake. When battlefront came out, nobody even knew how to properly delight 3D scanned albedo maps, now we do. Source: I work with 3D scanning assets for game and VFX.

Attached: LxTXTDK.jpg (550x274, 32K)

The reqs are bullshit
Crysis is shittily optimized and you can make a 2019 high end build choke down to sub 60 fairly easily because of it
On a 2008 high end build it's 720p high no AA and you will still spend half the game in the 20fps range with massive stuttering fairly often.

Godrays lmao

will zen 2 finally allow amd users to run crysis at 60fps?

Attached: Crysis 10 Years On - Why It's Still Melting The Most Powerful Gaming PCs-PcYA-H3qpTI.webm (853x480, 2.76M)

I completely agree with this. turn on everything possible in Crysis and that high end modern rig becomes mediocre.

Diffusion, godrays, better fog algorithms, better AO algorithms, better AA algorithms, better lighting techniques, clothing/hair bone structures and of course AAA games today push way more polygons.

so much bullshit in those requirements.

I ran Crysis on my old build. Pentium D 950, WinXP, 2GB RAM, 768MB Quadro FX1800 (basically a Geforce 9600GT) and it ran like ass.

My current build doesn't run it much better though I can turn on a few more options (Xeon X3220, basically a C2Q 6600, 4GB RAM, 2GB Geforce GT710, Win7) and my workstation (i5 4570, 16GB RAM, 1GB Radeon HD 8570) runs it even better but there's no way I can approach turning everything on unless I like playing games at 1-3fps.

buy a not shitty pc?

> phones these days have better graphics than in OP
Show me proof of that you retard

Crytek has always made poorly optimized games. They look great for the time, but when you play games that look similar but are released a few years later, they run much better.

Far Cry never had that much issue running halfway decent, played through on a P3@1Ghz / geforce 2MX
Crysis 3 has really good multithreading and ran really well on FX as a result

I'm not a gaymer and everything else runs well enough. You're missing the point here: The specs were utter bullshit. A C2Q with a GT710 (which, despite being low end is significantly more powerful than a 9600GT) does not deliver even a decent game experience nor does a Haswell i5 and a GPU faster than a former "sweet spot" GPU (my 8570 is quite a bit faster than a GT730, which was once lauded for being great for it's price point).

>is significantly more powerful than a 9600GT
Nope
Worse fillrate and no memory bandwidth, the 710 is a dumpster fire of a card.

I may be wrong about this, I never modded Crysis, but engines today are capable of using a "pbr" pipeline which is to say that they can handle several maps at once for a texture. You're talking metallicity, roughness, normal, bump. When you're pushing 4k textures this starts eating up memory and cycles since you're using numerous variables in the shader instead of a very unified non-gradient modality. Subsurface scattering wasn't integrated back then. AO wasn't either as far as I'm aware, but I may be wrong, which is also an intensive process depending on method. I can't speak for everyone but I was playing on a 1024x1280 display. That's 1.6x the amount of rendered real estate.

Of course there's just the straight up texture and model resolution as well. I don't know what leaps and bounds have been made in the polygonal department, but textures are easily pushing 4k if not more in certain aspects of games like environment tiles. You're talking a huge leap with every increase in texture res. Compression probably plays into it as well.

And this generation of consoles is probably just paralleling the 8800's of the time if we're being honest.

All that shits destructible too. All of it.

>And this generation of consoles is probably just paralleling the 8800's of the time if we're being honest.
Not a chance.
youtube.com/watch?v=OcnYrSB9xvM

Games have not improved much because PC hardware hasn't improved much. Simply added shit loads of cores that are nearly the same speed isn't helping gaming in the slightest. You are seeing the end-spectrum phase of a dead-end, technological, development phase. If individual cores could double and triple their processing speeds like they did during the PC video game hay days then you'd see game graphics developing far beyond what you could imagine right now. If the speed increases had happened along the chart of PC gaming history you'd have single cores clocking in around 20ghz right now in the bargain bin section.

There are ways to create better looking games for current technology, but that would require devs who actually know how to code, who don't rely on copy/pasting. They'd need the intelligence to be able to actually optimize their game for the hardware and reduce its performance bloat. That simply isn't going to happen.

Smarter AI eats up resources for everything else. You either have godlike AI or godlike graphics, but not both currently.

Minecraft may look blocky, but it is actually one of the better graphics technologies. It uses voxels. Voxels are extremely resource intensive. The terrain in Crysis is also voxel-based. We've had voxel based games since the 1990s though. Try playing, "Comanche," for some old skool voxel stuff. Voxelstein 3D shows how you can use voxels for bodies and everything in the entire game.

>Minecraft may look blocky, but it is actually one of the better graphics technologies. It uses voxels.
It uses normal 3D polygons with textures.

>Minecraft is a sandbox video game that uses voxels to store terrain data,[17] but does not use voxel rendering techniques. Instead it uses polygon rendering to display each voxel as a cubic "block." Minecraft also contains "entities," such as the player and creatures, that exist outside of the voxel data structure.[18]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voxel#Computer_games

>Games have not improved much because PC hardware hasn't improved much
lol, more like the so called PCMR would go apeshit if their new RGB filled setup couldn't run the game. I mean look at how much they bitched about RTX, and you can still get 60fps with that shit.

>but does not use voxel rendering techniques. Instead it uses polygon rendering to display each voxel as a cubic "block."
The terrain is stored as voxels, since the world is made up of cubes, but when you're playing the game, you're rendering cubes like any other game would render cubes.

You can’t run modern wofenstein with AMD hardware. It just doesn’t work way below 60 FPS. It’s actually unplayable. It all has to do with operating systems and optimization technique that doesn’t translate to modern hardware.

Realistic my ass

I'm still using a PC with hardware from 10 years ago and everything runs fine on all modern games at default settings and res. The only ting I had to upgrade was from HDD to SSD for installs so that games that need to load sandbox terrains all the time would be rendered at a proper speed.

I would say that gaming industry became more of a normie business. Now investors pump certain companies full of money expecting quick buck. Most of the game studios nowdays don't even try to experiment anymore since it's perceived as a financial liability. Also many assets are reused in order to build new ones and push out products as fast as possible, so the time spent on optimization is always close to bare minimum.