|
Let me preface this blog by thanking MobyGames for all of their high quality screenshots of classic games. Without their hard work and their kind permission to repost the screenshots in question, this post would not have been possible. Thanks a million!
Regulars here at Avault will have recently seen my review of Crysis and the very specific warnings I related about the game’s stiff system requirements. While there’s no denying that trend in PC gaming is always toward programs that utilize more and more processing power, memory and storage space, Crysis bore special mention because its requirements are beyond even those of its contemporaries, in some cases significantly higher. For many hardcore gamers, whose systems easily exceed the minimum requirements for Crysis, I’m betting my warning was merely seen as a justification for their extremely high end systems and then ignored. In fact, I’d be disappointed if anyone with a top of the line Alienware system felt intimidated by my statements.
However, we few, we happy few, who are PC gamers are not just gamers — we are also consumers of a variety of technological products that go beyond the games themselves, including operating systems, hard drives, RAM, CPUs, video cards, sound cards, network cards, modems, Internet connections, mice, keyboards, speakers (or a connection to a real stereo if you’re an audiophile like me), surge protectors, monitors, CD-RWs, DVD, DVD-RW, thumb drives and probably a few other things I’ve left out. Each of these items has some impact on the quality of your PC gaming experience. Some, such as DVD and CD drives, are not a big deal anymore since games tend to store almost everything on the hard drive. Others, such as the Internet connection, may be extremely important for gamers who think multiplayer is the end all and be all of gaming, while unimportant to other gamers.
However, as consumers, when new games come along that require substantial upgrades to even play, we should ask ourselves how much better are the features versus how much more computing resources it takes to achieve this new level of gaming. After having seen the best graphics games have to offer ever since the ’80s, I’m beginning to wonder if graphics have reached a plateau in terms of quality versus performance.
Let’s start by tracing the development of graphics in PC gaming over the past 30 years by using the easiest barometer available: screenshots. And where better to start than with one of the most popular games of all time, a game that started an entire franchise that continues to this day. I’m talking about the original Ultima, known variously as Ultima I: The First Age of Darkness, Ultima I, and even just Ultima. Originally released in 1980 for the venerable Apple II, it was so popular it was ported, recoded and re-released several times, the latest of which was in a collection published in 1998 for DOS. Ultima‘s legacy set the standard for every CRPG to follow, having more impact than even venerable franchises such as Final Fantasy. But what did computer graphics look like in 1980? See for yourself:
 
That giant rat looks frightening, doesn’t it? Well, maybe not to jaded tastes that have seen Oblivion, but it’s not too bad, considering the computing power of an Apple II. According to Wikipedia, the Apple II+ had a 1 MHz processor, 48 KB RAM, a cassette drive (remember cassettes as storage media?) and an old school 5 1/4 inch disk drive. The cost? $1,200 in 1979-1980, which is roughly $3,400 after adjusting for inflation. Now, before my fellow hardware nuts start pointing out how processor cycles, RAM and storage media capacity are not meaningful when compared to the same stats today, let me say I know. I’m merely simplifying things to keep the argument simple and to point out very broad trends. (Believe me, I know what total, ahem, bull, it was to compare MHz when looking at the performance of RISC and SISC processors back in the day.)
Such difficulties in comparison don’t obviate my claim; compared with computer capabilities today, you could store the Apple II OS, the entire library of its games and run several copies at the same time… with your video card. And this isn’t to say that the Apple II was a piece of junk; I’m just pointing out how far we’ve come in terms of hardware and in terms of graphics. Alright, so that’s what top of the line gaming looked like in 1980.
By 1986, graphics had improved somewhat, but more important, the games had gotten better. That fateful year in gaming saw the release of The Legend of Zelda and Metroid for consoles in Japan (yet two more franchises that are still making money), but for the PC, the best of the best was Starflight. This open-ended science fiction game included starship battles, roleplaying, exploration and a non-linear plot, all of which are the sorts of gaming elements we still talk about. It also looked pretty good in DOS:
 
If you played this game in DOS, you might have done it on an IBM PC AT with an Intel 80286 6 MHz processor, 512 KB RAM, perhaps a 10 or 20 MB harddrive and an EGA graphics mode. So, for a 6x increase in processor power and a 10x increase in RAM, you got those graphics. The cost? As much as $6,000 in 1984, which is about $11,500 when adjusting for inflation.
The years rolled by until a little company called id was founded by John Carmack, John Romero, Tom Hall and Adrian Carmack. In 1992, they released Wolfenstein 3D and made history. First person shooters were now a mainstream genre and the first choice for those craving cutting edge graphics. And in 1992, this is what cutting edge looked like. Note the pseudo-3D perspective:
 
By this time, PCs and their ilk were running around 25 MHz, but by the time Doom came out, you could find machines running at 50 or even 60 MHz. As for RAM, you might have two megs. Cost? Well, by this point, prices were dropping dramatically. An Amiga 1200 sold for $599 in 1992, which is $900 when adjusted for inflation. Competition in the market was good for consumers, obviously.
By 1996, Blizzard Entertainment was making money hand over fist, and it was because of Diablo. While the reasons for Diablo‘s success are legion, it’s graphics represented a gold standard for what we expected from all of our games. They look dated now, but the isometric 3D perspective would serve Blizzard well for years to come, including use in games such as Starcraft and Diablo II:
 
Diablo required only modest improvements in system requirements: 60MHz processor, 8 MBs RAM (16 for multiplayer) an SVGA video card, a 2X CD-ROM and Windows 95.
But within three years, both games and computers began ramping up their resources. 1999 saw the release of Aliens versus Predator for the PC. In the old days of Avault, this game garnered the Seal of Approval. I know, because I didn’t purchase it until the reviewers gave it the thumbs up. The graphics for it were, and are, simply wonderful. Not only do they have decent polygon counts and good color depth, but you really pay for three different video display modes because each race views the game world differently. Furthermore, Predators and Marines have extra vision modes, further multiplying the graphics wonders of this title. And the screenshots prove it. Take a look:
   
Thanks to the combination of excellent graphics and some brilliant sound, the game was very scary when you were on the defensive. I never did, and still will not, play the game as the Marine with the lights off. You also felt the distinct rush of slowly, stealthily stalking your prey while playing as the Predator and Alien. Great graphics also helped this game earn its Mature ESRB game rating (head-bites, dismembering, blood splattering everywhere). All of these good graphics required hefty system requirements. Three years after Diablo, AvP required 200 MHz, 32 MB RAM, 64 MB harddrive space and Windows 98.
For the next few years, clones of Doom were everywhere. But in 2004, id proved it still had the midas touch when it released Doom 3. Doom 3 garnered nearly unanimous praise for a variety of things, including a return to Doom‘s simpler gameplay in the face of ever more complex shooters. The worst thing anyone could say about Doom 3 was that duct tape should have been standard issue for any Marine who might have to fight in the dark. The graphics were great and required some hefty system requirements: 1.5 GHz CPU, 384 MB RAM, 64 MB video card and 2.2 gigabytes of harddrive space. These are the graphics that resulted:
   
Notice the attention to detail. Also notice the nice polygon counts. You can’t say you didn’t get your money’s worth; however, you’ll notice that the progress of graphical improvement has slowed since AvP. The system requirements are nearly seven times as high, but are the graphics seven times better?By 2006, another landmark title had been released: The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. I could spend a few hours citing various reviewers who loved this game, but who has time to do that? Instead, let’s just summarize it by saying Bethesda Game Studios earned every single penny of profit they have received for this game. And no wonder: between open-ended gameplay, a robust character generation and advancement system, and excellent voice acting from such notable actors as Patrick Stewart and Sean Bean, the game did everything right. The lack of multiplayer did not seem to hurt its sales in the least. Furthermore, the graphics are gorgeous. I just played it again last night, and they’re still engaging. Yet the system requirements have gotten even harsher. Here’s what a 2 GHz processor, 512 MB RAM, 128 MB video card and a 4.6 GB harddrive would get you:
   
Are these graphics better than Doom 3? I think so, and probably some of you would agree with me. But the system requirements are twice that of Doom 3. Are the graphics twice as good? It’s a hard call.
All of this discussion of system requirements and screenshots has been leading up to a comparison with Crysis. This game needs no introduction; if, for some reason, it does, go read my review. Even if you think I need my head examined, Metacritic indicates that Crysis has a combined score of 91/100. In academic circles, we’d call that “critical consensus,” and it’s very favorable. Like it or not, this title is going to become a benchmark for both shooters in general and graphics in particular. There’s even some talk that it has the best graphics of any game to date. We may not know for a few months, if only because even top of the line systems have a hard time going beyond “medium” for graphics. Take a look at the screenshots and make your own decision:
   
And what kind of system do you need in order to take advantage of these graphics? A 2.8 GHz processor, 1 GB RAM, 256 MB video card and 12 GB harddrive space. However, if you’re not running Windows Vista and DirectX10, you miss out on some DirectX10-only features of the game engine (I’ll rant about DirectX10 and non-Vista users later). Those requirements are about twice that of Oblivion. Yes, they’re impressive. But does anyone reading this think they’re actually twice as good?I don’t think so; however, the point of this article is not to begin bashing EA for releasing a game with high system requirements. In fact, if anything, their decision to release the game in its current form seems to be a sound business decision. Crysis will continue to generate sales for years, and EA has nothing to fear from another game coming out and rendeirng their top title obsolete.
Furthermore, as my previous statements about the price of computers makes clear, computer prices have tended to drop over the years as you adjust for inflation. Even Alienware’s most overpriced models have comparable prices to the Apple II and IBM PC AT when they were first released.
Instead, I’m trying to make a very different point. Specifically, that while Moore’s Law may predict that the number of transistors that can be inexpensively placed on an integrated circuit increases exponentially, the improvement of graphics quality over time does not. In fact, it seems that the rate of improvement in graphics has slowed down ever since games gained 3D graphics while their system requirements have kept up with Moore’s Law. Part of this is because other aspects of games have gotten more bloated as time has worn on. Voice acting eats up the harddrive space, while detailed inventories and item creation routines in CRPGs utilize more RAM.
And, of course, Windows has gotten more bloated over time as well, meaning that more processor cycles and RAM is used just to turn on the computer and get to your own desktop.
But on the other hand, we seem to have reached a point where PC games, despite the demand for titles that look stunning, are not going to improve their appearance by leaps and bounds every generation. The hardware doesn’t seem to be able to support it. Yes, I concede that CGI in Hollywood movies will continue to get better, but coding a CGI fight scene in a movie is not the same as coding a 3D first person shooter wherein the physics, camera views, object shapes, decals and lighting are all variable and subject to change at a moment’s notice and at the whim of a player.
If the hardware isn’t going support leaps and bounds in graphics, then what have we to hope for? That depends. If Rock’s Law is correct, then the cost of a semi-conductor plant will double every four years. While this adage has been challenged for its veracity, the general trend does seem to be that it is getting more expensive to improve the production of integrated circuits and research new techniques. Furthermore, Moore’s Law may become obsolete as researchers finally get a handle on nanotechnology and build integrated circuits that utilize molecular-size components. Keeping these things in mind, on the one hand, we have the possibility for soaring production costs to slow down the hardware race in PCs, which will further plateau improvements in graphics. On the other, we have technological limitations that will slow down improvements in processors. These two factors conspire to arrest the development of graphics in PCs.
The question seems to be whether or not there will be some sort of breakthrough in either computer design or programming that will grant us the next massive improvement in graphics within the next few years. There will have to be; we cannot rely on the old trend of faster CPUs and more efficient memory to enable programmers and developers to satisfy our insatiable desire for graphically intense titles.
Review these screenshots and tell me if you think I’m right:
|
Reality in game development is only a tool, NOT a goal. Replicating reality is extreamly hard and is possibly the reason games havent improved much graphically because it is quite expensive to take the time to build your own engine, and usually only with new engines will make new strides graphically instead of licencing someone elses engine. However if an engine serves your purposes and you don’t have a large budge just licence someone elese engine and mod/hack it to do what you want it to do maybe improve it’s gfx a bit ala Quake engine used in Half Life.
Hardware is increasing in leaps and bounds. Look at Nvidia demos for their graphic cards … not to mention its not much of a bench mark to compare a game from 1980 then to 1992 and 1999, next to doom 3 which came out in 2004 and then crysis in 2007. Thats only 3 years !!! In fact I would say your crazy to not notice the improvment over the last few years!
Don’t think I really agree with this article in that the years HL2 -> Crysis have seen advancements not really depicted clearly in the example screenshots, but which have important flow-ons for game designers. Namely:
People – how they look, move and display emotion. Particularly move so that their animations are dynamic rather than just playback of pre-canned animation cycles (e.g. walking up stairs). Still much to be done in displaying emotion convincingly, but once established, is a real step up in allowing game designers to bring pathos and humanity into their games.
Lighting – The inclusion of real time realistic lighting. Apart from greater flexibility in mood setting, brings 3d gameworlds much closer to ‘photorealistic’. Fools the eye into accepting even simple 3d graphics as ‘real’ (e.g. a sunbeam through a window causes a warm glow in the room).
Liquids – not as important as the other two, but which has seen huge strides in just the last couple of years.
I get less and less excited about fancy graphics in games these days. This article appears to bemoan slowing progress in graphics development; personally I feel that far too much effort is expended on improvement of graphics, and far too little on actual game content. It’s a shame that so many games now almost classify themselves at the time of development as ‘FPS’ or ‘RPG’ or whatever. It seems to me that the days of genre busting are gone.
Incidentally, it’s RISC vs. CISC (not SISC), and there were 50Mhz and 66Mhz CPUs, but not 60MHz (that I recall anyway!). Yeah, so I’m a nitpicker.
What complete and utter nonsense. The improvement in 3d graphics is far from slowing. Crysis is simply a million miles ahead of oblivion and doom3. If you consider the sheer size of levels with all the physics calculations required to recreate the realistic foliage alone you have a significant improvement on oblivions static foliage. And foliage and open spaces in Doom3 forget about it. Oblivions characters look like cartoons and are very basic in comparison to crysis. Crysis has some of the best character animations ever. All of this equals higher system requirements.
You are simply wrong about this.
This article is a waste of time. You can’t measure a game by graphics alone. If that’s the case you should say that games reached photo realism back when Myst was around. You were right to point out Doom3 as a example, but it is an example of high end graphics with lackluster game play. Something that in the end killed it’s longevity after the ‘oooh, ahh’ factor. Not to mention it was Doom in name only as it had very little to do with the fun game play that made the original Doom series so popular (something Serious Sam later capitalized on).
In the end you can’t judge a game solely on graphics anymore. That alone speaks volumes about how far we’ve come.
There is definatly no graphical leap these days as there use to be, this article is pretty accurate, however i think graphical improvement seemed to slow down once HL2 came out, of course if you ask a graphic whore they will always tell you your crazy, probaly to justify that they droped over $500 on the very newest nVidia card or something. The best way to judge is to ask someone who doesnt have much experience with games. Why? Because they dont see games like Crysis and Oblivion everyday, so graphical quality is more noticeable. Most people i know who dont play games saw a big difference with pre HL2/Doom 3 generation but these days cant really see a big difference.
I completely agree with Annihilannic.
Crysis has amazing graphics. It’s pretty much photorealistic. But I fail to see how much more of an improvement could we get. The next leap should be to characters that are indiscernible from real live humans. And short of total immersion, I can’t see the high need to improve on graphics anymore. Take the EA Sports titles for example. Some haven’t see a significant improvement in years.
What makes games like Half-Life, Halo and Max Payne so great, such genre classics is not amazing graphics. Today they look weird and even at their time, they were ok+. What made them great was a well written, well built, well acted story. And that is what we miss severely in most of the games today.
IMHO it’s way more important for the complexity of game play to catch up. Graphics have reached some really high level but anything else was left way behind. AI for example. Graphics are really good enough for some time now, so let’s concentrate on other important stuff…
I realize that this article is 5 months old but I must speak up regardless, even if it isn’t completely related to the subject: I don’t know about others but I can’t help feeling that the system requirements of Crysis are terribly overrated. I’m still running on a setup that has a s478 AGP motherboard with an Intel 3.4 Extreme Edition, 4 GBs of DDR2 Ram running in dynamic dual channel mode, a Creative sound card and a 512 mb AGP version of ATI’s x1950 Pro, all on stock settings and cooling, eg. no overlocking. That’s quite an ancient system by today’s dual core with PCI-Express standards and yet, only recently have I started to feel that I’m finally nearing the end of my hardware from a performance view point.
Since my system was still old even 5 months ago and Crysis was (and still kinda is) the peak of hardware requirements at the time, performance I get on Crysis would still be and still is valid. I could play Crysis SP on medium to high settings () at 1280×1024 quite easily on release day 1, before any patches or newer drivers came out. The performance I get when I play older but still demanding titles like Doom 3 and Quake 4 and the performance I get on Crysis are quite similar, the only significant difference occuring in areas with very high view distances (like looking at the whole town from up a hill in the level where you rescue a character in a school building) and a relatively high number of AI, but my system never slows to a crawls in SP game, just the frame rate noticably drops. Multiplayer is a different story though. Network code of Crysis seems to be a little too much for an old generation CPU like mine, as even in servers with low graphical settings, my system does slow to a crawl.
With that out of the way, I’d like to object to your comment on Oblivion, “the game did everything right”. That’s a gross oversimplification, or rather dismissal, of the game’s flaws, which were pointed out even when the game came out. Funnily, there were many reviews where the problems in the game took a complete page and the game still was given 90+ scores and deemed “flawless”. Today, as Bethesda is again a semi-hot topic with Fallout 3, the flaws Oblivion had are vocalized even louder by the same people who deemed Oblivion flawless at the time, and for reasons that could not defend the high scores by any contextual conditions.
I must make another addition relevant to the subject: As the processing power increases and the delay between hardware generation leaps shortens, I think that the developers’ ability to put out well-optimized products decreases. Again, Crysis, seems to have a hell of a good optimization as it can run that well on my ancient system but, on the other hand, CryTek’s previous game, Far Cry, at highest graphical settings, produced an immensely better graphical quality than what Crysis had to offer at lowest graphical settings, and that required a lower hardware too. Even look at my system: I’m able to achieve near-similar results to current high-end systems on a wide range of games. This alone shows that some of the technology in my ancient system may have suffered a premature death by industry rushing to a new standard. Just as it takes less for new technologies to come out, they get to have such short lifespans for developers to properly grasp them before moving onto the new standard.
When you have fewer grapes, you squeeze them harder to get the juice. Not so much in an abundance of grapes where half the juice might go to waste.
Post a Comment