Is this the last generation of graphics progress?

Lets say this console generation lasts until 2022. Do you think when 2022 arrives that graphics will look completely real and there will be no need for graphics cards anymore?

Lets say that we can reach photorealistic smoke which btw needs humongus amound of GPU power.

Even if we reach this, we have other problems.

1st. Resolution. 1080p (1920x1080) is minimum today and you can even find 4K (3840x2160) monitors for $600. By 2016 Tokyo will even broadcast 8K (7680x4320) which means quad times more GPU power will be needed than 2160p.

2nd Refresh rate. 60hz is nice but 120hz and even 144Hz monitors are here too. These require twice or a little more(for 144hz) GPU performance.

So even an abysmal PS3 or X360 port would require HUGE amounts of GPU power at 7680x4320 with 120hz refresh rate (around 32 times more powah!).

So I think graphic cards will never stop. And I didn't even mentioned 3D...

I don't get how you wouldn't need graphics card at all

They will find ways to push and/or market something new. Its all about money and well quite frankly if progress stops than a lot of people will be without jobs.

Imo, I wish this gen will end sooner the last dragged onnn way too long. I like the ps2 and co era better, that felt a bit short.

people have been thinking they hit the peak since the beginning

Gameplay is where its at !

@Lulu_Lulu: yeah i know. But its kinda fun to buy a graphics card, and see how long the card lasts until you cannot play games anymore at 720 p lowest settings. It will be sad when that time comes to a end :(

Surely that would need even more graphics power?

not sure i follow your logic

Still along way off from avatar.

Nah, we still have a very long way to go.

Current graphics use a lot of pre baked animations for water, physics, etc. The performance to do those in realtime is so far ahead of what current systems can do in real time.

That and most of the things rendered are using normal maps and such to give the illusion of depth on structures. Having actual geometry will take a huge perormance hit, not to mention it will require an incredible amount of manpower to create all those things.

By 2022 graphics won't be like real life and of course there will continue to be graphics cards. You can do always add more geometry to objects and that will kill performance.

In the future, it's all integrated into the CPU. You simply buy a CPU and that determines your PC's speed, graphical power, etc. (or at least I assume that's the ideal the OP is hinting at).

Anyways, given the trend of graphics development, we just might have a game that graphically looks like a sequel to Crysis 3 by 2022. Unless Crytek goes completely bankrupt, in which case it will be even longer due to lack of any GFX competition.

Hell, maybe there will be a point where they just don't feel like it's worth the money that goes into making the graphics better. As in, there's zero incentive to make any games that push the graphical envelope because it offers a distinct economical loss over making a game that is aesthetically pleasing on an artistic level but runs on everything. Then the only reason games start to look better is because hardware slowly grows cheaper - not because there are any developers competitively trying to push any graphical envelopes.Our best looking titles could more or less be restricted to what we see from multiplats, which honestly isn't a far cry from the reality we're facing at the moment. When's the last time we've had a game on the graphical or technical level of Doom? Half-Life? Doom 3? Or Half-Life 2? Or Crysis?

Unless I missed it, it feels like we haven't had a legitimate graphics power house since 2007. I mean Crysis 3 looks great and all, but it simply doesn't look 6 years better than Crysis 1. People are touting Star Citizen, but frankly I'm not extremely impressed by anything I've seen yet from that title. Maybe my mind will change once I see it in person on my rig.

@KHAndAnime: i think the golden age for seeing graphics progress started with doom 3 in august 2004 and lasted until crysis in november 2007. After that its been a mess with a few games kinda pushing things, but not to the max.

I think it might've began even just slightly earlier with Far Cry. I swear, Far Cry looked leaps and bounds above anything else I'd had seen at the time. The view distance, gratuitous use of bump mapping, mass amounts of foliage, etc. wasn't done back in 2004. The demo for that game dropped my jaw. Doom 3 was no doubt an unmatched graphical powerhouse, and while it lacked the spiffier aspects of the upcoming Source engine, it captured a more photorealistic and enticing look with the extremely high detailed corridor gameplay.

It seems with the lack of a distinct graphical push, enthusiasts are now being side swept into other venues to further immerse them into their game such as Oculus, 120Hz/144Hz monitors - which were also marketed and popularized to further the use of 3D, multi-monitor setups, etc. I find many these things to be rather gimmicky, but they no doubt offer interesting possibilities for people who like to pour money into their rig and PC entertainment systems. Particularly because a lot of these things are completely dependent on the user having a gratuitous rig if they wish to enjoy their games at high settings (which obviously they would otherwise they wouldn't have spent all that money in the first place).

Personally, I've simply used the extra saved money to purchase more hi-fi A/V stuff like a larger calibrated IPS monitor (providing a life-like picture V.S. color-skewed 120Hz monitors) and speakers (because sound is just as important as graphics when it comes to immersion), and accessories. These things let me best appreciate what is in front of me without distracting me in any way, and it lets me entertain guests without difficulty or pretentiousness ("want to watch me play this game? strap these ugly goggles to your head lol" or "just ignore the bezel lol"). I also like not having to pour money into my PC every time I want to fully appreciate a new graphical power house because I don't have to satisfy a ridiculous 120 FPS requirement for every game I play for full satisfaction. Simply put, I have other hobbies I like to sink money into too, not just my PC.

The options have really opened up for escapists and enthusiasts in the last decade, so it doesn't necessarily matter as much that graphics aren't vastly improving, because they have these other things to further immerse them. Some people claim Oculus makes all games considerably a lot more life-like for them. Personally, I despise anything I have to wear on my head, as I consider that to automatically be a massive detractor in how immersed I am. Seems like Star Citizen is going to be the first game that is amalgam of hardware intensive graphics and Day-1 Oculus support, so I can see why this game might be considered an upcoming graphical peak for many.

I completely agree with this statement.

I think Crysis deserves a special spot in the history of graphics away from anything else. It was so superior that needed hardware from the future while it would run also great on what you had back then.

And also Crysis was the proof that the G80 (Nvidia's gloriest GPU 8800GTX was a fully enabled G80 chip) was far ahead of consoles making them after 1 year of their release, already outdated.