John Carmack Doesn't Expect Huge Increase in Graphics Next Generation

I don't want games to look photo-realistic. I'd prefer a stronger focus on artistic creativity.

Same as 16bit graphics are wholy viewable nowadays even when compared to HD 2D games such as castle crashers, the 3D gaming esthetics have reached a point where better doesn't mean much... Toshiden<DW2<Gears, that's 3 generational leaps in early gen games.... BF3 PC@max is a lot nicer than Gears 3... but not to the point to actually change the experience. That's part of why PC gaming has been using the horsepower thowards multiplescreen & 3D in recent times (you can now even have multiple 3D screens at once), these actually improve the exerience (and are cheap to dev compared to extra details).

He doesn't expect it because there isn't going to be a huge leap between console generations like we've had in the past... 16-bit saw an improvement in visuals and audio quality over 8 bit, 32-64 bit brought us the first real 3D gaming and ushered in discs as the preferred storage medium over carts, 128 bit refined those 3D visuals even more, and most recently this gen brought us HD 1080p visuals which was probably the biggest leap ever between console generations in terms of graphics. Next generation, where's the big step up at? Games will still be limited to a max of 1080p output visually on consoles, there's no major change in storage mediums like CDs, DVDs or Blu-Ray the previous gens. It's going to basically be a repeat of the jump from the 8 to 16 bit generation, where the visuals get a noticeable bump but nothing revolutionary.

1st: You might wanna use the spelling checker before posting something. Even I could spot 2 errors and I'm not an English speaker. On topic, there is still a good amount of improvement to be made. Photo-realism isn't there yet, Motion capture processes are still not perfect and engines still rely on polygons and if Euclideons claim is true then there is still a revolution on the way which makes DX11 look like stone age news. Sure it's a bold statement and even Carmack himself knows he will get smacked in the face with it in the future, but it's also a way as inspiration for other people. You can say a lot about Carmack but he still is top dog when it comes to making game engines. He continually keeps upping his game and he has been doing that for the past 20 years. Even he would like to see other people make a mark if he wants to push himself further. Competition is still one of the best motivators.

I think there will be more improvements in graphics. It just might take a while...

@kain_Kusanagi Why do you bring out mw3 after heavy rain and uncharted 3. Mw3 looks horrible, exactly like mw2. Cod always has bad graphics. But I kinda agree with this guy. Higher framerate is not necessary since the human eye detects around 40 frames,having more will be useless. Games need to focus on creativity,originality, and gameplay. So many games these days miss that

Everyone seems to think we need more and more power and better and better graphx. the thing to keep in mind is that it takes larger dev teams, longer dev periods and ultimately means increased costs, that are passed on to the consumers. ...and then if consumers don't fork out the cash needed to recoup on the title, you start to see devs drop like flies into bankruptcy. so, yeah...lets hurry up and beg for more and more from them and then wonder why theres less triple a titles coming down the pike or why games cost 70-80 beans a piece.

I was thinking about this while playing GTA the other day. I think graphics have a long way to go, but I would rather see a bigger focus on increasing draw distance and increasing the number of NPCs on screen. I think the greatest change could be making the consoles more developer-friendly so they can focus on the creative side rather than worrying about little technical things.

And he could be right. There will be a significant increase, just not as much as PS1 to PS2 and PS2 to PS3.

Uncharted does not look photo-realistic. Never tried to be.

Well I'd be happy for minor graphics improvements if processing power was used to improve AI and give us 1080p with no screen tearing @ 60fps with no frame rate drops (for 2D output at least). Uncharted 3 looks great, but you can see the compromises ND had to make because of the limits on the console. AA was minimal and its absence noticeable. I think this was one compromise ND had to make to get near equal image quality between 2D & 3D, and solid 720p / 30fps for the 3D. I think if ND had not gone for 3D Uncharted 3 could have looked much better than it does. A shame really, 3D gaming on console is a generation early. Uncharted 4 on PS4 in 3D would have been the time for ND to bring 3D to Uncharted. Photorealism certainly is the wrong term to use.

Play the first 10 minutes of Assassin's Creed Revalations and then make a comparison between he live action shots and the actually game. The you'll be able to see where graphics can still improve.

They already have amazing new engines that are unable to remotely run on anything we already have. Look at this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSXyztq_0uM&feature=channel_video_title&noredirect=1 That will be GAMEPLAY footage, not in game cinematic or a trailer... actual GAMEPLAY. We have far to go yet. I remember when I was buying my previous computer, and I wanted 1 gig of ram in it and the tech guy said there would be no need for 1 gig of ram, stick with 512 mb... yeah, look who was right. Now my current comp has 16 gig of ram.

He is dead wrong. Just look at how much graphics improved this gen a lone.

console next gen will look better then GTA IV with the realism mods. but still. the problem is will software developers make the good looking games? or will they just make minor improvments. look at the PS3, it can do so much but 90% of the time its underutilized. thats why most PS3 games look the same or inferior to their xbox counterparts ( despite fanboy ragings) some games are the exception but when you compare COD, skyrim, sports games, ect. they look about the same or better on xbox.

Games don't look photo-realistic to me. Not a single game out today on console or PC looks like real life. Uncharted looks good, but like a cartoon, Heavy Rain looks wooden, and even Modern Warefare 3 isn't mistakable for a movie and it looks the best. Rage's environments are amazing, but not real, nor do the characters and objects. Next gen will be better, I have no doubt, but I do doubt we will see photo-realism in the coming generation or even the next after that.

What a disappointing comment from Carmack. Here we have the longest time between any two hardware generations and he doesn't expect a huge increase in graphics. BTW, I personally think it was a mistake by Carmack to make Rage 60 frames per second when that power could have been used for even better graphics. No one says no to better framerate but I still prioritize better graphics quality. 30 fps is usually good enough.

cough* *cough* Killzone 3... how do you forget to mention Killzone 3, that looks better than all but Uncharted 3