Take the 2-minute tour ×
Game Development Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional and independent game developers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This question popped into my head after seeing some preview images for Halo 4.

What limits a games' graphic level?

(If this is the wrong place for this question, I understand)

Game series' like Halo have multiple installments that come out on the same system ie. Halo->Halo 2 on the XBOX, Halo 3->Halo 4 on the Xbox 360, and the sequel invariably looks MUCH better than its predecessor. When I see behind-the-scenes-type development videos, the game creators will talk about, "Oh, this character model has x-times the amount of polygons as the old one..." which I assume is what makes it look better. My question is, if the game system could have handled that many... objects (to my layman understanding)... on screen at the same time, why couldn't the original game look that good?

1.Where is the limitation? What changes from game to game?

2.What improves from game to game?

share|improve this question

closed as off topic by Byte56, Nicol Bolas, Patrick Hughes, Jonathan Hobbs, bummzack Apr 27 '12 at 11:32

Questions on Game Development Stack Exchange are expected to relate to game development within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

5  
This is the wrong place for this question. I'm sure you understand. See the FAQ about open-ended discussion questions. –  Byte56 Apr 25 '12 at 20:58

3 Answers 3

up vote 4 down vote accepted

I think answer is pretty obvious. Given hardware is a constant, the only variable is software (i.e. the game).

  1. Game changes :-).
  2. Game engine is improved and optimized, assets quality is increased. Usually second version is improved version of the first. So not only developers don't need to do everything from the scratch, but also they know weak points which need to be improved, and have much more time to work on it. Game artists also have more time to improve graphics, etc.
share|improve this answer
    
+1 Any time that would have been spent creating the engine can be spent on improving the existing/previous engine. –  George Duckett Apr 26 '12 at 8:40
    
Good enough for an answer, thank you :) –  Quintis555 Apr 26 '12 at 14:30

Halo->Halo 2 on the XBOX, Halo 3->Halo 4 on the Xbox 360, and the sequel invariably looks MUCH better than its predecessor. When I see behind-the-scenes-type development videos, the game creators will talk about, "Oh, this character model has x-times the amount of polygons as the old one..." which I assume is what makes it look better.

Actually Halo 2 used fewer polygons for characters than Halo* which makes it an instructive example. A lot of people assume more polygons equals better graphics because it's an easy number to directly point to, but it's not hard to think of an example where no, more polygons isn't better:

Imagine a sphere comprised of a couple hundred polygons, and another sphere comprised of a couple thousand polygons. They're both just spheres.

Now imagine the first sphere is rendered with a specular map for shiny highlights and a normal map for subtle texture on its surface, while the second sphere is rendered with basic Garoud shading. So now which sphere looks better, the one with more polygons?

I'm not saying that polygon count doesn't matter at all, but rather it's just one of a whole complex set of factors that determines the look of your graphics. Textures matter a ton, lighting matters a ton, etc. The reason sequels on the same hardware look better is simply that the artists are getting more practiced at creating graphics for that hardware.

*A couple years before Halo came out I had a conversation where I argued that we needed better lighting rather than more polygons, and everyone else piled on to crucify me for criticizing their polycount dogma. After Halo 2 came out I wished I had a time machine to go back and say "I told you so!"

share|improve this answer

As Petr said, ditto. Well, it would be a long lecture to teach all that is involved. Performance of hardware and optimization/qualities of the engine used, play part of what is possible to render in given framerate.

But mere polygon cruching and processing power is not really enough to make what we will perceive as pleasant graphics. To clarify... Here's a good video on graphics vs aesthetics

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.