Refute this

>triangles
well maybe stop using triangles and make your fucking models retards

This is more because we're using real humans to make models instead of sculpting them and relying on just the artist. Its the difference between an oil painting and a photo really.
One is an interpretation and the other is a "scan".

0 because no true triangles exist irl

based

???

You're reading this thru two triangles filling your whole screen.

Too easy

Attached: A5GjqB1I7ucjkfFeJwUexpmtwg0Dz6KMfNVBa-PvOxI.png (960x961, 549.91K)

what, precisely, is a triangle?

Attached: 1584392297189.jpg (400x400, 17.41K)

youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4
its a jewish scam

REmake is more triangles than RE5. That's why a GC game looks so good compared to an XBox360 game. But the skin on RE5 is much higher res, so it's easier to compute.

This is one of those things that's so stupid that it makes me throw up. Fucking stupidity perpetuating faggots.
>last model is misleading, there's only subdivision, no visual detail, while it's entirely possible to make it
i.e, >polygons aren't all there is to realism or detail, most things are done on pixels than polygons
>CPUs can handle massive amount of polygons without any problem
>GPU programs/shading algorithms are the thing that take most performance due to their complexity
unironically kys nigger.

so your refutal to this is to make a more detailed mesh as a starting "model" and adding not identified details?
i concede you that this shows the progress in our ability to deliver more detailed starting model

>The argument was
You don't know what the argument is, nor do they people posting such images. They are, with very low levels of insight, arguing that diminishing returns(unspecified on which variety) exists currently in gaming. When in fact we are nowhere close to diminishing returns in any area. Not even audio.

Attached: hirokazu-yokohara-girl-a.jpg (1280x1920, 518.68K)

Just use normal maps... You don't need collision on every one of those little stupid bumps.

im using advanced icosahedron tech

you have to go back at least 2500 years

6000 triangles > soul
60000 triangles > soulless

What is drawn using three 3D coordinates that get converted in 2D coordinates by a 4x4 projection matrix.
Besides those positions, those triangle generally also have 2D coordinates on each of the vertices to point out where in the texture map they are, so the videocard can stretch that texture portion on the triangle.

BTFO

You stupid motherfucker.
We're made of voxels.

While polygons have increased, things you can do in games and the magnitude of games has not.
Today, if a game like say A link to the past or Ocarina of Time came out that looked exactly like those games but was of the size of Breath of the Wild, no one would be interested because it wouldn't 'look good'.

Back then we imagined games would become more explorative and include more choices, but instead the focus was shifted to polish them into realism.

600 triangles has the most soul

60 triangles masterrace

No you're not, it's triangles unless you're using the classic mode on windows or some WM without a composer, which in this case i say "enjoy your tearing".

"My" refutal (I didn't made that image) is that there is not a single magical number of polygons that produce the "optimal graphics". It depends on the amount of details that you want to model.

the space between 3 points

Literally no game uses pixel perfect mesh colliders. It's all boxes.

shit

Attached: chrislaugh.gif (320x240, 2.15M)

soon

Attached: EWnw-06UEAAHo8k - Copy.jpg (680x552, 80.54K)

>You don't know what the argument is
What? It's explicitly stated in the image.
>15 years ago, doubling the amount of triangles resulted in a much better mesh. Now, multiplying the amount by 10 hardly does.
It's very clear what the argument is.

I've never understood why people latch onto this image. It doesn't refute the original image, it more properly conveys the original argument.
The original image is trash yes, but all this does is get the original point across better than the original did. Because this still clearly shows diminishing returns.

This, so much this. If everyone is photorealistic, style and creativity just dies. There's a reason that movies are the most normie and widely consumed media type. Ultra realistic faces don't express anything, they are only there to elicit emotional response.

Code Veronica is the most appealing desu

Is there a term for geometric space that contains no true triangles?

That's my point.

what if all 3 points are on the same line? is that still a triangle

Attached: 1563671433670.png (512x512, 24.49K)

lighting/collision/physics/animation > literally who gives a shit

shall we play a game Zig Forums? Lets see what do you know about triangles

Attached: 1586997512652.jpg (600x581, 31.48K)

But this guy just said

You thought the mesh having detail meant the game would add colliders to match it.

>This, so much this.
fuck off reddit

your sex life

600 triangles is kino

G-gottem?

1 dimensional "shapes" aren't real

Imagine thinking that you need to go above 60 triangles. L O L, faggots get on my level!

Attached: LUL!.jpg (500x616, 57.9K)

Triangle is a relation between 3 vertices. The space that results from this is filled with a shader program, like how to light that specific place. It's got other info like 2D mapping coordinats. If they line up, then you're going to get what appears to be a line, but it's still, as far as the GPU is concerned with the given data, is a triangle.

>1 dimensional "shapes" aren't real
why not?

So you're saying last-gen models which generally use roughly 10x less polygons than modern models are the roughly same and noticeable diminishing returns have been showing uo? You're saying modern models are perfect and won't improve drsastically next-gen?

You're missing the point, but answer those questions anyway so I can have a laugh.

Attached: 1587010874943.jpg (1123x621, 74.37K)

600 looks best

"Non-Euclidian space"

human eye can't see past 600 triangles

cause they are all a dot that is so small that it may as well be invisible

That's because it's not really any easier to give games mechanical depth today than it was 20 years ago. There's a whole industry around manufacturing hardware that produces the best possible graphics as easily as possible. There's nothing out there to help, for example, the absolute nightmare that is testing emergent gameplay.

ITT: people have no idea what "diminishing returns" means

Oh, what am i thinking, arguing with a fucking psychic.

Not enough details. Does gravity exist? At what time-frame? Is it in motion?

easy

Attached: 1588633623265.jpg (600x581, 63.72K)