First things first, I suppose: I am not a graphics programmer. I do not have detailed knowledge about all of the processes involved in rendering state-of-the-art computer graphics. However, I do feel I have a good eye for quality and that I know what works and what doesn't. I will be ranting from this angle.

Please note that I do not wish to offend anyone (read: the graphics-apologists ) and that this rant will seem overly pessimistic in nature. (Aren't all rants anyway?)

Let us commence then.

Computer graphics. I've been fascinated by them ever since I saw the first 3D (non-textured, non-shaded) cube twirl around on a screen. I relish all the advances that have been made since. I smile with contentment whenever I see a new effect implemented successfully. Why then, do I snort derisively to myself whenever someone lauds today's so-called state-of-the-art graphics?

Is it because Far Cry has hideous outdoor environments? Is is because Doom 3 has crappy real-time dynamic lighting? Is is because Half-life 2's environments are about as realistic as a wet noodle? Hardly. These games do what they do pretty well. I snort because they could be so much more.

Yes, I realise that graphics 5 years from now will always (at least I should hope!) look better than whatever we have now. I'm not talking about that kind of advancement. I'm talking about advancement that is achievable now, on hardware available today.

"Lord_Xan", I hear you cry, "you are one crazy Vader. At least give us some examples!" In the words of Robbie Williams, let me entertain you:

The ubiquitous blurry texture (my main gripe):
They're everywhere. In Far Cry, in Doom 3, and even in Half-life 2 - the low-detail texture. Looks great from a distance, but once you get up close you get a faceful of pixels (admittedly, these days they are at least pixel-shaded, bilinear-filtered, pixels).

What I would like to see is greater texture detail. I acknowledge that bigger textures take up more system and video card memory, but surely there must be a practical solution?

Doom 3 already innovated by making in-game computer screens vector-based. This ensures that the display still renders at high resolution even when you're up close. I loved that!

The Unreal engine also got around the low-res texture problem by applying what Epic calls "detail textures" to a surface once you get close enough to it. It's not a perfect solution (the detail textures are a bit too uniform), but it came off looking great on things like concrete, metal, wood, glass, etc.

To me, increased texture detail is a simple and straight-forward way of increasing realism.

Light blooms are vogue, darling:
Useless or unoriginal effects. These days every game has "shiny" metal surfaces, light blooms, pixel-shaded water, etc. What's wrong with them, you ask? They don't look good enough, I say.

Don't get me wrong, some games are doing some things very right: Doom 3 has gorgeous light blooms and coronas (hmmm, fluorescent lighting ), Half-life 2 has really well-done metal surfaces (see Train Station at the start and various Combine structures in Nova Prospekt) and water, Knights of the Old Republic has subtle and beautiful pixel-shaded surfaces, and Max Payne 2 has kick-ass volumetric explosions and particle effects.

But I want more. I don't want effects to be included just for the sake of it. I want them to blend, to be part of a cohesive whole. This is where Half-life 2 excels above other games - it has a remarkable consistency across its level design, lighting and sound.

I think game developers can learn a lot about the use of colour and effects from the demoscene.

No shadows equals no sale, Mr Developer:
At least it looks like that's what most publishers are saying. Shadow-rendering of any kind is usually a very computationally expensive process. There are shortcuts of course, but these all have their appropriate drawbacks.

So I'd like to see better shadows, but I agree that the rendering power for it is just not here yet. This doesn't mean I want games with bad shadows though. Rather give me no shadows than buggy ones, or the infamous "blob" shadow.

Of all the things I've seen so far the Unreal 3.0 Engine looks to be the most promising.

Right, so I've spent quite a few words bashing every poor graphics programmer employed over the past two years. Is there anything I am happy with? Why there certainly is...

Geometric complexity and the (overdue) farewell to the octogonal-shaped cylinder:
Polygon budgets have shot through the roof in the last two years. We are finally beginning to see the death of the dreaded hexagonal tires and oil drums. Max Payne 2, Doom 3 and Half-life 2 have made great strides in giving us objects that actually look like real stuff. This makes me happy and tingly in special places.

It's been a long overdue advance though. I mean, how old is the Ge-force 1? They've been promising them round tires for years!

And thusly my rant ends. Thoughts?