We went from 16 colours to 16 million which is what the human eye can distinguish. We went from 2D to 3D which is what a human mind can comprehend. I suppose a 4D game in 16 billion colours wouldn't make sense. Lol

The human eye can distinguish a lot more than 16 million colours (we wouldn't need HDR tone-mapping otherwise, 24-bit RGB is a very crude representation of real light...) -- as a basic test, use photoshop to paint a gradient from (0,0,0) to (0,255,0) on a high-res canvas; you should see obvious colour banding. A human rod-cell can be activated by a single photon, which I'm pretty sure your monitor can't emit reliably.
Yes we transitioned to real-time 3D a long time ago, which just means we've got the projection of the geometry correct for a pin-hole camera (not at all correct for a real camera or a human eye though!). We're still a long, long way from "photorealism" though, as indicated by the amount of computer graphics research being published each year.

The basic tools of trade wont' change, as per the most of the forum especially the clever answers from hodgman.

Existing tools will continue to be used, but that doesn't mean that new tools won't appear. It may well be that John Carmack falls in love with Rust and decides to use it to make his next engine, or he might go back to using C, you'd have to ask him He might even invent his own language -- like how with the original Quake, he wasn't quite happy with C, so he first made up a new language "QuakeC" to write Quake with!

intel is itself investing a lot on its c++ compiler.... yeah to open a screw, we can use a knife, a spoon, a fork and a hammer too ;)... But the basic thing we have with us is a screwdriver.
If there's a doubt about saturation, then can I say that maybe we are (lim x tends to saturation = x )??

As far as changing the basic tools, will using go or rust, can change or mindset and idea??
If we are changing the basic tools, then the time period matters a lot....

Dont you believe that during the transition period the game industry would become more at rest???

I see saturation in the sens that there are far more games released now than anyone will ever play.
In days of yore, we all pretty much played the same set of games.
There were a few thousand games in my time, and only a few hundred for the generation before me, so if you were a hard-core gamer, you played or saw almost all of them.
Now there's... millions of games?

yes man, automobile industry is practically stagnent now....

0.o
Does this count for anything?
http://www.ford.com/electric/focuselectric/2012/


The value of assembly is so under-rated it was my ticket to six-figure salary.
The instruction set of CPU's and especially DPS's include operations that cannot be concisely expressed in C, so C compilers have no hope of selecting them.
It can take what would have been an O(n) algorithm and make it one op-code.

[quote name='Fredericvo' timestamp='1341696453' post='4956745']We went from 16 colours to 16 million which is what the human eye can distinguish. We went from 2D to 3D which is what a human mind can comprehend. I suppose a 4D game in 16 billion colours wouldn't make sense. Lol

The human eye can distinguish a lot more than 16 million colours (we wouldn't need HDR tone-mapping otherwise, 24-bit RGB is a very crude representation of real light...) -- as a basic test, use photoshop to paint a gradient from (0,0,0) to (0,255,0) on a high-res canvas; you should see obvious colour banding. A human rod-cell can be activated by a single photon, which I'm pretty sure your monitor can't emit reliably.[/quote]

Also there is the 'recent' push towards gamma correction for diffuse texutres something unheard of 10 years ago and now is practically a requirement (and a great source of arguements and bug reports as people fail to understand it, heh).

My primary example is warefare.
For thousands of years, warfare primarily depended on hand to hand weopons.... that was in some way 'saturation' of bladed combat weopons. Then sombody created gunpowder to fire bullets. We still use swords... in ceremonies.
Yes C++ and Company will always be there but at this day they are locking everything to saturation.
The thing is on which period we are living? *ancient?* *medieval?*????

You are focusing on the wrong thing; swords/bladed weapon technology continued to evolve during the time it was used even if the basic 'shape' wasn't the same.

Same thing can be applied to farming; the human race has been farming for thousands of years, but the technology and processes have improved while the 'shape' of farming has remained the same.

Same goes for software development (of which games are a subsection); while we use C++ it is not your father's C++ any more. The 'shape' might be the same but the idioms and practises have changed over the years. The industry itself has, arguably, had its 'gun powder' moment with the introduction of managed languages which caused a large shift in the way things are done - less about the details, more about the 'work'.

Even the processes we use in game development are changing; 10 years ago the idea of using more than a single thread was, by in large, unheard of. Today if you want to get performance you need to be thinking about how to efficently spread your workloads and all the comes with it (data layout and access, task granularity, batch sizes). The GPU becoming a general purpose co-processor has caused another shift in how people think about workloads and with CPUs adding GPU on-die this is becoming more important.

Things are not as 'static' as you seem to think; a great deal of thought is still being put into progressing the state of the art on various fronts. The fact that we might still use C++ is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things - it just happens to be the tool box which best fits the range of problems we have to solve right now taking into account platforms and performance requirements.

Put simply; the language isn't important, its what we do with it that counts.

yeah language isnt important.... Libraries are....
How are you going to make and succesfullu launch a rocket with an automatic(pun intended on GC) screwdriver withought any fuel???

Believe it or not.... we are still using hammer when we need a crane!!!!

Yeah, I'm done here - you are apprently so convinced that things are static and the same that you are refusing to listen to those of us working on new things which are challenging your view point.

Also your 'examples' are becoming simply stupid and I don't want to think down to your level any more.

hey dont take me wrong.. Please... You know better than me... I just seek the most accurate answer... Precise and accurate answer will do.

A screwdriver evolves to meet the screw. As the hardware changes so to will the software evolve to better interact with it. But the end of the day, the "idea" of what a screwdriver is remains constant regardless of it's physical evolution/differentiations, in similar fashion software will also remain similar in its "idea" whilst continuing to evolve/differentiate. But in both cases you will find that basic forms of the screwdriver as well software continue to exist and operate in today's world...simple reason why? The function they serve is still utilised. This does not mean that innovation does not occur...it simply means why spend money if we have something that is good enough for the intended purpose at this time.