• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF

Freeman
Member
(02-17-2014, 02:34 PM)
Freeman's Avatar
Its unimpressive for 2014.

People will discuss graphics because most of the time they are discussing a game they can't play.

Resolution and framerate are specially relevant on multiplataform games, because we are trying to figure out the performance differences.

The "Nintendo does everything best, Nintendo does everything first" is tiresome and nearing delusion at this point. Some of us also play other systems and we have a different/more varied frame of reference.
oSoLucky
Member
(02-17-2014, 02:34 PM)
oSoLucky's Avatar

Originally Posted by OminoMichelin

Indeed. The post is informative, but needlessly antagonistic.
Calm yourself down before writing a post, even if you are fueled solely on frustration. I've been there. :/

Gattsu25
Formerly Wakune
(02-17-2014, 02:37 PM)
Gattsu25's Avatar

Originally Posted by Fularu

From playing DS on 360 and PC, it doesn't. Also the game doesn't even run at a steady 30 FPS, let alone 60 like MK8

Please read the last line in that post you partially quoted, Fularu. That's what this will all come down to.
OminoMichelin
Member
(02-17-2014, 02:37 PM)
OminoMichelin's Avatar

Originally Posted by oSoLucky

That's more a reminder for myself than for other posters :p
MYE
Banned
(02-17-2014, 02:38 PM)
MYE's Avatar

Originally Posted by Gattsu25

Then why does Dead Space 1 have a more impressive implementation of deferred lighting than anything in the OP?

I have the first 2 DS games on PS3, they don't.

Originally Posted by Freeman

The "Nintendo does everything best, Nintendo does everything first" is tiresome and nearing delusion at this point. Some of us also play other systems and we have a different/more varied frame of reference.

I don't see anyone saying this but its pretty telling that its the first place you go even if the subject has nothing to do with it.
Fularu
Member
(02-17-2014, 02:40 PM)
Fularu's Avatar

Originally Posted by Gattsu25

Please read the last line in that post you partially quoted, Fularu. That's what this will all come down to.

I'm confused, what are you trying to say? That DS has a more impressive lighting? Or that MK8 doesn't run at 60 fps?
Gattsu25
Formerly Wakune
(02-17-2014, 02:42 PM)
Gattsu25's Avatar

Originally Posted by Fularu

I'm confused, what are you trying to say? That DS has a more impressive lighting? Or that MK8 doesn't run at 60 fps?

"If someone can provide a direct comparison of a game on wii u, ps3, and 360 that uses deferred lighting, then we can directly compare them. Otherwise we're just talking about which style or implementation each poster prefers."

In the absence of the former, people will deflect to the latter.
Metfanant
Member
(02-17-2014, 02:42 PM)
Metfanant's Avatar
the problem is that the OP doesnt know anywhere near as much as he thinks he does...im no expert on anything when it comes to this stuff...but i do know enough to know when someone is pulling stuff straight from their ass...

id like some hard data on how many truly dynamic lights there are in those scenes posted and id like some proof that they in any way influence the colors of the image (especially the bowser gif)
Artea
Banned
(02-17-2014, 02:44 PM)
I guess you could say that with the Wii U, Nintendo's true colors have started showing.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Although I don't see what's so impressive about the images that were posted. I'm pretty sure Nintendo games are just more colorful in general, and are deliberately designed that way.
ElTorro
I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
(02-17-2014, 02:44 PM)
ElTorro's Avatar
I wonder how one can infer the use of a deferred renderer from those screenshots. (Bloom effect != multiple light sources) In any case, I doubt that the employment of deferred rendering should raise an eye brow nowadays.
codhand
Member
(02-17-2014, 02:46 PM)
codhand's Avatar
OP has a point, but doesn't articulate it well.
wildfire
Member
(02-17-2014, 02:48 PM)
wildfire's Avatar

Originally Posted by Freeman

Its unimpressive for 2014.

People will discuss graphics because most of the time they are discussing a game they can't play.

Resolution and framerate are specially relevant on multiplataform games, because we are trying to figure out the performance differences.

The "Nintendo does everything best, Nintendo does everything first" is tiresome and nearing delusion at this point. Some of us also play other systems and we have a different/more varied frame of reference.

How about you pretend what he said about SM3DW doesn't exist and look at the section for Ground Zeros. The point he was making was that people who like to talk about graphics don't educate themselves on it and it shows in how discussions are made even when comparing games that are cross gen.

If they have so much enthusiasm for graphics why don't these enthusiasts say anything that isn't very simplistic.
On Demand
Member
(02-17-2014, 02:50 PM)
Where were you the entire PS3 generation?
Last edited by On Demand; 02-17-2014 at 03:00 PM.
freezamite
Banned
(02-17-2014, 02:52 PM)

Originally Posted by SmokyDave

It would be a lot easier to decipher if you'd quoted some quotes or named some names.

Ultimately, people know what they like. You can assume they're overlooking stuff in the things that don't impress them, or that they only like certain things because they read a buzzword somewhere, but that's just an assumption. People don't dig 1080p because it's the buzzword-du-jour, they dig 1080p because it has very real benefits that are apparent to the naked eye.

I've been banned from this site because of "too aggressive" posts, so I preferred to criticize a problem/trend I often see here instead of quoting other posters (which could be seen as a personal attack).

Originally Posted by Gattsu25

"If someone can provide a direct comparison of a game on wii u, ps3, and 360 that uses deferred lighting, then we can directly compare them. Otherwise we're just talking about which style or implementation each poster prefers."

No, this is not about tastes. It's about confusing a deferred engine with a palette swap and then speak about "2005 technology" or graphics as if they were something important to the one who says that.

If graphics are so important, then the least some people could do is to learn a bit about them.
entrement
Member
(02-17-2014, 02:52 PM)
entrement's Avatar
I don't get the premise of the thread. It's clumsily articulated.
freezamite
Banned
(02-17-2014, 02:55 PM)

Originally Posted by entrement

I don't get the premise of the thread. It's clumsily articulated.

The premise is that if someone claims that graphics are first, then they should be the most educated on that subject of the whole forum and not just people repeating a bunch of PR sentences without knowing what they're talking about.

English is not my native language so that may be the problem though.
hachi
Member
(02-17-2014, 02:55 PM)
hachi's Avatar
Softening the polemics a bit, I think the salient and relevant point is that there are countless ways of evaluating the graphics of a game, and any tendency to produce a simple linear scale of advancement (polygon count or texture detail in the olden days, resolution etc today) only serves to limit our appreciation of the varied creative mixtures of tech and design present in game visuals of different genres.

And I would add that design is the most crucial element of all, often ignored or not fully appreciated. You can tell when the models, scenes, lighting, and overall presentation hold together as a seamless work of high quality professionals who understand visual design, just as you can tell when it doesn't work out that way despite having immensely advanced tech and detail. Too often, however, the latter is appreciated and the former passed over.

I would say that the lack of understanding of good visual design is somewhat endemic not only to gaming communities, but to many tech sectors, something I've seen in a variety of contexts through work. It's often (though not always) very difficult to get IT-oriented professionals to realize that visual design requires an entirely separate set of skills and yet is absolutely crucial for a good product, perhaps more than any other element involved.
Stet
Member
(02-17-2014, 02:56 PM)
Stet's Avatar
It's easy to have numerous light sources when they don't cast shadows or reflect. They're just post-processed high-saturation high-intensity shaders.
Gattsu25
Formerly Wakune
(02-17-2014, 02:58 PM)
Gattsu25's Avatar

Originally Posted by freezamite

I've been banned from this site because of "too aggressive" posts, so I preferred to criticize a problem/trend I often see here instead of quoting other posters (which could be seen as a personal attack).


No, this is not about tastes. It's about confusing a deferred engine with a palette swap and then speak about "2005 technology" or graphics as if they were something important to the one who says that.

If graphics are so important, then the least some people could do is to learn a bit about them.

I'm not talking about palette swaps. I'm talking exclusively about games with deferred engines.

Originally Posted by freezamite

The premise is that if someone claims that graphics are first, then they should be the most educated on that subject of the whole forum and not just people repeating a bunch of PR sentences without knowing what they're talking about.

English is not my native language so that may be the problem though.

OK, that makes some sense and I can agree to a point.

If someone is arguing for a game based on technical merits then they should know what they are debating. I agree with you, here.
If someone is arguing for a game "looking good" then it's not really up to them to know why... just that the game does look good to them.
Last edited by Gattsu25; 02-17-2014 at 03:02 PM.
ab.aeterno
Member
(02-17-2014, 03:08 PM)
ab.aeterno's Avatar
Nintendo games have been bright and colorful for years, long before their hardware allowed them to use deferred lighting. The Galaxy games are colorful as hell, but they're not, iirc, using deferred living. You're using a modern graphical standard that the WiiU can do to explain art style. Tomb Raider uses deferred lighting, but that doesn't make it colorful.

It seems like what you're really arguing is that the WiiU is more technically proficient than last gen systems because it can do deferred lighting, but last gen consoles did it too, just less. Of course the WiiU is more powerful than last gen, but getting angry at people arguing over the technical details is silly. Resolution matters. AA matters. Texture resolution matters. And yes, lighting matters too, but not more or less than anything else.

Originally Posted by McFadge

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't deferred rendering been pushed by the industry for a little while now? I don't think deferred rendering alone makes Mario Kart 8's engine "one of the most modern there has been out there".

Also, though you brought up Tomb Raider as an example of an inferior engine (Crystal Engine), I believe it also uses deferred rendering: Source

The irony given the annoyance at people who don't know what they're talking about is almost too much. But I wouldn't expect this to be addressed, since it doesn't fit his thesis.
nkarafo
Member
(02-17-2014, 03:14 PM)
nkarafo's Avatar
I agree OP.

I care about graphics but resolution is the least of my worries. I find things like geometry detail, frame rate and interesting visual design MUCH more important. MK8 impresses me more than anything i have seen so far on PS4/Xbone, sorry next-gen crowd.
TheD
The Detective
(02-17-2014, 03:15 PM)
TheD's Avatar

Originally Posted by ElTorro

I wonder how one can infer the use of a deferred renderer from those screenshots. (Bloom effect != multiple light sources) In any case, I doubt that the employment of deferred rendering should raise an eye brow nowadays.

Yeah,
Deferred rendering has been in use by rendering engines on the consoles for a fair few years.

Originally Posted by ab.aeterno

The irony given the annoyance at people who don't know what they're talking about is almost too much.

I also find that funny.
RefigeKru
Member
(02-17-2014, 03:15 PM)
RefigeKru's Avatar
I suppose the problem in defending Wii U's graphical capabilities stems from it's actual place, wedged firmly between this gen and the last. A fortified improvement from PS3/360 with room for improvement yet ultimately dwarfed by the PS4/XBO. Left trawling the gulf yet without doubt closer to the PS3/360 hence the comparison.

As the generation progresses it'll only become more apparent, even using it's advanced graphical capabilities. Also on PS3/360.
Freeman
Member
(02-17-2014, 03:17 PM)
Freeman's Avatar

Originally Posted by wildfire

How about you pretend what he said about SM3DW doesn't exist and look at the section for Ground Zeros. The point he was making was that people who like to talk about graphics don't educate themselves on it and it shows in how discussions are made even when comparing games that are cross gen.

If they have so much enthusiasm for graphics why don't these enthusiasts say anything that isn't very simplistic.

The same could be said about game design, gameplay mechanics, etc , why don't those who are enthusiasts about it don't educate themselves as well?

Usually when people start discussing resolution it's because someone dropped by and said they can't see the difference or something like that and even if that was the case it doesn't change the fact that it is still somewhat relevant information (usually it comes up when discussing multiplatform games and it din't start this gen).

I'm yet to see someone who claims graphics come first as has been mentioned in this topic.
entrement
Member
(02-17-2014, 03:19 PM)
entrement's Avatar

Originally Posted by freezamite

The premise is that if someone claims that graphics are first, then they should be the most educated on that subject of the whole forum and not just people repeating a bunch of PR sentences without knowing what they're talking about.

English is not my native language so that may be the problem though.

Ok. I see.

But it is the Internet. You're not going to find tons of graphics experts online. I've just come to accept it.
Imbarkus
Member
(02-17-2014, 03:21 PM)
Imbarkus's Avatar
I'm totally going to enjoy and appreciate this game, but if you are referring to a graphical inadequacy perceived on the part of most forum members, I am afraid that perceived inadequacy is about what's going on on the second screen:

These same forum members casually denigrated Wii graphics as well, but in that case, Nintendo was right to direct attention away from the graphics, because they were doing something else of interest with the Wii. Not so, WiiU. Just a horn button. Therefore the vestigial remains of the Wii's "something interesting" are hanging around too, even though no one you know liked or used it, motion control steering:

Without something else interesting going on with the system concept itself, graphical inadequacy is just a default dig against the system. Like Wii before it, there was a limited time at the system's start when it wold be compared against PS3 and 360. But now it will only be compared against PS4 and XBone.

Like I said, I'm totally going to play Mario Kart. And I will appreciate its graphical fidelity. Hopefully I can use a WiiU pro controller.
POWERSPHERE
Banned
(02-17-2014, 03:23 PM)
POWERSPHERE's Avatar
You better be able to play one on screen and one on Wii U Pad 2 player in Mario Kart, otherwise that's fucking ridiculous.
ElectricKaibutsu
Member
(02-17-2014, 03:27 PM)
ElectricKaibutsu's Avatar
I'm certainly not a techie and I prefer 1080p to anything less than 1080p. I do think there is something up with the lighting in Wii U first party games that look better than PS360 games though, but I don't know if that's due to deferred rendering or not. Or maybe Nintendo is just good at lighting and art style and the games look good despite the Wii U, not because of it. I dunno. I'd be interested to hear the explanation from more knowledgable people.
Cizeta-Moroder
Member
(02-17-2014, 03:29 PM)
So, the point seems to be, the typical graphics comparisons are unfair because they ignore Wii U's better usage of deferred rendering and light sources?
I don't really disagree.
zoukka
Member
(02-17-2014, 03:30 PM)
zoukka's Avatar

Originally Posted by Freeman


The "Nintendo does everything best, Nintendo does everything first" is tiresome and nearing delusion at this point. Some of us also play other systems and we have a different/more varied frame of reference.

Nintendos long and successful tradition of stylized graphics indeed makes them the best publisher/developer of stylized games that look great. There's no denying it.
Imbarkus
Member
(02-17-2014, 03:31 PM)
Imbarkus's Avatar

Originally Posted by POWERSPHERE

You better be able to play one on screen and one on Wii U Pad 2 player in Mario Kart, otherwise that's fucking ridiculous.

Doesn't look like it there, does it. I know this is not relevant to the OP, but can anyone confirm?
polyh3dron
Banned
(02-17-2014, 03:32 PM)
polyh3dron's Avatar
This "OP" makes quite a few "leaps" in regards to what the "graphics first" community (whatever the hell that is) "prioritizes".

It's more or less an overly elaborate accusation of GAF members not being able to think for themselves as if this forum is a "hive mind", or to be specific, multiple hive mind "factions". How did the OP come to the conclusion that resolution is more important than frame rate to many members here? Of course better lighting, textures, shaders etc would also be great, but when we're comparing multiple versions of the same game, these things are usually equal. When the resolution is the only thing that's different, of course the resolution will matter.
Last edited by polyh3dron; 02-17-2014 at 03:36 PM.
Mael
Member
(02-17-2014, 03:43 PM)
I guess this thread would be a pretty good example of why I feel like spending more time on OT than on Gaming side.
Then again the sheer number of people cheering for the corporate fuckery I see here always turn me off something fierce.
PotionBleue
Member
(02-17-2014, 03:46 PM)
PotionBleue's Avatar

Originally Posted by Imbarkus

Doesn't look like it there, does it. I know this is not relevant to the OP, but can anyone confirm?

There is nothing confirmed outside of Off-TV play.
kinggroin
Banned
(02-17-2014, 04:00 PM)
kinggroin's Avatar

Originally Posted by Freeman

Its unimpressive for 2014.

People will discuss graphics because most of the time they are discussing a game they can't play.

Resolution and framerate are specially relevant on multiplataform games, because we are trying to figure out the performance differences.

The "Nintendo does everything best, Nintendo does everything first" is tiresome and nearing delusion at this point. Some of us also play other systems and we have a different/more varied frame of reference.

Creating imaginary arguments is one way to perpetually fuel your angst.


Only a small handful of crazies say shit like that.


Its like me saying, "I'm tired of hearing how The Last of Us is the greatest game ever. Stop being delusional people!"
Mihael Mello Keehl
(02-17-2014, 04:14 PM)
Mihael Mello Keehl's Avatar
OP its straight up calling out all the posers basically. It may hurt feelings but if all you know about is 1080p/60fps and cant point out any other techniques you're faking it. What are you discussing if thats your only point? It reminds me of the meme about the girl when asked something geeky replies with a completely wrong answer cause she doesnt know what shes talking about but whats trendy trying to fit in.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
(02-17-2014, 04:22 PM)
Relaxed Muscle's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mihael Mello Keehl

OP its straight up calling out all the posers basically. It may hurt feelings but if all you know about is 1080p/60fps and cant point out any other techniques you're faking it. What are you discussing if thats your only point? It reminds me of the meme about the girl when asked something geeky replies with a completely wrong answer cause she doesnt know what shes talking about but whats trendy trying to fit in.

You don't need to be a techie to understand that the OP is really wrong:

1) Deferred Rendering is as old (on consoles) as, at least, Killzone 2.

2) MGS V is still a last gen port, and as it, is not a good representation of what PS4 or Xbox One are capable off, or rather dosn't show what a game from the ground up can look on PS4/Xbone (look at Ryse or KZ). Actually one of the major benefits can't even be seen on screen and is the 60 fps.

Is basically more "Nintendo games looks good too!", which is not wrong, no one is really denying that artistically speaking (some) Nintendo games are very nice. But the problem is that in terms of pushing polygons, lighting, effects and all that is not that much different from the last gen consoles. That's a true can't be denied, and that's a true you don't need to be a techie to understand. You may be ok with that reality, but there's no need to impose that reality to other people using wrong fallacies.
Metfanant
Member
(02-17-2014, 04:23 PM)
Metfanant's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mihael Mello Keehl

OP its straight up calling out all the posers basically. It may hurt feelings but if all you know about is 1080p/60fps and cant point out any other techniques you're faking it. What are you discussing if thats your only point? It reminds me of the meme about the girl when asked something geeky replies with a completely wrong answer cause she doesnt know what shes talking about but whats trendy trying to fit in.

its one thing to call out posers...but when you have posers calling out posers...im not sure thats good
Somnid
Corporate Ballwasher
Ignore everything I say
(02-17-2014, 04:24 PM)
Somnid's Avatar

Originally Posted by Imbarkus

I'm totally going to enjoy and appreciate this game, but if you are referring to a graphical inadequacy perceived on the part of most forum members, I am afraid that perceived inadequacy is about what's going on on the second screen:



These same forum members casually denigrated Wii graphics as well, but in that case, Nintendo was right to direct attention away from the graphics, because they were doing something else of interest with the Wii. Not so, WiiU. Just a horn button. Therefore the vestigial remains of the Wii's "something interesting" are hanging around too, even though no one you know liked or used it, motion control steering:



Without something else interesting going on with the system concept itself, graphical inadequacy is just a default dig against the system. Like Wii before it, there was a limited time at the system's start when it wold be compared against PS3 and 360. But now it will only be compared against PS4 and XBone.

Like I said, I'm totally going to play Mario Kart. And I will appreciate its graphical fidelity. Hopefully I can use a WiiU pro controller.

It was a placeholder.
Mael
Member
(02-17-2014, 04:25 PM)

Originally Posted by Relaxed Muscle

You don't need to be a techie to understand that the OP is really wrong:

1) Deferred Rendering is as old (on consoles) as, at least, Killzone 2.

2) MGS V is still a last gen port, and as it, is not a good representation of what PS4 or Xbox One are capable off, or rather dosn't show what a game from the ground up can look on PS4/Xbone (look at Ryse or KZ). Actually one of the major benefits can't even be seen on screen and is the 60 fps.

Is basically more "Nintendo games looks good too!", which is not wrong, no one is really denying that artistically speaking (some) Nintendo games are very nice. But the problem is that in terms of pushing polygons, lighting, effects and all that is not that much different from the last gen consoles. That's a true can't be denied, and that's a true you don't need to be a techie to understand.

The problem isn't that, the problem is that if you want to say that you find something not good don't pose yourself as a tech enthusiast or anything while you're peddling BS to make it look like you know anything.
Really the OP is not well worded but the idea behind it really is sound.
Heck I can't stand most of what we call game journalism here for this very reason and forum posters here don't get a free pass on this.
SmokyDave
His head smashed in and his heart cut out and his liver removed and his bowels unplugged and his nostrils raped and his bottom burned off and his penis...
(02-17-2014, 04:27 PM)
SmokyDave's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mihael Mello Keehl

OP its straight up calling out all the posers basically. It may hurt feelings but if all you know about is 1080p/60fps and cant point out any other techniques you're faking it. What are you discussing if thats your only point? It reminds me of the meme about the girl when asked something geeky replies with a completely wrong answer cause she doesnt know what shes talking about but whats trendy trying to fit in.

What do these phantom people need to know?

"This 1080p60 game looks great". Job done. No protracted essay on the difference between FSAA & MSAA is needed. Just a simple 'this looks great - that doesn't look great'.

It would be really useful if someone could provide an actual example of 'the issue' here. So far, the only person caught using terms they don't understand has been the OP.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
(02-17-2014, 04:31 PM)
Relaxed Muscle's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mael

The problem isn't that, the problem is that if you want to say that you find something not good don't pose yourself as a tech enthusiast or anything while you're peddling BS to make it look like you know anything.
Really the OP is not well worded but the idea behind it really is sound.
Heck I can't stand most of what we call game journalism here for this very reason and forum posters here don't get a free pass on this.

I don't need to be a tech enthisiast to say that the CG of Terminator 2 looks "worse" than modern CG movies. I don't need to be an expert on CG techniques to say so. There are some things that are obvious to the naked eye, even if my reasonings are wrong, or ppl are using incorrect words to describe it, dosn't make it less right.

When ppl call Mario Kart 8 unimpressive, they might not know why is like that and they might use incorrect words. The game still is, more or less, a last gen game from a technical standpoint. Which sure looks nice, artistically, but dosn't change that fact.
freezamite
Banned
(02-17-2014, 04:33 PM)

Originally Posted by Relaxed Muscle

You don't need to be a techie to understand that the OP is really wrong:

1) Deferred Rendering is as old (on consoles) as, at least, Killzone 2.

2) MGS V is still a last gen port, and as it, is not a good representation of what PS4 or Xbox One are capable off, or rather dosn't show what a game from the ground up can look on PS4/Xbone (look at Ryse or KZ). Actually one of the major benefits can't even be seen on screen and is the 60 fps.

Is basically more "Nintendo games looks good too!", which is not wrong, no one is really denying that artistically speaking (some) Nintendo games are very nice. But the problem is that in terms of pushing polygons, lighting, effects and all that is not that much different from the last gen consoles. That's a true can't be denied, and that's a true you don't need to be a techie to understand. You may be ok with that reality, but there's no need to impose that reality to other people using wrong fallacies.

1) Even if some games used a deferred engine the past generation, that doesn't negate the fact that "those colours" are there thanks to a deferred engine and not only because "nintendo like colours".

2. Do you even read the OP when you write on a thread? You answer as if I was comparing MGSV with MK8 or if I was drawing conclusions about XBOne's power from there.
If you read the OP, then check your reading comprehension, because your answer has nothing to do with what I was trying to explain here.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
But not of thinking first
(02-17-2014, 04:34 PM)
ThoughtsOfSpeaking's Avatar

Originally Posted by capslock

What the hell is this thread all about?

Nintendo is better than all of us again. Nothing to see here.
wildfire
Member
(02-17-2014, 04:34 PM)
wildfire's Avatar

Originally Posted by Freeman

The same could be said about game design, gameplay mechanics, etc , why don't those who are enthusiasts about it don't educate themselves as well?

Usually when people start discussing resolution it's because someone dropped by and said they can't see the difference or something like that and even if that was the case it doesn't change the fact that it is still somewhat relevant information (usually it comes up when discussing multiplatform games and it din't start this gen).

I'm yet to see someone who claims graphics come first as has been mentioned in this topic.


Here is the most recent topic.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=769766

Here is a topic I came across while searching for graphics and gameplay.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthre...eplay+graphics


There are plenty of people on this forum who say this.
Recall
Member
(02-17-2014, 04:37 PM)
Recall's Avatar

Originally Posted by Bleep

I just want to throw turtle shells at my friends.

It is all about the framerate and resolution, and the internal fighting we all do over the hobby we all clearly enjoy. This is no place for trivial things like..."fun"

Originally Posted by Freeman

I'm yet to see someone who claims graphics come first as has been mentioned in this topic.

Then you're blind.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
(02-17-2014, 04:38 PM)
Relaxed Muscle's Avatar

Originally Posted by freezamite

1) Even if some games used a deferred engine the past generation, that doesn't negate the fact that "those colours" are there thanks to a deferred engine and not only because "nintendo like colours".

2. Do you even read the OP when you write on a thread? You answer as if I was comparing MGSV with MK8 or if I was drawing conclusions about XBOne's power from there.
If you read the OP, then check your reading comprehension, because your answer has nothing to do with what I was trying to explain here.

1) I thought it was mostly thanks to rim lightning that actually a deferred renderer. Not an expert, like you clearly, but that dosn't look like a good showcase of what is a deferred renderer.

2) I didn't say you were comparing it, I say that you're reasonings are wrong. Ppl look at MGS V and they see improved lighting compared last gen, is obvious, they might not understand is due to a deferred renderer engine or whatever. They see is an open world game at 60 fps and they can clearly see the upgrade. The upgrade is obvious to the naked eye. Even if the game has a clear last gen origin, is true that the upgrades are visible. The upgrade in MK8 is not there, because deferred renderer or whatever, mostly looks like a last gen looking game. Ppl might not understand why, but they sure can see it with their own eyes.
Last edited by Relaxed Muscle; 02-17-2014 at 04:40 PM.
supernormal
Member
(02-17-2014, 04:38 PM)
supernormal's Avatar

Originally Posted by freezamite

That claim is also valid for the "1080p or die" crowd. Since now what's cool is "resolution" it's (at least) sad to see how in the vast majority of graphical comparisons the resolution seems to be the first and last thing that matters.
Not the amount of light sources, nor the framerate, nor the shader quality, nor anything besides resolution. One game is 1080p and the other one is only 900p? The rest doesn't matters, the winner is the one with higher resolution, period.

This is my main problem with next-gen games right now. Everyone is focusing on 1080p and 60fps and the result so far doesn't look much better than higher res last gen games. And the fact the people then try to downplay games that make resolution sacrifices enabling resources in other areas like soft body physics (The Order), is just mind boggling.

Give me realistic lighting, physics, geometry, particles, realistic hair, even if you gotta sacrifice some resolution or fps.
Mihael Mello Keehl
(02-17-2014, 04:39 PM)
Mihael Mello Keehl's Avatar

Originally Posted by Relaxed Muscle

You don't need to be a techie to understand that the OP is really wrong:

1) Deferred Rendering is as old (on consoles) as, at least, Killzone 2.

2) MGS V is still a last gen port, and as it, is not a good representation of what PS4 or Xbox One are capable off, or rather dosn't show what a game from the ground up can look on PS4/Xbone (look at Ryse or KZ). Actually one of the major benefits can't even be seen on screen and is the 60 fps.

Is basically more "Nintendo games looks good too!", which is not wrong, no one is really denying that artistically speaking (some) Nintendo games are very nice. But the problem is that in terms of pushing polygons, lighting, effects and all that is not that much different from the last gen consoles. That's a true can't be denied, and that's a true you don't need to be a techie to understand. You may be ok with that reality, but there's no need to impose that reality to other people using wrong fallacies.

If the OP is technically wrong sure Ill let that slide, but the idea is still so true..something as big a graphics with 1080p cant be the only thing right? And im not even talking about Wii U here more xbone/ps4. I can remember someone in the MGS thread saying the 360/PS3 looks like the xbone version or whats the point of getting that version..
Recall
Member
(02-17-2014, 04:40 PM)
Recall's Avatar

Originally Posted by supernormal

This is my main problem with next-gen games right now. Everyone is focusing on 1080p and 60fps and the result so far doesn't look much better then higher res last gen games. And the fact the people then try to downplay games that make resolution sacrifices enabling resources in other areas like soft body physics (The Order), is just mind boggling.

Give me realistic lighting, physics, geometry, particles, realistic hair, even if you gotta sacrifice some resolution or fps.

Give me more gameplay mechanics and systems or refine them, or actually develop something fun. Give me a rewarding gameplay experience without just holding forward and press A/X at random moments. I don't care if its 720p and 30FPS, I really don't care.

Thread Tools