-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Video game graphics cognitive dissonance Thread
- Thread starter TEH-CJ
- Start date
If Two Worlds 2 is anything like Fallout 3, Risen, Gothic, Morrowind, then the exploration aspect of the game is the main part of the game, the essence of it. You want things to look fairly realistic, you actually don't want things to pop out, since there is no immediate need for that data for gameplay reasons. Navigating through the environment should be a bit challenging and so should be finding stuff. You missed the healing mushrooms because ferns covered them or they blended with the ground? Tough luck, but that's how it works when you collect mushrooms in a real forest, too.
I haven't played the game, but I imagine the game world/visuals being busy is more of an advantage. I wish these games had more fauna, it'd make the worlds so much more immersive.
I haven't played the game, but I imagine the game world/visuals being busy is more of an advantage. I wish these games had more fauna, it'd make the worlds so much more immersive.
Rick Dangerous
Member
Owning UC2, GOWIII, Wipeout HD,
GOWIII takes the crown for me.
But clearly, ps3 is underpowered for my standards as I would like to have all major games being able to do Split screen x4 + 1080p+ 60fps + mlaa to take advantage of my Sony TV.
Had they gone for 2gb of RAM ...
Still love my slim.
GOWIII takes the crown for me.
But clearly, ps3 is underpowered for my standards as I would like to have all major games being able to do Split screen x4 + 1080p+ 60fps + mlaa to take advantage of my Sony TV.
Had they gone for 2gb of RAM ...
Still love my slim.
Zeouterlimits
Member
Throwing my hat into this camp too.jett said:
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
You guys are crazy. Those shots were great.
Always-honest
Banned
parts of that game look insanely good, yes.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Opiate said:
These are the same people begging for wii to HD console ports because of the wii,s lack of power... :/
DryvBy
Member
mescalineeyes said:
I refuse to agree that Crysis is the leader in lookin' good. Do we refuse to take into consideration that the character models were lacking (there's about 3-4 different looking enemies you fight); the objects and buildings, also lacking in variety; frame rates are horrid on Ultra settings unless you had a computer that's as expensive as a car. Crysis, at best, is a good screencap game.
God of War III managed to really impress, followed by Uncharted 2 for me.
ZombieSupaStar
Member
I think console gamers, deep down are more jealous of the freedom of games we can play on pc (indie wise) and the ability to alter existing games with more content, or better assests as time goes by. I mean look at how us pc gamers are able to expand awesome games such as new vegas with user mods!
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
:lol
OMG, carnival of stupidDryvBy2 said:
- character models lacking (reality: they were insanely detailed)
- needs PC as expensive as a car (reality: cars are cheap, I guess)
- Crysis only looks good in screenshots (reality: the game looks better in motion)
The only thing you are right about is that Crysis is not the leader in looks anymore. The crown has been taken by Two Worlds II
DryvBy
Member
DennisK4 said:
*Note: I stated lacking in variety, which they were.
*Game runs like trash. I'm pretty sure the average person running that game when it first came out weren't getting 60fps. More like 20-30, if you were lucky.
*Playing that game was torture. Only good in screenshots. Or with mods. Modded, I'd say yes, best looking game on the market.
*Reality: you're a tool for pretty graphics. Carnival of toolage. A carnival!
brain_stew
Member
I have to ask why are these comparisons are taken at 720p?
Where on earth can I buy a HDTV with a native 1280x720 resolution?
Is everyone playing on playing on projectors then?
Can we please compare at the most common native HDTV resolution, i.e. 1080p? What's the point of comparisons at a native 720p when no one (well 95%+ at the very least) is able to display them natively like that?
At the very least make these comparisons at 1366x768, though that is already arbitrarily limiting the PC version to a huge degree, at least its representative of what some people will be seeing on their HDTVs, comparisons @ 720p aren't representative of anything that resembles a normal setup.
Where on earth can I buy a HDTV with a native 1280x720 resolution?
Is everyone playing on playing on projectors then?
Can we please compare at the most common native HDTV resolution, i.e. 1080p? What's the point of comparisons at a native 720p when no one (well 95%+ at the very least) is able to display them natively like that?
At the very least make these comparisons at 1366x768, though that is already arbitrarily limiting the PC version to a huge degree, at least its representative of what some people will be seeing on their HDTVs, comparisons @ 720p aren't representative of anything that resembles a normal setup.
EmCeeGramr
Member
Both of these are unequivocally false. Crysis is easy to run well (even if it was somewhat difficult on release), and was one of the most fun games released in 2007.DryvBy2 said:
brain_stew
Member
lowrider007 said:
:lol
Of course it would, it wouldn't be in anyway recognisable. We're talking about over an order of magnitude in raw graphics throughput and much more capable and flexible hardware.
By making this claim, you're also asserting that the next generation of console hardware won't bring with it any graphical improvement at all.
Do I really need to explain how stupid and ridiculous this is?
lowrider007 said:That fact that PC games are required to run on top of the OS doesn't help matters tbh, your losing a gig of ram at least for starters.
You know, when I approach a subject I'm completely clueless about I don't try and position my self from a place of authority, you shouldn't either. Windows's 7's memory management is excellent and doesn't waste anything close to 1GB of system memory, it'll use free memory, but that doesn't mean its not available to a game if it doesn't want it. Leaving memory unused is not good memory management.
Both the 360 and PS3 use a fully featured OS these days, and on 360 you've got no low level access at all. You have to deal with the DirectX "bloat" just as you do on the PC.
I've went into this in greater depth earlier in this thread, so go look that post up if you ant, but suffice it to say that you're completely overestimating this factor to a ridiculous degree. It can claw you back around 1.5x-2x of performance at best judging by all the evidence we've got, not anything like 5x-10x like you and so many others seem to be implying.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
Two Worlds II is a stupid title.
brain_stew
Member
TheExodu5 said:
Same, and it means that everything that my console spits out has to be covered with a glaze of blur thanks to upscaling. Yet another reason why console image quality is so far behind its PC counterpart. Running games at anything other than native resolution on PC is seen as a cardinal sin but having games being scaled by two separate devices is fair game on consoles and yet people are still claiming these games look at all comparable? Really?
So please, anyone posting console shots, gtfo unless you're scaling them to 1366x768 or 1080p beforehand. Its not a representative comparison.
Boss Man
Member
Had to pop back in here after I saw the title change; I think that's exactly the answer.
For some reason, and maybe this is purely subjective and can't honestly be argued, but I experience more of that real vs. fake trench that developers have been talking about for a while on PC games than I do on console games. Even in parts of the COD: Black Ops video that shows decisively better PC graphics I see angles and (mostly) physics that just throw me way off. I have always had this problem with PC games, so I don't think it's just that PC graphics are deeper into that trench being more advanced. There's just some inherent style in PC games that throws things off for me.
As a matter of fact, playing Dragon Age: Origins (which I believe was built as a PC game) on a console I noticed this same exact effect. That leads me to believe that it really has more to do with design style than anything else, and it's probably the case that this particular style...somehow...lends itself more to PC graphics.
PC IS THE ONLY ANSWER. people are really looking at this the wrong way I think. There's no doubt that a dedicated gaming console built to last for 5-10 years is going to become dated over time, but in my opinion there's definitely something going on visually on console games that gives them a more believable (or just immersive maybe?) look and feel. Maybe after playing PC games for a long time you stop noticing those little oddities. So many people see this that it should be clear that we're not just making it up.
Honestly, I think it's just that console developers have become very clever with smoke and mirrors- but is that necessarily a bad thing? Maybe an open and honest discussion about this, instead of taking sides, could help raise discussion over what might make PC games look extremely realistic and more visually pleasing. It's not like there's something going on inside of consoles that a PC couldn't replicate.
For some reason, and maybe this is purely subjective and can't honestly be argued, but I experience more of that real vs. fake trench that developers have been talking about for a while on PC games than I do on console games. Even in parts of the COD: Black Ops video that shows decisively better PC graphics I see angles and (mostly) physics that just throw me way off. I have always had this problem with PC games, so I don't think it's just that PC graphics are deeper into that trench being more advanced. There's just some inherent style in PC games that throws things off for me.
As a matter of fact, playing Dragon Age: Origins (which I believe was built as a PC game) on a console I noticed this same exact effect. That leads me to believe that it really has more to do with design style than anything else, and it's probably the case that this particular style...somehow...lends itself more to PC graphics.
PC IS THE ONLY ANSWER. people are really looking at this the wrong way I think. There's no doubt that a dedicated gaming console built to last for 5-10 years is going to become dated over time, but in my opinion there's definitely something going on visually on console games that gives them a more believable (or just immersive maybe?) look and feel. Maybe after playing PC games for a long time you stop noticing those little oddities. So many people see this that it should be clear that we're not just making it up.
Honestly, I think it's just that console developers have become very clever with smoke and mirrors- but is that necessarily a bad thing? Maybe an open and honest discussion about this, instead of taking sides, could help raise discussion over what might make PC games look extremely realistic and more visually pleasing. It's not like there's something going on inside of consoles that a PC couldn't replicate.
brain_stew
Member
DryvBy2 said:
Why are console games allowed to average <24fps but the moment a PC game drops from a rock solid 60fps, people cry bloody murder?
Quit with the double standards already.
brain_stew said:
I rarely lose it, but now I'm really fucking close. You are probably the most obnoxious and elitist poster on GAF. I can't say you have said anything incorrect about the specs of these platforms, but you always expect that people have the same expertise on these things. Or that they notice upscaled material, different resolutions and are generally aware how game visuals work. I personally have a pretty good idea of these things, but I have to say you're on the highest horse I've yet to see in GAF.
Take this shit to a thread that's dedicated on discussion about the pure tech. In here the visual appeal isn't measured by resolution and image quality. They are just one factor in the big picture.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
...DryvBy2 said:
the fuck?
Crysis looks better than Uncharted 2 though, that's not even a question. However, Crysis looks its best in motion. It actually is much more impressive in motion than in screens, in general. And you can run Crysis on Ultra settings with screenrates better than UC2 on a computer that would set you back... like, $800.
brain_stew
Member
StateofMind said:
Why is utter complete idiocy and stupidity like this not bannable yet? This shit needs to end, it doesn't further any discussion and is objectively false.
Protip: RSX is adapted from a stock PC GPU. Any inherent "PC look" would thus be shared with all PS3 games as well.
Unless, people have some fuzzy attachment to the eye gouging blur caused by upscaling, then you're talking complete and utter shit but even then, you can had that God awful shit to PC games if you so wish, I've no idea why you would want to though.
There is no "PC look."
scamartilhon
Member
That game really struck a chord with you, didn't it? :lol :lolDennisK4 said:
brain_stew
Member
BobsRevenge said:
More like $600 (or less) if we're talking about 720p resolution, which we absolutely have to be for this to in anyway be a valid comparison.
StateofMind said:
Its interesting that you say that. I grew up playing PC games and have played them for at least 20 years but when the Xbox came out I switched to console. One of my best friends plays exclusively on PC and raves about the graphical fidelity but every time I look at his screen I cringe. It did not matter if he was playing Grid, or Half Life, or whatever but to me the textures looked too angular, to clean but not in a good way, too fake, and cartoony. This was very evident to me especially in games like Need For Speed Most wanted. I just preferred the console look which seemed more realistic or less like it was stiched together by angular textures and polys.
Its been like this for me since the old days. Console games I have felt always gave me a more immersive and believable feel. Subjectively it has been more important to me then higher resolutions and mod tools and this is why I think I switched to console. Even at a lower res I get a more immersive experience and I feel like things feel "realistic".
lowrider007
Licorice-flavoured booze?
brain_stew said:
Come on now, I think your over dramatising my post a little, I said that I don't think that there would a dramatic difference, not there wouldn't be difference at all.
"it would'nt be in anyway recognisable"
lol
brain_stew
Member
zoukka said:
If they're going to offer a valid opinion on the subject then the burden is on them to back their arguments up with objective analysis. Post complete BS that is provably false and you're going to be called on it, ridiculed and ripped to shreds, as is the natural order of things on GAF. I've had it done to me before when I've deserved it, and I'm a better poster because of it.
Lying and spreading FUD doesn't further discussion on a subject. Correcting clear inaccuracies absolutely does improve the quality of discussion, tough shit if it smashes a few wooly dearly held beliefs from people revelling in their own ignorance. If you're going to try and spread that stupidity and ignorance past the bounds of your own mind, then sorry buddy, but you're going to get your pretty little perspective on things raped and pillaged in the process. You'll thank me for it later.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Hold up.
People are seriously trying to argue that PC games have a certain 'look' about them?
Seriousy?
I mean, seriously seriously?
People are genuinely arguing this as a point?
People are seriously trying to argue that PC games have a certain 'look' about them?
Seriousy?
I mean, seriously seriously?
People are genuinely arguing this as a point?
brain_stew said:
You must honestly think you're some priest preaching some holy gospel of videogame technicalties :lol
I have no problems of people correcting factual information. But like I've said in many occasions, this thread is more about subjective opinions and views. So good luck turning that into factual debate.
brain_stew
Member
StateofMind said:
Protip: You can add fugly upscaling induced blur to PC games as well, you're ust not forced to so that people with decent eyesight aren't punished because of the issues that others suffer from.
If you have some irrational attachment to it then why the hell aren't you adding it to your PC games instead, rather than complaining?
Bravo, we've found you like adding vaseline filters t your games, now go apply it to your PC games and quit your stupid bitching. Heck, you'll even get better framerates in the process!! Lucky you!
brain_stew
Member
zoukka said:
Then why have you just done precisely that? Make your mind up, ffs.