Support NeoGAF

[64bitmodels]

This is not much of a thread, but I was quite curious. What do you think is more important for a truly beautiful looking game? Is it immacuately detailed environments or incredibly realistic character models? Do you think a game with subpar environments would age better with great characters, or would a game with mediocre models but beautiful environments age well too? I know it's easy to say "both" which is why i think you should make a choice on which is truly more important to you.

 

[Husky]

I think environments are what really make a game beautiful. Gives the player reason to pause and just look around. Couldn't guess how many times I just gawked at the environments in STALKER, which artistically still stands strong. Also, the environments are probably where the designers are most free to flex their imagination.

 

[The Cockatrice]

We're in 2023, it's both easy to say "both" and to make both happen. We have the technology and the engine to make it happen. If they can't theyre just fucking lazy. No excuses.

 

[64bitmodels]

We're in 2023, it's both easy to say "both" and to make both happen. We have the technology and the engine to make it happen. If they can't theyre just fucking lazy. No excuses.

I mean duh. This is a hypothetical. In reality both will most of the time always look good. That's why I made this thread, as it's an interesting choice that doesn't happen very often. If you had to sacrifice one which would you pick

 

[Cashon]

Environments, 100%. I don't care about seeing my character model outside of cutscenes, really. In fact, given the option, I tend to play in first person (Fallout, Grand Theft Auto V, Red Dead Redemption II, etc).

 

[SmokedMeat]

Both.

There’s no need for a Devil May Cry V situation where characters look great, and backgrounds are a boring afterthought.

 

[justonething]

Environments have looked good for over a decade, character models have stagnated and don't even remotely match the realism of environments they're in. MK1 models look like clay and no one calls it or any other of the millions of other AAA games with garbage character models out there. Devs think using real life face models fixes the problem, then come out with games where faces look all stiff and superimposed. I don't understand it at all, and I don't understand the results of the poll when character models have always been the bottleneck. Games with models as good as the environemnt can be counted on one hand, Horizon, Resident Evil, DMC, Hellblade.

 

[64bitmodels]

Both.

There’s no need for a Devil May Cry V situation where characters look great, and backgrounds are a boring afterthought.

DMCV was fun but yeah the visuals were fucking boring. Shocking considering how good RE2 Remake and Street Fighter 6 look on the same engine, even DMC1 was more imaginative artistically

 

[Synless]

Environments, I could have a pixel for a characyer and not care if the environments I’m traveling look great. The inverse however, no.

 

[leizzra]

It depends on the game - if you are making a story driven game with cut-scenes then you want the best looking characters you can make. If not then maybe the environment is the way to go.

As for people who say "both and no excuses" - that's not how it works. Sure, we have tech to do it (well we always had proper to each generation of hardware) but making it needs something different - money and time (which is actually the same). In this days making a great looking AAA character means that you need a ton of work and many people (one character needs artist for head, for body, for clothing, for hairs, for textures, technical artist for materials, technical animator for skinning and rigging, animator for animations, mocap crew, actors, lighting artist, etc.). Sure you can go with shortcuts but it will be visible in the final look/play or in numbers of characters.

In this regards environment is easier to do, needs less people. I'm not saying it's easy but it's easier to trick human mind with enviro then characters and nowadays you have many assets that you can buy and they'll work.

In the end it's all about balance not only in the budget for games but also in visuals themselves. I think the more importing thing is to have cohesive art quality. This is usually on good level in bigger games.

 

[The Cockatrice]

I mean duh. This is a hypothetical. In reality both will most of the time always look good. That's why I made this thread, as it's an interesting choice that doesn't happen very often. If you had to sacrifice one which would you pick

Well, From Software games are probably the best answer to your question. Almost all of them have dog shit human character models, no one really cares about them, but the environments? They need to be good looking and well designed. In ER most models dont even synch with their mouths so...yeah.. Environments will probably always win. No one likes to explore empty devoid of life masses of land filled with boring ruins and forests like Forspoken.

 

[64bitmodels]

Well, From Software games are probably the best answer to your question. Almost all of them have dog shit human character models, no one really cares about them, but the environments? They need to be good looking and well designed. In ER most models dont even synch with their mouths so...yeah.. Environments will probably always win. No one likes to explore empty devoid of life masses of land filled with boring ruins and forests like Forspoken.

Forspoken is one of those rare examples where both elements look like dogwater. That game screams low budget

 

[AJUMP23]

I guess environments. But the character models should represent the games quality.

 

[Punished Miku]

You could put a stick figure in a cool world and it could maybe work. You could put a hyper detailed character in a shit world and it would probably suck.

 

[SHA]

Women are more interested in people, men are more interested in things.

 

[adamsapple]

Environments.

As long as the game swaps in better LOD character models for non-interactive scenes.

 

[SHA]

This is not much of a thread, but I was quite curious. What do you think is more important for a truly beautiful looking game? Is it immacuately detailed environments or incredibly realistic character models? Do you think a game with subpar environments would age better with great characters, or would a game with mediocre models but beautiful environments age well too? I know it's easy to say "both" which is why i think you should make a choice on which is truly more important to you.

The minute I stopped being immersed by a game's visuals and started staring at squares and triangles then it started aging for me.

 

[ReBurn]

The models need to fit the environment. They're equally important.

 

[HL3.exe]

Physics driven environments and characters.

Fidelity had peaked in my opinion. Kinda bored of beautiful but ultimately static environments and stilted animations.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Your thread premise is a false dichotomy.

The answer should be both and gamers should not tolerate games with shitty designs for either.

 

[EverydayBeast]

If I bought a game for environments I would play simulators, developers have their own character models.

 

[64bitmodels]

Your thread premise is a false dichotomy.

The answer should be both and gamers should not tolerate games with shitty designs for either.

you're correct. That's why i stated earlier that this was a hypothetical. A situation where you were forced to choose. It's highly unlikely to be a scenario in real life, it's just a simple question to ask.

it's like saying that you'd take both a hamburger and a hot dog on a survey about which you prefer. Both is good, yes, but it's not really a choice right now.

 

[Codes 208]

If halo 3 has proven anything, the characters can be low-rez and ugly as sin as long as the vistas and skyboxes are well done

 

[FoxMcChief]

Environments

 

[tmlDan]

Depends on the type of game, i find that the majority of devs struggle making good character models with realistic facial animations. ND is still the best in the biz.

I can't say anything but both, it would be hard to say one over the other cause they're both distracting if done poorly

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

We're in 2023, it's both easy to say "both" and to make both happen. We have the technology and the engine to make it happen. If they can't theyre just fucking lazy. No excuses.

It's an oversimplification to just say "devs are lazy". There's lack of budget, lack of manpower, lack of decent mocap studios for good looking characters, tight release schedules from shitty publishers, etc...

Not every developer has the luxury to have infinite budget, thousands of developers and like 8 years of development for their games like, say, Rockstar.

 

[The Cockatrice]

It's an oversimplification to just say "devs are lazy". There's lack of budget, lack of manpower, lack of decent mocap studios for good looking characters, tight release schedules from shitty publishers, etc...

Not every developer has the luxury to have infinite budget, thousands of developers and like 8 years of development for their games like, say, Rockstar.

When Witcher 3 was in development they didnt have shit either yet that game still holds up well in character models. There are a lot of indies who have great character models as well. You do not need to hire famous actors and use expensive mocaps for good character models in games. We had amazing characters for ages without mocaps and famous people in them.

Heres an indie game self published. Shits on a ton of huge triple A games that have 10 times its budget.

 

[Killer8]

No one really talks about PS2 game environments but everyone still references this Silent Hill 3 gif:

Maybe that answers the question.

 

[64bitmodels]

No one really talks about PS2 game environments but everyone still references this Silent Hill 3 gif:

Maybe that answers the question.

that is crazy impressive and holds up shockingly well.

Then again, IMO i could say the same for many PS2 games once you get rid of the awful image quality

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

you're correct. That's why i stated earlier that this was a hypothetical. A situation where you were forced to choose. It's highly unlikely to be a scenario in real life, it's just a simple question to ask.

it's like saying that you'd take both a hamburger and a hot dog on a survey about which you prefer. Both is good, yes, but it's not really a choice right now.

Ok fair, then it depends on the game. If it's an FPS or first-person RPG for example, I want high-quality character models. If it's a game where characters are far away from the camera most of the time, environments would make the bigger impact.

 

[TheDreadBaron]

When Witcher 3 was in development they didnt have shit either yet that game still holds up well in character models. There are a lot of indies who have great character models as well. You do not need to hire famous actors and use expensive mocaps for good character models in games. We had amazing characters for ages without mocaps and famous people in them.

Heres an indie game self published. Shits on a ton of huge triple A games that have 10 times its budget.

It’s incredibly rude to call all game devs whose art isn’t up to your standard lazy. Lazy implies they don’t care about the quality of their own work, which is an insult that should be reserved for things like asset flip devs. The fact is that it’s incredibly hard to make high quality art and video game art tends to age quickly. Some devs can get results by throwing money at the problem, some teams have exceptional artists, and maybe most of the time the team of artists work really hard and earnestly try to make the best art they can and yet there’s still some issues that can’t be resolved due to lack of time or knowledge. That doesn’t make devs lazy just because all of that labor doesn’t end up producing a result that is 100% flawless.

It’s like if you had been painting for 20 years and someone decided to call you lazy because your work didn’t look like their favorite master painter, very rude.

 

[The Cockatrice]

It’s incredibly rude to call all game devs whose art isn’t up to your standard lazy.

No, its not. We can stop there.

Truly amazing talented work right here guys. How dare I call this ugly? How dare I criticize and call peopls work ugly or lazy? I think you're on the wrong forum buddy. No, it's not rude, its a fucking kindness to call this shit lazy, because if if I wasnt being nice, I'd say whoever worked on this games art needs to find a different job in his or her life. If you dont like that put me on ignore.

 

[Putonahappyface]

 

[Sethbacca]

Outside of cut scenes or whatever, how often are you looking at your character directly? Your eyes are always on the environment and navigating through it.

 

[64bitmodels]

No, its not. We can stop there.

Truly amazing talented work right here guys. How dare I call this ugly? How dare I criticize and call peopls work ugly or lazy? I think you're on the wrong forum buddy. No, it's not rude, its a fucking kindness to call this shit lazy, because if if I wasnt being nice, I'd say whoever worked on this games art needs to find a different job in his or her life. If you dont like that put me on ignore.

admittedly Pokemon's got good character models, they're very nice. I wish i could say the same for the environments and animations though

I agree with him though that calling all devs that aren't up to your standard lazy is bad though, if not because it's your standard. What i might find beautiful you might find fucking repulsive.

I'm a major fan of Pizza Tower but some people here think that the animations and artstyle are ugly and cheap. That's their opinion to have but it's another thing to call the dev "lazy" because of it.

 

[Fbh]

No one really talks about PS2 game environments but everyone still references this Silent Hill 3 gif:

Maybe that answers the question.

Because as opposed to this character models most environments in Ps2 games haven't held up well.

People still often talk about pre rendered backgrounds though, as they still look amazing and create an atmosphere that even many modern games struggle to match

The problem is that due to their nature you can't make them look better by simply increasing the internal resolution of the game.

 

[64bitmodels]

Because as opposed to this character models most environments in Ps2 games haven't held up well.

ehhh. you really sure about that?

This is coming from a guy who thinks that PS1 games still look very good for what they are, but PS2 games typically have amazing looking environments. Just take a good look at Burnout 3 for example.



Great looking city at 60fps with full car destruction and other cars on the road, game was a technical marvel

if anything its usually the character models that get scrutinized in these older games

 

[TheDreadBaron]

No, its not. We can stop there.

Truly amazing talented work right here guys. How dare I call this ugly? How dare I criticize and call peopls work ugly or lazy? I think you're on the wrong forum buddy. No, it's not rude, its a fucking kindness to call this shit lazy, because if if I wasnt being nice, I'd say whoever worked on this games art needs to find a different job in his or her life. If you dont like that put me on ignore.

It’s ok to admit you were rude, seems like you’re proud of it so you might as well own it. I admit I was slightly offended by your ignorance but it’s clear you have no idea what goes into game development and you’re just whining and pounding your little fists from the safety of your high chair. I don’t ignore people I don’t like, though they keep asking me to so that they won’t have to hear any small criticism about themselves. All is forgiven friend

 

[fart town usa]

Neither. I've been playing Deadly Premonition the last few nights and both as ugly as balls but the game is damn entertaining and that's what matters most to me.

 

[Killer8]

Because as opposed to this character models most environments in Ps2 games haven't held up well.

People still often talk about pre rendered backgrounds though, as they still look amazing and create an atmosphere that even many modern games struggle to match

The problem is that due to their nature you can't make them look better by simply increasing the internal resolution of the game.

It could be somewhat possible with AI upscaling, but then that's more the amazing AI doing the legwork rather than the PS2's visuals speaking for themselves.

PS1 game, but shows what can be done with AI algorithms which are always improving:




Some of the fully 3D PS2 environments which i'd say have held up exceptionally well are MGS2 and 3. There was a lot of noise made recently about them being 720p still in the Master Collection, which is disappointing, however any Series X owner will know that they still look fantastic even upscaled to 4K.

 

[justiceiro]

Depends on the game, really. If I will spend more time looking at character, than they are the most important. If not, the environment is more important. Like, if the is no close up, making good looking characters is a waste of resources.

 

[Fart Knight]

If halo 3 has proven anything, the characters can be low-rez and ugly as sin as long as the vistas and skyboxes are well done

 

[SABRE220]

Environments, even by the ps4 gen we reached character models that were amazing and its a safe bet that on the next gen consoles most competent developers will produce at least respectable character models. Environments are much harder to land, they have to create an atmosphere that can create or break immersion that can truly engross you in its world. Say what you will about gameplay but rdr2 draws you into its world, hell even skyrim felt like a living breathing world albeit it has aged despite its terrible character models I could still get engrossed in the world.

That being said Im not downplaying the amazing artists that create top tier character models, naughty dog for example with their animations and models portray emotions that captivate you but overall environments trump character models in my opinion.

 

[64bitmodels]

Neither. I've been playing Deadly Premonition the last few nights and both as ugly as balls but the game is damn entertaining and that's what matters most to me.

Yes, i also argee graphics < Gameplay. but.... this is a topic about graphics. LOL!

its fun to talk about great game visuals from time to time.

 

[BlackTron]

Which is more important will depend on the game of course. In a fighting game the models matter way more. In a metroidvania? The environments.

Exploration sucks if the environments doesn't look good, but your character will always be on the screen, so there's no reason not to get it right too.

 

[64bitmodels]

Which is more important will depend on the game of course. In a fighting game the models matter way more. In a metroidvania? The environments.

Exploration sucks if the environments doesn't look good, but your character will always be on the screen, so there's no reason not to get it right too.

You know that's shockingly true for fighting games. Great levels of detail is always nice to have when there's so little to render.

Still one of my favorite fighting games to this day is SoulCalibur 2 because the models are so exquisite and amazingly rendered. The game looks better than many tekkens of the time IMO.

 

[Robb]

Environments for sure. I don’t really care much about how my character or the NPC’s look. Usually they look goofy despite being extremely detailed, it’s more about having a good design than a lot of detail imo.

 

[The Cockatrice]

but it’s clear you have no idea what goes into game development and you’re just whining and pounding your little fists from the safety of your high chair.

Bold and lazy assumption. You're wrong on every aspect.

 

[Danjin44]

If game actively has close up shot of character face then you want well made character models if not then environments is should take priority.

 

[Elitro]

Elden Ring is the best example. Models look unimpressive but the gorgeous art direction on the environments make the game come alive