Support NeoGAF

[MiketheBSG]

I agree with the OP.

Hoenstly, I was impressed greatly with PS3, but I got in the game late after Wii was my main console. I thought it couldn’t look much better than that, and at first PS4 didn’t impress me that much. But now, after seeing how impressive PS4 can get, it still looks like a video game.

Devs and manufacturers will continue to wow us though, in ways we can’t even imagine. As much as I feel graphics aren’t going to be so impressive next-gen, I look forward to be proven wrong.

 

[randomscribbles]

Cutting edge graphics will always get a "wow" out of me, but they rarely age well when realism is prioritized over art design.
Also, this generation is the first in history where graphical advancement hasn't really led to new types of gameplay. The SNES gave us games like Pilotwings and Starfox- impossible on the NES. Next gen gave us true 3D gaming for the first time. PS2 era gave us twin stick shooters and games like Katamari. The PS360 gen had games like Dead Rising, where hordes of zombies could be on screen for the first time ever, as proven by the awful wii port. Nothing this gen couldn't be made with last gen tech (or a switch for that matter) if you pare down the graphic settings enough. Good graphics still look awesome, but until now, they also symbolized new gameplay possibilities. That isn't the case for me anymore.

 

[SlimySnake]

Cutting edge graphics just don't impress me much. Art style is so much more important.

Good thing most AAA games have both.

 

[bchan555]

Cutting edge graphics just don't impress me much. Art style is so much more important.

There are times where you need technology to realize your artistic vision.

Sometimes the appearance of new technology is what allows for certain art styles to become feasible in the first place.

You can't have one without the other.

 

[SlimySnake]

Cutting edge graphics will always get a "wow" out of me, but they rarely age well when realism is prioritized over art design.
Also, this generation is the first in history where graphical advancement hasn't really led to new types of gameplay. The SNES gave us games like Pilotwings and Starfox- impossible on the NES. Next gen gave us true 3D gaming for the first time. PS2 era gave us twin stick shooters and games like Katamari. The PS360 gen had games like Dead Rising, where hordes of zombies could be on screen for the first time ever, as proven by the awful wii port. Nothing this gen couldn't be made with last gen tech (or a switch for that matter) if you pare down the graphic settings enough. Good graphics still look awesome, but until now, they also symbolized new gameplay possibilities. That isn't the case for me anymore.

You are selling this gen short. There is no way they could've made the Uncharted 4 chase sequence last gen. Look at how they were able to enhance the train sequence in U2 in Lost Legacy. It was pretty mind blowing to see a half an hour level play out so organically like that. Wont go into spoilers since the game is still only a month or two from release but its obvious that the extra GPU power let them create these massive levels.

Same goes for Horizon. We had open world games before, but nothing even remotely close to the gameplay in Horizon. these guys were making corridor shooters that looked great, now they are making full open worlds with massive enemies that are incredibly fun to fight.

I dont like the Dead Rising example either. Ever play State of Emergency on the PS2? This gen has allowed developers to fully realize their vision that were limited due to shitty GPU power and memory of last gen consoles. The open world level in Uncharted Lost Legacy was such a breath of fresh air.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Something games don't get right a lot of the time is characters' eyes, either. Wolfenstein: The New Order nailed this perfectly.



Someone put a lot of work into BJ's eyes. (and every other character's as well, of course) But BJ's stand out spectacularly. In the above screenshot, you can see the unfocused nature BJ is currently in, even without any facial animation present since it's a still image, in the actual game the sound design during this scene also helps ram in the point that he's not focused on what's currently happening at all.



In this screenshot, you can see the pain, fear, and regret present in his eyes and his facial expression.

Wolfenstein decidedly goes for the "realistic" style, but doesn't go all the way in that regard because it isn't really trying to be photo realistic. It's not at the cutting edge of photo realism, but the animation of the characters as well as the work people put into modeling the faces and eyes of these characters is nothing short of amazing.

I'll throw in a screenshot of a character other than BJ for comparison as well:

Wolfenstein 2's skin shading and lighting look so much more consistent with the eye shaders than the first one. But yea nothing beats superb eye shading:

Gives so much more life to a character.

Good thing most AAA games have both.

THANK YOU! The downplaying of realism in gaming as if art direction isn't a thing when visuals are realistic is so goddamn grating.

 

[Coolluck]

Cutting edge graphics will always get a "wow" out of me, but they rarely age well when realism is prioritized over art design.
Also, this generation is the first in history where graphical advancement hasn't really led to new types of gameplay. The SNES gave us games like Pilotwings and Starfox- impossible on the NES. Next gen gave us true 3D gaming for the first time. PS2 era gave us twin stick shooters and games like Katamari. The PS360 gen had games like Dead Rising, where hordes of zombies could be on screen for the first time ever, as proven by the awful wii port. Nothing this gen couldn't be made with last gen tech (or a switch for that matter) if you pare down the graphic settings enough.

There were statements like this earlier in the gen. We've seen that the Nemesis System wasn't doable last gen. 64 Player Battlefield, especially with the destruction implementation in 1 wouldn't have been possible either.

 

[nynt9]

Realistic games can still have art styles.

Battlefield 1

COD WW2

Battlefield 1

Sniper Elite 4

 

[OryoN]

OP, Seems you're becoming an adult now.

J/K ;D

I think it's all about art. Realistic graphics tend to impress us on a technical level. We're live in the real world, so seeing a realistic looking tree - for example - in a game doesn't have any reason to impress us, unless we understand it's a technical achievement. While we rarely mention it, we know intuitively that it's this technical merit that impresses us. You can confirm this as you observed the exact opposite - unimpressed - "reactions" of casuals who have no understanding of these things. They would see your character walking by the most realistictic trees ever rendered in a game, and they could care less. "What's so fascinating about a tree?" They might ask.

On the other hand, a good artistic direction can invoke all kinds pleasing reactions, quite naturally, regardless of our technical understanding(or lack thereof), even if the game isn't strikingly realistic. I remember playing Zelda: The Orcarina of Time back in '98; I'm handing around Lon-lon ranch while my mother and her friend are having a conversation in the same area(living room). Her friend pauses mid-conversation, and in an audible gasp of pure awe, she taps my mother's hand and points her attention to the tv; "OMG, look Val, look at the horses! They look so real, that is beautiful!". Of course, at the time, this game was an incredible technical achievement, but miles from what we would call "realistic" today. What she saw was Link and baby Epona, with a couple other well animated horses roaming the lush field, against the sheen of the afternoon sun in the majestic sky, with bright, beautiful cloud patterns. This moved her, causing her to see beauty that we subconsciously only attribute to our reality. Mission accomplished! Yet, hyper realism was hardly the catalyst here. Great art goes a long way in expressing realism too! An interesting observation that stuck with me to this day.

Indeed, the art direction has a crucial effect of conveying beauty of the game, more so than any level of realism alone can. Several games today are aiming for that highly realistic look, but without a great art direction, many of them look very generic and unappealing. Even then, that art direction is - by virtue of realism - often limited in terms of how much freedom the artist has. While there are some realistic-looking games with slightly less restrictive styles, purely stylized games do seem to have a lot more creative power to manifest whatever we may eventually regard as beautiful/impressive/amazing graphics. It's very fascinating to observe the different ways games, today, visually impress us.

 

[Cromulent_Chill]

In general realistic graphics don’t really impress me, but some of the stuff in Hellblade was absolutely incredible.

This.

I actually find many realistic games I play impressive and gorgeous, though they don’t arrest me in the way they did.

I find now that I’m used to HD textures, gorgeous skyboxes, and lush vistas its more small advances in animation and lighting that get me. How rarely do you actually see a close light source glowing through a characters earlobe? Such a showcase in tech demos, but to actually see it in a game gets me.

Still impressed by LA Noires faces, even though they could almost float off the models head. Hellblade impressed similarly, the mocap on those faces is reaching the parallel to a live performance.

In terms of non realism? I mean Mario galaxy still impresses me aesthetically, so I’m open man. I think I’m done with most 8-bit indie aesthetics. Superbrothers take has me on board for its time, but it takes a lot to impress me with pixels these days.

 

[DerpHause]

Realistic games can still have art styles.

I don't know that those feel like different styles to me as opposed to simply locations personally. Like trying for a real to life flair that leaves it indistinguishable from others of the same time and place. Not sure if that's what you were getting at though.

 

[III-V]

Can't say I agree OP, I am currently playing through the UC DLC and I swear for a moment there was film of Chloe and Nadine green screened against a gorgeous backdrop.

I am still consistently floored when I see the next graphical leaps, just like I was when when I first started gaming.

 

[More_Badass]

OP, Seems you're becoming an adult now.

J/K ;D

I think it's all about art. Realistic graphics tend to impress us on a technical level. We're live in the real world, so seeing a realistic looking tree - for example - in a game doesn't have any reason to impress us, unless we understand it's a technical achievement. While we rarely mention it, we know intuitively that it's this technical merit that impresses us. You can confirm this as you observed the exact opposite - unimpressed - "reactions" of casuals who have no understanding of these things. They would see your character walking by the most realistictic trees ever rendered in a game, and they could care less. "What's so fascinating about a tree?" They might ask.

A common thought here seems to be that realism and art direction exist on a curve, that as realism increases, art direction and artistry decreases. That by being photorealistic, the visuals lose tone or emotion or whatnot. That awe in realism comes predominantly from its technical merit

Art direction is inherent in all imagery and visuals we see in games; it has to be because the creators are using those visuals for a purpose, and thus the direction comes from context of those visuals, how it's framed through the camera, the visual accoutrements of lighting and setting and such. It may be bland or generic or all-too-common direction, but it's art direction nonetheless.

The most photorealistic tree ever may be bland in isolation but place that tree in a desert oasis cloaked in the temporary shadow of a passing cloud or in a small park between tenements in a dilapidated neighborhood or framed under the hazy twilight as a thunderstorm rolls in, and the context and atmosphere changes.

Photorealism isn't divorced from art direction. It's how the imagery and visuals are used that imbue art direction with greater emotion and meaning and atmosphere, not the level of realism or lack thereof.

 

[bchan555]

I don't know that those feel like different styles to me as opposed to simply locations personally. Like trying for a real to life flair that leaves it indistinguishable from others of the same time and place. Not sure if that's what you were getting at though.

That's because it's subtle.

It's like when you watch a car commercial. A lot of times things are filmed using colored lenses in front of the camera and stuff to give it a certain feel. Color grading is used. Lighting is carefully chosen. Most of the time people don't notice, but in fact those have all been doctored in various ways to give a different impression. A lot of work has been put in but the average person won't actually notice the impact until you show them a side-by-side.

It's also why some films might have a very green or blue hue, versus others which have a very red one.

Art direction in film and photorealistic works tend to be subtle. What light sources they use. What colors they use. They give you a distinct feeling without you realizing what they've done.

How fog is used. The way the smoke looks. Many of the things in those shots are actually stylized, but in a subtle way.

 

[Sàmban]

I guess these photos of mariental are just too unrealistic then.

So is Socotra. Totally fake and unrealistic. I can tell since it's not grey.

Some of you sound like you've never been to any other place on earth than grey concrete jungles.

 

[More_Badass]

I guess these photos of mariental are just too unrealistic then.

I was going to say, that if realism is such a strong factor against the atmosphere and tone of art direction, if the worth of realistic visuals is predominantly in technical achievement rather than evoking emotion, then actual photography and cinematography or even natural landscapes must then be lacking as well, since you can't get more real than that

 

[pixelation]

There are loads of stylized games on PS4 as well, try Gravity Rush, Ratchet & Clank, Tearaway and lots more. They're not exclusive to Nintendo systems, i know this because i also prefer stylized games over realistic ones.

 

[DerpHause]

That's because it's subtle.

It's like when you watch a car commercial. A lot of times things are filmed using colored lenses in front of the camera and stuff to give it a certain feel. Color grading is used. Lighting is carefully chosen. Most of the time people don't notice, but in fact those have all been doctored in various ways to give a different impression. A lot of work has been put in but the average person won't actually notice the impact until you show them a side-by-side.

It's also why some films might have a very green or blue hue, versus others which have a very red one.

Art direction in film and photorealistic works tend to be subtle. What light sources they use. What colors they use. They give you a distinct feeling without you realizing what they've done.

How fog is used. The way the smoke looks. Many of the things in those shots are actually stylized, but in a subtle way.

I feel like we're using perhaps different definitions of style. Throwing in carefully chosen lighting and coloration certainly is an enhancement over reality, but the commonality there is simply a processed image as opposed to a visual style that is distinct throughout a game which causes to to stand out or be visually striking.

 

[Inuhanyou]

don't have to be blown away by graphics all the time OP, its been 4 years since current gen came out...although i cant say i agree, plenty of games still impress me.

 

[Momentary]

Guilty Gear did more to blow me away more than anything else that tried to approach realistic graphics in these recent times.

 

[nycgamer4ever]

Lost legacy is not realistic it has its own style. And running on ps4 pro on my calibrated oled it's pretty amazing. Nintendo games sure are fun and look very pleasing but nome really impress graphics wise.

 

[More_Badass]

I feel like we're using perhaps different definitions of style. Throwing in carefully chosen lighting and coloration certainly is an enhancement over reality, but the commonality there is simply a processed image as opposed to a visual style that is distinct throughout a game which causes to to stand out or be visually striking.

A visual style is more than aesthetic. Would you agree that different movies have strikingly different visual styles? The neo-noir flair of Blood Simple versus the oppressive dystopian decay of Children of Men, or the bleakness of Sicario contrasted with the stark unnerving atmosphere of Zodiac

Yet they are all "real" images; the style comes from that carefully chosen lighting and framing and context. It is no different with realistic visuals in games

 

[NullPointer]

I find myself on the opposite end of the spectrum, and never cease to be amazed at the presentation of modern games, across various budgets.

Insane attention to detail, realistic materials and lighting, depth of environmental simulations, incredible animations via motion capture and expert key-framing, art styles that present a game at its best, hiding its flaws and revealing character, all within budget and time and hardware and performance constraints - it all blows my mind on the regular.

I'll often admire a random building or some contraption, or character model, or dynamic weather simulation or a series of flowing movements and wonder just how much time and effort went into that one thing.

But keep in mind, I work at a small company that can agonize for weeks over the positioning of a button or color choice, or months on what to put on a homepage. So imagining a large collaboration of hundreds or thousands, or the work of smaller teams on crazy ambitious or out-there titles is damn near unfathomable to me. Respect.

 

[Warablo]

Gta and the AC series have impressed me the most. Ghost Recon and Dying Light can look good. Mad Max storms are great. With natural lighting on in The Division, it makes the game look excellent but then you cant see.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Lost legacy is not realistic

 

[low-G]

Impressive realistic graphics eventually require new hardware. Tell me if it’s unimpressive when some high spec game is created for future hardware that constitutes a major leap in power.

Impressive art requires good art.

 

[HotHamBoy]

You value "unique and well executed aesthetics" but can't appreciate Uncharted: the Lost Legacy.

Smh that's unique and well executed aesthetics: the game. Uncharted the series, in general is.

God damn it, I never said I don't appreciate the way the game looks or how beautiful it is. I said it doesn't impress me like games earlier in the gen did despite clearly looking superior.

I mean the Uncharted has always been fantastic-looking. I thought Unchsrted 4 looked incredible, mind blowing, but i never got around to playing it. By the time I got to LL yesterday the awe wasn't there anymore.

But there was appreciation.

These games will be surpassed but they're still gonna hold up and be appreciated lol

I appreciate all types of visuals and styles, definitely pixel art. Man how cool would Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite look if Capcom had their act together and just made some top tier pixel art?

But there's lot to appreciate in visuals that are considered more "realistic" as well. I just don't like the notion that games that aren't completely stylized are somehow considered inferior or lacking in art style; or won't hold up (just give it time I tell ya!).

If Capcom made pixel art for Marvel it wouldn't have anywhere near 30 characters. It would probably launch with 16 at best.

It also wouldn't sell any better.

I don't think MvC:I needed to be pixel art, I think the art direction of UmvC3 is already strong and it should have just been a more detailed version of that.

Ask SNK how well sticking to sprites last gen worked out for them.

There are loads of stylized games on PS4 as well, try Gravity Rush, Ratchet & Clank, Tearaway and lots more. They're not exclusive to Nintendo systems, i know this because i also prefer stylized games over realistic ones.

Probably why I listed and acknowledged examples beyond Nintendo games.

 

[texhnolyze]

I get what OP means and I've been saying the same thing for a while now.

Devs need to stop or at least slow down on applying cutting edge techs on their games. Gameplay, story, and other mechanics are more important.

 

[Crossing Eden]

I get what OP means and I've been saying the same thing for a while now.

Devs need to stop or at least slow down on applying cutting edge techs on their games. Gameplay, story, and other mechanics are more important.

None of these concepts are mutually exclusive. You can have cutting edge tech AND good gameplay AND good story.

 

[RedSwirl]

To the people saying Uncharted 4 and Lost Legacy are photorealistic, Naughty Dog intentionally didn't go for 100% photorealism in those games. They are still stylized realism, it's just that the PS4 allows for a greater level of detail than the PS3. People are mistaking detail for realism.

Maybe as the amount of detail goes up, the balance between "photorealism" and "stylized realism" changes from one hardware generation to another. The PS4 games feel like they're going for maybe 90% realism and then filling in that last 10% with a distinct visual style to avoid the uncanny valley. I feel the Resident Evil and Metal Gear games have been doing this at least since the PS2 era. MGSV's lighting looks very natural but you can still tell the characters are based on Yoji Shinkawa's 2D designs.

 

[Gurish]

Cutting edge graphics will always get a "wow" out of me, but they rarely age well when realism is prioritized over art design.
Also, this generation is the first in history where graphical advancement hasn't really led to new types of gameplay. The SNES gave us games like Pilotwings and Starfox- impossible on the NES. Next gen gave us true 3D gaming for the first time. PS2 era gave us twin stick shooters and games like Katamari. The PS360 gen had games like Dead Rising, where hordes of zombies could be on screen for the first time ever, as proven by the awful wii port. Nothing this gen couldn't be made with last gen tech (or a switch for that matter) if you pare down the graphic settings enough. Good graphics still look awesome, but until now, they also symbolized new gameplay possibilities. That isn't the case for me anymore.

This is just incorrect, you can’t make Horizon on last gen, you can’t do TW3 as well, UC4 and U:LL and SOM and SOW, as well as Batman:AK (and yeah the Batmobile could be used better but it’s a fact that you can’t do this mechanic in the old Batman games). There are enough examples for games that couldn’t be made on last gen hardware.

Besides, DR that you just mentioned is only one franchise, it’s not like many other devs took advantage of that idea so hanging on that one example doesn’t do much with selling the PS3/360 gen as anything breakthrough.

 

[iswasdoes]

Wait.... We can't even play games maxed out in 4k on a damn 1080ti?

Depends on the game but generally, no. Have to turn down settings to get it locked 60.

Worse, ROTTR stuttered at max settings on 1080p until I had to mess around with the pagefile.

Ti is not a silver bullet by any means. And on topic, it shows just how much headroom there is in terms of 'realistic' graphics, considering many of the examples here are console.

 

[lazygecko]

Wolfenstein 2's skin shading and lighting look so much more consistent with the eye shaders than the first one. But yea nothing beats superb eye shading:

Wolfenstein TNO/idtech5 used some kind of dithered lighting which bothered the hell out of me. It looked particularly awful on the skin of characters. I could never quite figure out if there was something wrong with my setup or if it was genuinely supposed to look that way, and it was driving me crazy.

This kind of ties into major pet peeves I have with "cutting edge" graphics technology and how I often feel it's a one step forward, two steps back kind of deal because of the new problems and compromises introduced by the newer tech implementations. I started noticing the dithered fade-in type of stuff in games around 2010 and I felt it was much more distracting than the solutions they used before.

Then there's most of the PS360 era when normal mapped textures became an industry standard. Before that artists would mostly just bake static shading/lighting into the textures, but with normals enabling dynamic shading meant that diffuse textures were now made to look flat and light-neutral. Problem was, if the environmental light conditions were not optimal, and quite often they weren't because of how performance-intensive it is, textures would end up looking worse than if they had just used baked lighting. I always found this particularly annoying on character models, and that's become a kind of unflattering look/style I associate with games from that period.

 

[Polioliolio]

The last time I had that wowie moment from seeing new video games? Probably those early Unreal 3 physics, lighting, and bump map demos.

We're hitting diminishing returns now, or the magic is simply lost, or possibly just lost for me.

I mean the new stuff looks great, but no more Mario 64 'holy shit how is this possible' stuff.

Somewhat related: I just watched beauty and the beast and the CG was so unimpressive. That poor hot hermoine was in front of a green screen the entire film wasn't she.

 

[nelsonroyale]

Fair enough...I don't feel as you do at all. Mario Odyssey certainly looks very nice to me...but the combination of art and tech in Horizon, is something incredible...

I am pretty sure ND have said numerous times they are going for stylized realism, not out and out realism...

 

[BanjoLayleeYookaKazooie]

Yeah whilst I wouldn't go OTT and say that the pinnacle has been reached, or devs need to get their priorities in check, going through the thread I have to say I'm feeling what OP is feeling too. You just post all these faces from different games back-to-back and I can admire the effort and talent involved to get that face as good as it is, but as far as getting me excited, happy or any other positive emotions? No I get nothing... it's just a face. It's a cliche of course and has undoubtedly been brought up already but I glance up from my tablet and I can see just as many different and unique faces in the library I'm in now. Same even with the forests/buildings, I don't live in the Amazon or a war-torn 20th century village but I've studied these events/places and seen photos of them and as much as I admire and respect the effort that went into getting Battlefield 1 as it was... again it wears off quickly you know? The developers have incredibly limited artistic freedom to showcase their imagination as they're just (again I stress that this is not downplaying at all) bringing photographs/drawings/people's testimonies to a video game format. It lacks a certain je ne sais quoi. I can't really describe what it is but it is lacking.

Contrast to the usual suspects, Okami, Ni No Kuni, Cuphead, The Wind Waker, all these games take the breath away with their bustling creativity and imagination on show, all requiring obviously an equally huge amount of talent to get them working the way they do, all so distinct, inspired and instantly recognisable to people who have played them. Heck look at say Super Mario Odyssey for example, right from that January presentation where we first saw Mario running through what we know now as the Luncheon Kingdom... it just brought a smile to my face right away you know? The colours, the polygonal food, the fork-people-things with their little prongs curling adding the most subtle of body language to a FORK! It's just so endearing and likeable. Where are my fork people in othe games? I know want more fork people in my video games!

Look I get that these games are no less impressive to those that like 'em and I'm glad people do, they're obviously the most popular and biggest money makers on the whole so they're not going anywhere and I don't want them to, The Last of Us and The Witcher 3 are top 10 games for me after all. But yeah if I'm on one side then it's definitely the side pushing for more creative and imaginative art styles, I love that Overwatch's caught on so well and I love that games like Ori, We Happy Few, Cuphead, Splatoon and other get a big amount of positive buzz from their colours and creativity primarily when they are shown at E3 and the like.

 

[takriel]

It's all, and I mean all about art style.

Take BotW, for example. No graphical powerhouse by any means, but its art style makes it beautiful and pleasant to look at in a sense very few games manage to achieve nowadays.

 

[Thebonehead]

I can remember the jousting sequence on defender of the crown looking photo realistic on the Amiga when I first saw it after a diet of 8 bit c64 games.

 

[texhnolyze]

None of these concepts are mutually exclusive. You can have cutting edge tech AND good gameplay AND good story.

Yes, but you need to allocate your budget to each aspect. If you want each aspect to be good, you'll need a whole lot of money to hire the right talents and acquire the techs. Not every devs have the luxury to that feat, and most of them would have to choose one.

 

[Dictator93]

It is really obvious that UC4's entire asset production is based around approaching ground truth realism (they are using and creating best practice workflows which are physically-based and normalised). Sure the colours of lighting in the levels, the placement of these assets, or the colour-grading exists to "stylize" the game.... that happens with anything in visual media, from film to flight simulators.


Is it some sort of pre-emptive deflection why people would argue UC4 is going for TinTin like stylisation? Is it some sort of misgiving against other games? Why argue that?

 

[nelsonroyale]

Also don't necessarily agree more stylized means more creative. Personally, I like good graphics. Whether I prefer a stylized or more realistic approach is contextual. For instance, Gavity Rush 2 has great graphics and a fantastic sylized approach.

Dictator 93: Just because it isn't as stylized as Tintin doesn't mean they aren't taking an artistic license...This art...they are going for both realism and stylization...Crysis, on the other hand, was going for photo realism in their characters, in a way that I don't feel Uncharted is. There is a spectrum, Uncharted is close towards the photorealism end, but it certainly isn't there, nor is it attempting to be at the current juncture.

 

[Tyaren]

Games striving for a more realistic look have just as much art and design in them than visually highly stylized games. This all had to be imagined and created by artists and designers too:

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

That is the focus though, the refreshed consoles are seemingly focusing on nothing more than improving image quality, when I wish the focus was on things that actually effect gameplay.

Eh. I feel like the Pro, and I'm guessing X have too low of a baseline to start from, and the cleaning up of IQ still leaves something to be desired. The overall impact of this is that the games' graphics are inconsistent, going from mind-blowing when you get the right angle, to mostly a bit rough around the edges at other times.

I fully expect next generation to address or minimize this problem and perhaps be the last generation I care about graphics for TV gaming. After that, it'll be more about different use-cases, like what we can do in portable form factors like the Switch, or VR.

 

[Dictator93]

Dictator 93: Just because it isn't as stylized as Tintin doesn't mean they aren't taking an artistic license...This art...they are going for both realism and stylization...Crysis, on the other hand, was going for photo realism in their characters, in a way that I don't feel Uncharted is. There is a spectrum, Uncharted is close towards the photorealism end, but it certainly isn't there, nor is it attempting to be at the current juncture.

That is a rather dismissive argument you have there. To say that "this art" for UC4 because of a perceived stylisation, while Crysis, for some reason, is not art by virtue of comparison? Both games had artists working on them. Both leveraged time of day, light placement, and colour palettes to emphasize gameplay and mood. I have to heavily disagree that the technology and art production powering UC4 are not attempting photorealism. ND's development talks concerning the game harken constantly about approaching realism and utilising real world values and modelling real world behaviours.

Crysis is a rather old example, but I would use a game like Battlefield 1 or Call of Duty IW as a more modern point of comparison. Those two games and UC4 are using extremely similar production methodolgies and technologies to create assets. Methodologies and technologies which are all about approaching realism.

I am not exactly seeing exagerated features or whatnot in Uncharted, neither do I see them in something like Infamous SS. But of course I see the same methods of stylisation other games and films use: light placement, light colour, placement of assets. I do not see UC4 as being anymore stylised than something like Call of Duty IW.

Games striving for a more realistic look have just as much art and design in them than visually highly stylized games.

Exactly!

 

[carsar]

Current games don't even try to look realistic. Instead of that, they try to be cinematic, CGI. If you want realistic look, you can achieve it with outdated techs like arma engine

 

[Alebrije]

I remember playing Superman 2600 back in '78 or '79 and being legit blown away by the graphics. It's one of the first titles I played that had multiple screens you could traverse. The standard back then was single, static screen gaming ala Space Invaders and Asteroids.

I've never stopped being in awe of tech advancements since. It's almost as if the graphic benchmark of Atari Superman is burned in my brain as "OMG!" and there's virtually no where to go from that point but up.

That long-view perspective on the medium makes it easy for me to appreciate incremental advances in tech, even if minimal. Over the decades I can't think of a single time when I've thought, "These visuals suck. Pass." Note this is more about raw tech benchmarks than subjective artistic talent.

The upshot is that I'm constantly being blown away by new material, whether it's ultra-realism or retro throwback or anything in between. It's actually kind of refreshing, as an old-timer where jaded apathy is pretty easy to come by when you're closing in on 50.

Guess I'll never understand how apathy and ambivalence can take over in a medium that's so constantly evolving and expanding.

Graphics have advanced a lot , but art style is what impresses me these days. There are plenty of options like Dishonored, Bloodborne etc. I was amazed with Enduro when played on my 2600 and enjoy a lot current generation because nobody could think we will move from Atari graphics to PS4 Pro ( talking about consoles) and online interface to play multiplayer with someone on other part of the world.

Graphics will have a limit but art style no, so I guess we will never stop to be amazed on new generations.

 

[Diablos]

Horizon looks so good it’s distracting at times. So many times I would find myself forgetting about the next objective and just taking in the rich detail of the game world, and I’ve never used photo mode in any game as much as I did in Horizon either. There are definitely times where you can argue that a game’s graphics are so seductive that it can take away from other things until you get used to it.

 

[nelsonroyale]

That is a rather dismissive argument you have there. To say that "this art" for UC4 because of a perceived stylisation, while Crysis, for some reason, is not art by virtue of comparison? Both games had artists working on them. Both leveraged time of day, light placement, and colour palettes to emphasize gameplay and mood. I have to heavily disagree that the technology and art production powering UC4 are not attempting photorealism. ND's development talks concerning the game harken constantly about approaching realism and utilising real world values and modelling real world behaviours.

Crysis is a rather old example, but I would use a game like Battlefield 1 or Call of Duty IW as a more modern point of comparison. Those two games and UC4 are using extremely similar production methodolgies and technologies to create assets. Methodologies and technologies which are all about approaching realism.

I am not exactly seeing exagerated features or whatnot in Uncharted, neither do I see them in something like Infamous SS. But of course I see the same methods of stylisation other games and films use: light placement, light colour, placement of assets. I do not see UC4 as being anymore stylised than something like Call of Duty IW.


Exactly!

I think you mistook what I was saying. I wasn't dismissing Crysis art...I was saying it was further along the photospectrum of photo realism...I think Crysis has very good art...The first game is possibly my favourite FPS ever.

 

[R&R]

One game that seriously impressed me lately was Ghost Recon: Wildlands. Like, the game is totally amazing looking and as you are often travelling with a helicopter you can easily get to high up places with great vistas.

Also, especially in the DLC Fallen Ghosts which takes place in the swampy/jungle region of the map, infiltration in pouring rain is super atmospheric and visually really amazing.

Did not expect this at all - kudos to Ubisoft.

Other game that was a visual treat this year was Horizon - especially with HDR.

 

[nynt9]

To the people saying Uncharted 4 and Lost Legacy are photorealistic, Naughty Dog intentionally didn't go for 100% photorealism in those games. They are still stylized realism, it's just that the PS4 allows for a greater level of detail than the PS3. People are mistaking detail for realism.

Maybe as the amount of detail goes up, the balance between "photorealism" and "stylized realism" changes from one hardware generation to another. The PS4 games feel like they're going for maybe 90% realism and then filling in that last 10% with a distinct visual style to avoid the uncanny valley. I feel the Resident Evil and Metal Gear games have been doing this at least since the PS2 era. MGSV's lighting looks very natural but you can still tell the characters are based on Yoji Shinkawa's 2D designs.

I mean, I feel like this is a weird distinction. Movies can be photorealistic (because they're literally real) but also vary in degrees of stylization. Making something stylized doesn't make it not photorealistic.

If your scene contains vivid lighting and clever framing, then a photorealistic view of that scene will be very stylized.

Every art asset generated, every light placed, every camera angle framed is an artistic decision. You can make those decisions cleverly to create a stylized look, or you can just be as bland as possible. You can use the exact same assets to create something that looks very flat or something that looks beautiful and stylized.

Check this article about framing in Grand Budapest Hotel: https://timeinpixels.com/2015/09/cinematography-in-grand-budapest-hotel/