-
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
FieryBalrog
Member
Amir0x said:
I dunno, I love the art style. Its like playing a really detailed cartoon. The only really "garish" thing is the clown outfits your characters end up wearing while leveling.
I really don't recall anyone saying console games have better artwork simply because they are on consoles. It has been more along the lines of some gamer preferring the look of a game that happens to be on a console over a graphically touted game on pc because he feels the overall look, art being one component, on that specific console game draws him in more than some specific game on pc.
In regards to the God of War 3 situation, what impresses me about it at its peak moments such as the poseidon boss fight is not even 'the art' as much as it is the cohesive presentation of a few specific scenes. The motion blur, the cinematic views, smoothness and the dynamism of the animation, sense of scale, etc create something that makes y jaw drop. Overall, Crysis is a better looking game, as GOW 3 is not all that impressive outside of the boss fights, but the Cronos and Poseidon scenes have impressed me more than just about anything I've seen this generation.
Anybody arguing whether or not the PS3 or any console is more powerful than a high end PC is simply fooling themselves. With that said, it is NOT foolish to prefer the look of a console game over the look of a different pc game. Having more power doesn't necessitate that the end results will be more pleasing to the eye, because subjectivity does play a portion in the equation as well as the actual capability of the developer.
Compare the Show on PS3 vs MLB 2k10 on PC. A lot of people may ultimately end up preferring the looks of the show on PS3 although MLB 2k10 on PC is running on much more powerful hardware. The PC will be able to throw a much better image quality due to the filters it can place on top of 2k studio's result, but it can't cover up the animations of 2k studio, nor can it change up the lighting engine. Is that to say that if the Show was maximized to run on a high-end PC as well, that it would look better on PS3? Anyone who thinks that is fooling themselves. However, when it is said and done, capability doesn't necessarily = end results. The PC is definitely much more capable than consoles, but that doesn't mean that a console can't put out an offering that is visually competitive. As said before, much of it comes down to the skill of developers and the subjective preference of the viewer.
In regards to the God of War 3 situation, what impresses me about it at its peak moments such as the poseidon boss fight is not even 'the art' as much as it is the cohesive presentation of a few specific scenes. The motion blur, the cinematic views, smoothness and the dynamism of the animation, sense of scale, etc create something that makes y jaw drop. Overall, Crysis is a better looking game, as GOW 3 is not all that impressive outside of the boss fights, but the Cronos and Poseidon scenes have impressed me more than just about anything I've seen this generation.
Anybody arguing whether or not the PS3 or any console is more powerful than a high end PC is simply fooling themselves. With that said, it is NOT foolish to prefer the look of a console game over the look of a different pc game. Having more power doesn't necessitate that the end results will be more pleasing to the eye, because subjectivity does play a portion in the equation as well as the actual capability of the developer.
Compare the Show on PS3 vs MLB 2k10 on PC. A lot of people may ultimately end up preferring the looks of the show on PS3 although MLB 2k10 on PC is running on much more powerful hardware. The PC will be able to throw a much better image quality due to the filters it can place on top of 2k studio's result, but it can't cover up the animations of 2k studio, nor can it change up the lighting engine. Is that to say that if the Show was maximized to run on a high-end PC as well, that it would look better on PS3? Anyone who thinks that is fooling themselves. However, when it is said and done, capability doesn't necessarily = end results. The PC is definitely much more capable than consoles, but that doesn't mean that a console can't put out an offering that is visually competitive. As said before, much of it comes down to the skill of developers and the subjective preference of the viewer.
brain_stew
Member
Trent Strong said:
We're talking about multiplatform games here so forget about Crysis (despite the 360 controller support being as good as it could be) and FC2, like every other multiplat with controller support, uses the exact same code for controller input as the 360 version. Its literally the same API, used to power the same controller, the PC and Xbox version control exactly the same, if there's an issue with pad control in FC2 then its present in the 360 version as well.
Hooking up a PC to the TV is the exact same process as hooking a console up to a TV these days. Its the same single cable.
kevm3 said:
You've clearly not been following this thread then.
brain_stew
Member
sdornan said:
Its not upscaling and yes, increasing rendering resolution and image quality is one facet of increased graphical complexity. It allows the game to resolve all sorts of things that are covered up by the Wii's shit-tastic image quality. It completely transforms the look of most games on the system.
Opiate said:
Also, why can't some console games try and offer some of the strengths of PC games (more customisation, mod support, let me switch off filters and instead increase resolution etc)
likewise, I'd like to see a PC dev focus on some of the console strengths. Mainly the closed platform one. Fuck direct X - make a game thats absolutely optimised for eg a core i5 and 5850. Wring that fuckers neck and make it sing, and then get it running ok on other configs.
As long as things are coded so abstractly to work well across all hardware combinations, you're just throwing power away to a ridiculous level.
Much as I hate to make this post (because of the undertones), this seems like the best place to ask...
Are there any PC racing games (non Codemasters) out there that rival GT5 (and, to a lesser degree, Forza 3) for graphics?
I have rFactor, GTR Evolution, Race 07 + expansions and a couple of others but none of them are particularly good looking, even at silly resolutions. Nice IQ, sure, but lighting and textures always seem to leave a little to be desired. Should I be looking for track mods for my existing games or am I missing some real gems that I'm unaware of?
I say non-Codemasters because I'm not really a fan of their handling models. Many PC Sims have the most incredible physics engines but I'm yet to find one that marries awesome physics with awesome graphics.
Are there any PC racing games (non Codemasters) out there that rival GT5 (and, to a lesser degree, Forza 3) for graphics?
I have rFactor, GTR Evolution, Race 07 + expansions and a couple of others but none of them are particularly good looking, even at silly resolutions. Nice IQ, sure, but lighting and textures always seem to leave a little to be desired. Should I be looking for track mods for my existing games or am I missing some real gems that I'm unaware of?
I say non-Codemasters because I'm not really a fan of their handling models. Many PC Sims have the most incredible physics engines but I'm yet to find one that marries awesome physics with awesome graphics.
Nope. I love Dirt 2, and it looks pretty great, but that's Codies obviously, and the handling is very arcadey. Trackmania 2 is coming soonish and it looks really nice, but if it's true to it's heritage it will be extremely arcadey too. The big budget semi sim games seem to be the domain of first parties, which means we don't really see them on PC.
Foliorum Viridum
Banned
F1 2010 may not be sim-y enough for you, but I do think the handling is a total improvement over Dirt 2 which felt... floaty, to me.SmokyDave said:
It looks absolutely stunning, too.
I do have a lighting mod on there, though.
If there's any way to demo the game you should do it. It might change your mind on Codies!
jim-jam bongs
Member
jesus
I don't care for driving games but that's pretty berserk
I don't care for driving games but that's pretty berserk
TEH-CJ said:
Times like that I wonder if some of you play their games upscaled 10 times and have the sharpness level on their TV at 99/100.
Halo Reach is one of the most impressive looking games this gen IMO..this game does so many things right - from the beautiful particles/alpha blending effects, amazing skyboxes, really nice lighting, number of characters on screen, object motion blur, scale/draw distance to the great detail on weapon models and characters.
Bungie did a great job on the technical side of things with Reach...the New Alexandria level in particular and Long Night Of Solace are two of the most impressive things I've seen this gen visual-wise.
I think it's weird how everyone blabbers on about how good games of today look. Yeah PC games look better than console games, but they all still look like absolute garbage compared to something like Wall-E. It feels like everyone else are stuck in a temporal distortion field unable to see the flaws in all the screenshots.
I figured. It's no biggie, it's not like my PS3 is going to evaporate or anything. I wouldn't trade the ability to use any car model I can think of for better lighting anyway. Love modding.Fredescu said:
It's gorgeous, there's no two ways about that. The problem is, F1 cars leaves me cold. If something like the rFactor Historic GT Racing mod emerges, I'll be all over F1.Foliorum Viridum said:F1 2010 may not be sim-y enough for you, but I do think the handling is a total improvement over Dirt 2 which felt... floaty, to me.
It looks absolutely stunning, too.
I do have a lighting mod on there, though.
If there's any way to demo the game you should do it. It might change your mind on Codies!
brain_stew
Member
Prisen said:
I'm not seeing anyone claim that PC games look like recent Pixar CGI?
Sorry, man, but the game is incredibly uneven.
It CAN look fantastic in certain areas at certain angles, but what you see most of the time while actually playing the game is not particularly attractive. They do a bad job creating an overall scene. Individual structures can look great, but when you take it all in at once, there are a lot of very rough edges.
If it were more consistent, it would be one of the best looking games ever. It's highs are VERY high, but there are a lot of low points to contend with. Metro 2033 looks much better overall.
jim-jam bongs
Member
My reality doesn't have lifeless 2D backdrops
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
You do understand I own the game and have played it for what steam says is 4 hours...DennisK4 said:
jim-jam bongs
Member
I've gotta say I'm with BobsRevenge on this one. Stalker: COP just didn't impress me, but I chucked SOC on instead after I quit one session and it sucked me in like it was 2007 all over again.
Foliorum Viridum
Banned
I agree that STALKER has moments of brilliance, but that's 2% of the entire experience. The rest of the game is pretty ugly, even with the Complete mod.
I can't wait for their new engine. They have the gameplay nailed, so I hope they really focus on getting the game looking beautiful all of the time.
I can't wait for their new engine. They have the gameplay nailed, so I hope they really focus on getting the game looking beautiful all of the time.
Trent Strong
Banned
brain_stew said:
Well, maybe my computers broken. I played Far Cry 2 on the 360 and had no problems with the controls. Then, because of a weird bug that erased my save on the 360, I sold it and bought it later on the PC during a steam sale. Playing on the PC with a 360 controller was very bizarre. Moving the camera left/right or up/down was fine, but it is very, very, slow when trying to move it diagonally. I've noticed this same very slow diagonal movement in several other games, with several different gamepads. Not only that but the camera was occasionally, seemingly at random, incredibly, almost unusably, slow moving left to right or up and down when very close to an object or person. Again I've noticed this same phenominon with several PC games, and never with a console game. Changing the controller settings doesn't help, because while it makes diagonal camera movement fast enough, it make non-diagonal movement far too fast. And it doesn't help with those occasional, ultra-slow camera movements when close to an object or person. I've noticed these bizarre gamepad camera controls with Far Cry 2 (played console version, problem didn't exist), Silent Hill Homecoming (played console version, problem didn't exist), Crysis, Metro 2033, a little bit in Fallout New Vegas (but not that bad, although problem didn't exist in Fallout 3 on 360). This problem didn't exist in Dead Space, (controls exactly the same as xbox version), or GTA 4 (controls exactly the same as xbox version). So maybe my computer/GTX 260 is broken. Lord knows a lot of my PC games have a slight by annoying stutter. But something is definitely wrong.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
I'm pretty sure that's a problem on your end. Metro 2033 and New Vegas didn't have those issues for me.Trent Strong said:
toxicgonzo
Taxes?! Isn't this the line for Metallica?
How could you post that and not give a name?Kritz said:It's PC exclusive.
And suffers from 'pc look', to boot.
What game is that?!?
Edit: I just got the joke :lol
The game is called Love
brain_stew said:
And you clearly quote precisely what you want in order to further your own agenda. You failed to address the substance of his post in any meaningful way and cherrypick a completely incidental comment that had virtually nothing to do with what he said. Amazing.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
JB1981 said:
I don't think that's the case at all. I don't think brain_stew has much of an agenda. He's just calling out the rich, smooth, and creamy shit that people like yourself are so well known for.
Lion Heart
Banned
_tetsuo_ said:
How did YOU get get this tag? lol
Lasthope106
Member
Foliorum Viridum said:
Take it back! Now!
Stalker has as many moments of brilliance as Half-Life 2 (Yeah I said it). The only thing that prevents the game from being top dog in the FPS genre is that its full potential wasn't realized. You get glimpses of many of them while playing Shadow of Chernobyl, but that scope would have prevented GSC from ever releasing the game.
Your post doesn't make sense. You see, Stalker IS better than Half-life 2. By a wide margin. Half-life 2 was a very simplistic linear shooter - a good one certainly. But Stalker, oh lord, what a fantastic game, with a unique atmosphere. One of my favorite games of all time and a defining game for PC.Lasthope106 said:
Took me hours to go through this thread lol. Unlike most people, I continue enjoying a games graphics even when made obsolete. Sure, some games do fall into an eternal ugly spiral never to return (most N64 and PSX games will forever be ugly in my eyes), but then again I can still appreciate a masterful game even on an inferior system.
Having said that..can't wait to upgrade my PC. Shit looks hawt.
Having said that..can't wait to upgrade my PC. Shit looks hawt.
MoonsaultSlayer
Member
kevm3 said:
Why was this ignored? Hopefully the PC defense force didn't turn their nose up at it.