Fixed.LCfiner said:Yes, thats all fine and good, but I dont make the $600-$1200 necessary to buy and maintain a gaming PC.
Fixed.LCfiner said:Yes, thats all fine and good, but I dont make the $600-$1200 necessary to buy and maintain a gaming PC.
While you're right, last generation most games were PS2 ports, so it's still not as bad as last generation. The PS2 severely gimped a lot of games and it sucked. If the PS3 had been the dominant third party system, the PC ports would have been much worse for what it's worth. Now the PC gets so many good ports compared to last generation and console exclusives are almost limited to first party games. Sure, it would be nice if there were more games like Crysis that pushed the PC to its limits, or even if they left the more complex games on PC, and made different versions for consoles, but that would be too risky for most companies.Opiate said:I think, instead, that this shows how terribly unoptimized games are for the PC in this day and age. Games are built with the PS3/360 in mind first, and then lazily up-ported to the PC. Obviously modern PCs are perfectly capable of blowing away the PS3/360: it's just that few games care to do show it.
I suppose my objection, if I had one, would be this: I can't imagine how angry and frustrated PS3/360 gamers would be if the overwhelming popularity of the Wii had actually been capitalized upon by third parties, and as a consequence you were playing a lot of games built for the Wii and lazily up-ported to the PS3/360. I remember even the mere mention of such an idea drew enormous derision and scorn. And make no mistake: the difference between the Wii->PS3/360 in raw power is at or near the difference between PS3/360->PC in raw power now.
Look at how the lack of optimization of the PC platform is being defended in here. Let me put this explicitly: some people in here seem to take satisfaction from the lack of disparity between the PS3/360 and PC multiplatform games. This does not mean that the PC isn't more powerful: it means the PC isn't being utilized fully. For a group of people who, almost without exception, care far more about graphics than I do, it is irrational to so vociferously defend inferior graphics. If graphics are a primary concern for you, then you should be begging developers to absolutely blow away anything the PS3/360 are capable of: it's certainly possible, they just aren't doing it because not enough people are begging.
If you aren't asking developers to do this, then your loyalty really lies with Sony/Microsoft (and their respective consoles), not with gaming as a whole, or with the advancement of graphics and technology. And again, there is strong indication that many people in this thread are doing precisely that.
Ashes1396 said:Gt5 {Photomode}:
http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/1425/nrburgringnordschleife1.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]
You know, the more I see that car, the more I think it's just not special looking enough.
DaBuddaDa said:Fixed.
Yes......but this is a thread about the best looking games. Its not about the most fun game you ever played.Atomski said:People crying about graphics, is it 1998 again?
fun =/= graphics
EmCeeGramr said:The problem is that half the people here assume that because PC gaming is great at one thing, then it must be equally terrible at another, and that in the interests of cosmic balance the latter quality must be superior on consoles, as though PCs are designed by a particularly resentful djinn or accursed monkey's paw. [...]
Atomski said:fun =/= graphics
LCfiner said:Ashes, GT5 is a great looking game but posting pre-rendered photo mode shots is not going to prove shit to anyone.
So PC games are now too colorful and busy with too much detail?zoukka said:Two World evidently pushes a lot of stuff on screen, but holy shit those screens are busy/noisy. They either need darker shadows or less colourful sections so the eye can rest somewhere. Everything is equally detailed, which is never pleasing to look at in any medium.
Ashes1396 said:No need to get defensive...
Naah, I'm not being serious or adding anything to the discussion really. PC games for the win etc.. GT5, it's just a beautiful thing really. Just thought I'd share it in a thread where people appreciate visual fidelity.
DennisK4 said:So PC games are now too colorful and busy with too much detail?
My head is spinning.
LCfiner said:Im not getting defensive. Im hanging in the GT5 thread right now
I guess we both misunderstood each other as I thought this quote from you "You mean a ps3 game is going to be playing with the big boys? was a bit more console warrior-ish than you intended
nvm.
DennisK4 said:So PC games are now too colorful and busy with too much detail?
My head is spinning.
syllogism said:The OS bloat argument is hilariously outdated and not really supported by reality.
LCfiner said:Im not getting defensive. Im hanging in the GT5 thread right now
I guess we both misunderstood each other as I thought this quote from you "You mean a ps3 game is going to be playing with the big boys? was a bit more console warrior-ish than you intended
nvm.
Linkzg said:nice! we have "GRAFX AREN'T FUN" now. Has anyone mentioned that 24 fps is cinematic and 60 looks like a soap opera yet? I'm hoping we can cover the full monochrome of stupid before this wonderful thread goes.
you're reading that wrong, I think.
It's like that fan made Sonic game that came out recently. It is difficult to differentiate from the character, background, enemies, etc. because they're all similar. Some people messed with the image to make the background seem visibly different from the foreground. At least thats what I think the issue is. I don't have that complaint myself.
Two Worlds 2 looks really nice
LCfiner said:I was being sarcastic, dude. I used MILLIONS
Ashes, GT5 is a great looking game but posting pre-rendered photo mode shots is not going to prove shit to anyone.
Fuck man, real life is blowing my mind. So much DETAIL, Where can my weary eyes rest? Where's the nearest inn? Oh GODzoukka said:Two World evidently pushes a lot of stuff on screen, but holy shit those screens are busy/noisy. They either need darker shadows or less colourful sections so the eye can rest somewhere. Everything is equally detailed, which is never pleasing to look at in any medium.
syllogism said:The OS bloat argument is hilariously outdated and not really supported by reality.
syllogism said:The OS bloat argument is hilariously outdated and not really supported by reality.
The 360 OS only uses 32mb so I don't know how you jumped from 2x to 4x including the console OS.Zzoram said:Yep. Windows 7 will use maybe 500MB RAM out of the 2GB available (if you have a low end PC) still leaving 1500MB RAM which is 3x the RAM available on consoles (actually almost 4x if you subtract what the console OS uses).
Unicorn said:Fuck man, real life is blowing my mind. So much DETAIL, Where can my weary eyes rest? Where's the nearest inn? Oh GOD
Yeah, but how much total RAM does the 360 have? That's what he's really getting at.Mr_Brit said:The 360 OS only uses 32mb so I don't know how you jumped from 2x to 4x including the console OS.
speedpop said:
The difference being he has actually played the game and had no issues with it. In fact, you are the very first person to even suggest that since, well, ever. Actually someone said the something similar based on some gothic 3 prerelease screenshots, which is really the keyword here. Screenshots.zoukka said:Real life isn't a two dimensional slideshow. The criticism I gave is straight outta any "beginners guide to composing imaginery".
Look at this shot from Witcher 2.
A lot of the scenery is very dark. All the important data pops out.
And here, the scene is mostly orange tinted. It's not cluttered with all the colors of the rainbow. The shadows are DARK as they should be in direct sunlight.
This is not rocket science my friend.
syllogism said:The difference being he has actually played the game and had no issues with it. In fact, you are the very first person to even suggest that since, well, ever. Actually someone said the something similar based on some gothic 3 prerelease screenshots, which is really the keyword here. Screenshots.
syllogism said:Can you give an example of another game you thought that was too busy/noisy? Honestly curious since I'm not sure I even buy that argument applies to games, especially considering you can tweak settings.
carlosp said:guys show this to an average person and ask then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6z4dFM6Viw
what do you think what they would say? The difference is srsly laughable .
I never found clutter a problem when playing Stronghold.zoukka said:Here's a shot I saw just now, that feels way too cluttered for my tastes.
.
Kabouter said:I never found clutter a problem when playing Stronghold.
There are no flaws in those visuals. You made a dumb argument and now you are stuck defending that bullcrap :lolzoukka said:I'm sure I could play it. Doesn't still mean I can't find flaws in its visuals.
syllogism said:Personally I find the variety refreshing and would argue reality can be too busy/noisy.
Yes, that's how reality works and when I said variety, I meant that not every game should aim to similar visual styles.zoukka said:Variety is not the best word, when actually everything in Two Worlds look equally important
DennisK4 said:There are no flaws in those visuals. You made a dumb argument and now you are stuck defending that bullcrap.
Your 'professional artists' argument is rambling nonsense. The artists that made Two World II, Arma 2 and Stronghold are every bit as professional as those making The Witcher 2.
syllogism said:Yes, that's how reality works and when I said variety, I meant that not every game should aim to similar visual styles.
zoukka said:Yes I am obviously commenting the screenshots/videos only. But that it expected in a thread like this.
My issue was mostly that you implied that because the game decided to go for a more realistic style, the artists involved weren't "professionals". The condescending tone didn't help, considering how lightweight your posts were content wise. In the end it's not a matter where you can objectively say which style is better, especially across all the genres.zoukka said:Well these games aren't even close to representing reality in any believable ways, so they shouldn't try to achieve all things that are found in reality. I feel like I'm explaining very simple things here.
And we agree on variety between games. Everyone has their preferences though.
syllogism said:My issue was mostly that you implied that because the game decided to go for a more realistic style, the artists involved weren't "professionals". The condescending tone didn't help, considering how lightweight your posts were content wise. In the end it's not a matter where you can objectively say which style is better, especially across all the genres.
Actually no I don't think that should be expected in a thread like this.
This isn't "What game has the best screenshots!?"
It is "What game is the best looking!?"
BobsRevenge said:The vegetation thing is an opinion though. FarCry 2's foliage is amazing to me. I love the way it looks, aside from the grass not really being textured. But the quantity of veg and how it all moves and shit is pretty jaw-dropping.
Ashes1396 said:Gt5 {Photomode}:
http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/1425/nrburgringnordschleife1.jpg
Credit RDK@Gt planet.