Annoyed by the latest graphics?

I agree... From what I've seen of the DX10 feature set, it's improved. I just despise the plastic look that they're throwing at us now.
 
Isaacav2 said:
Like Ive said many times here before...

SSPPRRIIITTEESS BEYACH!!!

The SNES in its prime gave me the most enjoyment out of any system ever made, including my current P.C.
Click to expand...

QFT...


I would take good 2D and Cellshading over 3D anytime. Hell, just look at LEVEL5, they did such an amazing job with Dragon Quest 8.

And reading some of the relies...I agree that the developers need to getting a better sense of using the technology to enhance the style and atmosphere of the game rather than just randomly splattering bloom and HDR effects everywhere. HL2 and FEAR, made use of its engine very well to portray the game's surroundings. On the console side, style and graphics really went hand in hand in RE4, God of War and Shadow of the Colossus. IMO these are games that had great game play, graphics and style/atmosphere that fit the individual game's theme and content well; it's the love-child of style and substance that counts.

some random stuff...
I think a lot of problems also stem from the consumers-developer relationship, as the avg-Joe loves the "sick ass graphics." Hell, even the most hardcore gamer can't help but be amazed sometimes. With this seemingly positive feedback, the developers go back and tries to crank out better graphics while the hardware improves along the same lines. And with companies like Nvidia and ATI around, I don't see this slowing down anytime.

Also, anyone remember the news back during the PS1 days where Sony of America had some sort of a ban on 2D games and was really trying to push 3D stuff forward...I think they really didn't want to give approval to 2D games and possible translation of 2D JPN games.
 
Some effects are over used for almost no reason. Motion blur is not used enough In games like perfect dark zero it is over done way to much but games are just a view of the world as it should be. In that sense I am fooled into thinking perfect dark motion blur effect made it look real in a painting type of way even though games have a 90% of never looking real like everybody wants them to the point it is just ridiculous.

Like the big “manly” guys who are so uncomfortable with Zelda wind walkers artistic look and there own “manhood” that the refuse to play it for that reason. For some reason they only want it to look like the dirty looking n64 games (Worst Zelda ever by the way maybe the CDI games was worse..).

Wind walker was different totally fake and cartoon but it seemed more real than those lame n64 Zelda’s, and looked good At least the 2nd game cube is a bit closer to ZELDA 1 and 2 realistically fake cartoon look I guess. I’m not going to hold my breath that it will be as good as Zelda 1 2 or 3 though .
 
Cube said:
Like the big “manly” guys who are so uncomfortable with Zelda wind walkers artistic look and there own “manhood” that the refuse to play it for that reason. For some reason they only want it to look like the dirty looking n64 games (Worst Zelda ever by the way maybe the CDI games was worse..).

Wind walker was different totally fake and cartoon but it seemed more real than those lame n64 Zelda’s, and looked good At least the 2nd game cube is a bit closer to ZELDA 1 and 2 realistically fake cartoon look I guess. I’m not going to hold my breath that it will be as good as Zelda 1 2 or 3 though .
Click to expand...
I think you're projecting. I don't like Zelda, but I do like Relentless: Twinsen's Adventure.
 
Kinderheim511 said:
Also, anyone remember the news back during the PS1 days where Sony of America had some sort of a ban on 2D games and was really trying to push 3D stuff forward...I think they really didn't want to give approval to 2D games and possible translation of 2D JPN games.
Click to expand...
Did they make an exception for Capcom or what? I don't remember any delay on the release of SF:Alpha and it was out on the PS1 before any other console. :p

I think the PS1 just had trouble with 2D graphics in general, dunno, Capcom went to the Saturn for other games down the road so they could use the RAM cartridge; not sure if that was an excuse to not release them for PS1 or because the PS1 was actually limited in this regard.

As for Zelda's graphics... Meh, I only played one of the N64 ones, didn't even finish it, the series was never about graphics for me. Even the GB versions had awesome replayability and the graphics were pretty much ass ('least GB metroid looked kinda like the SNES version even if it was more repetitive).
 
I would like to see the plastic look of games go away. Basically anything built on the Doom 3 engine. Even the "real" looking games look like they are made out of clay....... annoying and ugly.

I wish the Source engine was fixed up a bit more. Everything I've played that uses it has tons of clipping issues and just down right sluggish feeling. On the other hand, Half-Life 2 is easily the best looking game I've ever seen. It gave more focus to a real looking world and created something truely amazing.

FEAR is a move in the right direction and a step back all at the same time. It gave the good texture work and realistic world of HL2 but it had the plastic figures of D3.
 
Skrying said:
I would like to see the plastic look of games go away. Basically anything built on the Doom 3 engine. Even the "real" looking games look like they are made out of clay....... annoying and ugly.

I wish the Source engine was fixed up a bit more. Everything I've played that uses it has tons of clipping issues and just down right sluggish feeling. On the other hand, Half-Life 2 is easily the best looking game I've ever seen. It gave more focus to a real looking world and created something truely amazing.

FEAR is a move in the right direction and a step back all at the same time. It gave the good texture work and realistic world of HL2 but it had the plastic figures of D3.
Click to expand...
DX10 should clear all that up...
 
Chris_Morley said:
DX10 should clear all that up...
Click to expand...

I just dont see how Dx10 is going to magically going to clear this all up? Maybe the terrible clipping issues in every DirectX game I've ever played. But plastic and clay figures IMO is something of an artistic and characteristic of the game engine and not the API.
 
I played fear all the way though on a 7800GT.
For the most part, I was very impressed with the graphics in the game.
The graphics were part of the game and added to the (un)realism of the entire thing.
The dream sequences where freaky stuff happens.. Excellent use of blurring and shadowing.
Not a whole lot of HDR or fancy stuff (at least it didn't look fancy.. It looked good, that is artistically well done), but wow, scary, scary stuff.

Things that should have been shiny were shiny - the safety glass in a mask was reflective.
The matte black on the barrel of a gun was not; Neither was the worn, shredded wallpaper hanging from the walls of condemned buildings. Old beat up barrels looked old, beat up, and rusty.

This is what I'm talking about.
 
Skrying said:
But plastic and clay figures IMO is something of an artistic and characteristic of the game engine and not the API.
Click to expand...

That's not an engine issue.
 
This problem will pass. Anyone remember the lighting in quake 2? It was like a damn acid trip.


This is not to say that I appreciate the push for looks over fun.
 
Just reading this made me play Starcraft again. I think games these days don't have that good of gameplay is because they're playing with all these new "toys". :p Some games do look stunning with awesome gameplay (HL:2). If it had gameplay and graphics, I would be perfectly cool, but if they focus more on the bread and not the butter, that chaps my caboose.
 
I agree with the OP.

NFS:MW goes WAY overboard on the HDR, and whenever you're NOT being blinded by HDR, the game looks like someone went buckwild with the burn tool in Photoshop. And does anyone else feel they should have spent less time on crackhead HDR and more time on the controls? They feel WAY less responsive than in NFSU2. The blur effect is nice, however. 120mph on city streets? I'm pretty sure you're not gonna be too concerned with what's 90 degrees directly to your right and left, as opposed to what's about a quarter mile ahead of you.

Doom 3 - Too damned dark! 'Nuff said.

Quake 4 - From too damned dark to WAY too bright in rapid succession.

F.E.A.R. - Too damned dark, plasticy NPC characters.

Source engine - Best thus far : DoD:Source and the few CS:Source maps that use HDR. It's not way blown out like other games, and adjusts it's self realistically as you move from indoors to out, plus it leaves a lot of headroom for realism (HDR based flashbang effect?).
 
Mr. Miyagi said:
Just reading this made me play Starcraft again. I think games these days don't have that good of gameplay is because they're playing with all these new "toys". :p Some games do look stunning with awesome gameplay (HL:2). If it had gameplay and graphics, I would be perfectly cool, but if they focus more on the bread and not the butter, that chaps my caboose.
Click to expand...
Amen, can't wait for Blizzard to stop messing with WoW expansions and go back to their roots. ><

I thought the HDR on Farcry was pretty decent but it was tacked on later on so it had issues in certain scenes with some cards, nonetheless, didn't seem overdone.
 
You guys bring up some good points. Developers definately see the new technology and overuse it to draw attention to their game. I remember seeing motion blur for one of the first times in prince of persia: sands of time, and the first need for speed underground and thought it was an amazing effect, just due to the fact that I've never previously seen it used before. But after that initial wow, you just begin to see it everywhere, even where it isn't appropriate.

It seems like all the games I'm looking forward to, or demos I decide to check out are based around graphics alone. I check out the latest screenshots, and if they show anything impressive and original, I give it a try. For some reason, I don't even expect new games to have comparable gameplay to those in the past. Seems like I'll play a new game for 30 minutes, get bored and spend a few hours on one of the classic favourites. I mean, I enjoyed farcry, fear, and halflife for their unique styles and gameplay, but other than that, most games are pretty boring, and well I kind of expect them to be. Anyone else feel the same?

I wouldn't mind a company releasing a set of addictive minigames. Something that I can pickup and play with a few friends, or solo, just to kill some free time. Something simple, that incorporates your use of timing, button mashing etc, that's easy to pick up on but hard to master. After a late night drinking with friends it's always fun to play super mario or a few rounds of tetris. Seriously, blow the dust off the old nintendo and bring it out. Suddenly there's a crowd of people around asking to play. Everyone knows the games, if not you can learn in a minute, and it'll give you a good time for hours. How come if you have an xbox360 and nes in the same room, the nes will get all the attention?

Maybe instead of huge budjet games and development teams, some companies should invest time in making a fun product.

EDIT: Does anyone else think you could make some amazing minigames with the physics available in todays game engines? Or even a simple side scroller game with physics. For example, a simple two player game, give each person 30 shapes to build a structure, and integrate a few weapons to fire at the opponents structure. See whos design is best, and stands the longest.
 
Well, if what you want is short doses of classic gaming (particulary from consoles and the SNES/NES years), then emulators are what you should Google. ;)

One of these days I'm gonna have a reunion with some of my pals and we're gonna do nothing but play Bomberman, SC, and Super Smash Bro all night, heh.
 
Honestly Games like CounterStrike source dont need HDR

Valve tends to over do it with the HDR

My twin GTX's dropped to less than 20 frames in one part of that new milita map turn it off it looks fine and back up to 100+ frames

HDR in other games like NSF:MW looks dam good imo

my 2c
 
I am curious as to why people say Lost Coast is an excellent demonstration of a good engine? It and other similar engines have many flaws:


  • Wet sand is not shiny like polished porcelain. It gets dull looking and only reflects if it is submurged. Don't these programmers ever go to the beach?
  • The only shiny or reflective rock I have ever seen is one that has been polished by machine. Otherwise, it has a dull and gritty surface. Go hiking, to see what I mean. When have you seen a programmer that hikes?
  • Motion blur is not real life! Motion blur only simulates the soon-to-be-outdated technology of 24 frame per second film! Anyone seeing an Imax film can attest to it having much less motion blur than your standard 35mm multiplex movie. This is because Imax has higher frame rates (as well as higher resolution). It's lack of visual artifacts like motion blur etc. gives it its realism. Why in the heck would anyone want to reproduce the lo fidelity motion blur of 35mm 24fps film?? Heck, even your average TV camera gives less motion blur than a film camera, and that's just because of six more frames per second! Video games give much more frame output and should have considerably less "motion blur", in fact should have none at all. It's like recording music on a CD at AM radio quality and calling it a new feature. It's a step backwards.
  • Flashlights don't just project a circular spot. They also have a considerable amount of ambient light that is usually enough to light a room quite sufficiently for a human to walk around in and see everything. In fact, the lighter the surface, the brighter the ambient light gets, especially if the surface is highly diffusing, like a white wall or ceiling. Like in Doom 3, the flashlight was so unbelievable it was annoying. With all of that shiny metal around, a flashlight should have lit the surroundings like a Christmas tree.
  • Roads are only shiny when wet. They are also very black when wet. To get them to be blindingly shiny, you need a low angle direct reflection of the sun, hence someone's comments about early morning or late evening driving on wet roads. No noon-day sun is going to give off shiny reflections on a road because the angle is too steep. If anything, the wet road should appear very black, reflecting only at puddles where the water is high enough to have a flat reflective surface. Ask anyone familiar with photography, a wet road is harder to see than a dry one. This is why roads are wet in movies. The road disappears and becomes less noticeable to keep the focus on the action. Want to emphasize the road? Keep it dry.
  • Bump mapping or embossing is an ingenious way to simulate texture and depth. However, it's not as realistic as if the item were a series of polygons creating the depth or texture. This short-cut can give the illusion of depth and texture, if properly used. However, improperly used it makes everything look molded or stamped like a plastic toy. Unfortunately, in efforts to lower polygon counts for framerates, just about everything is bump-mapped or extruded from a flat polygon. It makes everything look plastic like a cheap Hollywood set.
While newer games are looking better, they still have a long way to go before "realistic" can be assigned to them. This is going to require that the polygon count go way up and that programmers actually go outside to see how things look. They need to get beyond what they can do and concentrate more on what they should do.

There's nothing wrong with making "hyper-reality" or alternate reality, just give it a little true science to base it on. If everything is to be shiny, then at least make these things out of materials that are shiny in real life. If the environment is supposed to be dark and spooky, even with a flashlight, then make the environment out of material that absorbs light (dull and black). Shiny metal makes a great reflector in real life and should behave the same way in a game.

When the day comes that GPUs are fast enough for real-time ray tracing, is the day when true to life virtual reality will be realized. No more need for bump mapping or other shortcut tricks. 3D graphics will be so much more advanced as Doom 3 is to the original Doom today. No more down-converting of character's polygon counts.

I hope I'm still alive to see that day.
 
Jynio said:
I wouldn't mind a company releasing a set of addictive minigames. Something that I can pickup and play with a few friends, or solo, just to kill some free time. Something simple, that incorporates your use of timing, button mashing etc, that's easy to pick up on but hard to master. After a late night drinking with friends it's always fun to play super mario or a few rounds of tetris. Seriously, blow the dust off the old nintendo and bring it out. Suddenly there's a crowd of people around asking to play. Everyone knows the games, if not you can learn in a minute, and it'll give you a good time for hours. How come if you have an xbox360 and nes in the same room, the nes will get all the attention?

Maybe instead of huge budjet games and development teams, some companies should invest time in making a fun product.
Click to expand...

You've described Nintendo's new "blue ocean" strategy to a tee.
 
I think motion blur occurs in real life. If you wave your hand back and forth quickly, you'll notice that you won't see it in one piece. In strobe light (or any flickering light), then yea you'll see it pretty clearly. But under sunlight, motion blur is very real in human eyes.
 
While I agree that motion blur is a "real life" effect, it isn't a common one. Hence the complaints -- it shouldn't be getting used as much as it is now.
 
one thing I really don't want is a totally realistic scene. I play games to escape, to enter a fictional world that is unique. I don't want 55 gal drums floating in water that looks exactly like the real thing. Boring. Games should be immersive like books. Not like a digital camera.
 
have any of you ever seen something spin? like the spokes of a wheel? there comes a point where you no longer see the spokes... gee, what is that?? motion blur????

ever see a post go by out of the corner of your eye at about 75 mph? hmm since your not focused on it, i guess its blurry???!

motion blur is real and has its place. let them tweak it and put it in its place.
 
Agree with the OP somewhat. Seems to me games are including too many lighting effects.
Some times we have so much "bloom" that objects seem to ooze light.
And 2D lens flares? Come on! Just because people are used to seeing it on TV and movies all the
time doesn't mean thay have to include lens flares in games. In most FPS game I'm supposed
to be looking through a character's eyes. Lens flares in cases like that are just useless eye candy IMhO.

What's next? Will the spoked wheels Jason mentioned above start to emulate stop-motion
strobe effects just like they do on TV?

Moreover, the gaming industry is putting too much emphasis on graphics at the expense of gameplay.

- - * Which is more important to you? Graphics or gameplay? * - -
 
Jason711 said:
have any of you ever seen something spin? like the spokes of a wheel? there comes a point where you no longer see the spokes... gee, what is that?? motion blur????

ever see a post go by out of the corner of your eye at about 75 mph? hmm since your not focused on it, i guess its blurry???!

motion blur is real and has its place. let them tweak it and put it in its place.
Click to expand...

The thing isnt that motion blur isnt real. But in most games its used to much and in not so realistic area's. Making the outer fringes of a screen blur is just stupid, as it doesnt work that way, you need to work out proper focusing for that, and we're still a bit away from such an intelligent engine.
 
Skrying said:
The thing isnt that motion blur isnt real. But in most games its used to much and in not so realistic area's. Making the outer fringes of a screen blur is just stupid, as it doesnt work that way, you need to work out proper focusing for that, and we're still a bit away from such an intelligent engine.
Click to expand...
Is 100% realism really what we're shooting for or what we want from game devs though? I mean, is there no room for artistic vision? How come when we're watching the Matrix and Neo starts dodging bullets so fast that he blurs into nothingness we don't go "psh, that's soooo fake!".

I guess it really depends on the game and the enviroment you're trying to convey, but precise realism is not exactly what games like Need for Speed are aiming for. They're arcade racers, if blur along the fringes of the screen make joe schmoe feel like he's going faster then the effect has acomplished it's purpose.

If you want realism out of a racing game I'd look at other options 'sides NFS. ;) I know it's just one of the examples people are using to drive this point home but I just don't think it's a very good one. Couple this with the fact that some of these effects will look a lot cheesier on still screenshots than they will in motion and you have a very fine line of judgement.

I wouldn't hope or expect 100% photorealism from video games any time in the forseeable future... If Hollywood still can't accurately replicate a human character in CGI which is pre-rendered, then we've got a long way to go still within real-time game worlds.
 
Its not really about realism for me, its about the annoying effect of wrong motion blur. Having it cover such a large porition of the screen makes me scream in eye agony because its so distracting that my eyes loose focus and therefore ruins the game for me.

Calling motion blur like that in the newest NFS as artistic vision is just nuts. In The Matrix is used stylishly done in order to convey speed while in slow motion, its also not done as severally (or I dont think so, as I've only seen the first Matrix, and that only once, I hated it) as that in current games.

And I'm not asking for 100% photorealism, I'm just asking that these new fancy effects be used more sparingly and not pour'd into everything out there.
 
Objects appear to blur because they're moving at a high rate of speed. However, in NFS, why does your car blur? In relation to you, it isn't moving at all. There's a similar situation with distant objects.
 
compulsivephreek said:
one thing I really don't want is a totally realistic scene. I play games to escape, to enter a fictional world that is unique. I don't want 55 gal drums floating in water that looks exactly like the real thing. Boring. Games should be immersive like books. Not like a digital camera.
Click to expand...


In the contrary, we'd also like to see unreal worlds come to life as if we're living it. Take WoW for example. Not the most graphic-intensive game, but it gave me the feeling that the world had it's own culture, subculture, and basically lifestyle. Well, its mostly rooted from our own history, but made me feel like I was in there. It also made me think that Tauren, Undead, Night Elves, Dwarfs, Trollls, Gnomes, raptors and giant spiders exist.
 
If your own eyes perceive a blur in motion, then it stands to reason that motion blur does not need to be simulated. Your eyes will take care of any necessary bluring of motion happening too fast for it to process.

Motion blur is only good for simulating film effects. There is nothing "real life" about simulating motion blur. Once again, your eyes will take care of any "real world" bluring.

Sometimes the obvious must be explained to those stuck in front of a monitor too long.

Also, another gripe of mine about HDR rendering... HDR takes into account the brightness levels perceived by the human eye, but does not take into account focus, and depth of field based on the focal point, surroundings, and the diameter of the eye's iris etc. etc. When was the last time you saw absolutely everything in focus at once, both close and far away?

That is something that must be simulated as the real eye is always focused on the 2D surface of the screen.

There's also color persistence. Ever worn red sunglasses for a while, taken them off and noticed your eyes have "turned down" their sensitivity to red? The same goes for other single colors. How about simulating that? Sure, the eye shortly readjusts itself within a few minutes, but that's part of the lighting response of the eye that HDR attempts to reproduce for a medium without the capability to go as bright as real life (computer screen). To prove this effect, wear some red/blue 3D glasses for a few minutes outside. Remove the glasses and then close opposite eyes and see how different the world looks with each eye.

Jason711 said:
have any of you ever seen something spin? like the spokes of a wheel? there comes a point where you no longer see the spokes... gee, what is that?? motion blur????

ever see a post go by out of the corner of your eye at about 75 mph? hmm since your not focused on it, i guess its blurry???!

motion blur is real and has its place. let them tweak it and put it in its place.
Click to expand...
 
Even science fiction must have a basis somewhere in physics theory and at least some real science to lend it "imaginative believability".

In games, if hyper-reality is the intent instead of genuine virtual-reality, then it still must have aspects lending to believability. It must have its laws of physics, even if hyper-laws of physics. The lack of ambient light from Doom 3's/Quake 4's flashlight, motion blur where it is not needed, overly shiny rocks, dirt, and plastic-like metals distract from imaginative believability. This is because even in a make-believe world, it's easy for the eye to see something that doesn't make sense. One of these constants is how light behaves. If you change the behavior of light, you lose all credibility; even in a hyper-reality simulation.

My father is an award winning artist and his definition of art is "the artists hypervision of reality." You're seeing what the artist wants you to see, their impression, not a reproduction of a photo. Yet, despite this, if you violate certain design laws (especially the physics of light), the viewer perceives that something is wrong and has a negative reaction to the work. So even artistic impressions must follow basic rules to achieve a positive reaction from the viewer. This is why Da Vinci was such an excellent painter. He understood light, perspective, depth, shadows, basic physics, etc.

So, "artistic impression" requires proper application designed to excite the eye, not fatigue it.

Impulse said:
Is 100% realism really what we're shooting for or what we want from game devs though? I mean, is there no room for artistic vision? How come when we're watching the Matrix and Neo starts dodging bullets so fast that he blurs into nothingness we don't go "psh, that's soooo fake!".

I guess it really depends on the game and the enviroment you're trying to convey, but precise realism is not exactly what games like Need for Speed are aiming for. They're arcade racers, if blur along the fringes of the screen make joe schmoe feel like he's going faster then the effect has acomplished it's purpose.

If you want realism out of a racing game I'd look at other options 'sides NFS. ;) I know it's just one of the examples people are using to drive this point home but I just don't think it's a very good one. Couple this with the fact that some of these effects will look a lot cheesier on still screenshots than they will in motion and you have a very fine line of judgement.

I wouldn't hope or expect 100% photorealism from video games any time in the forseeable future... If Hollywood still can't accurately replicate a human character in CGI which is pre-rendered, then we've got a long way to go still within real-time game worlds.
Click to expand...
 
Focus and motion blur are the only two things that cannot be simulated on a flat screen as they are based on real depth and your personal reaction to the object that is presented. However, what are we seeing more and more of in games?

I'd like to see it all go away... throw bad lighting and bump mapping away too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top