Why are we not impressed by modern graphics?

Thanks 50cal. The reviews seem to back up that there isn't much of a story and you need to find hidden secrets to figure the story out..kinda lame bc it prob could have had a pretty cool story.
On topic I think games should go back to focusing on game play..I honestly feel game play is on the decline with companies only pushing more and more graphics at the sake of cool game play..i always enjoyed Nintendo style games bc they push gameplay over graphics all the time. I like seeing games evolve like rts games. As a kid I played total annihilation then to see rts gaming evolve into what supreme commander became was a dream come true and a true step into the future. I feel this is not happening in games overall. Developers are just remaking the same crap with better graphics..Just got done playing doom beta and it's awful.
 
Darkswordz said:
Hell, we're still chasing the level of realism from games like Riven back in 1997. :D

ss-001.jpg

riven_03.jpg
Click to expand...

still 400×258 images versus full blown 3d simulations
 
LawGiver said:
By we I mean me which I assume means a lot of me's out there. I mainly blame Half LIfe 2 and original crysis. I still look at a new game like say Metal Gear Solid V and and go meh, half life 2 looked almost as good. A refresher for those who may have forgotten.

Sure if we focus on a particular spot, say someones face the difference is bigger. But overall I just haven't felt that wow factor in a loooooong time. Maybe since 2007 when crysis came out.

Am I just expecting too much for 2016? Anyone else?
Click to expand...


It is because the developers never really pushed the hardware accelerated physics side of the equation. We have eye candy but not much more going on. It has been very incremental. I also think the developers can't keep up with the hardware--the development time and costs are too high for them to push the envelope.
 
Blackstone said:
It is because the developers never really pushed the hardware accelerated physics side of the equation. We have eye candy but not much more going on. It has been very incremental. I also think the developers can't keep up with the hardware--the development time and costs are too high for them to push the envelope.
Click to expand...

In all matters business, it comes down to time and money. Ultimately as much as digital artists making games like think it is about art....at the end of the day the people cutting their check only care about $$$$$$ signs. If Pong or Space Invaders pulled in as much money, they'd get paid the same.

Further, hardware physics....tiny molehill on people's radar most won't appreciate. Further undermined by the Nvidia Physx proprietary crap, forcing game devs to either not bother or favor one platform or another and annoy their buyers.
 
I was just about to make a thread for the new Witcher 3 screenshots, from the Blood and Wine expansion. This is exactly the kind of game that does impress; it's not just about graphic fidelity, it's about art direction and aesthetic.

OC3D :: Article :: CD Projekt Release new Screenshots for The Witcher 3's Blood and Wine Expansion :: CD Projekt Release new Screenshots for The Witcher 3's Blood and Wine Expansion


zafy8bD.jpg
4SrIhSa.jpg
HbdrUfc.jpg
WUYZ8md.jpg


Color palette as well, most games these days have decided brown, grey are the bestest thing for realism. I don't want realism, i want breathtaking views
 
Holy cow, those SS for B&W makes Witcher 3 looks different!
 
pothb said:
Holy cow, those SS for B&W makes Witcher 3 looks different!
Click to expand...
It looks amazing.

It took me 150 hours over six or seven months to finish the witcher 3, simply because I wasted so much time just wandering around and enjoying the views, with a 27" monitor basically touching my nose
 
well quantum break looks pretty amazing. maybe I was just not looking at the latest games...
 
LawGiver said:
By we I mean me which I assume means a lot of me's out there. I mainly blame Half LIfe 2 and original crysis. I still look at a new game like say Metal Gear Solid V and and go meh, half life 2 looked almost as good. A refresher for those who may have forgotten.

Sure if we focus on a particular spot, say someones face the difference is bigger. But overall I just haven't felt that wow factor in a loooooong time. Maybe since 2007 when crysis came out.

Am I just expecting too much for 2016? Anyone else?
Click to expand...


Unless it is the video itself, I am sorry but, that looks absolutely terrible. Modern games definitely look much better than that.
 
Because we do not have holodecks and flying cars yet still, I imagine.

Ibg2cAI.jpg
 
ManofGod said:
Unless it is the video itself, I am sorry but, that looks absolutely terrible. Modern games definitely look much better than that.
Click to expand...


LawGiver said:
well quantum break looks pretty amazing. maybe I was just not looking at the latest games...
Click to expand...
quantum break doesn't look very good to me, on my pc. there's a ton of edge blurring, and my 1440p is actually 900p with weird upscaling
 
Nobody is wowed by graphics anymore, those days are gone and those of you who say otherwise are old men hanging onto the past. The next wows will come from realism with VR and AR.
 
It's more about the graphical style. Simply throwing "MOAR GRAPHICS" at games does not make them look better. It's a combination of the aesthetic. I still think HL2 looks amazing, as does ME - it is simply an aesthetic dream, realised. Original Ghost Recon still looks very good - the environments feel connected to the game and very much a part of it.

A lot of the games lately have not been meticulous labours of love, rather something big and corporate - like AAA movies/blockbusters of the summer.

However, now I think we are seeing something changing. The Division, MGS5 and Siege for example are a few of the games that impressed me in the style of the graphics. The Division is incredibly detailed and the way it makes environments FEEL big and the overall level of detail it gives, all add to the storyline.

MGS5 is amazing in the style it provides - the environments look very tangible and that is what is important I think - to give some kind of connection to the player using the style of the graphics, rather than the technical complexity of graphics themselves.
 
Koko56 said:
It's more about the graphical style. Simply throwing "MOAR GRAPHICS" at games does not make them look better. It's a combination of the aesthetic. I still think HL2 looks amazing, as does ME - it is simply an aesthetic dream, realised. Original Ghost Recon still looks very good - the environments feel connected to the game and very much a part of it.

A lot of the games lately have not been meticulous labours of love, rather something big and corporate - like AAA movies/blockbusters of the summer.

However, now I think we are seeing something changing. The Division, MGS5 and Siege for example are a few of the games that impressed me in the style of the graphics. The Division is incredibly detailed and the way it makes environments FEEL big and the overall level of detail it gives, all add to the storyline.

MGS5 is amazing in the style it provides - the environments look very tangible and that is what is important I think - to give some kind of connection to the player using the style of the graphics, rather than the technical complexity of graphics themselves.
Click to expand...
My only problem with the phantom pain, graphically, is that beards look like shit

I'd have liked some tesselated high poly beards
 
I've been playing Crysis 1 again and I swear (textures aside) it looks better than many games that come out today
 
I would like to see realistic fire w/ smoke, and explosions w/ smoke and debris. They look artificial. I will definitely be impressed if it comes close to realism.
 
4K can provide a nice wow factor, but to really blow me away now I think its going to be about VR and peripherals. Just getting TrackIR and some flight controls really blew me away for flight simulators back in the day, more so than the bump in graphics.

Personally, I am much more interested in physics these days than graphics alone. I want to walk on a beach and be able to see my foot prints and feel the difference in locomotion and how something sticks when falling into it compared to concrete, and how it can be kicked up by objects swung through it. I want to shoot a machine gun at a house, and have the materials of the ground, plants, dry wall, and glass behave appropriately. And if that glass has water in it, I want it to spill properly when knocking it over.

Those are the kind of things I think will really bring that WOW factor, more than just more resolution and textures.
 
IMO there is one area that does impress in new games these days, and that is the use of photogrammetry.

Two notable games used this in the past year or two, The Vanishing of Ethan Carter and Star Wars: Battlefront. Both of those games were imo great looking games that made you appreciate the fine detail of things you saw on screen.

I think that photogrammetry is the wave of the future in terms of textures and details in games. I mean there's only so much an artist can do when creating an object, when you are able to use a REAL world object, be it a tree, rocks, foilage, etc it not only gives you great detail (because it's a real object, you get all the fine details that'd take an artist a lot of time/work to do) but it also allows for a much fuller look to the graphics that you don't normally get.

Here is a good read (with pictures) of how this works with games and what makes it great:
Visual Revolution of The Vanishing of Ethan Carter

I definitely think (or rather hope) that more games in the future make use of it, because Battlefront, even though the actual game was "meh" the graphics were top notch, especially the details on the textures and things.
 
For me it comes down to a few things that can really spoil an otherwise good looking game.

Geometry -> pointy heads and elbows, flat surfaces with no geometric detail. Why is this still happening?!
Shadows and lighting -> blocky, aliased shadows are still a problem, along with lack of proper global illumination.
Physics -> that high resolution coat still doesn't impress if it doesn't move and interact with the world. They really need to do something about clothes and hair in games.

Still, there are other things like AI, animation, kinematics etc that need far more work to catch up with today's graphics.
 
Witcher 3 still impresses me. Battlefront 3 was really impressive as well even w/ it's other huge gameplay problems. The big issue is that a lot of games these days have bad texture art and level design. You need both well thought out and designed environments/textures along with technical prowess to make a good looking game these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top