Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/1/11 06:33 PM, argile wrote: I Don't remember the graphics being as poor as you've mentioned in Doom 3 but you have to remember that it was made before tessellation and Displacement mapping were hyped for Directx 11. If you had higher Cpu core in a few years maybe it could be carried on from there.

Okay so i've made a quick estimation on what kind of specs you would need for a more realistic non polygonal Doom 3 ,You might need a time machine find any of the hardware.

CPU Core= 270,400,000 MHZ
Hard Drive Space= 368 Terraflops
Gpu=20971520
Memory=83886080

I thought Final Fantasy VII would look better than it did. Especially since I played VIII and IX first, which had very nice looking cutscenes, I thought VII would also have such high quality graphics. But even for its time the game didn't look that good.

Minecraft

/trolling

At 9/2/11 02:11 PM, Auz wrote: I thought Final Fantasy VII would look better than it did. Especially since I played VIII and IX first, which had very nice looking cutscenes, I thought VII would also have such high quality graphics. But even for its time the game didn't look that good.

Yeah the inworld models were like legs in there simplipst form until you reach the random encounters. There weren't really any texture to work with

At 9/1/11 06:16 PM, sqweebel wrote: Fallout 3 and New Vegas honestly look like PS1 games to me.

You can't be serious. Did you ever own a PS1?

Graphics don't really affect my purchase unless they're fucking terrible, but Fallout games don't have great graphics. Was a bit disappointed with Saints Row 2s graphics, they seem to be worse than the first one. SR: The Third's graphics look a lot better though. I think Halo could do with some better graphics.

pong.

what a piece of shit

Final fantasy 6 was crap. 7 ftw

At 9/3/11 05:46 AM, dogpup4 wrote: Graphics don't really affect my purchase unless they're fucking terrible, but Fallout games don't have great graphics. Was a bit disappointed with Saints Row 2s graphics, they seem to be worse than the first one. SR: The Third's graphics look a lot better though. I think Halo could do with some better graphics.

The are remaking the original halo right now using the halo: reach engine (nothing new is being added they are just making it look better(i hope))

Resident Evil 4 didn't look bad or anything, but I played the PS2 version and later found out that it looked like a medium-quality port of the amazing looking GameCube game.

At 9/2/11 12:22 AM, sqweebel wrote:

At 9/1/11 08:52 PM, Dromedary wrote:

At 9/1/11 06:16 PM, sqweebel wrote: Fallout 3 and New Vegas honestly look like PS1 games to me, and I don't think the massive game world and amount of content is a viable excuse for it

I don't remember PS1 looking anything like this.

Ok ya it was a stupid comparison, I was just trying to get the point across that I thought they looked really bad, but It could of been done better.

Yah the graphics weren't the best, but the engine was already pretty dated by release and they've made a new one for Skyrim which they'll probably use for FO4

I think the games with bad graphics are all 3D DS games. The games are pretty good but the graphics are never awesome. :3

At 9/3/11 01:12 PM, Pickilow wrote: Final fantasy 6 was crap. 7 ftw

Ironically FF7 looks like complete and utter shit while FFVI is one of the nicest looking SNES games.

Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas 2.

Dynasty Warriors.
GOOD-ASS GAME!!!!
Graphivs are meh.

At 9/1/11 10:37 PM, Jin wrote:

At 9/1/11 08:52 PM, Dromedary wrote: I don't remember PS1 looking anything like this.

Still shitty.

No, no it isn't.
You're just being a nit-picky elitist prick.

becuz graphix matter a bunch!11!!!!1

Seriously though, I'd say most indie games.

I may go as far as to say one of my most favorite games, Blue Stinger, unfortunately suffered from what a game magazine called "horrendous graphics". But a lot of the time I never really noticed it. I think the game more than makes up with it, with its super impressive visual effects, which I would still praise to this day.

I will get flak but I'll add FFX. I mean, I don't know if its Square [Enix] or the Sony hardware itself, but it seems that since their games have been developed on the PS line in general, things haven't been looking as great as they possibly could be. I think its perhaps most notable in the hair. Half the libraries of the PlayStation family suffer from jaggieitis, if you ask me. It is perhaps because of these graphic ishies, that companies like Square-Enix will plant FMVs/CG scenes into their games to not only progress plots, but to hide their shame (not saying that every game with FMVs has awful graphics, but it does kind of show, compared to some great looking games (Shenmue) that don't even have pre-rendered backdrops to feel secure.

When you think about it, I think we all in a way (well perhaps most of us), may suffer from what I like to call "pre-Tree of Knowledge" syndrome. What I mean by that is, that there may be a game out there, that we do everything in our power to complete, while being absolutely oblivious to how it looks and whatnot. Then you complete it, and sometime later, you read about the game you played, or share this game with someone you know, and they say something like "the graphics could've been better"; suddenly, your "eyes are opened" (like right after Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge), and you see something you really liked playing, in a different light. Again, not saying that this applies to all games, but in some cases, surely someone knows what I mean.

It's usually a matter of TIME, not always something that's noticed about a game right away. Sometimes the devs have somehow broken the limits of a console in another way, as to not be able to make the game look any better, I dunno.

I think I'm going to shut up now.

At 9/14/11 10:28 PM, Addict wrote: Prey for the Xbox 360.

The storyline was good, but the graphics could of been better. The developers of this game also made Bioshock, which had amazing and realistic graphics.

Yah Prey had actually been in development for around 10 years I think, it was like Duke Nukem in that respect and it was even published by 3d realms. But It was released in the early days of the 360 so I'm guessing for its time it was great.

Spyro dawn of the dragon I already knew it was shit when it was handed to activision but the art style was eye candy. The dragons look weird in the last of the trilogy and it was an overall disappointment.

I mean City of Heroes Freedom

At 9/1/11 08:52 PM, Dromedary wrote:

At 9/1/11 06:16 PM, sqweebel wrote: Fallout 3 and New Vegas honestly look like PS1 games to me, and I don't think the massive game world and amount of content is a viable excuse for it

I don't remember PS1 looking anything like this.

You probably don't, but I've seen better-looking PS2 games than Fallout 3

Every single Call Of Duty game.

Hard Reset.

It's technically great, the engine is amazing, looks fantastic on mid/low end systems, but the art direction is just so boring. Gray and neon everywhere, nothing else. Such a waste. Hopefully we'll see the engine used on something more impressive further down the line.

yo games like GTA and Fallout are big giant games and thus have less room for graphics and shit, cool now you know.

I found pokemon diamond and pearl to be slightly annoying. I can't quite place it, but something about the graphica for the 3d rendering was off.

I may not be a graphics fanatic, but I will admit, Half life Source has disappointing graphics. I mean, I know it's just supposed to be a port, but they could've done much more with it.

Doom 3 was the most advanced graphical game of it's time. For me it's Skyrim, I guess. I guess gameplay will be great, but the graphics are a laugh. Crysis is from 2007 and not a single game has improved on that, so you could say every game from the last 4 years is a disappointment.