We have achieved realistic graphics

[exudaz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw8HCFZkBds
With the Xbox, PS3, WII, etc, it was easy to tell what was a video game by the graphics.
Now, I think that we have crossed into 'true' realistic graphics. Half of the footage in that trailer looks like I'm watching a movie. Really, this is crazy.

However, I feel that with such great graphics, other aspects of games may suffer. If you can dazzle people with amazing graphics and make profit that way, what's the point in having revolutionary gameplay or story? When graphics weren't very good, back in the days of the NES and Atari, the developers had to make gripping and addictive gameplay to be successful. I'm not saying this gen's gameplay isn't going to be good, I just think that devs are going to try to focus more on graphics and dazzling visuals.

This gen, I think we should all remember the saying of "Gameplay>Graphics" and try not to buy something mainly because of the visuals. Frankly, I like when the graphics of a game are nice, (they don't have to be realistic, I like colorful, cartoony, quirky things, too) but I always try to buy based on gameplay.

What I'm really curious about is how the next gen of consoles will look.

Thoughts?

[Natick]

At 11/16/13 01:48 AM, exudaz wrote: What I'm really curious about is how the next gen of consoles will look.

Thoughts?

welcome to a fraction of what pc users have been experiencing for since 2004

[Grammar-Nazi]

At 11/16/13 03:36 AM, Natick wrote:

At 11/16/13 01:48 AM, exudaz wrote: What I'm really curious about is how the next gen of consoles will look.

Thoughts?

welcome to a fraction of what pc users have been experiencing for since 2004

This. I'm proud member of the elitist race.

[LauriJ]

To be honest, what's important in making a game is the gameplay and how the game is presented to the audience. Tahat us, it's important to maintain a balance between the gameplay and the presentation.

[Painbringer]

At 11/16/13 03:36 AM, Natick wrote: welcome to a fraction of what pc users have been experiencing for since 2004

Doom 3 is from 2004 and its graphics look nothing like in real life.

[Wunderbar]

well, most of that trailer was cinematics.

[angrybirds2000]

At 11/16/13 05:23 AM, Painbringer wrote:

At 11/16/13 03:36 AM, Natick wrote: welcome to a fraction of what pc users have been experiencing for since 2004

Doom 3 is from 2004 and its graphics look nothing like in real life.

what about hl2?

not to start anything against it, but most people I know who have played it haven't even replayed it fully even once... compared to the original Half Life.. Which a lot of people said is a lot more fun to replay through due to the lack of intrusive cutscenes throughout the whole game and the more ominous atmosphere and arcadey gameplay. Most people that I see praise hl2 usually talk about it's technical side like physics, engine, and graphics, and not it's actual gameplay...

[exudaz]

At 11/16/13 12:42 PM, angrybirds2000 wrote: hl2

arcadey gameplay.

What are you even talking about?
Did Gordon Freeman stop and play Pacman anywhere in that game?

Please don't talk about games like that if you haven't played them.

[angrybirds2000]

At 11/16/13 12:55 PM, exudaz wrote:

At 11/16/13 12:42 PM, angrybirds2000 wrote: hl2

arcadey gameplay.

What are you even talking about?
Did Gordon Freeman stop and play Pacman anywhere in that game?

Please don't talk about games like that if you haven't played them.

No, I mean the fact that in HL1, there's a lot more focused action under a more ominous atmosphere, similar to games like Doom where you shoot a bunch of shit, but it has new elements like the storytellings.

HL2, doesn't feel like it has much enemy variety, and in terms of combat I feel it's inferior to HL1's. The episodes were much better in that area. episode 1 has more action from several different enemies (antlions are actually used as enemies rather than "KEEP OFF THE SAND" obstacles, and the Zombine made the headcrab zombie hordes as a whole a lot more funner to fight) and actual puzzles in general. episode 2 also had that same enemy variety plus non linear areas and arachnotrons on steroids AKA hunters.

[exudaz]

At 11/16/13 01:04 PM, angrybirds2000 wrote:
stuff

stuff

Okay
Have you even played the Half-life games?

[angrybirds2000]

At 11/16/13 01:15 PM, exudaz wrote:

At 11/16/13 01:04 PM, angrybirds2000 wrote:
stuff

stuff

Okay
Have you even played the Half-life games?

I have around 30 hours logged into HL1

70 into HL2(I have had it longer and there are several areas I still replay once in a while, however as a whole I just can't bring myself to get through several parts finishing the actual game)

6 into episode 1 (I look at it as continuing the events of HL2 which is why I haven't replayed it yet because I haven't been able to fully get through several parts of HL2.)

13 into episode 2

[kmau]

At 11/16/13 01:48 AM, exudaz wrote: However, I feel that with such great graphics, other aspects of games may suffer. If you can dazzle people with amazing graphics and make profit that way, what's the point in having revolutionary gameplay or story?

This problem has been around ever since the 7th gen launched.

[ManDeep]

At 11/16/13 01:15 PM, exudaz wrote:

At 11/16/13 01:04 PM, angrybirds2000 wrote:
stuff

stuff

Okay
Have you even played the Half-life games?

God forbid someone having a different opinion on something, huh Exudaz.

[Sense-Offender]

It's okay, guys. He just has Tourette's Syndrome and can't help but - h-h-h Half Life 2! Half Life 2! Hhhhhaaaalf Life 2!

[Natick]

At 11/16/13 05:23 AM, Painbringer wrote:

At 11/16/13 03:36 AM, Natick wrote: welcome to a fraction of what pc users have been experiencing for since 2004

Doom 3 is from 2004 and its graphics look nothing like in real life.

neither does CoD, yet people won't quit jizzing over the smallest changes to lighting and texture mapping.

[DeIirium]

we are already at the point where graphics are considered more important than gameplay. only a few games this gen had interesting gameplay, next gen it will be even less.

[angrybirds2000]

At 11/16/13 01:55 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: It's okay, guys. He just has Tourette's Syndrome and can't help but - h-h-h Half Life 2! Half Life 2! Hhhhhaaaalf Life 2!

keep up that passive agressiveness :]

[Sense-Offender]

At 11/16/13 03:24 PM, angrybirds2000 wrote:

At 11/16/13 01:55 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: It's okay, guys. He just has Tourette's Syndrome and can't help but - h-h-h Half Life 2! Half Life 2! Hhhhhaaaalf Life 2!

keep up that passive agressiveness :]

Take 2 clonidine and call the doc in the morning.

[argile]

There shouldn't even be a possible way to make Improve the Polygon Count or a subtle amount of detail for the next generation. The only thing that can be changed then I think would be how you'd interact with the physics not just with the items you shoot or pick up but also but how the animation should fit around the characer like clothes and physical damage.

[ManDeep]

At 11/16/13 05:59 PM, argile wrote: There shouldn't even be a possible way to make Improve the Polygon Count or a subtle amount of detail for the next generation. The only thing that can be changed then I think would be how you'd interact with the physics

Or water physics.

[BraveShaolin]

At 11/16/13 02:07 PM, Natick wrote: neither does CoD, yet people won't quit jizzing over the smallest changes to lighting and texture mapping.

This.

[orangebomb]

This is a big deal, why?

I get the whole gameplay over graphics argument and all, but that still doesn't mean that most game developers half-ass everything else purely for looking pretty or realistic, though they seem to do just that from time to time, and I would think that most gamers would know the difference. They have the technology available to create visual eye-candy, and unless they're aiming for a retro look, then there would be no excuse for a game of this generation or the next generation to look dated if it doesn't have to.

Some manage to find a balance between amazing graphics and gameplay, {Fallout 3, Arkham City} and some don't, and even then, it's a matter of personal taste. A high-quality game can't ignore one fundamental of game design for another and think it will sell.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 11/16/13 03:42 AM, Grammar-Nazi wrote:

At 11/16/13 03:36 AM, Natick wrote:

At 11/16/13 01:48 AM, exudaz wrote: What I'm really curious about is how the next gen of consoles will look.

Thoughts?

welcome to a fraction of what pc users have been experiencing for since 2004

This. I'm proud member of the elitist race.

Pretty much this plus GDDR6 is going to be implemented in a few years.

[KatMaestro]

At 11/16/13 05:59 PM, argile wrote: There shouldn't even be a possible way to make Improve the Polygon Count or a subtle amount of detail for the next generation. The only thing that can be changed then I think would be how you'd interact with the physics not just with the items you shoot or pick up but also but how the animation should fit around the characer like clothes and physical damage.

Polygon mesh is for old people. Take on Point cloud (yep that shit is real time) and SDF. Save space, realistic physic, all done with procedural programming.

[KatMaestro]

At 11/16/13 11:31 PM, Elitistinen wrote:

At 11/16/13 05:59 PM, argile wrote:

Point cloud in action

[argile]

At 11/16/13 11:34 PM, Elitistinen wrote:

At 11/16/13 11:31 PM, Elitistinen wrote:

At 11/16/13 05:59 PM, argile wrote:

Point cloud in action

Cool I haven't seen much examples of point cloud graphics used in action besides Comanche, It's not used to often from what I haven't seen.

[LemonCrush]

Looks the same as PS3 though

[Dr-Worm]

People said literally the exact same things you're saying about the 360 and PS3 before they came out. It's just silly marketing hyperbole.

If that video is any indication, the graphical improvements between console generations are already starting to show diminishing returns. I think that's probably a good thing.