Are we still in the "this game's graphics are amazing!" era?

[Moniker]

The latest Gran Turismo/Forza always wows me. And you get that rare hallmark game every now and then (Half-Life 2, eg) that sets a new benchmark.

This is of course separate from style, which can wow one in more interesting and varied ways.

[shmuppyLove]

Okami on PS2 was pretty graphically impressive ... both in terms of style and technical implementation.

- Super Mario Galaxy still blows me away on Wii
- Mirror's Edge looks awesome
- Jet Set Radio of course

blah blah blah I'm bored

[KAI]

Fumito Ueda's games are impressive.

[louisg]

It's true; good art can still impress. I guess it depends if we're talking about being amazed by how high-tech our hardware and software are, or if we're talking about being amazed by exceptionally good usage of it. Games are definitely evolving at a slower pace than they did a decade or two ago.

[Obiwanshinobi]

Graphics galore such as Ōkami has never been norm. In 3D maybe Rayman 3 on the PC amazed me this way. [I liked 2 (PC) better, but 3 surely looked impressive.] In 2D... Metal Slug, In the Hunt, that's about it.

[mesh control]

I guess it depends if we're talking about being amazed by how high-tech our hardware and software are, or if we're talking about being amazed by exceptionally good usage of it.

BRAIN DUMP INCOMING! ! ! !!!


I had the hardware side of things in mind when I made this thread.
The last time I was really floored by graphics was when the PS2 came out and my brother and I played Smugglers Run on launch night saying things like: "HOLY CRAP LOOK AT THOSE MOUNTAINS IN THE BACK!!! AND THE DUST!!! ! !". I was 10 y/o.

While I was lurking around some review site and noticed that there was a side by side comparison of Resident Evil 6 for the 360 & PS3. I stopped reading the nit-picky garbage and asked myself: aren't these consoles more or less boxed PCs at this point, why bother critiquing their graphical assets?

While everything looks pretty and all, I am constantly constantly comparing a lot of these newer games; that emphasize "realism" (GT, Forza, Heavy Rain, Uncharted, etc), to Toy Story's CGI. [this is a really shallow comparison, I'll try to elaborate more.]
But they create something more surreal, unintentionally. Lynchian?

I hope the next generation offers more depth in animation assets, rather than strictly focusing on the graphics. Dead-end wish.

[mesh control]

Man, everything reminds me of 90's FMV games...

[shmuppyLove]

I'm actually finding lately that the pre-rendered blocky compressed video in games looks worse than the game engine itself.

Dishonored is a good recent example.

Even at 1680x1050, a current-gen graphics card with all that jazz like FSAA can produce smoother, sharper graphics.

[null1024]

I remember walking into arcades and being absolutely FLOORED by the way the games looked, and I distinctly remember getting the same feeling of awe with each new console generation. I no longer get that feeling, and the last time I did was with the Dreamcast.

Maybe we're out of the "this game's graphics are amazing!" era, but more than likely I'm just old and jaded.

This. This post describes exactly how I feel. After the Dreamcast and its ilk, I stopped saying things about graphics being really good/bad, except in rare cases [Gran Turismo still impresses me visually].

The last time I've ever really been "woah, look at the graphics" was when I saw an After Burner Climax trailer [and then ages later when I finally got to play it at an arcade, at one of the Movietownes in Trinidad]. The speed, the blue skies, the shine everything had on it, it looked gorgeous. Probably would be dismissed as being OK today, but it still manages to impress me, and it's probably moreso the setting than the polycount or things like that.

If you really want to impress me, make the draw distance measure in miles, with very little LOD stuff happening. I haven't seen that. There are 2 things I look for when I think of visual prowess, draw distance and framerate. Massive draw distance and constant 60fps, I'll be a damn happy camper.

[Zerst]

The problem is not that graphical capabilities have stopped advancing, but rather that big budget game developers are putting all that hardware into making games look as mediocre as possible.

[trap15]

REALISMSZ!!!LOLLLLLL

[lilmanjs]

Gran Turismo 4 was the last game to wow me. GT5 save for the cars, I think looks worse. As for style Nifflas wows me with his art style each game. his latest game knytt underground is awe inspiring at times. though is in beta.

[Ed Oscuro]

I'm actually finding lately that the pre-rendered blocky compressed video in games looks worse than the game engine itself.

Dishonored is a good recent example.

Even at 1680x1050, a current-gen graphics card with all that jazz like FSAA can produce smoother, sharper graphics.

We have these numbnuts over here (or at some external agency, quite often) doing video though, we gots to make that money do work for us.

But yeah, from the standpoint of being a pleasing solution long-term, video often sucks.

Vagrant Story (again) did this pretty nicely; the intro video is stunning (for the time) and not blocky at all. Compare that with plenty of other games before and since which were all "omg we must have LOTS of video or else the people will hate us." Well, the people hate you anyways because the video is often shit. And yeah, WTF are devs thinking, wasting precious DVD space on current-gen 360 games on prerendered video? I can understand why it'd be easier on the development to just throw a movie in there, rather than get the engine cleaned up to run cinematics reliably, but fuck, what's wrong with just doing talking heads, or skipping it entirely? Everybody seems to think you need movie-like cutscenes in games, but you generally don't.

I note that Human Revolution tries with video being somewhat blurry at times, but at 1920x1200 it already looks like it's at the limit of its detail and it's not going to be all that impressive going forward. The facial animations on in-game characters aren't really that great sometimes, but other times they are perfect. Not really sure what the prerendered stuff is accomplishing most of the time.

So THAT'S how some people aren't learning the lessons of Half-Life. Hell, DOOM III barely squeaked this through with its own cutscenes, based on the strength of the engine alone (as BIL said, what's that cwazey scientists up to next?!?). There really wasn't much reason for the cutscenes in that game otherwise.

[Stormwatch]

I'm actually finding lately that the pre-rendered blocky compressed video in games looks worse than the game engine itself.

Ever played Spider-Man on the Dreamcast? Even back then... but then again, that was some seriously shitty CG.

The problem is not that graphical capabilities have stopped advancing, but rather that big budget game developers are putting all that hardware into making games look as mediocre as possible.

But, but, but... real is brown, isn't it?

[Obiwanshinobi]

If you really want to impress me, make the draw distance measure in miles, with very little LOD stuff happening.

Try Gothic with some draw distance mod. Even straight out of box, after some tinkering with settings it had a powerful impact on me. There are maybe three or four loadings IN THE WHOLE GAME (mines and catacombs) and it was breathtakingly open world. When I read about stories people had with Ocarina of Time or Shenmue, I think I know what they mean. Lately Xenoblade Chronicles reminded me of those days (there's more things wrong with this game than - glitchy as hell - Gothic, where if you don't save frequently in various slots, you're in for a nasty trouble, but you can't have everything, can you). It helped that I didn't have expectations shaped up by as many TPPs as I have today (and I say the Gothic's combat rocked hard).
I suppose today's computers can draw the whole overworld with very little compromise.

I'm actually finding lately that the pre-rendered blocky compressed video in games looks worse than the game engine itself.

It changed for the better in the PS2's twilight days. Jak X cutscenes used the game engine, but were pre-rendered in fact (for a good enough reason). You'd be hard pushed to spot the difference.
The worst period, I think, were the days of still pretty awkward compression and already exquisite in-game models (Onimusha 2 and FFX).
So much for the tech, but artistry is never far away.
Are people who can tell whether new things look good or bad trickier to come by than crafty engineers?

[Leandro]

Last time a game wowed me was Ecco the Dolphin for Dreamcast back in 2000

[Obiwanshinobi]

Last time a game wowed me was Ecco the Dolphin for Dreamcast back in 2000

You might like Sub Rebellion.
One more moment of awe I just remembered was dwelling some dungeon in Guild Wars. The world seemed "real" Xenogears way. Like, developed and used some time ago by someone from within that realm rather than some demigod beyond (a game designer).

I already speaked about hatching in games and how impactful it can be.
For the record, speleo-flights in Sky Odyssey don't make much sense. Even if such caves exist somewhere in this Earth's innards, there must be anus-dark down there. Ubisoft gets it right, admittedly; In PoP:TSoT and Red Steel 2, there always appears to be some light source somewhere.
No such luck in Sky Odyssey. Wheather effects, on the other hand...
Suddenly, in the last Adventure mission, light breaks in as the plane "hatches" ground. Suspension of disbelief is right back.

[shmuppyLove]

Oh just remembered that L.A. Noire had that crazy good facial animation, and you could actually recognize some of the actors they modeled the characters after.

[louisg]

I guess it depends if we're talking about being amazed by how high-tech our hardware and software are, or if we're talking about being amazed by exceptionally good usage of it.

I had the hardware side of things in mind when I made this thread.
The last time I was really floored by graphics was when the PS2 came out and my brother and I played Smugglers Run on launch night saying things like: "HOLY CRAP LOOK AT THOSE MOUNTAINS IN THE BACK!!! AND THE DUST!!! ! !". I was 10 y/o.

Huh, so that means you're about 22 now? I'm finding it interesting that you're not impressed by new games, because I was definitely not *that* jaded by that point. Everyone's different, but that might imply that things really have slowed down a bit and it's not just about the NES generation of gamers getting old.

I think the point in time that I was last truly impressed by graphics was Doom 3-- the way it handled shadows and normal mapping was a serious departure. Everything I've seen since has just been incrementally nicer versions of what already existed.

Though, I am glad that devs finally figured out that using detailed sprites for particle effects rather than point sprites look better! No more explosions that look like the "random glowing shit" effects off a PS1, thank god.

Last time a game wowed me was Ecco the Dolphin for Dreamcast back in 2000

Yeah, in that one, at first I thought all the cutscenes were video off disc. Nope!

[KAI]

Last time a game wowed me was Pong back in 1975, those were the good ol' days.

I don't know a shit about new hardwares, but the upcoming MGS looks good.

[louisg]

Last time a game wowed me was Pong back in 1975, those were the good ol' days.

I don't know a shit about new hardwares, but the upcoming MGS looks good.

Pong? Whatever, man. The last time I ever gave a crap was when Tennis for Two came out.

;D

[Ed Oscuro]

Last time a game wowed me was Pong back in 1975, those were the good ol' days.

I don't know a shit about new hardwares, but the upcoming MGS looks good.

Pong? Whatever, man. The last time I ever gave a crap was when Tennis for Two came out.

;D

Billions! and Billions! of rounds have been played of Tennis for Two, yet it has aged very well, according to Carl Sagan.