SubJeff on 4/10/2009 at 18:50
Seriously wtf is going on? I was playing Assassins Creed and Mirror's Edge on a 40" 1080p HD today. Both games run at 720p. I can see the slight blips (some minor framerate stutters and texture draws) in AC but so what?
It makes no difference to the game really. It still looks great.
I hear Mirror's Edge has some gfx or physics superiority on PC. Screw that, it looks awesome on the big screen but isn't the main point that it's fun?
The drive for graphical quality, I thought, was always about making new things possible in game. Physics allowing for destructible environments, 3D to allow for FPSs with real world movement rules and so on.
With the current visual technology, and by that I mean 2D screens, haven't we reached a point where enhancing the gfx tech is just window dressing now? Despite this I see examples of gfx whoring all over. Here is a recent example from the forums:
(
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1913554#post1913554)
And then there are people talking about Mirror's Edge and Batman AA being better on PC. I'm sure they do look a bit better. Does it matter anymore? Is the difference really that much?
Koki on 4/10/2009 at 18:53
Ah so that's what it's all about, you sure made a long prologue
Melan on 4/10/2009 at 19:08
Quote:
Since when did graphics whoring become so widespread?
Since all this newfangled "3d acceleration" stuff showed up, so about 1996 or something. That, or VGA in full 256 colour. Wow, that was impressive. :cool:
Sulphur on 4/10/2009 at 19:13
You be dissin' me biatch? :p
Your post's a bit spread-out in terms of focus. Are you talking about gameplay vs. graphics (fun vs. looking good)? Because that's an
old argument, and the general view is if it plays like shit it doesn't matter how fantastic it looks, not many people are going to enjoy playing it. If the gameplay is great however, then fancy-schmancy graphics still are
not a requirement, but a better-looking game is a better overall package.
In terms of visuals, a game as bright and primary-colour heavy as Mirror's Edge benefits loads from AA, because the jaggies really are quite apparent on the PS3 version. It tended to detract from the experience slightly for me. But if you're not as nit-picky, it's not going to affect you either way.
Quote:
The drive for graphical quality, I thought, was always about making new things possible in game. Physics allowing for destructible environments, 3D to allow for FPSs with real world movement rules and so on.
The drive for graphical quality was more or less about being able to emulate the real world with a reasonable amount of fidelity. We've reached past the point where we could only build abstractions of it, so we're now squarely at the point of diminishing returns.
From here on out, the race is not about being able to make a person's face look like a face in a game, but to get it to diffuse and absorb light realistically so that it looks like actual skin. Progress has to be measured now in terms of how well and faithfully you can render minor detail instead of
major detail. So it's basically the 'window dressing' that the work's left on. And why work on it? Why, to approximate reality better.
And why do that? Well we don't
need to, but we didn't need to move past the pixel graphics of Frogger either. It's just called progress.
Yakoob on 4/10/2009 at 19:26
People like things that look pretty. See: Everything in human history, ever.
Pidesco on 4/10/2009 at 20:14
I distinctly remember how people were graphics whores about the PS1 and the Saturn. Or about the SNES and the Mega Drive. Or about the Amiga 500. Or about PC games, always.
Xenon 2 looked absolutely incredible.
mothra on 4/10/2009 at 21:42
aesthetics. good looking. visuals do have impact on the gameplay. in the linked article the comment was stupid but the implications for gameplay should not be dismissed. reduced drawdistance does have an impact on the fun you can have with a game or the impact a carefully crafted scene has. apart from that, who cares. ega-cga-vga-voodoo 3d acceleration-gefore-radeon, the list goes on. welcome to SINCE FOREVER.
37637598 on 4/10/2009 at 22:08
If graphics whoring wasn't important, we would still be content with our atari 800's. Mr.Robot might have a sequel by now.
I personally like the graphical battle, it's pushing technology to the limits and causing us to use our ever so idle brains, to come up with new methods/materials/techniques for better electronic performance, which not only helps gaming, but military, medical, and many other applications that we don't think of every day. Comma.
SubJeff on 4/10/2009 at 23:02
Quote Posted by Koki
Ah so that's what it's all about, you sure made a long prologue
Not at all. It's just an example.
I can see the need for progress, don't get me wrong.
Its things like the Batman and Risen examples that I don't get. When Assassins Creed and GTA4 came out there were PS3 and XBox360 comparison videos. Its that kind of small difference that I'm talking about, not (another example) HL vs HL2. These small things seem to matter a lot to some people. Ghostbusters was another example. I saw the comparison shots and whilst I could see the difference it meant nothing to me.
Briareos H on 4/10/2009 at 23:39
The comparison shots for Risen have been used over the web mostly to
* serve as a feel better to traditional cRPG fans in need of claiming the supremacy of their platform
* invalidate that terrible Eurogamer review
So i doubt there's really graphics whoring behind those.
As for Batman AA, turns out most people are morons but their argument in favor of more graphics power still stands : to hell with the resolution, but I will never accept to play a game at 30fps+controller lag anymore if I can get it at 60.
HOWEVER, I see your point when it comes to the x360/PS3 comparison shots. It might be useful to those who own both platforms, but all the fan raging beyond that is just another example of human stupidity.
