Pidesco on 5/10/2009 at 12:07
Quote Posted by Ostriig
By the way, why are we using the whole X'' HDTV example for consoles in this thread? Yeah, it's typical to have your console hooked up to the livingroom TV, and your PC to a 20something'' monitor, but there's really nothing stopping you from hooking the PC up to the HDTV and enjoying Mirror's Edge with the best of both worlds.
Oh, yes. Total War games on an HDTV can be pretty awesome.
Eldron on 5/10/2009 at 19:11
much like porn has done so much to the internets and its speeds, graphics whoring has done quite some awesome things to home computers.
I wouldn't want it any other way.
Sulphur on 5/10/2009 at 19:12
I'm so glad to see I'm not alone any more. You guys could have been my emotional support group when I really needed you. :(
scarykitties on 5/10/2009 at 19:23
I'd say that the reason that graphics are so prevalent is because they're the easiest way to sell a game. Being creative with story, plot, and genre is difficult. It's easy to hire a graphics artist and have them create an interactive world. And people will pay for that gimmick, so why not? Why bother working hard to delve into unknown, uncertain areas when one can take an old winner, polish it up with new graphics, and sell it again as new, guaranteed to sell because "it's like the classic thing you love, but prettier." See most first person shooters. It's all a marketing strategy, and it works.
Zerker on 5/10/2009 at 21:01
Quote Posted by swaaye
IMO FSAA should be in all games. Make concessions elsewhere for it if necessary. I think FSAA adds a ton of cleanness to games. Extra polish if you will. Did you guys know that N64 games frequently had edge AA? Ya, go look at those polys in Goldeneye or Mario 64 again (for ex). Now we just get more plastic normal mapping and more bloom and more etc.
Seriously? FSAA?
I haven't turned that on... ever.
Give me higher res or better framerate any day.
PS: I played Mirror's Edge on the PS3 and didn't notice the lack of FSAA at all. I guess because I'm used to it?
swaaye on 5/10/2009 at 21:39
Quote Posted by Zerker
Seriously? FSAA?
Give me higher res or better framerate any day.
PS: I played Mirror's Edge on the PS3 and didn't notice the lack of FSAA at all. I guess because I'm used to it?
I just think aliasing is one of the major issues with modern graphics. The more photorealistic graphics get, the more the jaggies pop out. I find it amusing that they will trade framerate for more annoying/superfluous "wowzers" effects instead of eliminating the jagged lines all over the screen. Anti-aliasing is one of the big differences between offline and realtime rendering. It's also almost universally used in the "bullshots" used to advertise new games.
On the consoles you should realize that a game's frame rate isn't really something that's sacrificed for some specific feature. The frame rate that
they target is a combination of many factors that they completely control. They just don't consider FSAA as important as more bloom or HDR or whatever. So you can't just say that FSAA would directly impair game speed because that's not necessarily true. 360 in particular is supposed to be able to handle 4X MSAA with only a small performance impact if the game is designed for it. But hey, the console game devs don't seem care much about texture filtering quality either for that matter. I see plain bilinear filtering fairly often, a "nice" throwback to 1999 or so.
By not enabling AA yourself and not being exposed to AA in games because devs don't consider it important, you are probably essentially "conditioned" to expect jagged lines as just part of what makes up realtime rendering.
With that said, I want to also say that obviously graphics shouldn't make or break a game for anyone. I just don't see some sort of extreme graphics snob-dom stopping anyone from playing a game. That's just too stupid. :) But computer and console gaming is really just a big technology rat race. Some like to analyze the nuances of realtime game rendering and I think that it is easy to jump to the conclusion that they are just being shallow elitists. It's just part of the "game" for these people. I am just as fascinated by '80s gaming tech as modern stuff and I'm fairly sure that I'm not alone on that.
Zerker on 5/10/2009 at 22:15
I find by having a dense enough screen (32 " LCD TV or 0.250 mm pixel pitch computer screen) and the edges of the individual pixels don't really matter. Yes, I agree with your point about console games choosing exactly how they tweak a game's performance, but I would consider FSAA as the first thing to go. That's because it's exactly what I do when adjusting a PC game's settings.
Then again, I don't get the big deal about anisotropic filtering either...
Phatose on 5/10/2009 at 23:19
Meh. The console side of things often benefits from the reality that people sit a good distance from their TVs. AA doesn't matter much if you can't make out individual pixels.
The PC side, often times you can up the resolution, which will provide a larger benefit to image quality for what is very close to the same performance impact.
And both sides benefit from the reality that aliasing is much, much harder to notice in motion then it is in a static picture.
Now, there's no doubt in my mind that games look better with AA on then with AA off. But certainly not to the extent that screenshots of games look better with it on.
Then you tack on the pretty major performance hit AA carries with it, and it's far far from being cut and dried. Start tacking on difficulties with things like deferred rendering, and it's even less attractive.
So the console guys cut it first, and the PC people leave the choice up to you. Seems about right to me.
As for graphics making or breaking a game....question of definition of what breaking a game is. I can still enjoy a game with bad graphics, but that's not really what the industry gives a rats ass about. Will I buy a game with bad graphics? For $50-60 bucks, if the game is ugly, it better bring a shitload to the table. There ain't nothing wrong with having standards for visuals if I'm gonna lay my money down. And let's be blunt here, ugly graphics get attached to crappy games every bit as often as good graphics get attached to crappy games.
Taffer36 on 6/10/2009 at 00:07
Quote Posted by scarykitties
I'd say that the reason that graphics are so prevalent is because they're the easiest way to sell a game. Being creative with story, plot, and genre is difficult. It's easy to hire a graphics artist and have them create an interactive world. And people will pay for that gimmick, so why not? Why bother working hard to delve into unknown, uncertain areas when one can take an old winner, polish it up with new graphics, and sell it again as new, guaranteed to sell because "it's like the classic thing you love, but prettier." See most first person shooters. It's all a marketing strategy, and it works.
What the fuck?
Artists and programmers WORK HARD to create impressive technology that can in-turn create a more believable and more immersive game world.
I just think it's a bit under-handed to write off graphics as being a "gimmick". It's not, it's a cornerstone of gaming and it always will be. And how is it any less difficult to hire a writer to create the story for you?
