nicked on 31/5/2010 at 08:04
Graphics aren't likely to improve noticeably until the next console generation or stuff like OnLive becomes a viable delivery platform.
These days it is in no way going to be profitable for a company to make a game with graphics so good they won't run on an Xbox 360. Crytek seemed to be the exception to the rule with Crysis, but Crysis 2 will be multi-platform and so the improvement graphically over Crysis will probably not be as noticeable.
Rage should have a few tricks up its' sleeves, but it's unlikely to be a revolution. From what I've seen, the world will be pretty static, like a beautiful painting that sacrifices a certain amount of interactivity (the lack of a day-night cycle as a sacrifice for each area looking it's best for example).
Art direction-wise, I'd definitely give Batman Arkham Asylum a try - it's incredibly consistent and polished in every area - it might not be strictly realistic, but it takes a kind of video game/comic book hyper-realism and perfects it until it shines.
We're getting to the stage now though where improvements in graphics technology make less and less impact on the gamer's experience. Any more realistic and people aren't going to notice, let alone care. This is a good thing, as the leveling off of graphics development will hopefully free up time and money for developers to make improvements in other areas like storytelling an AI.
Melan on 31/5/2010 at 08:40
This is the kind of thread that's worthless without pictures. Have mercy!
Thirith on 31/5/2010 at 09:06
Quote Posted by nicked
Art direction-wise, I'd definitely give Batman Arkham Asylum a try - it's incredibly consistent and polished in every area - it might not be strictly realistic, but it takes a kind of video game/comic book hyper-realism and perfects it until it shines.
Frankly, I cannot think of a single interesting game that is strictly realistic - they're all stylised to a larger or smaller extent. Even those games that are usually called realistic go for a very selective sort of 'realism' that might be more accurately described as... dunno. Expressionistic naturalism, perhaps? (E.g.
STALKER.) Hollywood realism, in some cases? (
Crysis, for instance.)
Sulphur on 31/5/2010 at 09:42
Oy, resize those fuckers to something that doesn't fuck up the site, will ya.
mothra on 31/5/2010 at 11:39
i am in the process of replaying Crysis on DX10/high and it's - concerning realistic depiction of forest/jungle - still the best looking game out there imo. for surface detail and indoors awesomeness Metro2033 sure took the crown from doom. I'm sure DOOM4/Crysis2 will be the new benchmarks.
Thirith on 31/5/2010 at 11:59
From what I've seen, Dirt 2 looks pretty damn amazing. I thought that already the first Dirt game was one of the best-looking games, and I think it's aged pretty well.
ercles on 31/5/2010 at 14:35
Quote Posted by Faxfane
1) Dragon Age: Origins (and expansion DLC) : really breathtaking vistas, detail, facial features and expressions. Bodies are a bit odd though, especially elongated elven faces and oddly wide female shoulders (for armor fit).
The textures in DA:O were abysmal, to the point where (
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/05/17/i-envy-you-because/) a fan project was required to fix them. As good as Dragon Age was, I think the graphics were certainly hailed as a real drawback for the game.
Dirt 2 is definitely a very pretty game, but as intense as it is I think forza 3 probably looks better, that game has amazing visuals. Another vote for ME2 as well, although it did degenerate into some repetitive warehouse environments at times, the first time you visit Afterlife on Omega is certainly a moment to remember.
Sulphur on 31/5/2010 at 16:50
As well-written and well-produced as Far Cry 2 is, it's a shame it's just not a very good game. Still fucking gorgeous though, yes.
