Who is graphics king?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Posted by uninspiredcup (9014 posts) 4 months, 8 days ago

Poll: Who is graphics king? (176 votes)

Star Citizen 48%
Uncharted 4? 16%
The Order? 10%
Killzone: Shadow Fall 3%
It's still Crysis 3 22%

My friends, a while back I asked the grand qeastion, the ultimate qeastion about gaming, as we don't actually give a shit about gameplay in system wars, at all.

It seems some resistance occurred, people saying "oh ah but the PS4 has The Order and Uncharted 4"

I ask you now my beloved ones, let us settle this score once and or and for and.

What is the current graphics king?

#151 Posted by intotheminx (703 posts) -

Skyrim with mods are way better than some of the games mentioned in this thread. TLOU LOL.

#152 Edited by Jag85 (4628 posts) -

@Heirren said:

@uninspiredcup said:

6 times the graphics on the screen. Fact.

Maybe pixels, but not graphics.

Most consider the original to have better graphics.

I highly doubt "most" people consider Super Mario Bros to have better graphics than Super Mario All-Stars... Maybe on an artistic level it might, but certainly not on a technical level.

Nevertheless, it's worth noting that most NES and SNES games used the same resolution, 256x224, yet the difference in graphical quality between the NES and SNES was like day and night, at the same resolution. On the other hand, most Sega Mega Drive/Genesis games used a higher 320x224 resolution, yet 256x224 SNES games usually looked better than their 320x224 Mega Drive counterparts.

Gamers today keep going on about 1080p this and 1080p that, without realizing that graphics means a lot more than just how many pixels you have on screen. It's just as important to have as many polygons, textures, effects, shaders, tesselation, etc. Each of these factors are just as important as, if not more important than, the resolution.

#153 Edited by Jag85 (4628 posts) -
@uninspiredcup said:

@Heirren said:

@uninspiredcup said:

6 times the graphics on the screen. Fact.

Maybe pixels, but not graphics.

Most consider the original to have better graphics.

Pixels = graphics

Star Citizen has more graphics, around 5-6 times that of Uncharted 4, nothing to be argued.

While Star Citizen has more graphics, it's not because of how many pixels are on screen. According to your logic, a NES game has just as much graphics as a SNES game, since both use the same 256x224 resolution. Your argument makes no logical sense whatsoever. Like I said above, resolution is important, but not as important as the polygons, textures, effects, shaders, tesselation, etc.

#154 Posted by Heirren (17388 posts) -

@Jag85 said:

@Heirren said:

@uninspiredcup said:

6 times the graphics on the screen. Fact.

Maybe pixels, but not graphics.

Most consider the original to have better graphics.

I highly doubt "most" people consider Super Mario Bros to have better graphics than Super Mario All-Stars... Maybe on an artistic level it might, but certainly not on a technical level.

Nevertheless, it's worth noting that most NES and SNES games used the same resolution, 256x224, yet the difference in graphical quality between the NES and SNES was like day and night, at the same resolution. On the other hand, most Sega Mega Drive/Genesis games used a higher 320x224 resolution, yet 256x224 SNES games usually looked better than their 320x224 Mega Drive counterparts.

Gamers today keep going on about 1080p this and 1080p that, without realizing that graphics means a lot more than just how many pixels you have on screen. It's just as important to have as many polygons, textures, effects, shaders, tesselation, etc. Each of these factors are just as important as, if not more important than, the resolution.

Considering nobody remembers the All Stars Mario sprite and the original sprite is one of the most recognizable things in the video game industry, I'd say that is grounds for saying "most".

I know this wasn't the best example because of the resolution--it was the first thing that popped in my head. Genesis vs. SNES visuals are all over the place. That is a much better example to use. N64, as well. A lot of the "advanced" games are now on the uglier side, while games like Mario 64 hold up well.

#155 Posted by uninspiredcup (9014 posts) -

@Jag85 said:
@uninspiredcup said:

@Heirren said:

@uninspiredcup said:

6 times the graphics on the screen. Fact.

Maybe pixels, but not graphics.

Most consider the original to have better graphics.

Pixels = graphics

Star Citizen has more graphics, around 5-6 times that of Uncharted 4, nothing to be argued.

While Star Citizen has more graphics, it's not because of how many pixels are on screen.

That's how it works. Star Citizen has more graphics.

#156 Edited by Jag85 (4628 posts) -

@Heirren said:

@Jag85 said:

@Heirren said:

@uninspiredcup said:

6 times the graphics on the screen. Fact.

Maybe pixels, but not graphics.

Most consider the original to have better graphics.

I highly doubt "most" people consider Super Mario Bros to have better graphics than Super Mario All-Stars... Maybe on an artistic level it might, but certainly not on a technical level.

Nevertheless, it's worth noting that most NES and SNES games used the same resolution, 256x224, yet the difference in graphical quality between the NES and SNES was like day and night, at the same resolution. On the other hand, most Sega Mega Drive/Genesis games used a higher 320x224 resolution, yet 256x224 SNES games usually looked better than their 320x224 Mega Drive counterparts.

Gamers today keep going on about 1080p this and 1080p that, without realizing that graphics means a lot more than just how many pixels you have on screen. It's just as important to have as many polygons, textures, effects, shaders, tesselation, etc. Each of these factors are just as important as, if not more important than, the resolution.

Considering nobody remembers the All Stars Mario sprite and the original sprite is one of the most recognizable things in the video game industry, I'd say that is grounds for saying "most".

I know this wasn't the best example because of the resolution--it was the first thing that popped in my head. Genesis vs. SNES visuals are all over the place. That is a much better example to use. N64, as well. A lot of the "advanced" games are now on the uglier side, while games like Mario 64 hold up well.

If you mean on an artistic level, then I agree with you in that sense. Games with great art design tend to age a lot better than games with more "advanced" technical graphics. But on a technical level, All-Stars is clearly superior, regardless of how much better SMB's graphics may have aged on an artistic level.

But yeah, the N64 is another good example. Most PS1 and N64 games usually used a 320x240 resolution, yet N64 games nearly always looked technically superior to PS1 games, mainly because the N64 had features like texture filtering, anti-aliasing, higher fill-rates, higher polygon rates, etc.

Another example is 16-bit arcade games, which usually had a 320x240 resolution (240 lines was the highest progressive-scan resolution possible on a standard CRT television back then), yet they always had far superior technical graphics compared to both console games with a similar resolution and computer games with even higher resolutions, mainly because of how arcade machines could handle a lot more colours, sprites, tiles, scaling, effects, etc.

#157 Posted by MonsieurX (30489 posts) -
@uninspiredcup said:

After checking and apparently star citizen is 4k.

Around 6 times the graphics of Uncharted 4.

Never though you could sink lower,but you always do

#158 Edited by Wasdie (50003 posts) -

Oh christ. He's trolling and you're all being baited so easily.

#159 Posted by Maddie_Larkin (6565 posts) -

Alot of potential takers on that list, however I refuse to judge on an unreleased game (as history have shown that no unreleased game should be expected to look how they show off anymore.) So it is still Crysis 3

#160 Posted by scottpsfan14 (5588 posts) -
@Wasdie said:

Oh christ, even I know he's trolling.

It's kind of his own unique style of trolling. It definatly gets to people.

#161 Posted by AtariKidX (6282 posts) -

Uncharted 4

#162 Edited by Wasdie (50003 posts) -

Star Citizen is such an ugly game.

#163 Posted by zeeshanhaider (2609 posts) -

@kinectthedots said:

This year Drive Club (looks better than everything else and best looking racer ever made)

Early next year The Order

Late next year Uncharted

in 2016 PC will finally have games out that out do everything on consoles graphically but not this year or next, these games are graphically more impressive than everything PC has.

And while fanboys may bash my post but won't be able to present any games coming out on PC this year or next that are more graphically impressive than these 3 games here, hell most of those hyped PC games in the poll don't even have release dates and Star Citizen gets hype for being very "clean" and being PC exclusive but isn't actually very impressive graphically.

Ewww.......flat lighting....no shadows....blurry background.....low draw distance, all of that in cutscenes. And they call it graphics king, LMAO. Yup, just like I predicted, still a notch lower than a bar set by a game from 2011. Some of us can understand graphics better than you dumb cows.

#164 Edited by Wasdie (50003 posts) -

@zeeshanhaider said:

Ewww.......flat lighting....no shadows....blurry background.....low draw distance, all of that in cutscenes. And they call it graphics king, LMAO. Yup, just like I predicted, still a notch lower than a bar set by a game from 2011. Some of us can understand graphics better than you dumb cows.

Holy shit you couldn't be more cynical and jaded. Those graphics look absolutely fantastic.

Take the fanboy goggles off and come back to reality.

#165 Edited by zeeshanhaider (2609 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

Star Citizen is such an ugly game.

So fugly. Have you seen UC4?

#166 Posted by scottpsfan14 (5588 posts) -
@zeeshanhaider said:

Ewww.......flat lighting....no shadows....blurry background.....low draw distance, all of that in cutscenes. And they call it graphics king, LMAO. Yup, just like I predicted, still a notch lower than a bar set by a game from 2011. Some of us can understand graphics better than you dumb cows.

C'mon, Crysis 2 comes no where close. Again, PBR is the biggest lighting advancement since Shader Model 3. Not real time GI. And guess what? Crysis2/3 doesn't have it. Stop with your Crytek fettish. By your logic, TW3 is less advanced than Crysis 2 as it also doesn't feature a full real time GI.

@Wasdie said:

Star Citizen is such an ugly game.

Haha, Star Citizen is perhaps my dream game. The scale and ability to fly to other planets is too much for me to grasp. And with that visual fidelity. BTW, don't expect your 780 to max this beast out. I'd go maxwell. I am getting an 880 or a ti version for this game. Hopefully that will do 1440p maxed, at above 30fps.

#167 Posted by Wasdie (50003 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:

Haha, Star Citizen is perhaps my dream game. The scale and ability to fly to other planets is too much for me to grasp. And with that visual fidelity. BTW, don't expect your 780 to max this beast out. I'd go maxwell. I am getting an 880 or a ti version for this game. Hopefully that will do 1440p maxed, at above 30fps.

I'm getting an 880 later this year. I have no plans on keeping the 780. At 1440p I feel I need to basically have the top-of-the-line hardware each year.

#168 Posted by scottpsfan14 (5588 posts) -
@Wasdie said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

Haha, Star Citizen is perhaps my dream game. The scale and ability to fly to other planets is too much for me to grasp. And with that visual fidelity. BTW, don't expect your 780 to max this beast out. I'd go maxwell. I am getting an 880 or a ti version for this game. Hopefully that will do 1440p maxed, at above 30fps.

I'm getting an 880 later this year. I have no plans on keeping the 780. At 1440p I feel I need to basically have the top-of-the-line hardware each year.

Yep. 1440p eats recources like a MF. But it's worth it when you have the power. But I'm gonna be honest, it isn't very often that a game comes out on PC that makes me eager to upgrade. Crysis 1 was the last one that made me extatic to have a high end PC. Star Citizen done the job of Crysis 1 this gen. 880ti awaits me.

#169 Posted by Heirren (17388 posts) -

Damn people bashing that Uncharted reveal? Wow. EVERYBODY was impressed with that. If you weren't you got issues. That is a glimpse of what lurks around the corner. Blows any pc game away--and these pc gamers should be happy too see something that advanced as eventually they'll be running stuff like that AND at higher resolutions.

#170 Posted by KillzoneSnake (1751 posts) -

PC wont even beat console 2016. Who knows if star citizen out by then, but if it is its just an empty space sim lol

#171 Posted by zeeshanhaider (2609 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@zeeshanhaider said:

Ewww.......flat lighting....no shadows....blurry background.....low draw distance, all of that in cutscenes. And they call it graphics king, LMAO. Yup, just like I predicted, still a notch lower than a bar set by a game from 2011. Some of us can understand graphics better than you dumb cows.

Holy shit you couldn't be more cynical and jaded. Those graphics look absolutely fantastic.

Take the fanboy goggles off and come back to reality.

Yup, but not to the level cows hype them to be. Sick and tired of their cherry picking crap. Allthings considered Crysis 2 is still technically more impressive than all those PS4 games listed for the things it is doing compare to those linear on rails trailers with prebaked effects.

#172 Posted by DerekLoffin (8790 posts) -

@Heirren said:

@Jag85 said:

@Heirren said:

@uninspiredcup said:

6 times the graphics on the screen. Fact.

Maybe pixels, but not graphics.

Most consider the original to have better graphics.

I highly doubt "most" people consider Super Mario Bros to have better graphics than Super Mario All-Stars... Maybe on an artistic level it might, but certainly not on a technical level.

Nevertheless, it's worth noting that most NES and SNES games used the same resolution, 256x224, yet the difference in graphical quality between the NES and SNES was like day and night, at the same resolution. On the other hand, most Sega Mega Drive/Genesis games used a higher 320x224 resolution, yet 256x224 SNES games usually looked better than their 320x224 Mega Drive counterparts.

Gamers today keep going on about 1080p this and 1080p that, without realizing that graphics means a lot more than just how many pixels you have on screen. It's just as important to have as many polygons, textures, effects, shaders, tesselation, etc. Each of these factors are just as important as, if not more important than, the resolution.

Considering nobody remembers the All Stars Mario sprite and the original sprite is one of the most recognizable things in the video game industry, I'd say that is grounds for saying "most".

I know this wasn't the best example because of the resolution--it was the first thing that popped in my head. Genesis vs. SNES visuals are all over the place. That is a much better example to use. N64, as well. A lot of the "advanced" games are now on the uglier side, while games like Mario 64 hold up well.

That's not grounds to conclude most consider the original to have better graphics at all. That is only grounds to say most are more familiar with the original and nothing more.

#173 Edited by Heirren (17388 posts) -
@Jag85 said:

@Heirren said:

@Jag85 said:

@Heirren said:

@uninspiredcup said:

6 times the graphics on the screen. Fact.

Maybe pixels, but not graphics.

Most consider the original to have better graphics.

I highly doubt "most" people consider Super Mario Bros to have better graphics than Super Mario All-Stars... Maybe on an artistic level it might, but certainly not on a technical level.

Nevertheless, it's worth noting that most NES and SNES games used the same resolution, 256x224, yet the difference in graphical quality between the NES and SNES was like day and night, at the same resolution. On the other hand, most Sega Mega Drive/Genesis games used a higher 320x224 resolution, yet 256x224 SNES games usually looked better than their 320x224 Mega Drive counterparts.

Gamers today keep going on about 1080p this and 1080p that, without realizing that graphics means a lot more than just how many pixels you have on screen. It's just as important to have as many polygons, textures, effects, shaders, tesselation, etc. Each of these factors are just as important as, if not more important than, the resolution.

Considering nobody remembers the All Stars Mario sprite and the original sprite is one of the most recognizable things in the video game industry, I'd say that is grounds for saying "most".

I know this wasn't the best example because of the resolution--it was the first thing that popped in my head. Genesis vs. SNES visuals are all over the place. That is a much better example to use. N64, as well. A lot of the "advanced" games are now on the uglier side, while games like Mario 64 hold up well.

If you mean on an artistic level, then I agree with you in that sense. Games with great art design tend to age a lot better than games with more "advanced" technical graphics. But on a technical level, All-Stars is clearly superior, regardless of how much better SMB's graphics may have aged on an artistic level.

But yeah, the N64 is another good example. Most PS1 and N64 games usually used a 320x240 resolution, yet N64 games nearly always looked technically superior to PS1 games, mainly because the N64 had features like texture filtering, anti-aliasing, higher fill-rates, higher polygon rates, etc.

Another example is 16-bit arcade games, which usually had a 320x240 resolution (240 lines was the highest progressive-scan resolution possible on a standard CRT television back then), yet they always had far superior technical graphics compared to both console games with a similar resolution and computer games with even higher resolutions, mainly because of how arcade machines could handle a lot more colours, sprites, tiles, scaling, effects, etc.

Alright I just thought of maybe the best example.

Virtua Fighter 2

The Saturn version runs at a higher resolution.

#174 Posted by GarGx1 (2783 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

Star Citizen is such an ugly game.

Can't argue with a gif that doesn't fit on a 1080 screen ;)

#175 Edited by Wasdie (50003 posts) -

@GarGx1 said:

@Wasdie said:

Star Citizen is such an ugly game.

Can't argue with a gif that doesn't fit on a 1080 screen ;)

We PC gaming now. Console fanboys do not understand resolutions beyond 1920x1080. They are still struggling to understand the concept of 1080p.

#176 Posted by GarGx1 (2783 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:
@Wasdie said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

Haha, Star Citizen is perhaps my dream game. The scale and ability to fly to other planets is too much for me to grasp. And with that visual fidelity. BTW, don't expect your 780 to max this beast out. I'd go maxwell. I am getting an 880 or a ti version for this game. Hopefully that will do 1440p maxed, at above 30fps.

I'm getting an 880 later this year. I have no plans on keeping the 780. At 1440p I feel I need to basically have the top-of-the-line hardware each year.

Yep. 1440p eats recources like a MF. But it's worth it when you have the power. But I'm gonna be honest, it isn't very often that a game comes out on PC that makes me eager to upgrade. Crysis 1 was the last one that made me extatic to have a high end PC. Star Citizen done the job of Crysis 1 this gen. 880ti awaits me.

My 780ti runs Arena Commander, maxed out @ 1080p, at around 45 - 55 fps.

Optimisation isn't bad at the moment but they do still have a lot to finish with the graphics, just look at the Connie trailer. That's to be expected though, with over a year of development (at least) still to go. Looking great and playing well this early on is very reassuring :)

Come release we'll be looking at 880ti's, at least, to max it with good frame rates and 1440p (or Oculus if you're going that way) - lets face it 1080p is getting old now. God knows what will be needed to get 4k and good frame rates.

#177 Posted by sukraj (23060 posts) -

Wolfenstein and tomb raider look amazing on next gen

#178 Edited by dakan45 (18621 posts) -

So all we have seen from uncharted 4 is a freaking face and its now graphics king? Dear ponies get over your selfs.

#179 Posted by KillzoneSnake (1751 posts) -
  1. 2013 Shadow Fall
  2. 2014 Infamous SS
  3. 2015 Uncharted 4

Star Citizen not coming any time soon. Sony domination.

#180 Posted by Snugenz (11892 posts) -
@KillzoneSnake said:
  1. 2013 delusional cows
  2. 2014 more delusional cows
  3. 2015 ... cows will still be delusional

Sony fanboy delusion continuation.

Fixed all that for ya.

#181 Posted by HaloinventedFPS (4731 posts) -

People still haven't learned ND buff up the graphics in the cutscenes, UC4 won't look half that good in game

#182 Posted by Prawephet (310 posts) -

@Sushiglutton: The real problem with graphics threads is people view them differently.

I voted star citizen based on scale and technical reasoning. Others vote based on face value, they don't care about how technically demanding a game is. That's why you will always have different answers. The order looks fantastic but it's fairly simple to make a hallway look good.

In my opinion, scale should be the factor that people consider. But in someone else's opinion it's all about what looks best regardless.

#183 Posted by BldgIrsh (2700 posts) -

@prawephet: ... Here I thought you were a troll. Yet, this is a genuine levelheaded argument.

#184 Edited by MiiiiV (507 posts) -
@prawephet said:

@Sushiglutton: The real problem with graphics threads is people view them differently.

I voted star citizen based on scale and technical reasoning. Others vote based on face value, they don't care about how technically demanding a game is. That's why you will always have different answers. The order looks fantastic but it's fairly simple to make a hallway look good.

In my opinion, scale should be the factor that people consider. But in someone else's opinion it's all about what looks best regardless.

I agree that many people here just go by looking at individual assets like characters/animations when comparing graphics. I don't think that scale or any other single aspect is what matters, but rather how advanced the graphics are relative to the scale and how much is going on at the same.
For a liner game with a fairly small scale, everything should be top notch (not just the characters) like the textures, physics, lightning/shadows and other rendering effects for it to be considered really impressive.

#185 Posted by Heirren (17388 posts) -

@miiiiv said:

@prawephet said:

@Sushiglutton: The real problem with graphics threads is people view them differently.

I voted star citizen based on scale and technical reasoning. Others vote based on face value, they don't care about how technically demanding a game is. That's why you will always have different answers. The order looks fantastic but it's fairly simple to make a hallway look good.

In my opinion, scale should be the factor that people consider. But in someone else's opinion it's all about what looks best regardless.

I agree that many people here just go by looking at individual assets like characters/animations when comparing graphics. But I don't think that scale or any other single aspect is what matters, rather how advanced the graphics are relative to the scale and how much is going on at the same.

For a liner game with a fairly small scale, everything should be top notch (not just the characters) like the textures, physics, lightning/shadows and other rendering effects for it to be considered really impressive.

Technically demanding and poly count doesn't always matter though. If a more talented artist can construct a better face with less polygons than someone else, where does that leave things. The only thing that really matters is the overall image quality and consistency.

#186 Posted by Heil68 (45267 posts) -

Star Citizen for PC and U4 for consoles.

#187 Posted by MiiiiV (507 posts) -
@Heirren said:

@miiiiv said:

@prawephet said:

@Sushiglutton: The real problem with graphics threads is people view them differently.

I voted star citizen based on scale and technical reasoning. Others vote based on face value, they don't care about how technically demanding a game is. That's why you will always have different answers. The order looks fantastic but it's fairly simple to make a hallway look good.

In my opinion, scale should be the factor that people consider. But in someone else's opinion it's all about what looks best regardless.

I agree that many people here just go by looking at individual assets like characters/animations when comparing graphics. But I don't think that scale or any other single aspect is what matters, rather how advanced the graphics are relative to the scale and how much is going on at the same.

For a liner game with a fairly small scale, everything should be top notch (not just the characters) like the textures, physics, lightning/shadows and other rendering effects for it to be considered really impressive.

Technically demanding and poly count doesn't always matter though. If a more talented artist can construct a better face with less polygons than someone else, where does that leave things. The only thing that really matters is the overall image quality and consistency.

Image quality and consistency also matter ofc. And yes, in the future devs will probably do more with less. I don't think that there will be just one developer that will stand head and shoulders over the rest and will be able to achieve a lot more details/better graphics with less poly count than others. Things will likely have a natural progression as always.

#188 Posted by scottpsfan14 (5588 posts) -
@miiiiv said:

@prawephet said:

@Sushiglutton: The real problem with graphics threads is people view them differently.

I voted star citizen based on scale and technical reasoning. Others vote based on face value, they don't care about how technically demanding a game is. That's why you will always have different answers. The order looks fantastic but it's fairly simple to make a hallway look good.

In my opinion, scale should be the factor that people consider. But in someone else's opinion it's all about what looks best regardless.

I agree that many people here just go by looking at individual assets like characters/animations when comparing graphics. I don't think that scale or any other single aspect is what matters, but rather how advanced the graphics are relative to the scale and how much is going on at the same.

For a liner game with a fairly small scale, everything should be top notch (not just the characters) like the textures, physics, lightning/shadows and other rendering effects for it to be considered really impressive.

Talking scale doesn't paint the full picture. GTA San Andreas will likely be displaying quite a bit less than 100k polys to screen on average despite being quite a large scale game. Something like The Order displays that in just one of the character models and is likely displaying upwards of 6 million polys on average, on screen despite being vastly more linear than GTA SA. Scale itself isn't the technically demanding part, it's how much of the game world the said hardware can display at any given time (and how detailed/dense the world is itself).

Take Infamous SS, 11 million polys rendered by the PS4 GPU on average. The first Infamous game was likely just over 1 million polys on average. Now lets say Uncharted 4 takes that same 11 million poly budget and redistributed it in a linear world. This would mean every asset can be more polygon rich. A tree in Infamous may be using 500 polys where as in UC4, they could use far more of the poly budget since there isn't an open world to cater for.

Play Crysis 1 and you will find it draws about 2.5 million polys on average. And max of like 4 million in dense, heated areas. That shit is off the scale for even modern PC games of 2013. Why? because they are largely 360 ports with level design that has been restrained for 2005 GPU's. You probably know that Crysis 1 was free from these restraints. You might know that they couldn't out right do a straight port of Crysis 1 to consoles and simply lower the textures, lighting, and resolution. Instead they had to fundamentally gimp the levels, asset detail, gameplay, while keeping only a little bit of what made Crysis 1 what it is. It was mutilated. Because the game was not developed for consoles in mind. So Crysis 1 is a gen 7.5 game in a sense. On PC at least.

You seem to think that only the characther models and animation are detailed in The Order. The whole game world is extremely detailed, with super high polygon counts. Hell, Infamous SS has a more detailed world than most linear games of last gen and that's open world. And 1.5GB of the RAM wasn't even used with I:SS. And it probably wasn't even the most efficient usage of RAM to boot. Put it this way, once last gen consoles are fully outmoded, and devs are forced into next gen development, expect game open worlds to be either super sized or super rich. Look at Just Cause 2. That game world was designed with 512MB of RAM in mind. Or GTA 5. Just the same. If scale impresses you, just wait until the next gen sandbox games start rolling in. Think what Just Cause 3 map will be like. Much more detailed while being 10 times the size. Or GTA 6. People downplay the next gen consoles but fail to realize just how many doors they have opened.

But again about scale and "technical advancement". Say we have a game level for a PS3 game that is exactly 1 square km in size. It could be a forest, a street, or whatever you want. And that level is made up of 3 million polygons in total. And then the devs ported that game to the PS4, upped the resolution, textures, lighting. It would result in a better game for sure. But the game level will still be 3 million polygons just like on the PS3. Now what if that developer pushed the boat out and began developing a PS4 version of that game level from the ground up (but with the same level layout)? So instead of 3 million polys, it was composed of about 18 million polys. This is in the same 1 square km area. This would result in super high quality objects, trees, houses, etc. And since it's being redesigned for PS4, why not throw in physically based lighting too. Oh and of course the charcacter model will be far more detailed as well as animations. This is basically what The Order is. The same scale as many games we have seen, but more detailed and dense in geometry. It's part of what gives it it's CGI look.

So the bottom line is, it doesn't matter how big scaled something is to determine how technically advanced it is. It's how much geometry the game is pushing to screen at one time regardless of scale. LOD's are a way of managing performance and geometry on screen. People doubt Infamous SS detail because of LOD pop in, yet fail to realize that some of the reason for that is because of how dense the game world is in the first place, so they had to. They could have transitioned between LOD details better, but what ever.

#189 Edited by R4gn4r0k (16703 posts) -

@Heirren said:

The Order, and probably Ryse at 4k on pc. Fanboys will be fanboys.

The order did surprise me with it's last trailer.

But we'll have to wait and see if it really looks that good :p

#190 Posted by MiiiiV (507 posts) -
@scottpsfan14 said:
@miiiiv said:

@prawephet said:

@Sushiglutton: The real problem with graphics threads is people view them differently.

I voted star citizen based on scale and technical reasoning. Others vote based on face value, they don't care about how technically demanding a game is. That's why you will always have different answers. The order looks fantastic but it's fairly simple to make a hallway look good.

In my opinion, scale should be the factor that people consider. But in someone else's opinion it's all about what looks best regardless.

I agree that many people here just go by looking at individual assets like characters/animations when comparing graphics. I don't think that scale or any other single aspect is what matters, but rather how advanced the graphics are relative to the scale and how much is going on at the same.

For a liner game with a fairly small scale, everything should be top notch (not just the characters) like the textures, physics, lightning/shadows and other rendering effects for it to be considered really impressive.

Talking scale doesn't paint the full picture. GTA San Andreas will likely be displaying quite a bit less than 100k polys to screen on average despite being quite a large scale game. Something like The Order displays that in just one of the character models and is likely displaying upwards of 6 million polys on average, on screen despite being vastly more linear than GTA SA. Scale itself isn't the technically demanding part, it's how much of the game world the said hardware can display at any given time (and how detailed/dense the world is itself).

Take Infamous SS, 11 million polys rendered by the PS4 GPU on average. The first Infamous game was likely just over 1 million polys on average. Now lets say Uncharted 4 takes that same 11 million poly budget and redistributed it in a linear world. This would mean every asset can be more polygon rich. A tree in Infamous may be using 500 polys where as in UC4, they could use far more of the poly budget since there isn't an open world to cater for.

Play Crysis 1 and you will find it draws about 2.5 million polys on average. And max of like 4 million in dense, heated areas. That shit is off the scale for even modern PC games of 2013. Why? because they are largely 360 ports with level design that has been restrained for 2005 GPU's. You probably know that Crysis 1 was free from these restraints. You might know that they couldn't out right do a straight port of Crysis 1 to consoles and simply lower the textures, lighting, and resolution. Instead they had to fundamentally gimp the levels, asset detail, gameplay, while keeping only a little bit of what made Crysis 1 what it is. It was mutilated. Because the game was not developed for consoles in mind. So Crysis 1 is a gen 7.5 game in a sense. On PC at least.

You seem to think that only the characther models and animation are detailed in The Order. The whole game world is extremely detailed, with super high polygon counts. Hell, Infamous SS has a more detailed world than most linear games of last gen and that's open world. And 1.5GB of the RAM wasn't even used with I:SS. And it probably wasn't even the most efficient usage of RAM to boot. Put it this way, once last gen consoles are fully outmoded, and devs are forced into next gen development, expect game open worlds to be either super sized or super rich. Look at Just Cause 2. That game world was designed with 512MB of RAM in mind. Or GTA 5. Just the same. If scale impresses you, just wait until the next gen sandbox games start rolling in. Think what Just Cause 3 map will be like. Much more detailed while being 10 times the size. Or GTA 6. People downplay the next gen consoles but fail to realize just how many doors they have opened.

But again about scale and "technical advancement". Say we have a game level for a PS3 game that is exactly 1 square km in size. It could be a forest, a street, or whatever you want. And that level is made up of 3 million polygons in total. And then the devs ported that game to the PS4, upped the resolution, textures, lighting. It would result in a better game for sure. But the game level will still be 3 million polygons just like on the PS3. Now what if that developer pushed the boat out and began developing a PS4 version of that game level from the ground up (but with the same level layout)? So instead of 3 million polys, it was composed of about 18 million polys. This is in the same 1 square km area. This would result in super high quality objects, trees, houses, etc. And since it's being redesigned for PS4, why not throw in physically based lighting too. Oh and of course the charcacter model will be far more detailed as well as animations. This is basically what The Order is. The same scale as many games we have seen, but more detailed and dense in geometry. It's part of what gives it it's CGI look.

So the bottom line is, it doesn't matter how big scaled something is to determine how technically advanced it is. It's how much geometry the game is pushing to screen at one time regardless of scale. LOD's are a way of managing performance and geometry on screen. People doubt Infamous SS detail because of LOD pop in, yet fail to realize that some of the reason for that is because of how dense the game world is in the first place, so they had to. They could have transitioned between LOD details better, but what ever.

I pretty much agree with everything in your post, I have some doubts about the alleged poly count of Infamous SS though, mainly because of the lod distance.
When the total poly count is distributed on a smaller environments, things get very detailed no doubt.

@scottpsfan14 said:
expect game open worlds to be either super sized or super rich

I am and I agree that most pc games lately (except for some exclusives) have been held back by the last gen consoles.

#191 Posted by Wasdie (50003 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:

Talking scale doesn't paint the full picture. GTA San Andreas will likely be displaying quite a bit less than 100k polys to screen on average despite being quite a large scale game. Something like The Order displays that in just one of the character models and is likely displaying upwards of 6 million polys on average, on screen despite being vastly more linear than GTA SA. Scale itself isn't the technically demanding part, it's how much of the game world the said hardware can display at any given time (and how detailed/dense the world is itself).

Take Infamous SS, 11 million polys rendered by the PS4 GPU on average. The first Infamous game was likely just over 1 million polys on average. Now lets say Uncharted 4 takes that same 11 million poly budget and redistributed it in a linear world. This would mean every asset can be more polygon rich. A tree in Infamous may be using 500 polys where as in UC4, they could use far more of the poly budget since there isn't an open world to cater for.

Play Crysis 1 and you will find it draws about 2.5 million polys on average. And max of like 4 million in dense, heated areas. That shit is off the scale for even modern PC games of 2013. Why? because they are largely 360 ports with level design that has been restrained for 2005 GPU's. You probably know that Crysis 1 was free from these restraints. You might know that they couldn't out right do a straight port of Crysis 1 to consoles and simply lower the textures, lighting, and resolution. Instead they had to fundamentally gimp the levels, asset detail, gameplay, while keeping only a little bit of what made Crysis 1 what it is. It was mutilated. Because the game was not developed for consoles in mind. So Crysis 1 is a gen 7.5 game in a sense. On PC at least.

You seem to think that only the characther models and animation are detailed in The Order. The whole game world is extremely detailed, with super high polygon counts. Hell, Infamous SS has a more detailed world than most linear games of last gen and that's open world. And 1.5GB of the RAM wasn't even used with I:SS. And it probably wasn't even the most efficient usage of RAM to boot. Put it this way, once last gen consoles are fully outmoded, and devs are forced into next gen development, expect game open worlds to be either super sized or super rich. Look at Just Cause 2. That game world was designed with 512MB of RAM in mind. Or GTA 5. Just the same. If scale impresses you, just wait until the next gen sandbox games start rolling in. Think what Just Cause 3 map will be like. Much more detailed while being 10 times the size. Or GTA 6. People downplay the next gen consoles but fail to realize just how many doors they have opened.

But again about scale and "technical advancement". Say we have a game level for a PS3 game that is exactly 1 square km in size. It could be a forest, a street, or whatever you want. And that level is made up of 3 million polygons in total. And then the devs ported that game to the PS4, upped the resolution, textures, lighting. It would result in a better game for sure. But the game level will still be 3 million polygons just like on the PS3. Now what if that developer pushed the boat out and began developing a PS4 version of that game level from the ground up (but with the same level layout)? So instead of 3 million polys, it was composed of about 18 million polys. This is in the same 1 square km area. This would result in super high quality objects, trees, houses, etc. And since it's being redesigned for PS4, why not throw in physically based lighting too. Oh and of course the charcacter model will be far more detailed as well as animations. This is basically what The Order is. The same scale as many games we have seen, but more detailed and dense in geometry. It's part of what gives it it's CGI look.

So the bottom line is, it doesn't matter how big scaled something is to determine how technically advanced it is. It's how much geometry the game is pushing to screen at one time regardless of scale. LOD's are a way of managing performance and geometry on screen. People doubt Infamous SS detail because of LOD pop in, yet fail to realize that some of the reason for that is because of how dense the game world is in the first place, so they had to. They could have transitioned between LOD details better, but what ever.

One thing you missed is the fact that open worlds often have to rely on far more post processing, effects, lighting/shadows to produce a good looking world and cannot control the scenes as well as linear games can. They also often have to load far more unique objects into the scene, which is heavily demanding on the GPU's memory. Small environments have a far greater degree of control over the number of average polygons, do not have to rely on nearly as many lights, and rarely render as many shadows.

Open world games often push far more polygons too because they don't want to rely on extremely aggressive LoDing to keep the average polygon count managable nor do they just want to drastically lower the quality of nearby objects to average things out. This is why open world games can vary so much in polygon counts.

Generally open world games are far less manageable too. They are often loaded with far more unique objects (otherwise they end up looking extremely bland), more moving objects, more NPCs, more shadows and dynamic lights. This usually increases demand on the GPU and CPU as there are a lot more animations to deal with, more audio, more effects, and a more complex scene in general.

Historically open world games look great because people take their size into account. Large open world games also have a lot of asset creation and management to worry about, while linear games can spend more time on each asset. This leads to linear games usually having better art direction, less reused assets, and a more polished look overall. Time management is different.

There are also engine limitations with open world games when it comes to asset management and streaming assets. Games like Crysis had large levels but were never that varied within the level itself as the engine at the time loaded the whole level into memory. A large amount of high ifdelity assets would have loaded the available memory too quickly. So devs have to choose. Fewer high fidelity assets or a variety of lower fidelity assets?

Tech has changed though. Now engines can stream much better so that's become less of a limit and we're back to average polygons and how you want to distribute those polygons throughout a scene.

#192 Posted by scottpsfan14 (5588 posts) -
@Wasdie said:

One thing you missed is the fact that open worlds often have to rely on far more post processing, effects, lighting/shadows to produce a good looking world and cannot control the scenes as well as linear games can. They also often have to load far more unique objects into the scene, which is heavily demanding on the GPU's memory. Small environments have a far greater degree of control over the number of average polygons, do not have to rely on nearly as many lights, and rarely render as many shadows.

Open world games often push far more polygons too because they don't want to rely on extremely aggressive LoDing to keep the average polygon count managable nor do they just want to drastically lower the quality of nearby objects to average things out. This is why open world games can vary so much in polygon counts.

Generally open world games are far less manageable too. They are often loaded with far more unique objects (otherwise they end up looking extremely bland), more moving objects, more NPCs, more shadows and dynamic lights. This usually increases demand on the GPU and CPU as there are a lot more animations to deal with, more audio, more effects, and a more complex scene in general.

Historically open world games look great because people take their size into account. Large open world games also have a lot of asset creation and management to worry about, while linear games can spend more time on each asset. This leads to linear games usually having better art direction, less reused assets, and a more polished look overall. Time management is different.

There are also engine limitations with open world games when it comes to asset management and streaming assets. Games like Crysis had large levels but were never that varied within the level itself as the engine at the time loaded the whole level into memory. A large amount of high ifdelity assets would have loaded the available memory too quickly. So devs have to choose. Fewer high fidelity assets or a variety of lower fidelity assets?

Tech has changed though. Now engines can stream much better so that's become less of a limit and we're back to average polygons and how you want to distribute those polygons throughout a scene.

Linear games tend to have more scripted animations, etc. Open world games are potentially drawing far more things in unison due to the nature of open worlds simply having more things in view. Also take into account that when you look in the distance in a linear game, there is perhaps a backdrop of mountains or buildings or whatever. Those are made of real polygons, and probably look nice, but they are not accessable and are not an LOD detail in itself. Where as in an open world game like GTA 5, everything you see in the background is an LOD detail that is programmed to be explored and accessed with higher LOD models available.

And yeah, if you look at Crysis 1, every palm tree is the same. A lot of instacing and repeating is present in open world games. So pin pointing what exactly is more "technically advanced" out of a linear game and an open world sand box isn't exactly cut and dry. Not something you can really say for certain. But that doesn't mean you can't be more impressed with a certain type of game than another. Infamous SS impresses me due to all the stuff going on in unison. When it comes down to it, It's rendering 11 million polygons on screen, on average (this is according to Sucker Punch themselves BTW). Then it features a 120,000 poly character model (which is included in the overall 11 mill poly count for the scene). But even that 120k number is beyond any linear game character model currently out. Then on top of that it has a physically based lighting model. Particle effects rendered and calculated by the GPGPU. Cloth physics also ran on the GPGPU. It is very impressive on paper. And also in motion. In my opinion, more impressive than Ryse. BUT, Ryse is the better looking game in my opinion.

#193 Posted by Mr_Huggles_dog (1220 posts) -

People like Robo do nothing but try to diminish the viewpoint of others that don't agree with him by calling them trolls and trying to showcase to others that we're just not adding anything to the discussion by stating it so everyone can see.

Funny enough I said the same thing about him before he turned around and started doing it to us.

Fact is...you go into every console thread and spew you "PC is king" bullshit...so don't act like the mods need to take care of anyone....b/c you're half the problem.

Aside from that....Star Citizen does look pretty good....too bad it doesn't belong to PC. If PC is one entity here on SW...then SC shouldn't be a part of "PC GFX KING" since not all....not even many PCs will be able to run it at full settings like in those pictures.

I'm sorry...but it's true. What those pics look like of Second Son or The Order....will be universal throughout the ppl who play on PS4....Star Ctiizen will not. Thats a cold hard fact.....and the PC lackies will call me troll and bitch and scream and try to manipulate it that in some way it's not true....but we all know it is.

You'll need at least a $1000 PC to run that game on those settings....and not everyone, if many, has a $1000 PC.

#194 Posted by lostrib (37798 posts) -

@mr_huggles_dog said:

People like Robo do nothing but try to diminish the viewpoint of others that don't agree with him by calling them trolls and trying to showcase to others that we're just not adding anything to the discussion by stating it so everyone can see.

Funny enough I said the same thing about him before he turned around and started doing it to us.

Fact is...you go into every console thread and spew you "PC is king" bullshit...so don't act like the mods need to take care of anyone....b/c you're half the problem.

Aside from that....Star Citizen does look pretty good....too bad it doesn't belong to PC. If PC is one entity here on SW...then SC shouldn't be a part of "PC GFX KING" since not all....not even many PCs will be able to run it at full settings like in those pictures.

I'm sorry...but it's true. What those pics look like of Second Son or The Order....will be universal throughout the ppl who play on PS4....Star Ctiizen will not. Thats a cold hard fact.....and the PC lackies will call me troll and bitch and scream and try to manipulate it that in some way it's not true....but we all know it is.

You'll need at least a $1000 PC to run that game on those settings....and not everyone, if many, has a $1000 PC.

It's a PC game

#195 Edited by lawlessx (46779 posts) -

@mr_huggles_dog said:

People like Robo do nothing but try to diminish the viewpoint of others that don't agree with him by calling them trolls and trying to showcase to others that we're just not adding anything to the discussion by stating it so everyone can see.

Funny enough I said the same thing about him before he turned around and started doing it to us.

Fact is...you go into every console thread and spew you "PC is king" bullshit...so don't act like the mods need to take care of anyone....b/c you're half the problem.

Aside from that....Star Citizen does look pretty good....too bad it doesn't belong to PC. If PC is one entity here on SW...then SC shouldn't be a part of "PC GFX KING" since not all....not even many PCs will be able to run it at full settings like in those pictures.

I'm sorry...but it's true. What those pics look like of Second Son or The Order....will be universal throughout the ppl who play on PS4....Star Ctiizen will not. Thats a cold hard fact.....and the PC lackies will call me troll and bitch and scream and try to manipulate it that in some way it's not true....but we all know it is.

You'll need at least a $1000 PC to run that game on those settings....and not everyone, if many, has a $1000 PC.

doesn't belong to PC? what on earth are you going on about?

#196 Edited by glez13 (8876 posts) -

@DerekLoffin said:

@Heirren said:

@Jag85 said:

I highly doubt "most" people consider Super Mario Bros to have better graphics than Super Mario All-Stars... Maybe on an artistic level it might, but certainly not on a technical level.

Nevertheless, it's worth noting that most NES and SNES games used the same resolution, 256x224, yet the difference in graphical quality between the NES and SNES was like day and night, at the same resolution. On the other hand, most Sega Mega Drive/Genesis games used a higher 320x224 resolution, yet 256x224 SNES games usually looked better than their 320x224 Mega Drive counterparts.

Gamers today keep going on about 1080p this and 1080p that, without realizing that graphics means a lot more than just how many pixels you have on screen. It's just as important to have as many polygons, textures, effects, shaders, tesselation, etc. Each of these factors are just as important as, if not more important than, the resolution.

Considering nobody remembers the All Stars Mario sprite and the original sprite is one of the most recognizable things in the video game industry, I'd say that is grounds for saying "most".

I know this wasn't the best example because of the resolution--it was the first thing that popped in my head. Genesis vs. SNES visuals are all over the place. That is a much better example to use. N64, as well. A lot of the "advanced" games are now on the uglier side, while games like Mario 64 hold up well.

That's not grounds to conclude most consider the original to have better graphics at all. That is only grounds to say most are more familiar with the original and nothing more.

I was thinking the same thing. The original Mario graphics being recognized is more of a popularity or familiarity thing than actually a technical thing.

#197 Posted by Mr_Huggles_dog (1220 posts) -

@lawlessx said:

@mr_huggles_dog said:

People like Robo do nothing but try to diminish the viewpoint of others that don't agree with him by calling them trolls and trying to showcase to others that we're just not adding anything to the discussion by stating it so everyone can see.

Funny enough I said the same thing about him before he turned around and started doing it to us.

Fact is...you go into every console thread and spew you "PC is king" bullshit...so don't act like the mods need to take care of anyone....b/c you're half the problem.

Aside from that....Star Citizen does look pretty good....too bad it doesn't belong to PC. If PC is one entity here on SW...then SC shouldn't be a part of "PC GFX KING" since not all....not even many PCs will be able to run it at full settings like in those pictures.

I'm sorry...but it's true. What those pics look like of Second Son or The Order....will be universal throughout the ppl who play on PS4....Star Ctiizen will not. Thats a cold hard fact.....and the PC lackies will call me troll and bitch and scream and try to manipulate it that in some way it's not true....but we all know it is.

You'll need at least a $1000 PC to run that game on those settings....and not everyone, if many, has a $1000 PC.

doesn't belong to PC? what on earth are you going on about?

I feel that if I have to explain it....you don't deserve to understand it.

And I don't want to waste my time explaining it when you just won't understand it anyway.

#198 Posted by lostrib (37798 posts) -

@mr_huggles_dog said:

@lawlessx said:

@mr_huggles_dog said:

People like Robo do nothing but try to diminish the viewpoint of others that don't agree with him by calling them trolls and trying to showcase to others that we're just not adding anything to the discussion by stating it so everyone can see.

Funny enough I said the same thing about him before he turned around and started doing it to us.

Fact is...you go into every console thread and spew you "PC is king" bullshit...so don't act like the mods need to take care of anyone....b/c you're half the problem.

Aside from that....Star Citizen does look pretty good....too bad it doesn't belong to PC. If PC is one entity here on SW...then SC shouldn't be a part of "PC GFX KING" since not all....not even many PCs will be able to run it at full settings like in those pictures.

I'm sorry...but it's true. What those pics look like of Second Son or The Order....will be universal throughout the ppl who play on PS4....Star Ctiizen will not. Thats a cold hard fact.....and the PC lackies will call me troll and bitch and scream and try to manipulate it that in some way it's not true....but we all know it is.

You'll need at least a $1000 PC to run that game on those settings....and not everyone, if many, has a $1000 PC.

doesn't belong to PC? what on earth are you going on about?

I feel that if I have to explain it....you don't deserve to understand it.

And I don't want to waste my time explaining it when you just won't understand it anyway.

Translation: Bullshit trolling

#199 Edited by Mr_Huggles_dog (1220 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@mr_huggles_dog said:

@lawlessx said:

@mr_huggles_dog said:

People like Robo do nothing but try to diminish the viewpoint of others that don't agree with him by calling them trolls and trying to showcase to others that we're just not adding anything to the discussion by stating it so everyone can see.

Funny enough I said the same thing about him before he turned around and started doing it to us.

Fact is...you go into every console thread and spew you "PC is king" bullshit...so don't act like the mods need to take care of anyone....b/c you're half the problem.

Aside from that....Star Citizen does look pretty good....too bad it doesn't belong to PC. If PC is one entity here on SW...then SC shouldn't be a part of "PC GFX KING" since not all....not even many PCs will be able to run it at full settings like in those pictures.

I'm sorry...but it's true. What those pics look like of Second Son or The Order....will be universal throughout the ppl who play on PS4....Star Ctiizen will not. Thats a cold hard fact.....and the PC lackies will call me troll and bitch and scream and try to manipulate it that in some way it's not true....but we all know it is.

You'll need at least a $1000 PC to run that game on those settings....and not everyone, if many, has a $1000 PC.

doesn't belong to PC? what on earth are you going on about?

I feel that if I have to explain it....you don't deserve to understand it.

And I don't want to waste my time explaining it when you just won't understand it anyway.

Translation: Bullshit trolling

Oh look....another short insulting post.

I say....it does seem that this is the type of post that most ppl read and would influence more ppl

Do you have anything constructive to add lostrib....or are you satisfied being beloved by the 12 year olds that don't know shit and loathed by adults that know you're just a fucking troll.

At least I have something to say.

#200 Posted by lostrib (37798 posts) -

@mr_huggles_dog said:

@lostrib said:

@mr_huggles_dog said:

I feel that if I have to explain it....you don't deserve to understand it.

And I don't want to waste my time explaining it when you just won't understand it anyway.

Translation: Bullshit trolling

Oh look....a short insulting post.

I say....it does seem that this is the type of post that most ppl read and would influence more ppl

Do you have anything constructive to add lostrib....or are you satisfied being beloved by the 12 year olds that don't know shit and loathed by adults that know you're just a fucking troll.

Please provide your evidence for your statement