Forums

Topic: How Graphically impressive do you want your videogames to be?

Posts 41 to 49 of 49

Balta666

@Mountain_Man don't agree that good gameplay do not age. NES platformers were a good standard at the time but I do consider them pretty much unplayable when compared with 16bit

Balta666

Willax

Wavey84 wrote:

Putting aside Raw horse power, I wouldn't mind the following >

88" OLED
8K
120fps
Advanced NextGen Glassless 'Stereoscopic 3D' Technology with an ultra wide sweet spot.

We probably wont be seeing games run in 8k + 120fps for another 5-10 years on PS6, let alone Stereoscopic 3D which will remain exclusive to VR for years to come. As for 8k, it starts to really matter once you hit 77" and above. Heck, native 4K titles still looks sharper on a 55" than a 65".

Yeah. I'll admit, I'm a sucker for 3D things. Shame it never caught on, but like you pointed out, it technically lives on through Virtual reality headsets. So i geuss the 3D Fad of a decade ago wasn't for nothing.

Willax

Willax

Silly_G wrote:

We're at a point now where this isn't even a topic worth discussing.

Modern games tend to look fantastic, even those on a shoestring budget (just look at Bertil Hörberg's games). It really just comes down to the quality of a game's art direction at this point.

Genre also matters. For example, I'm not terribly keen on non-fantasy open-world games with heavily stylised visuals. The appeal of games such as GTAV is that you can cause chaos in a world that, by and large, resembles an exaggerated version of that which we live in. While the still-excellent GTA: Vice City holds up today, I find the newer games to be a lot more engrossing due to improvements in graphical realism, even though I am not as big a fan of the characters, story, settings (or politics) of more recent installments in the franchise.

Graphically, the only thing I would want, really, are for games to be rendered at the hardware's native resolution and for a consistent frame rate. Everything else is a bonus. With the odd 3DS game, however, some games yielded better performance in 2D mode. With Dead or Alive: Dimensions, for example, I often went back and forth between 3D and 2D, because as much as I freaking love stereoscopic 3D, I also loved the silky smooth frame rate of the game in 2D. Either way, the game is freaking gorgeous.

For the most part, I find Switch ports to be far more impressive than their ultra-max-super-duper-ultimate-cream-cheese equivalents on PC. I played DOOM (2016) on PC after having played it on Switch, and I must confess that I didn't find the PC version to be anywhere near as impressive, even with its "ultra" high resolution textures and silky smooth frame rate.

The convenience of the Switch will always win me over as opposed to having the absolute best graphics and performance. The graphical capabilities of the Switch are already fantastic as it is. Can it be improved? Of course. Hell, I intend to grab the OLED model on day one, but time and resources are also finite, and few developers would be able to refine their games to perfection or opt for jaw-droppingly realistic visuals (except perhaps for Rockstar, which may perhaps explain why GTA6 is taking so damn long ).

With all that said though, VR technology is very exciting, and I would want the resolution and graphical quality of such games to be as high as humanly possible, definitely, but for games that I play on any other device, I am far easier to please.

Regarding the fifth Paragraph; I Guess i agree with you. It's strange how that is, isn't it? How sometimes the lower end port is more impressive then the native normal versions on other systems. Perhaps it's because unlike the more powerful systems you actually need to try to get the game on the system. This of course leads into a topic about how restricted creators need to be to make good things, but that's a topic for another discussion.

Willax

HotGoomba

As long as the game doesn't look like it was made by a drunk kid playing around with Play-Doh, I'm not too picky with the look of video games.

Please, for the love of everything, don't click on the link on my profile.

You've been warned

Willax

dew12333 wrote:

I have always been about gameplay and the look of a game may impress me from time to time but it would not be a deciding factor in buying a game.

This always brings me back to my opinion that Microsoft and Sony are forcing the industry in the wrong direction, increasing the production costs for games makers by making the process long winded on the basis of having to put things a few hairs popping out of someone's nostril. I would rather they spent more time on making the experience more enjoyable.

Now we have to put up with repetitive AAA titles that can trust the product to give them return for the time and effort of putting those hairs in that nostril, or rakes of indie games that all too often copy successful formats from other games, or just look the same as each other.

But fortunately I can still find enough things I like in that mix.

This is actually a nice chance for me to say something i was thinking about saying, though it is a tough topic to talk about, isn't it? Yes, all that bonus realism is annoying and makes making things way more annoying then it's worth, but sometimes even the details on a character and/or environment can tell more about something then just saying it outright. Uncharted 4 leaps to mind; look closely around the third half of the game at Nathan Drake and you can see the bruise from before is still there (Talking about why the bruise is there would be spoiler territory.) In the realm of items, The paper you find for notes is old and wrinkled, but you can see how it's survived after all these years.
The human element to make all this happen is no doubt debatable, but i just feel like i have to mention it once in a while. There can be all kinds of details that one would not normally point out that could say a lot about something or someone. But i still also find myself wondering if it's really worth it when it comes time to tone it down for lower end hardware.

Willax

Wavey84

@Willax
Exactly. But it's frustrating though....I mean, how could somebody not want their games having realistic depth perception, if lets say some company managed to advance the technology on an OLED TV and made it so it's glasses-free and has a very wide sweet spot with zero compromises to picture quality. stereoscopic 3D brings these games to life and makes it feel like you're looking through a window into another world. Which results in a far more immersive, enjoyable, exciting and pretty mind blowing experience. It's enough to impress the granny's out there, but a flat 2D picture? Nah!

Look, I hear all of this talk about wanting higher resolutions, frame rates, HDR and better graphics, but depth perception, which is just as important if not more is tossed to the wayside. At least have the option for those that care. It's not like it's being forced.

Untitled

A really great example of stereoscopic 3D at it's best on the 3DS were those little Diorahma world 5+ second cut scenes in Super Monkey Ball 3D that you would see before entering a new world. They were stunning at the time and probably still are. Then there's first person mode in Resident evil Revelations, PilotWings....A game i never would of enjoyed if it weren't for the 3D effect, or even those Sega & NES 3D classics. Who would of thought Urban Champion could of been fun? All it took was S3D. lol But, you needed a launch model 3DS to get good 3D, because the larger XL models 3D effect was more subtle, and nowhere near as pronounced combined with the softer jagged blown up picture. i was very disappointed by both the 3DS XL & N3DS XL, and ultimately went back to my aqua blue launch 3DS. Anyways! Rambling aside, S3D is amazing and thank goody' it lives on in VR.

It irritated the hell out of me when Nintendo Abandoned Stereoscopic 3D and when Motion 'IR' Sensor Bar based controls bit the dust in favor of Analog stick aiming and even 'Gyro' motion that currently has zero reference(AKA a sensor bar) on Switch. But 3D and proper motion controls(Camera based tracking) both exist in VR, and when the PSVR2 arrives next year it's going to knock every bodies socks off. I think it's VR's only real chance at exploding unlike VR on PC which is way too expensive(Think Vive Pro 2, even the Reverb, not including an graphics card which will cost you over a grand etc), confusing and messy to get into, it's too niche for VR to EVER take off no matter how amazing the tech gets. Your average Consumer or even hardcore gamer would rather order a PS5 & PSVR 2 for a fraction of the price and enjoy the simple plug and play nature of it all and call it a day.

Also, If Oculus were smart they would make their Future Quest 3(or Quest 2 Pro) work exclusively with the XBOX Series X, instead of just PC or by itself.

Edited on by Wavey84

Wavey84

Mountain_Man

Balta666 wrote:

@Mountain_Man don't agree that good gameplay do not age. NES platformers were a good standard at the time but I do consider them pretty much unplayable when compared with 16bit

There's a difference between good gameplay, and a game that you might enjoy in the moment. There are a lot of games that I absolutely loved from years ago, but to try and play them today is a chore, which means they didn't actually have good gameplay. Now other games, I can play them years later and enjoy them just as much as I did the first time I played them.

The Mountain Man

Losermagnet

I do enjoy pretty graphics, but it's no substitute for good art direction.

Switch friend code: SW-2223-7827-8798
Give me a heads-up if you're going to send a request please.

Harmonie

I will say that graphics do make a difference. Quality graphics are an important part of making a game a more immersive experience. I'm not talking realistic graphics, less realistic graphics can be downright beautiful, if effort is actually put into them. Like Link's Awakening HD is a really beautiful game visually (although for me, I prefer 3D games over 2D games).

And yes, I am talking graphical fidelity here, not just style. Just look at the difference between LAHD and the Pokemon Diamond/Pearl remakes and that's what I'm talking about. The Pokemon D/P remakes have poor graphics and while I'm sure the game is still great, do I really want to spend $60 for one? What makes it different from Diamond that I already own? Gosh, at least make it look good. But alas, they couldn't even do that.

Edited on by Harmonie

Harmonie

Nintendo Network ID: WoodwindsRock

Top

Please login or sign up to reply to this topic