LOL at "teh last gen grafix!"

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="MIYAMOTOnext007"] This looks pretty epic to me. It's has good technical graphics and good artistic graphics at the same time. I would much rather look at this game then most of the ones you posted. By the way this is the Prey demo on my PC, and this part is not a cutscene, you can look around while this is happening.Harbadakus

That's not art style. That's pure technology. A steel catwalk and some superstructure does not constitute "art style."

I think what he's saying is that technology is the only thing that makes that picture look good.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="Javy03"][QUOTE="Kestastrophe"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

We've reached the point where artistry, not hardware, is the primary means of making a game that looks good.

Javy03

I agree. My favorite games graphically are Wind Waker, Okami (which I just finished), and Odin Sphere (which I just started). IMO, a clearly defined art style is much more aesthetically pleasing than a game that strives for realism.

I agree about a clearly defined art style being important but that doesnt mean it couldnt be done better with better and newer tools. I see alot of those games and I cant help but notice they are games released later in the life cycle of the consoles.I am a huge fan of GOW and Shadow of the Colossus, and cant wait to see what these devs can do with less restrictions and more technology at their hands.

It doesn't matter if they were released later in the life cycle. My point was that so-called "last gen hardware" can still deliver great visuals because art style matters a hell of a lot more than pixel pipelines.

Yes but art style is limited to the hardware you have available. Even the best art style couldnt make a PS1 game better looking then a PS2 game. Technology is about progressing. Even devs compete with eachother to bring out the biggest and best looking games. I am well aware that Last gen deliveredand am a huge fan of many of those gamesbut I am also confident that those devs can deliver even more this gen with more resources. Your assumptions are that these devs have peaked and that would be an insult to these gaming developers. I think they can improve year after year and new devs can come and blow us away showing us games like SOTC that nobody ever saw coming.

No, art style is only limited by hardware IF and ONLY IF the hardware is incapable of delivering the broad strokes. Art style determines an overall theme to a project's artistic direction. The PS1 was incapable of showing any kind of nuance. Polygons were ridiculously low, textures were extremely poor, etc.

With the PS2, however, focus shifted away from such limitations because the hardware could now deliver subtlety. High resolution textures, high poly meshes, large environments, physics, detailed facial animations, real-time shading, blurring, bloom, etc.

Now what do we get with the 360 and PS3? Even more detail, even more subtlety. We're not getting bigger environments or new visual effects, and any improvement in living animation is hampered by the effect of the Uncanny Valley. The 360 and PS3 aren't adding anything new; they're just improving what came before. THAT is what tells me that the hardware has reached a saturation point. It's like CGI in movies, and comparing Independence Day from back in the mid-90s to Star Wars Ep. III a couple of years ago. Sure, there's a difference, but does it make THAT much of a difference? No, not really.

IMO, the PS3 and 360 were released prematurely. The games that are on the same tier as DX10 games like Crysis show the real advancement. The PS3 and 360 really are no better than PS2.5 and Xbox 1.5. Had they been released in 2008 or 2009, then they would be fully deserving of being called "next generation."

And I never said last gen games look better than current gen games; I merely said that they could compete.

[QUOTE="ZebethOrZebes"]Sadly someone is going to post a photorealistic model of a car from some crappy racing sim, and try to ruin this thread.alcarazo9

not if can help it :x

My eyes hurt..... :(

Which is why I refuse to buy a Wii.

[QUOTE="Harbadakus"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="MIYAMOTOnext007"] This looks pretty epic to me. It's has good technical graphics and good artistic graphics at the same time. I would much rather look at this game then most of the ones you posted. By the way this is the Prey demo on my PC, and this part is not a cutscene, you can look around while this is happening.Funkyhamster

That's not art style. That's pure technology. A steel catwalk and some superstructure does not constitute "art style."

I think what he's saying is that technology is the only thing that makes that picture look good.

Exactly. Hell, not even that. Panoramic scenes like that have been done on the Xbox.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="MIYAMOTOnext007"] This looks pretty epic to me. It's has good technical graphics and good artistic graphics at the same time. I would much rather look at this game then most of the ones you posted. By the way this is the Prey demo on my PC, and this part is not a cutscene, you can look around while this is happening.Harbadakus

That's not art style. That's pure technology. A steel catwalk and some superstructure does not constitute "art style."

There's nothing wrong with old gen graphics. But we're not in the old gen anymore, we should be looking at games that are not only graphically superior but overall technically superior.

With more powerful hardware, you can have that artistic touch hand in hand with the graphical punch. Having both together is better than either seperate.

Shadow of the Colossus would be a better game if it was on a next gen console, with better framerate and textures and all that.

Yeh and Mjarantilla if you are completely siding with the TC (not sure if you are)MIYAMOTOnext007

Yeah, I'd be willing to bet he's completely siding with himself.

[QUOTE="MIYAMOTOnext007"]
Yeh and Mjarantilla if you are completely siding with the TC (not sure if you are)Bill_McBlumpkin

Yeah, I'd be willing to bet he's completely siding with himself.

:lol: Those graphics are so bad they make my eyes hurt. Bring on Gears and Halo 3! :D

[QUOTE="Funkyhamster"][QUOTE="Harbadakus"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="MIYAMOTOnext007"] This looks pretty epic to me. It's has good technical graphics and good artistic graphics at the same time. I would much rather look at this game then most of the ones you posted. By the way this is the Prey demo on my PC, and this part is not a cutscene, you can look around while this is happening.mjarantilla

That's not art style. That's pure technology. A steel catwalk and some superstructure does not constitute "art style."

I think what he's saying is that technology is the only thing that makes that picture look good.

Exactly. Hell, not even that. Panoramic scenes like that have been done on the Xbox.

With more powerful hardware, you can have that artistic touch hand in hand with the graphical punch. Having both together is better than either seperate.

purplemidgets

Good points. I think that Gears and Crackdown are perfect examples of this. Gears is a technical powerhouse, but it still has a very articulate art style. From the cartoony blood effects to the over the top mis-proportioned characters, I love the game's style.

ALso, alot of people don't talk about Crackdown, but I personally enjoy its cel-shaded style.

First of all, those pics are nonsense. They're all devshots with FSAA (in the case of GOWII, its also well beyond the 640x480 resolution that the game runs at). Here's some actual screen caps for comparison:

Teufelhuhn

First, the Halo 2 screenshot I posted is definitely in-game and in-engine. I remember seeing that cutscene and ogling at it because it looked better than a lot of 360 games I had played up to that point (I only played Halo 2 about nine months ago, after I'd gotten a 360). The Halo 2 screenshot you posted is of multiplayer, which Bungie said was compromised graphically to preserve performance.

Second, the "gameplay" pics posted at most sites like GameSpot aren't framebuffer captures; they're captured via a video capture card, and that always degrades the picture quality, washing out the colors, blurring textures, and introducing more jaggies than are actually visible. Even if they are touched up, the "promo" pics are a hell of a lot closer to what someone would actually be seeing on his TV than the "real gameplay" pics.

There's nothing wrong with old gen graphics. But we're not in the old gen anymore, we should be looking at games that are not only graphically superior but overall technically superior.

With more powerful hardware, you can have that artistic touch hand in hand with the graphical punch. Having both together is better than either seperate.purplemidgets

And my point is that if you already have the artistic touch, then you have 80% of what you need to make a game's visuals look good.

[QUOTE="purplemidgets"]

With more powerful hardware, you can have that artistic touch hand in hand with the graphical punch. Having both together is better than either seperate.

Kestastrophe

Good points. I think that Gears and Crackdown are perfect examples of this. Gears is a technical powerhouse, but it still has a very articulate art style. From the cartoony blood effects to the over the top mis-proportioned characters, I love the game's style.

ALso, alot of people don't talk about Crackdown, but I personally enjoy its cel-shaded style.

hey TC, How in the hell does Halo 2 and Riddick look much better artistically than Prey??????MIYAMOTOnext007

I never said it does. I said Prey's art style reminds me a lot of Quake 4.

[QUOTE="MIYAMOTOnext007"] hey TC, How in the hell does Halo 2 and Riddick look much better artistically than Prey??????mjarantilla

I never said it does. I said Prey's art style reminds me a lot of Quake 4.