The Ultimate Graphics Discussion: Every Game is Different

I used to be a regular visitor to system wars about 2 years ago, and after a long hiatus, i have come back to see that all fanboys care about is graphics these days.

Now i might not convince anyone, but i for one, own a ps3 and xbox 360, and seeing these daily threads about GT5 vs Forza piss me off a great deal.

People need to realize that a game cannot be "Graphics King.' Every game has something that it does so well that other games who try to emulate the same aspect fall short. Similarly, every game has its weaknesses.

I finally gave the Uncharted 2 beta a whirl today, and found out to my surprise, that all this fanboy talk about graphics had led me to believe beforehand that Uncharted 2 would blow every other game out of the water. That was not the case. Sure, the art style was pretty, the animations the best i have ever seen, and the lighting and colors excellent, but the game had no alluring aspect that wanted me to instantly downplay any other game out there.

This is where i make my point: graphics do depend on the technical prowess, but even more so, they depend on the eye of the beholder, the person himself.

Now i know games like Gears 2 or Call of Duty 4 might not be as technically strong as Uncharted 2, but they have different things going for each of them.

Now gears has incredible physics. Every guy you kill dismembers completely. The cover is somewhat destructible, and the characters themselves require a higher amount of detail because of their armour. However, the game has a few jaggies, and it has the blurry Unreal Engine 3 effect that we all hate so much.

Similarly, COD4 might not be the greatest technical game, but because of the realistic artstyle is has, one can overlook the low-res textures in favor of the 60FPS and the fast controller response time. Killzone 2 is the same: blurry textures in favor of excellent animations and high poly models.

My point is: both the ps3 and 360 have a limited amount of resources, and to make the game shine, devs tend to favor on some aspects over another. You cannot have an excellent textures, 60 fps, destructibility, and time/weather cycles all in one time (at least not this gen).

Now Uncharted 2, while it is a looker, lack dismemberment. This takes the pressure off of the cell, so it does not have to render as much physics as a game like Gears 2. Similarly, a slower controller response time can allow devs to take the free power and use it on stuff like ambien occulsion and depth of field. While the game is great, it wasnt the beast i expected it to be.

This was just my two cents on the graphics debate. I know i should have blogged it, but seeing as how fanboys do not appreciate the differences that these games have, i decided to make this thread.

Nice try, but fanboys here won't listen.

There's even one guy with "In SW graphics mean everything" as his sig.

I do agree with you though, I've never cared too much about graphics and "graphic king" discussions are kinda silly to me but I jump in them every now and then just for the lulz.

Nice try, but fanboys here won't listen.

There's even one guy with "In SW graphics mean everything" as his sig.

I do agree with you though, I've never cared too much about graphics and "graphic king" discussions are kinda silly to me but I jump in them every now and then just for the lulz.

GreenGoblin2099

Systems Wars Favorite Activity=Counting Pixels.

I agree that graphics are subjective just like a game's fun factor or lifespan. Some people hate cel shading, some people hate dark and grisly looking games, some people detest minor glitches and so on. Probably the best looking game I think I've ever played is Okami on the PS2. I played it in amongst all the high profile HD games and still found the visuals breathtaking.

Yes, graphics are truly subjective. My favorite game graphically is a PS2 game: Dragon Quest 8. The look and feel of the game is more exciting to me than anything I've played on any of the newer consoles so far.

Yes, graphics are truly subjective. My favorite game graphically is a PS2 game: Dragon Quest 8. The look and feel of the game is more exciting to me than anything I've played on any of the newer consoles so far.

appletsauce

This is the issue. I'm not saying we have to go get a still photo and then start counting the polygons, or looking with the latest software to spot the odd spots in the comparisons here and there. If you look at a game, running, (not an image of it) but actually playing the game, then you can see the normal graphical standard, lets say. This is how everyone, at least the average person, will see the game. You have to nitpick to find the difference in most multiplats (between the 360 and the PS3).

Graphics arn't everything, they should be at the bottom of the list, or at least in the middle when ticking off expectations of a game. But it doesn't change that graphically; you can decide which looks the best.

Unless you, appletsauce, would like to argue that graphicall Dragon Quest 8 is better than Crysis? Or how about you TheLordHimself, would you like to argue that Okami is graphically better than Crysis? You talk about that " dark and grisly" look that some games have, but that isn't graphics, its art. Whether you hate the color grey with a passion, it doesn't change that Killzone 2 and Gears of War are some of the best looking console games at some point. Better than both DQ8 and Okami. DQ8 isn't out to get the best graphics, so isn't Okami. The developers never made the game to get the award for best graphics, but the award for best artstyle.

This post isn't directed at only you; "appletsauce" and "TheLordHimself", but to people who think, or seem to make it out to be, as though artstyle = graphics. Because that is what I got from your posts.

EDIT: I made a couple of tense mistakes, sorry about that. :)

EDIT2: No, I will not be changing those mistakes. :P

I used to be a regular visitor to system wars about 2 years ago, and after a long hiatus, i have come back to see that all fanboys care about is graphics these days.

Now i might not convince anyone, but i for one, own a ps3 and xbox 360, and seeing these daily threads about GT5 vs Forza piss me off a great deal.

People need to realize that a game cannot be "Graphics King.' Every game has something that it does so well that other games who try to emulate the same aspect fall short. Similarly, every game has its weaknesses.

I finally gave the Uncharted 2 beta a whirl today, and found out to my surprise, that all this fanboy talk about graphics had led me to believe beforehand that Uncharted 2 would blow every other game out of the water. That was not the case. Sure, the art style was pretty, the animations the best i have ever seen, and the lighting and colors excellent, but the game had no alluring aspect that wanted me to instantly downplay any other game out there.

This is where i make my point: graphics do depend on the technical prowess, but even more so, they depend on the eye of the beholder, the person himself.

Now i know games like Gears 2 or Call of Duty 4 might not be as technically strong as Uncharted 2, but they have different things going for each of them.

Now gears has incredible physics. Every guy you kill dismembers completely. The cover is somewhat destructible, and the characters themselves require a higher amount of detail because of their armour. However, the game has a few jaggies, and it has the blurry Unreal Engine 3 effect that we all hate so much.

Similarly, COD4 might not be the greatest technical game, but because of the realistic artstyle is has, one can overlook the low-res textures in favor of the 60FPS and the fast controller response time. Killzone 2 is the same: blurry textures in favor of excellent animations and high poly models.

My point is: both the ps3 and 360 have a limited amount of resources, and to make the game shine, devs tend to favor on some aspects over another. You cannot have an excellent textures, 60 fps, destructibility, and time/weather cycles all in one time (at least not this gen).

Now Uncharted 2, while it is a looker, lack dismemberment. This takes the pressure off of the cell, so it does not have to render as much physics as a game like Gears 2. Similarly, a slower controller response time can allow devs to take the free power and use it on stuff like ambien occulsion and depth of field. While the game is great, it wasnt the beast i expected it to be.

This was just my two cents on the graphics debate. I know i should have blogged it, but seeing as how fanboys do not appreciate the differences that these games have, i decided to make this thread.

saleen335

Good post. You know gears2 uses depth of field and ambient occulsion as well.

[QUOTE="saleen335"]

I used to be a regular visitor to system wars about 2 years ago, and after a long hiatus, i have come back to see that all fanboys care about is graphics these days.

Now i might not convince anyone, but i for one, own a ps3 and xbox 360, and seeing these daily threads about GT5 vs Forza piss me off a great deal.

People need to realize that a game cannot be "Graphics King.' Every game has something that it does so well that other games who try to emulate the same aspect fall short. Similarly, every game has its weaknesses.

I finally gave the Uncharted 2 beta a whirl today, and found out to my surprise, that all this fanboy talk about graphics had led me to believe beforehand that Uncharted 2 would blow every other game out of the water. That was not the case. Sure, the art style was pretty, the animations the best i have ever seen, and the lighting and colors excellent, but the game had no alluring aspect that wanted me to instantly downplay any other game out there.

This is where i make my point: graphics do depend on the technical prowess, but even more so, they depend on the eye of the beholder, the person himself.

Now i know games like Gears 2 or Call of Duty 4 might not be as technically strong as Uncharted 2, but they have different things going for each of them.

Now gears has incredible physics. Every guy you kill dismembers completely. The cover is somewhat destructible, and the characters themselves require a higher amount of detail because of their armour. However, the game has a few jaggies, and it has the blurry Unreal Engine 3 effect that we all hate so much.

Similarly, COD4 might not be the greatest technical game, but because of the realistic artstyle is has, one can overlook the low-res textures in favor of the 60FPS and the fast controller response time. Killzone 2 is the same: blurry textures in favor of excellent animations and high poly models.

My point is: both the ps3 and 360 have a limited amount of resources, and to make the game shine, devs tend to favor on some aspects over another. You cannot have an excellent textures, 60 fps, destructibility, and time/weather cycles all in one time (at least not this gen).

Now Uncharted 2, while it is a looker, lack dismemberment. This takes the pressure off of the cell, so it does not have to render as much physics as a game like Gears 2. Similarly, a slower controller response time can allow devs to take the free power and use it on stuff like ambien occulsion and depth of field. While the game is great, it wasnt the beast i expected it to be.

This was just my two cents on the graphics debate. I know i should have blogged it, but seeing as how fanboys do not appreciate the differences that these games have, i decided to make this thread.

topgunmv

Good post. You know gears2 uses depth of field and ambient occulsion as well.

I tend to think of graphics as what I see on the screen. And yeah, I liked the art style and how the overworld looks when you're on the countryside.

OK, by seeing how awesome all you guys are showing how you're all TRUE GAMERS, not pixel junkies (lol), how many of you actually notice the graphics when immersed in the story or gameplay of a game when you're like 5 hours into the campaign? I personally only notice the visuals after every new area, but if their is a lot of heavy intense action going on (ala Gears 2) or awesome set pieces (U2 or COD4), i tend to focus on those instead.saleen335

I notice them on my second play through, or if they're distracting/glitching. (Really bad graphics can be distracting).

I notice how beautiful Dragon Quest 8 is when I'm running around the countryside like a little kid outside on a big hill with trees everywhere.

There are 3 distinct levels of graphical fidelity this gen and this is all that matters really:

1. The PC

2. PS3/360

3. Wii

You can tell a noticable difference between each level but not within the levels themselves.

and yet another failure.

is it really so hard?

gaphics=tech=fact=objective

visuals=art/looks=opinion=subjective

and yet another failure.

is it really so hard?

gaphics=tech=fact=objective

visuals=art/looks=opinion=subjective

washd123

As defined by who? Graphics can refer to both.

As defined by who? Graphics can refer to both.

topgunmv

no it cant.

visuals =/= graphics

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]As defined by who? Graphics can refer to both.

washd123

no it cant.

visuals =/= graphics

computer graphics
n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)

1.

The set of technologies used to create art with computers.
2.

Art or designs created using such technologies.

[QUOTE="washd123"]

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]As defined by who? Graphics can refer to both.

topgunmv

no it cant.

visuals =/= graphics

computer graphics
n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)

1.

The set of technologies used to create art with computers.
2.

Art or designs created using such technologies.

art or designs referring to the actual polygons and such. not the arrangment of said polygons.

too many times people say "this game has the best graphics in my opinion because i like the way it looks" no

too many times people try and talk about system power and use visuals to support an arguement.

there needs to be a separation

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="washd123"]

no it cant.

visuals =/= graphics

washd123

computer graphics
n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)

1.

The set of technologies used to create art with computers.
2.

Art or designs created using such technologies.

art or designs referring to the actual polygons and such. not the arrangment of said polygons.

too many times people say "this game has the best graphics in my opinion because i like the way it looks" no

too many times people try and talk about system power and use visuals to support an arguement.

there needs to be a separation

Where does it say that? The actual polygons are part of the tech behind the art, not the art itself, (part of def. 1). It might be referring to a 2d image for all you know. Using this definition, saying "those graphics are bad"= saying "that art is bad". It's perfectly acceptable. I agree that people need to differentiate between the technology and the imagery, but the term graphics is interchangeable between the two.

As defined by who? Graphics can refer to both.

knight0151

As defined by who? Graphics can refer to both.

See above. Try looking at a dictionary sometime before goggling pictures you think are funny.

Where does it say that? The actual polygons are part of the tech behind the art, not the art itself, (part of def. 1). It might be referring to a 2d image for all you know. Using this definition, saying "those graphics are bad"= saying "that art is bad". It's perfectly acceptable. I agree that people need to differentiate between the technology and the imagery, but the term graphics is interchangeable between the two.

topgunmv

i disagree. my iterpetation of it is by art they mean whats created by the tech at its lowest form. meaning the polygons and such. not the assets on top that are considered art.

i do not believe the terms are interchangable at least not in a gaming context

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

Where does it say that? The actual polygons are part of the tech behind the art, not the art itself, (part of def. 1). It might be referring to a 2d image for all you know. Using this definition, saying "those graphics are bad"= saying "that art is bad". It's perfectly acceptable. I agree that people need to differentiate between the technology and the imagery, but the term graphics is interchangeable between the two.

washd123

i disagree. my iterpetation of it is by art they mean whats created by the tech at its lowest form. meaning the polygons and such. not the assets on top that are considered art.

i do not believe the terms are interchangable at least not in a gaming context

Well you're arguing your interpretation of the definition, and I can't debate that. We'll have to agree to disagree.

IT LACKS DISSMEMBERENT! WTh

uncharted 1&2 are rated T otherwise good post