There is no definable criteria for "Graphics King", the title is bunk.

What really constitutes "graphics king"? What are the catagories that a game has to score in order to become king? There is a technical side to graphics and graphics can be measured, beyond what is simply aesthetically pleasing. It would seem the current system is skewed towards smaller scale games, usually FPS / Action genre. Why can't other genre have a shot? Why is scale always a detraction for a game that uses that design choice?

People on the forum constantly compare Uncharted vs Killzone vs Crysis vs GeoW without looking beyond what simply pleases their eyes. Lets take a look at Crysis vs Uncharted because that seems to go around a lot.

I also won't claim to know the intricate details of the programming behind any of these titles, I am only from personal observation, which I believe still has some logical merit.

The reason why Crysis is undeniably the king is because it has graphics, physics and other effects (particle, explosion and gunfire etc) on a scale that would seem not done by any other game when you combine them all. They all play a role in the graphical scope of a game.

Uncharted is stacked up against Crysis constantly and while it looks great (undeniably), it doesn't look as great on the same scale, it doesn't do physics on the same scale and doesn't do effects on the same scale. No I haven't played the game fully but I have observed it and it doesn't. Scale and setting is chosen way back in the planning stages so not much can be done about it, but it can still plays a factor. But those reasons above makes it obvious that Crysis is king.

Uncharted is smaller on the game scale, so does that detract from the technical side of things or in this case does it mean less is more? I mean it would seem that the smaller a game gets to have more TLC from the devs because it is...smaller. Does a smaller game mean you can cram more graphics into a smaller area, spend more time prettying it up? (question for those familiar with programming side of VG's), it seems that way from observation. While it is design choice, just how technically impressive is that?

I am going to compare a different game of a different genre to Crysis. The game is from my observation the closest thing to Crysis although I do realize I am comparing cross genre now.

Empire: Total War vs Crysis (yes very different genre, RTS is not familiar).

Why can't Empire: Total War be graphics king? why is the genre it occupies an automatic detraction from graphical technicalities? I play it on high and it is impressive, very impressive. It is hard to explain without seeing but when you zoom in on a battlefield of a couple/few THOUSAND troops fighting in a field where you can see the grass, you can see the musket fire, the canon fire and each individual troop attacking. AI is not a part of graphics so I can't even add that in (its not the most impressive but it is impressive for the scale).

I would detract it for example because it is not doing that at ALL times, it eventually ends and you go back to a world map where you would wait until another chance of an battle of epic scale happens.

You look at RDR or GTA4, why can't they be nominated for "console graphics kings"? They surely have good graphics and do it on a far larger scale than Uncharted or Gears or Halo or KZ2. They have tons of NPC models doing their things and good effects. It seems impressive to me that they manage to keep the level of graphics they have while maintaining the scale that they do. Maybe the scale makes them aesthetically inferior to UC or Gears, but technically? That is a question only people with programming knowledge could debate. Very few people on the forum have that, including myself.

The average forumite can't even muster enough of an educated opinion from google to decide what is a graphics king because there are WAAAAY too many complex factors behind the design to take into account, unless it is painfully obvious (Crysis).

Unless one console is blatantly more powerful than the other you aren't going to get an obvious answer to "console graphics king?".

What about Muramasa, Braid or even Fable 2? I rather them over graphically over games like Crysis & Uncharted 2.

Without graphics kings threads System Wars would be a lonely place.

What about Muramasa, Braid or even Fable 2? I rather them over graphically over games like Crysis & Uncharted 2.

Twin-Blade

graphics is a matter of taste

Not really. I get what you're saying but the title exists. Every other gen before this always had one king that stood above the rest, last gen was half life 2 which game at the end. The problem with this gen is youve first got Crysis which came out in the 2nd year and literally showed graphics unattainable on consoles, making people exclude it. Next, so much technology is being shared this gen. The unreal 3 engine, Sony between their first party and the source engine. This leads to numerous challengers for the title which sort of leaves the question of graphics king unclear. Finally theres the area that a multiplat may be graphics king.

Tis alot of confusion this gen.

pong is graphics king.ferret-gamer

ET says hi...then theres big rigs omg that is teh crysis killah!!

Not really. I get what you're saying but the title exists. Every other gen before this always had one king that stood above the rest, last gen was half life 2 which game at the end. The problem with this gen is youve first got Crysis which came out in the 2nd year and literally showed graphics unattainable on consoles, making people exclude it. Next, so much technology is being shared this gen. The unreal 3 engine, Sony between their first party and the source engine. This leads to numerous challengers for the title which sort of leaves the question of graphics king unclear. Finally theres the area that a multiplat may be graphics king.

Tis alot of confusion this gen.

Oonga

Uncharted looks aesthetically nicer (more oclor) but behind the game it would seem KZ2 is doing more than Uncharted in terms of effects (explosions, particle etc.), scale and how many things are going on any one moment.

But you can read the comments numerous threads and some people just can't comprehend that scale is a big factor on how pretty a game looks. So games like RDR or GTA4 CANNOT be graphics kings simply because their design choice doesn't allow them....even though they may have a superior technical side to their graphics than something like Gears, Uncharted, KZ, etc.

Quite a few genres that may be cheated out of the title when they may be technically superior in the graphical department.

(Love your buggy forums GS)

Yeah I think graphics king is just the best looking title, a la Crysis.

[QUOTE="Twin-Blade"]

What about Muramasa, Braid or even Fable 2? I rather them over graphically over games like Crysis & Uncharted 2.

Elian2530

Can't we just say Crysis and be done with it?

I think "graphics" king should be done on pure techincal merit alone. What looks better is totally subjective and down to opinion. I could say gran tursimo in some parts looks totally life like and so that to me would make it one of the if not best looking games available. For sure the tech behind it may not be as impressive as other things but you cant turn around and say "what you think looks best is wrong" only the techincal side can be debated to the point of prooving its a fact. :). Basically what you said in a few shorter lines :P

One point I never understand is why "scale" is so often a defining point for graphics. Many games don't use a larger scale of level through design choice, rather than through limitations technologically.

One point I never understand is why "scale" is so often a defining point for graphics. Many games don't use a larger scale of level through design choice, rather than through limitations technologically.

lundy86_4

Not sure. Though theory wise I guess fighting games would win since they have like nothing to render.

One point I never understand is why "scale" is so often a defining point for graphics. Many games don't use a larger scale of level through design choice, rather than through limitations technologically.

lundy86_4

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

One point I never understand is why "scale" is so often a defining point for graphics. Many games don't use a larger scale of level through design choice, rather than through limitations technologically.

ActicEdge

Not sure. Though theory wise I guess fighting games would win since they have like nothing to render.

You would think but besides the amazing character models, everything else like the crowd etc looks bad.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

One point I never understand is why "scale" is so often a defining point for graphics. Many games don't use a larger scale of level through design choice, rather than through limitations technologically.

FIipMode

Not sure. Though theory wise I guess fighting games would win since they have like nothing to render.

You would think but besides the amazing character models, everything else like the crowd etc looks bad.

Hence why I said theory wise. It shouldn't be hard to make a fighting gsame graphics king if that's the goal.

Not sure. Though theory wise I guess fighting games would win since they have like nothing to render.

ActicEdge

That's true. Unfortunately it severely limits selection on what can be considered a graphics king. I guess it's just a necessary evil :P

Because scale increases the demand of the game on the hardware. Thats why scale of crysis and the graphics makes it the "graphics" king because it does so much on such a large scale. Thats why i said what i said, best graphics and what looks best are two completely different things :) o0squishy0o

I definately agree that it makes an undisputable graphics king, though it just severely limits choices of potential candidates. For example, Metro 2033 looks stunning, but due to its limited scale, it's possible it does not beat out Crysis.

TC I have in the past tried to point out this same stuff. Heck one dev could decide to make a game that takes place in a space no bigger than a small gym and then throw all the consoles power into just graphics and that game would look so much better than anything we have all ever seen! And that is not even the PC version!

Think about that for a minute.

What about Muramasa, Braid or even Fable 2? I rather them over graphically over games like Crysis & Uncharted 2.

Twin-Blade

TC I have in the past tried to point out this same stuff. Heck one dev could decide to make a game that takes place in a space no bigger than a small gym and then throw all the consoles power into just graphics and that game would look so much better than anything we have all ever seen! And that is not even the PC version!

Think about that for a minute.

vaderhater

It is funny you mention space because you take a game like X3; TC, it looks absolutely stunning....but it is in space and benefits from essentially being made of mostly nothing. It has scale but then there is nothing in 99.9% of it, so one would have to detract from the game for that.

Yeah I think graphics king is just the best looking title, a la Crysis.

FIipMode

the only reason there's no "definable" criteria for "Graphics King"

is because everybody's a hypocrit

you get somebody touting technical performance of a game on an HD console, then somebody says "well this PC game is way better looking" then suddenly the HD console game is great not because of technical performance but because of art style... but as soon as somebody says "well this Wii game is graphics king because it has the best art style" then suddenly technical performance matters again

the only reason there's no "definable" criteria for "Graphics King"

is because everybody's a hypocrit

you get somebody touting technical performance of a game on an HD console, then somebody says "well this PC game is way better looking" then suddenly the HD console game is great not because of technical performance but because of art style... but as soon as somebody says "well this Wii game is graphics king because it has the best art style" then suddenly technical performance matters again

88mphSlayer

It is funny you mention space because you take a game like X3; TC, it looks absolutely stunning....but it is in space and benefits from essentially being made of mostly nothing. It has scale but then there is nothing in 99.9% of it, so one would have to detract from the game for that.

Human-after-all

Mmm not too sure about that.. Alot of zones in that game (coming from a X3 TC/Reunion player have probably 200+ hours put in botht he games combined) can be literally FILLED with rocks, debris, and nebula clouds.. Not to mention then you have to take into account that later one (probalby 10 to 15 hour sinto the game), the npc economy starts really going and you get to see hundreds of ships fly by you in a zone for trading.. Not to mentiont he game literally is calculating thousands of AIs both in and outside of the area your in.

[QUOTE="Human-after-all"]

It is funny you mention space because you take a game like X3; TC, it looks absolutely stunning....but it is in space and benefits from essentially being made of mostly nothing. It has scale but then there is nothing in 99.9% of it, so one would have to detract from the game for that.

sSubZerOo

Mmm not too sure about that.. Alot of zones in that game (coming from a X3 TC/Reunion player have probably 200+ hours put in botht he games combined) can be literally FILLED with rocks, debris, and nebula clouds.. Not to mention then you have to take into account that later one (probalby 10 to 15 hour sinto the game), the npc economy starts really going and you get to see hundreds of ships fly by you in a zone for trading.. Not to mentiont he game literally is calculating thousands of AIs both in and outside of the area your in.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Not sure. Though theory wise I guess fighting games would win since they have like nothing to render.

lundy86_4

That's true. Unfortunately it severely limits selection on what can be considered a graphics king. I guess it's just a necessary evil :P

Because scale increases the demand of the game on the hardware. Thats why scale of crysis and the graphics makes it the "graphics" king because it does so much on such a large scale. Thats why i said what i said, best graphics and what looks best are two completely different things :) o0squishy0o

I definately agree that it makes an undisputable graphics king, though it just severely limits choices of potential candidates. For example, Metro 2033 looks stunning, but due to its limited scale, it's possible it does not beat out Crysis.

[QUOTE="Human-after-all"]

What really constitutes "graphics king"? What are the catagories that a game has to score in order to become king? There is a technical side to graphics and graphics can be measured, beyond what is simply aesthetically pleasing. It would seem the current system is skewed towards smaller scale games, usually FPS / Action genre. Why can't other genre have a shot? Why is scale always a detraction for a game that uses that design choice?

People on the forum constantly compare Uncharted vs Killzone vs Crysis vs GeoW without looking beyond what simply pleases their eyes. Lets take a look at Crysis vs Uncharted because that seems to go around a lot.

I also won't claim to know the intricate details of the programming behind any of these titles, I am only from personal observation, which I believe still has some logical merit.

The reason why Crysis is undeniably the king is because it has graphics, physics and other effects (particle, explosion and gunfire etc) on a scale that would seem not done by any other game when you combine them all. They all play a role in the graphical scope of a game.

Uncharted is stacked up against Crysis constantly and while it looks great (undeniably), it doesn't look as great on the same scale, it doesn't do physics on the same scale and doesn't do effects on the same scale. No I haven't played the game fully but I have observed it and it doesn't. Scale and setting is chosen way back in the planning stages so not much can be done about it, but it can still plays a factor. But those reasons above makes it obvious that Crysis is king.

Uncharted is smaller on the game scale, so does that detract from the technical side of things or in this case does it mean less is more? I mean it would seem that the smaller a game gets to have more TLC from the devs because it is...smaller. Does a smaller game mean you can cram more graphics into a smaller area, spend more time prettying it up? (question for those familiar with programming side of VG's), it seems that way from observation. While it is design choice, just how technically impressive is that?

I am going to compare a different game of a different genre to Crysis. The game is from my observation the closest thing to Crysis although I do realize I am comparing cross genre now.

Empire: Total War vs Crysis (yes very different genre, RTS is not familiar).

Why can't Empire: Total War be graphics king? why is the genre it occupies an automatic detraction from graphical technicalities? I play it on high and it is impressive, very impressive. It is hard to explain without seeing but when you zoom in on a battlefield of a couple/few THOUSAND troops fighting in a field where you can see the grass, you can see the musket fire, the canon fire and each individual troop attacking. AI is not a part of graphics so I can't even add that in (its not the most impressive but it is impressive for the scale).

I would detract it for example because it is not doing that at ALL times, it eventually ends and you go back to a world map where you would wait until another chance of an battle of epic scale happens.

You look at RDR or GTA4, why can't they be nominated for "console graphics kings"? They surely have good graphics and do it on a far larger scale than Uncharted or Gears or Halo or KZ2. They have tons of NPC models doing their things and good effects. It seems impressive to me that they manage to keep the level of graphics they have while maintaining the scale that they do. Maybe the scale makes them aesthetically inferior to UC or Gears, but technically? That is a question only people with programming knowledge could debate. Very few people on the forum have that, including myself.

The average forumite can't even muster enough of an educated opinion from google to decide what is a graphics king because there are WAAAAY too many complex factors behind the design to take into account, unless it is painfully obvious (Crysis).

Unless one console is blatantly more powerful than the other you aren't going to get an obvious answer to "console graphics king?".

rawr89

no, you're bunk. how about that?

actually considering that the term graphics efers to the technology behind the visuals, and thats something measurable, there is criteria to make an objective opinion of graphics king.

problem is most people on this site, the industry, and everywhere, are ignorant to the terms meaning and blur visuals and graphics.

they say best graphics and then post something that clearly isnt, but just because its pleasing to their eye or looks good.

looking good and best graphics are too entirely separate things, visuals, art, and how a game looks are irrelevant to graphics.

Graphics king goes to the game thats most pleasing to the eye or closest to realism. No need for wall of text man, but i understand what your doing :)Kokuro_Kun

There is no definable criteria for "Graphics King"Human-after-all

[QUOTE="Human-after-all"]There is no definable criteria for "Graphics King"CentricStorm