What is more important graphics wise

I know most of you will say all of them combined but if you had to pick on out of those that contributes most to realism which would it be?

Resulotion.

Having a decent mix is most important. But if you valued one thing above all, it would undoubtedly be your material quality. Your game world is going to look pretty bland if all you have are just straight diffuse textures, even if they are absurdly high resolution.

All of them, but if i had a death threat to pick between, i would die, because i can't choose less than two which are resolution and textures. Older PC games in 1080p with much improved textures look incredible (ex. Doom I & II, Duke3d modded).

And i would not trade them for the other two (lighting and poly count), because playing a game in 640x480 & low quality textures, but fantastic lighting & high polygon count is a no no. So resolution and textures it is.

I think Lighting can be beneficial to bad textures. If you have extremely good lighting but pretty bad textures then clever lighting can hide those bad textures.

Resolution and texture resolution are important.

Source games still look good today because of high resolution and good textures, despite average polygon counts and average (by today's standards) lighting.

Killzone 3 has more polys and more advanced lighting (i think..) but because of poor textures and low resolution, i much prefer the look of CSS or HL2.

Resolution and texture resolution are important.

Source games still look good today because of high resolution and good textures, despite average polygon counts and average (by today's standards) lighting.

Killzone 3 has more polys and more advanced lighting (i think..) but because of poor textures and low resolution, i much prefer the look of CSS or HL2.

kraken2109

[QUOTE="kraken2109"]

Resolution and texture resolution are important.

Source games still look good today because of high resolution and good textures, despite average polygon counts and average (by today's standards) lighting.

Killzone 3 has more polys and more advanced lighting (i think..) but because of poor textures and low resolution, i much prefer the look of CSS or HL2.

Ravenchrome

Polygons for sure, I really don't notice shadows and lighting, and even when I do, it is only Technically impressive. Aesthetically, Polygons are most important, as long as you have a decent resolution.

Polygons for sure, I really don't notice shadows and lighting, and even when I do, it is only Technically impressive. Aesthetically, Polygons are most important, as long as you have a decent resolution.

Nozizaki

Well, if we can only pick one it would have to been textures since that's what makes up most of what you see visually these days. I mean you could simply have a flat square and with a really high quality texture make it look like something really beautiful. Wouldn't be able to do much with it but it would look nice. Given that all of the other things exist as they do however I'd say the next important thing in really giving a great look is great lighting.

[QUOTE="Nozizaki"]

Polygons for sure, I really don't notice shadows and lighting, and even when I do, it is only Technically impressive. Aesthetically, Polygons are most important, as long as you have a decent resolution.

Ravenchrome

While I agree to some extent, when a game has awful shadows they really stand out and ruin the graphics. GTAIV being one. Without mods the shadows are really poor. They look all hazy and blurry.

[QUOTE="Ravenchrome"]

[QUOTE="Nozizaki"]

Polygons for sure, I really don't notice shadows and lighting, and even when I do, it is only Technically impressive. Aesthetically, Polygons are most important, as long as you have a decent resolution.

seanmcloughlin

While I agree to some extent, when a game has awful shadows they really stand out and ruin the graphics. GTAIV being one. Without mods the shadows are really poor. They look all hazy and blurry.

Physics. Destructible stuff in games always used to wow me.

Anyone who says textures is WRONG.

The two aspects of graphics this generation that make you stand out is LIGHTING and ANIMATION, both technically and artistically. If you nail both of those down very well, you can get away with the other aspects. Case in point: The Call of Duty games with last-gen tech, still looking alright. Same with Valve's source engine games.

Why not texture resolution, you say? Simply because, one of the most graphically notorious releases of this generation, Halo 3, has some of the best looking environmental textures, four years on, even better than Halo: Reach. How many people have called Halo 3 a graphical powerhouse?

I think I was the only one back in '07 :P

Textures for me, nothing bugs me more than blurry walls and you can fake things like lighting if you have to. After that is definitely resolution and then animations. At least in my opinion. Having a good mix of everything is probably what ends up being best however.

Lets do a quick analysis of this picture:

Lighting - non existent

Polygon count - terrible

Textures - plain colours

Graphics - Amazing!

I voted for other

Lets do a quick analysis of this picture:

Lighting - non existent

Polygon count - terrible

Textures - plain colours

Graphics - Amazing!

I voted for other

toast_burner

No what you stated are not graphics. It is art s*tyle (Gamespot won't let me right it properly for some reason) Graphics are technical aspect of the games appearance and whats going on under the hood.

A mix of all of them. I voted lightning, it allways helps on a good atmosphere.

Lets do a quick analysis of this picture:

Lighting - non existent

Polygon count - terrible

Textures - plain colours

Graphics - Amazing!

I voted for other

toast_burner

Good to know that someone, other than me, remembers this amazing game!

Art direction is indeed one of the most important graphical aspects.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

Lets do a quick analysis of this picture:

Lighting - non existent

Polygon count - terrible

Textures - plain colours

Graphics - Amazing!

I voted for other

seanmcloughlin

No what you stated are not graphics. It is art s*tyle (Gamespot won't let me right it properly for some reason) Graphics are technical aspect of the games appearance and whats going on under the hood.

Art styIe is part of the graphics.

Everything of course.

Textures for me, I always max textures then focus on knocking anything else down to improve framerate if needs be, I don't mind losing some shadow quality or reflections to gain fps and be able to add aa but textures have to stay high! (along with AF).

Lets do a quick analysis of this picture:

Lighting - non existent

Polygon count - terrible

Textures - plain colours

Graphics - Amazing!

I voted for other

toast_burner

The backgrounds are the ony thing that look really good, and they are 2D bitmaps. Kinda wiggling away from the question's assumed 3D engine environment.

Resolution or texture, I can't decide.

Of the things listed there, I'd say lighting because it can be used in multiple ways to enhance graphics. However, I'd say the actual design of the graphics is by far the most important. Which is why, for instance, I think many SNES games look better than the modern-day games.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

Lets do a quick analysis of this picture:

Lighting - non existent

Polygon count - terrible

Textures - plain colours

Graphics - Amazing!

I voted for other

seanmcloughlin

No what you stated are not graphics. It is art s*tyle (Gamespot won't let me right it properly for some reason) Graphics are technical aspect of the games appearance and whats going on under the hood.

False. Graphics are, as can be read from the etymology of the word, the visual representation of a virtual medium. ArtstyIe is a core component of graphics.

False. Graphics are, as can be read from the etymology of the word, the visual representation of a virtual medium. ArtstyIe is a core component of graphics.

calvinsora

Well yes. But in todays modern videogames art is not usually considered as part of the graphics. Its part of the overall presentation. Im trying to differentiate the technical from the subjective. As one person could find an art type very pleasing to the eye and another could find it horrible. But nobody can refute actually technical fact in terms of textures and resolutions. They are much easier to discern

If you mean 3D graphics then it'd say:

1. textures

2. lighting

3. poly count

4. resolution

But it depends from game to game. For example Doom 3 has terrible textures and poly count but makes up with lighting.

[QUOTE="Ravenchrome"]

[QUOTE="kraken2109"]

Resolution and texture resolution are important.

Source games still look good today because of high resolution and good textures, despite average polygon counts and average (by today's standards) lighting.

Killzone 3 has more polys and more advanced lighting (i think..) but because of poor textures and low resolution, i much prefer the look of CSS or HL2.

kraken2109

Resolution

Artistic design.

Count on consolespot to vote for lighting :lol: I wonder if that's somehow connected to Crysis 2.

Edit: I can't think of a single current gen game that does'nt benefit more from a resolution increase, than anything else.

I'll answer "other" regardless, consistency is what's important. If that's all good, then it's higher res that brings the most to the table.

I voted 'Other'. And that being PERFORMANCE. I cannot stand when developers go for box/magazine art shots.

I'm going to go with textures.

It's probably one of the reasons that textures are usually the first thing that gets modded in games.

I don't know if it's important, but i like me some awesome lighting.

Everything in real time. There are too much console games hiding behind 3d backdrops.

All of them are important of course, but framerate shouldn't suffer, or screw the whole damn thing.

Resolution is the least on my list. honestly, a game running at 480p can look as nice as a 1080p game, only yes it will be smaller. The graphics dont change at all form 720p to 1080p or from 1080p to monitor resolutions of 1600x1200 and higher. It's all about textures, lighting, effects, and everything else.

I tend to have different standards for different genres. For flight sims and other simulations plus FPS games, everything 3d-related counts: polygon count, lighting, textures, resolution, antialiasing.

For cartoony-looking or 2D-looking games, my standards are more relaxed.

In my order I'd say Textures, Lighting, Poly Count/Tessellation, then resolution (not texture resolution) Resolution is last since I play on PC and that's something I can make whatever I please.