Comparing games graphics, what should be considered... (Your opinion)

[Not_Jamie]

I am not a Bethesda fanboy, I enjoy some of their tittles but not all of them. One thing that has always bugged me in PC gaming is the rather simplistic way PC Gamers compare graphics. The general consensus from what I have read is fallout 4 graphics are not great, and lack in a lot of area's I tend to disagree and we are all aloud to have opinions but I wanted to start a discussion on graphics and how the PC community views them.

 

I personally believe that we are at a stage with graphics that art style is a far bigger factor in the look and feel of a game over polygon count or using the latest technique of tessellation etc. Comparing games from yesteryear is no longer needed or beneficial in terms of gaming, in terms of engines and technology sure there is but purely from a gaming perspective I think there is little to gain from comparing tittles graphics in a black and white fashion... i.e this is a game from 2014 and this is from 2015.

 

Most people that do however fail to approach the complex subject of graphics with any coherent methodology, I forever see posts (not on this forum) saying look at this... Pictures/video of game from 2012 and comparing it too a game from 2015. Then complain about how the games graphics are lacking (Fallout 4 being the prime example recently).

 

A golden example of this is a post I saw recently on the PC community reddit PCMASTERRACE. With the line, "The difference 8 years can make...?" it compared 2007 crysis in a picturesque setting and Fallout 4 with a bugged out NPC floating in a semi indoor area. Firstly Crysis was a buggy mess so thats like the pot calling the kettle black. Secondly I know this post was clearly a troll as Fallout is massive right now but it still highlights what most of the community do when comparing games.

 

For me, many factors need to be considered before even beginning to compare graphic between tittles, its not an even playing field and handicaps need to be given (not talking in the negative sense, but like horse racing horses are given weights and its called a handicap to even the field). In no particular order...

 

Company - This is pretty simply and not to do with budget, just because a company can afford to make a 100 million dollar game does not mean the 20 million dollar game they made should be marked as if it cost 100 million. Also the company itself lets look at Crytek and Bethesda, Crysis made by Crytek was made as a showcase displaying the latest power of their new Crytek engine they were a game engine company who made a game for PC only. Crysis 2 had nowhere near the impact as it was a multi-platform game and more restrictions applied of course. Meanwhile Bethesda is prominently a gaming company and always has been, they make games and while they make engines its not the same... To try and articulate my point better its like comparing a thirty thousand dollar sports car to a Ferrari, while they are both cars that's where the similarities stop they are made with two totally different goals in mind.

 

Budget - Pretty simple, a 250 million dollar + behemoth say GTA 5 will never be beaten but a smaller game like saints row.

 

Generation - A new release or fresh start takes a lot of  assets meanwhile long running series that sometimes reuse assets like Dead Space or uncharted not only reuse assets but their engines are built upon with each game Comparing XXX 4 with BBB 1 is a little unfair as the tittle has not had time to develop and also would not have the same budget as new IP's are extremely hard to get of the ground.

 

Gameplay - look at the refined experience of Dark souls, where the controls are brilliant... Then compare it too say the Witcher 3 at times sluggish controls.. These games are impossible to compare for many reasons and this is just an example but obviously more time was spent with Dark Souls controls over the Witchers, time management is important so games have to factor in do we spend time on X or A...

 

Content - This is the major point about comparing games for me, most times if not every time people compare the latest RPG that has over 50+ hours of content to with a game that has insane graphics and takes only 8 hours to beat, its a no-brainer where the money went for development.

 

So only when considering these things is a game comparable, and I believe most games are not comparable, a better example would be the Witcher 3 with Fallout 4, both have large amounts of content, are both RPGS, and released with 12 months of each other. Does Fallout live up to the hype well I think overall the graphics are great, I am not blind however and some textures are just plain shameful. I certainly hope their attitude was not let the modding community do the HD pack.

 

This was a long post. It has covers quite a bit and I am not sure if anyone will read it lol, but if you do I didn't post it just to rant but want your opinion... Can games be compared easily in terms of graphics? Or do games need to be carefully looked at in a broad sense before comparing? and do you think are we past comparing graphics, like we use to when the gaps in generations where larger? i.e I believe the art style of a game dictates a game look and feel more then what latest technology they are using.

[Necrodead]

i get that this is only your 6th post but.. this would have taken like 10 minutes to read.

I read it all in under 4 minutes.

 

edit: sorry, 2 minutes.

[desertcomputer]

i get that this is only your 6th post but.. this would have taken like 10 minutes to read.

So what is your point... it could be 6 well posted replies/threads. Number doesn't say anything. 

[handymanshandle]

Honestly I guess measuring graphics is sort of subjective. Fallout 4, I think looks good. 

Though for me it's more so about what is the story like, how fun is it to play... Good visuals are always nice but not really dire.

World of Warcraft is kind of an example it has an interesting story, it's (generally) fun to play and to many they don't like that WoW's graphics aren't photo-realistic.

[Not_Jamie]

So what is your point... it could be 6 well posted replies/threads. Number doesn't say anything. 

 

 

My point is what do you think about graphics... PC gamers always harp on them without considering things like gameplay hours, gameplay itself (how polished it is) etc... Are we past all of this as the gap between releases each year has closed (a game from 2014 almost always looks the same as 2015 this has been the trend for a while now with small increases in fidelity).

 

There is not right and wrong answer, but I thought it be fun to get a sense of how important graphics are to PC enthusiasts and whether conditions are taken into account i,e a game that lasts 8 hours should have better graphics then one that lasts 50...

[Curufinwe_wins]

You ask what should be considered with graphics then completely proceed to ignore graphics in most of your topic....

 

Look. A good comparison is all the games on "low", "high" and ultra/max. As minimum requirements continue to increase overtime, the difference in low quality especially as resolution increases become ever more apparent. This represents a bare minimum in the developers acceptable standards at the time.

 

Comparing high showcases much of what the game was intended to be. Is it a fps? An open world rpg? In many ways, the choices made in the high segment represent the game "as it's meant to be played".

 

Ultra/max settings showcase the true investment in graphics a company put forth in their game. Is it's beauty ahead of its time (Crysis 3) or mediocre even at launch (Fallout 4)?

 

Modding a game can indeed bring it new life, but it is not an excuse for devs (and this is like 99% Bethesda here.... no one is as bad) to be lazy and shitty with their game in the first place.

[Not_Jamie]

Honestly I guess measuring graphics is sort of subjective. Fallout 4, I think looks good. 

Though for me it's more so about what is the story like, how fun is it to play... Good visuals are always nice but not really dire.

World of Warcraft is kind of an example it has an interesting story, it's (generally) fun to play and to many they don't like that WoW's graphics aren't photo-realistic.

 

That is a great example, even if wow fully redid the graphics today they would never be photo realistic, they are meant to be cartoony look at the style of all the Warcraft games, so comparing Wow graphics to say Guild wars a game that has a much more photo-realistic approach would not work. In fact I think borderlands would be a much better comparison as they both have cartoony graphics with similar styles.

[Curufinwe_wins]

My point is what do you think about graphics... PC gamers always harp on them without considering things like gameplay hours, gameplay itself (how polished it is) etc... Are we past all of this as the gap between releases each year has closed (a game from 2014 almost always looks the same as 2015 this has been the trend for a while now with small increases in fidelity).

 

There is not right and wrong answer, but I thought it be fun to get a sense of how important graphics are to PC enthusiasts and whether conditions are taken into account i,e a game that lasts 8 hours should have better graphics then one that lasts 50...

Quite the opposite. A game that lasts 8 hours needs not the graphics to enthrall someone like a sprawling RPG. No one would have given a fuck about Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim if they didn't look amazing at launch compared to the standards of the day.

 

A game that need only last a short time, can hold interest with much inferior content across the board.

[Not_Jamie]

You ask what should be considered with graphics then completely proceed to ignore graphics in most of your topic....

 

Look. A good comparison is all the games on "low", "high" and ultra/max. As minimum requirements continue to increase overtime, the difference in low quality especially as resolution increases become ever more apparent. This represents a bare minimum in the developers acceptable standards at the time.

 

Comparing high showcases much of what the game was intended to be. Is it a fps? An open world rpg? In many ways, the choices made in the high segment represent the game "as it's meant to be played".

 

Ultra/max settings showcase the true investment in graphics a company put forth in their game. Is it's beauty ahead of its time (Crysis 3) or mediocre even at launch (Fallout 4)?

 

Modding a game can indeed bring it new life, but it is not an excuse for devs (and this is like 99% Bethesda here.... no one is as bad) to be lazy and shitty with their game in the first place.

 

Yea the post was meant to talk about how we compare the graphics of two tittles and not so much once we have found to compatible tittles how we go about it. Very valid points that I agree with totally. I like the style and overall graphics of fallout 4 but feel they really dropped the ball with textures and had no excuse not to ramp them up higher on PC some of them look like they are barely 512. As for settings like AA, draw distance, lighting the games looks decent I would of liked to see more options especially for ugridstoload which greatly increases view distances, default is 5 even though most rigs can handle 7, 9 or even with extreme systems 11 and still be stable, this should of been an option that did not require a config edit, only having ssoa was a let down.

[SImoHayha]

 

 

 

Well we can compared any game to each other graphically during the years, we can see how far a video game engines change from time to time. The cry engine back then was pretty new now if we compare it to the Crysis 2 and Crysis 1, they are a major difference in graphics. We can also compare how beautifully stunning MGSV's Fox Engine is compared to most game engines, it just makes everything so crisp and so alive.

 

To be honest we just need to personally try and compare the right art styles, I think metro 2033 and Fallout 4 would be good comparisons, since both take events in a dying earth.

 

Comparing controls. Well to honestly I hate Dark Souls I personally think the game is a piece of shit, its so slow  and just sluggish and just plain unfair to new people and old, I even broke the damn disc ( I was given it by a friend who sold it to me for a dollar ) I haven't played Witcher 3 but it seems Witcher 3 has the better controls.

 

Comparing Story and content, well that depends, just because your comparing to an RPG and FPS, we do see a radical change however in most RPG's its made out of a crap ton's of repetitive side quests that don't add to the story very much and is their to make the game  " Feel Longer " and we aren't including the necessary backtracking usually in RPG's 

 

Budget wise between two games is well depending on how the game was made. If a game like Destiny was compared to Kingdom Hearts or something, I think people would say KH would be better, because of the story behind the series and game, compared to Destiny which had little to no story and was made by using millions of dollars for something that was bland and flat.

[Curufinwe_wins]

That is a great example, even if wow fully redid the graphics today they would never be photo realistic, they are meant to be cartoony look at the style of all the Warcraft games, so comparing Wow graphics to say Guild wars a game that has a much more photo-realistic approach would not work. In fact I think borderlands would be a much better comparison as they both have cartoony graphics with similar styles.

Sure, but MMO's are a terrible example in general because their entire existence depends on EVERYONE being able to play them regardless of how shitty their computers are.

 

Hence they are much limited in the general scope of graphics they can even attempt to achieve. Guild Wars 2, SWTOR, Wildstar are all good examples of this issue (as is wow, runescape, LOTRO, actually almost every one ever made fits this critique...)

 

The cartoony look is an easy way to give sharp (semi)detailed character models and worlds at low performance hits overall.

[Necrodead]

Graphics are important to me, but I agree that art style plays a big factor. I played WoW for years, and games like Borderlands I really like due to the art, regardless of polygon counts. People are too concerned with stuff like that when it may not even mean much.

 

Fallout 4 is one of the best looking games that attempts to look real. Poly count is generally low looking but the textures and shadows look amazing. I really can't believe they did it with the skyrim engine.

And I can't beleive people think its only mediocre. I guess you aren't playing at 1440p on ultra settings.

[Necrodead]

I actually stopped to look at some leaves yesterday in fallout 4. LEAVES ON A BUSH, and they looked real.

[Not_Jamie]

I will admit I am bias. I am 27 years old now and I grew up on doom and quake. I am not being elitist but I guess I might look at graphics from a broad point of view, thinking god games have come so far... Meanwhile a 16 year old who started to play games around 2008ish was introduced to Crysis and Bioshock so they compare from a much narrower perspective and pick up on the stubble differences a lot more. I personally think 1024 res or higher for game textures is fine on 1080p While I have met younger gamers who swear by 2k and never go lower when given an option.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Graphics are important to me, but I agree that art style plays a big factor. I played WoW for years, and games like Borderlands I really like due to the art, regardless of polygon counts. People are too concerned with stuff like that when it may not even mean much.

 

Fallout 4 is one of the best looking games that attempts to look real. Poly count is generally low looking but the textures and shadows look amazing. I really can't believe they did it with the skyrim engine.

And I can't beleive people think its only mediocre. I guess you aren't playing at 1440p on ultra settings.

Consider that skyrim with user mods looks better today (and runs better, but that's a separate issue), even though it has to run through a freaking script extender and hundreds of other random work around to deal with it's antiquity, and there really is no excuse for this poop fest (especially the npc interaction animations... wtf).

 

Yea I know fallout has never been top of the charts, but really... 

[Yoinkerman]

I don't really care about gfx if the style is coherent and the game isn't buggy.

[Necrodead]

Consider that skyrim with user mods looks better today (and runs better, but that's a separate issue), even though it has to run through a freaking script extender and hundreds of other random work around to deal with it's antiquity, and there really is no excuse for this poop fest (especially the npc interaction animations... wtf).

 

Yea I know fallout has never been top of the charts, but really... 

Well if they could have made it look as good as fallout 4, how many people would have been able to run it in 2011? But I agree, they could have done better out of the box. Espically the AI.

[Curufinwe_wins]

I will admit I am bias. I am 27 years old now and I grew up on doom and quake. I am not being elitist but I guess I might look at graphics from a broad point of view, thinking god games have come so far... Meanwhile a 16 year old who started to play games around 2008ish was introduced to Crysis and Bioshock so they compare from a much narrower perspective and pick up on the stubble differences a lot more. I personally think 1024 res or higher for game textures is fine on 1080p While I have met younger gamers who swear by 2k and never go lower when given an option.

I spent 10 years playing Runescape never thinking it mattered, then I got over my attachment to MMOs (although it took a further 2 years of SWTOR to break my competitive addiction to them). 

 

Objectively speaking, I am underwhelmed by FO4, but more than underwhelmed I am confused by the choices made...

 

Great faces but awful hair and animation.

 

Great bush/trees (generally), but randomly pastel world items.

 

Great emphasis on tribology in textures, yet opponents look like they could use a good pass through a sharpening filter (unless the implementation of motion blur is what causes them to look so odd).

[Curufinwe_wins]

Well if they could have made it look as good as fallout 4, how many people would have been able to run it in 2011? But I agree, they could have done better out of the box. Espically the AI.

Indeed, I just meant that clearly the creation engine was capable of more than most give it credit...

[Ddave]

Looks good and feels good = good enough (?).

[desertcomputer]

My point is what do you think about graphics... PC gamers always harp on them without considering things like gameplay hours, gameplay itself (how polished it is) etc... Are we past all of this as the gap between releases each year has closed (a game from 2014 almost always looks the same as 2015 this has been the trend for a while now with small increases in fidelity).

 

There is not right and wrong answer, but I thought it be fun to get a sense of how important graphics are to PC enthusiasts and whether conditions are taken into account i,e a game that lasts 8 hours should have better graphics then one that lasts 50...

I was referring to that guys post not yours... 

[Not_Jamie]

Well if they could have made it look as good as fallout 4, how many people would have been able to run it in 2011? But I agree, they could have done better out of the box. Espically the AI.

 

I tend to agree, and I think they have some questions that hopefully will be answered as a company. Fallout is a massive brand, 3 was off the charts successful, Vegas saw its own time in the spotlight, The Elder Scroll series are much of the same but in the fantasy settings (other differences too but just being general)... It goes beyond they should have done a better job and the question I would ask, how successful does a game have to be before you put the money behind it to solve these problems.

 

Budget becomes a much bigger talking point, Fallout 4 is awesome and I love it to death, its not everyone cup of tea, I am not going to hide the fact I love it. But I ask myself why didn't they spend the time to polish certain things, as a series grows in popularity certain things are expected such as less bugs, better systems like AI and even certain features only made for PC such as HD packs and more options i.e AO only has one option ssao. When sales are only going to be 1 million copies or less these things where and are acceptable, they are a company and knew how popular this game would be received, preorders where of the charts, and they most likely will break a few records with sales, yet while the game is great in so many ways they felt they didn't need to clean up parts that have been long running issues of both Fallout and Skyrim, AI, bugs, draw distances and better option overall stability of the engine (more info needs to come to light before we throw stones about engine stability).

 

I don't think its a matter of; they should of removed this X feature to make sure this feature is right, but more about why not just invest the money/time to have both, the series is clearly big enough to allow for such a large investment.

[handymanshandle]

That is a great example, even if wow fully redid the graphics today they would never be photo realistic, they are meant to be cartoony look at the style of all the Warcraft games, so comparing Wow graphics to say Guild wars a game that has a much more photo-realistic approach would not work. In fact I think borderlands would be a much better comparison as they both have cartoony graphics with similar styles.

Though I do have to say the remodeling and updating of textures is nice. 

[PlayStation 2]

It's half to do with time and budget and the other half is design and optimization. GRID 2 is a perfect example of this. Barely uses 512MB of VRAM maxed out while looking really good.

Then there's other games like GTA 5, which, while really large and beautiful, uses over 4GB of VRAM, a lot for no reason.