FO3-specific nerd-rage thread, with extra lulzy quotes.

[Admiral Rimjob POOBUM]

Personally, I was wholly unimpressed with the graphical aspect of Crysis. With the lackluster gameplay and story set aside, apart from the various particle effects for explosions and flames and the like, there was a minimum of one eyesore wherever you turned. The dynamic soft shadows weren't optimized to fall on 2d foliage and grass, and often broke into pieces. Terrain and objects seen at a great distance were visibly simplified and assigned with lower resolution of textures, not that the practice isn't repeated in FC2, but it is a more polished and unnoticable process. There were loads of unaligned textures, and detail texturing was quite often repetative and formed patterns. Hiding in a bush still looked like being surrounded by 2d planes, much like it did in FC1. It was a cripple on the tech side alone, with major graphical miscalculations and instabilities, and a major resource hog. Yet, at best it still only managed to achieve a rather hand-drawn look, albeit with lacking art direction.

I noticed much of the same, particularly regarding unaligned textures, distance textures and hiding in bushes. The latter was particularly disappointing in... some way I can't quite explain.

Anyway, no, I wasn't saying the FC2 screenshot was photorealistic - just that if you look at that, then look at the Blood 2 shot from ten years earlier, it seems plausible we'll have reached photorealism or close to it in the next ten.

 

[MetalCraze]

I got a minus in my reputation at ag.ru because of my comment in FO3 topic with an explanation that says literally:

"You can't criticize the game until you'll play it!"

And then some people tell me that casual shooter gamers aren't stereotypical retards.

 

[PlanHex]

Look at Heavy Rain. http://www.gametrailers.com/player/38635.html
Characters are getting a whole lot better, though it may just because more developers are using mo-cap. (and also why beth fails so miserably at character animation/art)
I think the physics system they used in Star Wars: Force Unleashed and GTA IV was pretty much praised to high heaven as well.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

I think the physics system they used in Star Wars: Force Unleashed and GTA IV was pretty much praised to high heaven as well.

Which just shouts BULLSHIT because Force Unleashed had shitty physics and GTA4 only had physics on such a large scale.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Multi-headed cows eating meat and flesh, oh god it's sacrilege.

Fallout 3 is apparently banned in India for the brahmin cows. :/

 

[MetalCraze]

Multi-headed cows eating meat and flesh, oh god it's sacrilege.

Fallout 3 is apparently banned in India for the brahmin cows. :/

If that was really true then Beth would've immediately make brahmin one-headed for all world. They don't want to lose precious buck$ over some shitty canons no one gives a fuck 'bout. Remember Australia?
But fortunately India has no computers so Fallout 3 is safe!

 

[Zomg]

There's something about mo cap for animations and rotoscoping for cartoons that just screams "I don't belong here!". I guess it's because the movement is usually so sparse and minimalistic that real, sloppy human movement seems too spicy.

 

[denizsi]

Isn't that an improvement? To shape the graphics of the game more with the artwork and direction than engine technology?

I mean, the artwork, the textures used in the environment in FC2 looks raw, repetitive and more plain, so while FC2 may have better tech or whatever -I don't know-, Crysis still looks better to me because the there seems to be more textural variation.

Personally, I was wholly unimpressed with the graphical aspect of Crysis. With the lackluster gameplay and story set aside, apart from the various particle effects for explosions and flames and the like, there was a minimum of one eyesore wherever you turned. The dynamic soft shadows weren't optimized to fall on 2d foliage and grass, and often broke into pieces. Terrain and objects seen at a great distance were visibly simplified and assigned with lower resolution of textures, not that the practice isn't repeated in FC2, but it is a more polished and unnoticable process. There were loads of unaligned textures, and detail texturing was quite often repetative and formed patterns. Hiding in a bush still looked like being surrounded by 2d planes, much like it did in FC1. It was a cripple on the tech side alone, with major graphical miscalculations and instabilities, and a major resource hog. Yet, at best it still only managed to achieve a rather hand-drawn look, albeit with lacking art direction.

Yes, those were ugly in Crysis except for the shadows part for me. I specifically remember seeing shadows fall on 2D foliage and grass properly (I have my shameful moments of feeling awe at points for trivial things like that. I'm a graphics whore) but never noticed if there were any glitches sometimes. I agree with other points. However, it had crazy detailed shaders of surfaces, especially soil, which I've yet to see matched in any high-res FC2 ss. It's possible I just missed those, of course. Vegetation looks more repetitive to me in FC2 in short to mid range than in Crysis. While some colours were too vivid in Crysis, some look washed out and less varied in FC2. Wheat fields in FC2 shots, for instance, look like they don't belong anywhere.

I guess it's lacking the variation of details found in Crysis.

Like what?

More detailed shaders, more game world geometry like rocks, etc. Anyway, I don't really give a shit in the end. Just my observations.

 

[Drog Black Tooth]

photorealism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_tracing_(graphics)

 

[St. Toxic]

I mean, the artwork, the textures used in the environment in FC2 looks raw, repetitive and more plain, so while FC2 may have better tech or whatever -I don't know-, Crysis still looks better to me because the there seems to be more textural variation.

I apparently misunderstood your complaint. The general idea of FC2 was to make everything look raw, so I assumed you were praising it on that, and giving it a backlash about the tech, which is in fact worse than in Crysis, but used with better direction.

I really don't recall any major "textural variation" in Crysis, unless you're talking about the fact that the texture resolution was seemingly random for different things. Like, ultra scrisp faces and blurry uniforms or extremely high-res rock surfaces next to horribly low-res wood surfaces. Just looking through Crysis screenshots bugs me about its' positive reception on the graphics side, seeing as every character, vehicle and otherwise mobile object sticks out of the scenery as if they were self illuminating. Randomly applying blur throughout the scenery hardly does anything to counter it.

Yes, those were ugly in Crysis except for the shadows part for me. I specifically remember seeing shadows fall on 2D foliage and grass properly (I have my shameful moments of feeling awe at points for trivial things like that. I'm a graphics whore) but never noticed if there were any glitches sometimes.

Crysis was a bit off for certain setups on release. A friend of mine couldn't play it at all, because of a tearing glitch that just covered the screen in spastic polys, and his setup was actually quite good for it's time. I guess the glitchy shadows were a personal problem of mine. Some water reflections broke up too, now that I think about it.

I agree with other points. However, it had crazy detailed shaders of surfaces, especially soil, which I've yet to see matched in any high-res FC2 ss. It's possible I just missed those, of course. Vegetation looks more repetitive to me in FC2 in short to mid range than in Crysis. While some colours were too vivid in Crysis, some look washed out and less varied in FC2. Wheat fields in FC2 shots, for instance, look like they don't belong anywhere. More detailed shaders, more game world geometry like rocks, etc. Anyway, I don't really give a shit in the end. Just my observations.

Might be a difference in perception, as I'd argue that it is the other way around.

 

[Kiree]

photorealism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_tracing_(graphics)

:
Raytracing is neither a sufficient nor a necessary requirement for photorealism, you clueless fuckwad.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Uh-huh... Look where C64 and Amiga are now. Collecting dust in recycle bins. If not for modular design and gradual improvement, PC would rest next to them.

The Amiga died off for a lot of reasons. One of the biggies is that a lot of game publishers took money from Nintendo to stop development for the Amiga(including EA, which wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the C64). Those fancy graphics and superior sound didn't do anyone much good without the software. The Amiga still had it's desktop video niche, but the hardware and software for that was way out of the price of most people.

 

[Pliskin]

But, when marketing to a mass audience, the games need to change. The mass audience has different tastes than the nerdy core gamer demographic. They like pretty graphics, easy wins, fully voiced dialog, big explosions. They don't care for plots as much, and they certainly don't want a game where you need to read huge paragraphs.

Now that games can't be profitable just selling to the core gamer demographic, they must market themselves to the mass audience of retards. And that entails doing away with niche stuff like PS:T and focusing on other aspects of the games than those that appeal to the core nerdy gamer demographic.

In short, games had to become Jerry Bruckheimer blockbuster movies.

In short, it devolves to the differences between people who like to read books (old-school PC gamers) vs people who only watch movies adapted from books (console tards).

BioShock is, in my opinion, perhaps the worst example of this trend to date: A "game" (if you can bring yourself to call it that) that requires no gaming ability. You just have to follow the straight-line pre-determined plot-points from beginning to end. Everything is spoon fed to you --- and with no consequences for failure (yay, vitachambers!) --- really, what's the point? It's just an inter-active movie. (With the added disadvantage that it costs five times as much).

Oh, and the most meta of metas? Gore Verbinski has signed to make an actual "BioShock" movie next year!

This is the trend we have to look forward to in "gaming".

 

[Muze]

BioShock is, in my opinion, perhaps the worst example of this trend to date: A "game" (if you can bring yourself to call it that) that requires no gaming ability. You just have to follow the straight-line pre-determined plot-points from beginning to end. Everything is spoon fed to you --- and with no consequences for failure (yay, vitachambers!) --- really, what's the point? It's just an inter-active movie. (With the added disadvantage that it costs five times as much).

I just don't get BioShock hate. It may be no System Shock 2, but it's still an excellent game IMO. Although I agree the vitachambers were lame. (I believe there's a mod to remove them). You could argue much more easily that Dungeon Siege is hard to bring oneself to call a "game."

 

[Barrow_Bug]

BioShock is, in my opinion, perhaps the worst example of this trend to date: A "game" (if you can bring yourself to call it that) that requires no gaming ability. You just have to follow the straight-line pre-determined plot-points from beginning to end. Everything is spoon fed to you --- and with no consequences for failure (yay, vitachambers!) --- really, what's the point? It's just an inter-active movie. (With the added disadvantage that it costs five times as much).

I just don't get BioShock hate. It may be no System Shock 2, but it's still an excellent game IMO. Although I agree the vitachambers were lame. (I believe there's a mod to remove them). You could argue much more easily that Dungeon Siege is hard to bring oneself to call a "game."

Shhhh, don't speak about Bioshock in the positive. They'll hear you! And when the hive hears you, you're done!

 

[Pliskin]

I just don't get BioShock hate. It may be no System Shock 2, but it's still an excellent game IMO. Although I agree the vitachambers were lame. (I believe there's a mod to remove them). You could argue much more easily that Dungeon Siege is hard to bring oneself to call a "game."

Hey, I meant "inter-active movie" as a positive: You can sit down, turn yr brain off, and immersive yerself in the purty moving pichurs... Really, the art direction is top notch.

Unfortunately, much in the manner of "Oblivion", you can finish the game with very little effort, using only the beginning items (Shock plasmid & wrench) --- effectively a 1st Level character from start to finish.

Boooorrriiiinnnngggg.

(Oh, and it doesn't help that I've allways despised Ayn Rand and her pseudo-fascist Objectivist bullshit!)

 

[Unradscorpion]

BioShock is, in my opinion, perhaps the worst example of this trend to date: A "game" (if you can bring yourself to call it that) that requires no gaming ability. You just have to follow the straight-line pre-determined plot-points from beginning to end. Everything is spoon fed to you --- and with no consequences for failure (yay, vitachambers!) --- really, what's the point? It's just an inter-active movie. (With the added disadvantage that it costs five times as much).

I just don't get BioShock hate. It may be no System Shock 2, but it's still an excellent game IMO. Although I agree the vitachambers were lame. (I believe there's a mod to remove them). You could argue much more easily that Dungeon Siege is hard to bring oneself to call a "game."

Yes and we do argue just that. We call Dungeon Siege an overpriced screensaver.
Welcome to the Codex, you have been here since the 2002.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

(Oh, and it doesn't help that I've allways despised Ayn Rand and her pseudo-fascist Objectivist bullshit!)

At least it's not the usual pathetic attempts at using Nietzche quotes for no reason. Though Nietzsche is worse than Rand.

 

[Circuitous]

The FC2 screenshot does have that sepia quality of Civil War-era photos, so that probably counts for something.

 

[Muze]

Yes and we do argue just that. We call Dungeon Siege an overpriced screensaver.

Exactly my point, which is why I'm saying BioShock doesn't deserve the same treatment.

 

[S_Verner]

man its just like, what do you do, ya know? pretty soon you just get jaded and start ignoring this shit. its like liberal teachers, they keep letting their bias spill into the lesson but you learn to live with thtat shits.

All teachers with political views they express in the classroom are horrible.

And with the discussion of Objectivism, I love how not one proponent of it is financially successful, and it's fucking hilarious how all Rand and Petroskov have done is give the same people they call nazis material that they can use to justify their actions.

 

[onemananadhisdroid]

I see your point, but why would aspects such as writing, quest design, multilinearity etc. have to suffer from advances in graphics? Even if developers prioritize graphics over writing, how many writers do you really need to come up with a good plot?

This whole myth about everything boiling down to such a binary choice by definition needs be put to rest real fast. It's not only that each area of design is usually being assigned to a proper team working on a specific part of a game (AI, art, sound, etc.). The gaming industry is arguably pretty inbred as is - as such it's their natural expertise to be good at technicals like that. When it comes to writing and similar, there's just not many people around who can do anything truly great. Some would argue there aren't any.

Spending money on hiring authors is all fine and dandy, but a writer can go just this far if his experience with game design is rather limited (as tends to be the case pretty often). Think of the superficial Barker stuff in any Barker game. It's like a mod with some characteristic textures added here and there, but it never gets any deeper than that.

This doesn't only apply to the attitude geared towards writing though. There's dozens of games that do supbar job at mimicing movies, and plenty other media alike. Bad camerawork, timing, writing... Sure, part of that is due to budget involved, but even triple A games can prove pretty damn lacking.

They like pretty graphics, easy wins, fully voiced dialog, big explosions. They don't care for plots as much, and they certainly don't want a game where you need to read huge paragraphs.

Exceptions prove the rule I guess. (+1 for the Sims etc. ) I'd argue that most games simply don't have any discernible hook that'd make them sell in the first place. In a world of a hundred games lining the shelves at any point that matters you're asked to go apeshit about bump-maps, to-hit-rolls, character classes and choices&consequences instead. Yawn.