Unreal Engine 5 - holy shit!

[mkultra]

The more the graphics improves the less interactive the games become. If this trend continues...

What would graphics have to do with that.. i think games are getting more interactive overall, i think people would be pretty pissed if we can't jump in the next Witcher game, for example, or if you can't climb up on a building, or if water is just something which is there for decoration and with invisible walls around it. It's gotten way better.

Edit: lol. zero arguments. what a joke some of you are, bet you're likely 16-18 and with little to no knowledge of how games has advanced in terms of world interactivity. like i said, compare witcher 1 to witcher 3 in terms of how you can actually interact with the game environment, as just one of 100's of examples i could very easily make, you have nothing.

If anything, better graphics = better interactivity. Not because it's somehow related, but as time goes, more is expected. That's why graphics gets better, that's why we can swim, dive, climb and fly in most modern open world games, and it wasn't always like that.

 

[Gerrard]

Any guesses on when we are able to play actual games with this amount of detail in them?



Editor video + lots of high-quality images: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/qeeX5z

Nice contrast. I wonder when was the last time the author actually went outside and saw how the world fucking looks.

 

[thesecret1]

Yup, so don't act like we are still at that stage and that someone would have to work for years with just hand placement etc

I literally never said that? Did you think that was why I said it's nowhere near? Jesus... Someone has to make those art assets, someone has to place them (yes, even procedural generation requires input to know what to generate where), someone has to make the materials for all this shit, and all throughout, it all has to run at good FPS, at a much larger scene than the one showcased. All the while you have more important shit to do, such as NPCs, pickupable items (which may or may not have physics turned on), interactive objects (doors, for example, but generally any object that moves. And I don't mean sways in the wind or similar shit, I mean actually moves), or dynamic lighting. And all this has to, again, run at good fps and at a much larger scale.

 

[tritosine2k]

It's like you guys see a tech demo and think "this is coming to every viodeogame nao, omg!!!!" not realizing that a tech demo means the whole team is working on that one thing. Just because Epic showcases something really doesn't mean that it's easy (or even worth the effort) to replicate it in an actual video game.

watch their videos of the actual editor... it's insanely fast to create vast areas, but of course, you still need to hand place things like houses etc, but in comparison to mostly placing trees, bushes, rocks etc etc etc by hand it's 1000 times faster... hand placing is very tiresome, i've made it for a few games and it can take many, many months.

And again, it's not really super impressive, you're acting like it's movie quality, it still very much looks like a modern game engine.. Horizon: FW can look similarly impressive (a bit depending on area/scene)..

Graphics alone doesn't mean too much for immersion always. 3D is where it's really at imo, 2D feels very outdated. I still use Nvidia 3D Vision for many games, using it in Witcher 3 was fantastic, actually seeing realistic distances, heights etc. I remember standing on a mountain and looking at the distance, thinking wow i can see all the way to approx where my parents house is in reality. That never happens in 2D because you can't really see distance in a realistic way.

"That never happens in 2D because you can't really see distance in a realistic way. "
Dude 3d vision had forced depth setting set by nvidia, different between monitors tvs and projectors. And that never allowed realistic depth to begin with. Lay down the kool aid there's no such display yet outside full fledged aircraft simulators.

 

[mkultra]

Yup, so don't act like we are still at that stage and that someone would have to work for years with just hand placement etc

I literally never said that? Did you think that was why I said it's nowhere near? Jesus... Someone has to make those art assets, someone has to place them (yes, even procedural generation requires input to know what to generate where), someone has to make the materials for all this shit, and all throughout, it all has to run at good FPS, at a much larger scene than the one showcased. All the while you have more important shit to do, such as NPCs, pickupable items (which may or may not have physics turned on), interactive objects (doors, for example, but generally any object that moves. And I don't mean sways in the wind or similar shit, I mean actually moves), or dynamic lighting. And all this has to, again, run at good fps and at a much larger scale.

no, but at the stage where it would be impossible to have that graphics, which you almost seem to believe.. it's not even that amazing looking for a modern game. i personally hate how the lighting looks.
NPC's, monsters, wind anims actually stops pretty quickly after you move away from it in open world games, how large the world is does not really impact performance.
In general things are just much, much easier and faster to do in 2023 than when e.g Skyrim was made. the demo was likely made in a few days or hours, i saw nothing special. it's greatest achievement seems to be that it can render almost unlimed amounts of polygons, so less optimization work and planning might be needed when it comes to that.

Games takes time to make, this is not new and it will not change with UE5 drastically. But yes, we will have this kind of graphics within 2023-2024, no doubt.

 

[mkultra]

It's like you guys see a tech demo and think "this is coming to every viodeogame nao, omg!!!!" not realizing that a tech demo means the whole team is working on that one thing. Just because Epic showcases something really doesn't mean that it's easy (or even worth the effort) to replicate it in an actual video game.

watch their videos of the actual editor... it's insanely fast to create vast areas, but of course, you still need to hand place things like houses etc, but in comparison to mostly placing trees, bushes, rocks etc etc etc by hand it's 1000 times faster... hand placing is very tiresome, i've made it for a few games and it can take many, many months.

And again, it's not really super impressive, you're acting like it's movie quality, it still very much looks like a modern game engine.. Horizon: FW can look similarly impressive (a bit depending on area/scene)..

Graphics alone doesn't mean too much for immersion always. 3D is where it's really at imo, 2D feels very outdated. I still use Nvidia 3D Vision for many games, using it in Witcher 3 was fantastic, actually seeing realistic distances, heights etc. I remember standing on a mountain and looking at the distance, thinking wow i can see all the way to approx where my parents house is in reality. That never happens in 2D because you can't really see distance in a realistic way.

"That never happens in 2D because you can't really see distance in a realistic way. "
Dude 3d vision had forced depth setting set by nvidia, different between monitors tvs and projectors. And that never allowed realistic depth to begin with. Lay down the kool aid there's no such display yet outside full fledged aircraft simulators.

you can change the depth and more importantly the convergence setting, it's always been there for 3D Vision. Its available while you play so you can tweak it, and yes it does take tweaking to get it right. The depth is absolutely immense with 3D Vision, blows my Quest II out of the water for sure, blows any 3D movie i've seen in the threatre out of the water too. In fact i don't think i've had any VR headset where the 3D is that intense, though obviously VR has other advantages (such as seing realistic scale).

 

[tritosine2k]

...

....

"That never happens in 2D because you can't really see distance in a realistic way. "
Dude 3d vision had forced depth setting set by nvidia, different between monitors tvs and projectors. And that never allowed realistic depth to begin with. Lay down the kool aid there's no such display yet outside full fledged aircraft simulators.

you can change the depth and more importantly the convergence setting, it's always been there for 3D Vision. Its available while you play so you can tweak it, and yes it does take tweaking to get it right. The depth is absolutely immense with 3D Vision, blows my Quest II out of the water for sure, blows any 3D movie i've seen in the threatre out of the water too. In fact i don't think i've had any 3D headset where the 3D is that intense, though obviously VR has other advantages (such as seing realistic scale).

Offtopic: The depth setting maxes out early on monitors because you can only expect CENTIMETERS of comfortable depth versus meters on projectors. And not even latter amounts to much if you want capital letter DEPTH. This is why they did registry hacking but fixed nothing because this stuff was doomed from start.

On:
Pretty damn good stuff.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

What would graphics have to do with that.. i think games are getting more interactive overall, i think people would be pretty pissed if we can't jump in the next Witcher game, for example, or if you can't climb up on a building, or if water is just something which is there for decoration and with invisible walls around it. It's gotten way better.

You will be able to jump or to climb a wall only in specific pre-scripted cinematic spots. This a common trend in modern games.

 

[mkultra]

What would graphics have to do with that.. i think games are getting more interactive overall, i think people would be pretty pissed if we can't jump in the next Witcher game, for example, or if you can't climb up on a building, or if water is just something which is there for decoration and with invisible walls around it. It's gotten way better.

You will be able to jump or to climb a wall only in specific pre-scripted cinematic spots. This a common trend in modern games.

It's pretty rare, i personally would boycott such a game, especially so if its a open world game where you can't even explore properly. Also this will most certainly have a rather negative impact on reviews, people will not be happy with such design.

 

[mkultra]

...

....

"That never happens in 2D because you can't really see distance in a realistic way. "
Dude 3d vision had forced depth setting set by nvidia, different between monitors tvs and projectors. And that never allowed realistic depth to begin with. Lay down the kool aid there's no such display yet outside full fledged aircraft simulators.

you can change the depth and more importantly the convergence setting, it's always been there for 3D Vision. Its available while you play so you can tweak it, and yes it does take tweaking to get it right. The depth is absolutely immense with 3D Vision, blows my Quest II out of the water for sure, blows any 3D movie i've seen in the threatre out of the water too. In fact i don't think i've had any 3D headset where the 3D is that intense, though obviously VR has other advantages (such as seing realistic scale).

Offtopic: The depth setting maxes out early on monitors because you can only expect CENTIMETERS of comfortable depth versus meters on projectors. And not even latter amounts to much if you want capital letter DEPTH. This is why they did registry hacking but fixed nothing because this stuff was doomed from start.

On:
Pretty damn good stuff.

i have both a monitor and a projector for 3D vision use, and you're right that it looks more impressive on a projector. what you feel is comfortable is probably also very individual.

 

[thesecret1]

no, but at the stage where it would be impossible to have that graphics, which you almost seem to believe.. it's not even that amazing looking for a modern game. i personally hate how the lighting looks.
NPC's, monsters, wind anims actually stops pretty quickly after you move away from it in open world games, how large the world is does not really impact performance.
In general things are just much, much easier and faster to do in 2023 than when e.g Skyrim was made. the demo was likely made in a few days or hours, i saw nothing special. it's greatest achievement seems to be that it can render almost unlimed amounts of polygons, so less optimization work and planning might be needed when it comes to that.

Games takes time to make, this is not new and it will not change with UE5 drastically. But yes, we will have this kind of graphics within 2023-2024, no doubt.

Alright, I'll try to remember this post so that in 2025, I can quote it and smugly ask where's them games.

 

[mkultra]

no, but at the stage where it would be impossible to have that graphics, which you almost seem to believe.. it's not even that amazing looking for a modern game. i personally hate how the lighting looks.
NPC's, monsters, wind anims actually stops pretty quickly after you move away from it in open world games, how large the world is does not really impact performance.
In general things are just much, much easier and faster to do in 2023 than when e.g Skyrim was made. the demo was likely made in a few days or hours, i saw nothing special. it's greatest achievement seems to be that it can render almost unlimed amounts of polygons, so less optimization work and planning might be needed when it comes to that.

Games takes time to make, this is not new and it will not change with UE5 drastically. But yes, we will have this kind of graphics within 2023-2024, no doubt.

Alright, I'll try to remember this post so that in 2025, I can quote it and smugly ask where's them games.

sure. again, i don't think it's an especially nice looking demo apart from it's UE5 which means a ton of polygons. i've seen far better ones with UE5 and those have not been in-house demos, just indie stuff.

 

[mkultra]

here's something that looks really good, and it isn't just a demo. the lighting here is spectacular

 

[cretin]

The more the graphics improves the less interactive the games become. If this trend continues...

What would graphics have to do with that.. i think games are getting more interactive overall, i think people would be pretty pissed if we can't jump in the next Witcher game, for example, or if you can't climb up on a building, or if water is just something which is there for decoration and with invisible walls around it. It's gotten way better.

Edit: lol. zero arguments. what a joke some of you are, bet you're likely 16-18 and with little to no knowledge of how games has advanced in terms of world interactivity. like i said, compare witcher 1 to witcher 3 in terms of how you can actually interact with the game environment, as just one of 100's of examples i could very easily make, you have nothing.

If anything, better graphics = better interactivity. Not because it's somehow related, but as time goes, more is expected. That's why graphics gets better, that's why we can swim, dive, climb and fly in most modern open world games, and it wasn't always like that.

W3 had approximately the same amount of interactivity as Gothic 2, a 2002 title did. Yes W3 has more "stuff" - more identical NPCs, more houses full of junk loot, more pointless underwater caves - but the level of interaction is about the same. I don't think interactivity has correlated with graphical fidelity at all. In fact, when I think of the movie game phenomena, I think precisely of big budget games like the uncharted series that look fantastic but functionally tie the player on a railroad cart through the scenery and dubious "gameplay".

The increment of world interactivity from W1 to W3 isn't a function of graphical fidelity, its a function of a studio turning from an almost shovelware outfit in EE into a company worth some allegedly 2 billion kwanzas.

 

[mkultra]

The more the graphics improves the less interactive the games become. If this trend continues...

What would graphics have to do with that.. i think games are getting more interactive overall, i think people would be pretty pissed if we can't jump in the next Witcher game, for example, or if you can't climb up on a building, or if water is just something which is there for decoration and with invisible walls around it. It's gotten way better.

Edit: lol. zero arguments. what a joke some of you are, bet you're likely 16-18 and with little to no knowledge of how games has advanced in terms of world interactivity. like i said, compare witcher 1 to witcher 3 in terms of how you can actually interact with the game environment, as just one of 100's of examples i could very easily make, you have nothing.

If anything, better graphics = better interactivity. Not because it's somehow related, but as time goes, more is expected. That's why graphics gets better, that's why we can swim, dive, climb and fly in most modern open world games, and it wasn't always like that.

W3 had approximately the same amount of interactivity as Gothic 2, a 2002 title did. Yes W3 has more "stuff" - more identical NPCs, more houses full of junk loot, more pointless underwater caves - but the level of interaction is about the same. I don't think interactivity has correlated with graphical fidelity at all. In fact, when I think of the movie game phenomena, I think precisely of big budget games like the uncharted series that look fantastic but functionally tie the player on a railroad cart through the scenery and dubious "gameplay".

The increment of world interactivity from W1 to W3 isn't a function of graphical fidelity, its a function of a studio turning from an almost shovelware outfit in EE into a company worth some allegedly 2 billion kwanzas.

Gothic 2 was an anomaly, just like the Ultima 7's it was inspired from.
When U7 was released i thought it was changing gaming forever, then BG and similar RPG's came out and i was so disappointed in them, they borrowed almost nothing from U7. No NPC schedules, no similar world interactivity etc.

Same with G2, apart from TES there weren't that many games that allowed for similar exploration, while nowadays you just expect it and it's there for the most part (in open world RPG's and survival sims).

Uncharted are linear games that doesn't allow much in terms of exploration, though sometimes U4 surprised me there too, e.g being able to jump from a boat to dive underwater, when it was not the goal of the level or served any kind of purpose at all apart from just allowing the player to do it. Most linear games would've put an invisible wall up making it impossible to dive, and many of those more linear games puts up invisible walls so you cant even fall down from cliffs, no such thing in those games. Had tons of fun with that game even though it's not really my genre of choice.

Take the biggest open world RPG's and even action RPG's of the last 10 years or so and you will directly see they all have great game world interactivity. Even games such as Assassins Creed, you can now dive under water, climb, fly, ride, use boats. Elden Ring, big upgrade from the Souls games in terms of exploration. Zelda BotW, a total game changer in terms of exploration - way better than in previous games, climb walls of mountains, skate, fly, ride, use wind and other elements to interact with the world in interesting ways. Horizon games, even better in Forbidden West (e.g you can now fly, which we now are expecting in these games). It's gotten tons better and for each follow up it's tweaked and just better, there's no chance in hell e.g the next TES will be worse in terms of that, or the next Zelda..

 

[cretin]

The more the graphics improves the less interactive the games become. If this trend continues...

What would graphics have to do with that.. i think games are getting more interactive overall, i think people would be pretty pissed if we can't jump in the next Witcher game, for example, or if you can't climb up on a building, or if water is just something which is there for decoration and with invisible walls around it. It's gotten way better.

Edit: lol. zero arguments. what a joke some of you are, bet you're likely 16-18 and with little to no knowledge of how games has advanced in terms of world interactivity. like i said, compare witcher 1 to witcher 3 in terms of how you can actually interact with the game environment, as just one of 100's of examples i could very easily make, you have nothing.

If anything, better graphics = better interactivity. Not because it's somehow related, but as time goes, more is expected. That's why graphics gets better, that's why we can swim, dive, climb and fly in most modern open world games, and it wasn't always like that.

W3 had approximately the same amount of interactivity as Gothic 2, a 2002 title did. Yes W3 has more "stuff" - more identical NPCs, more houses full of junk loot, more pointless underwater caves - but the level of interaction is about the same. I don't think interactivity has correlated with graphical fidelity at all. In fact, when I think of the movie game phenomena, I think precisely of big budget games like the uncharted series that look fantastic but functionally tie the player on a railroad cart through the scenery and dubious "gameplay".

The increment of world interactivity from W1 to W3 isn't a function of graphical fidelity, its a function of a studio turning from an almost shovelware outfit in EE into a company worth some allegedly 2 billion kwanzas.

Gothic 2 was an anomaly, just like the Ultima 7's it was inspired from.
When U7 was released i thought it was changing gaming forever, then BG and similar RPG's came out and i was so disappointed in them, they borrowed almost nothing from U7. No NPC schedules, no similar world interactivity etc.

Same with G2, apart from TES there weren't that many games that allowed for similar exploration, while nowadays you just expect it and it's there for the most part (in open world RPG's and survival sims).

Uncharted are linear games that doesn't allow much in terms of exploration, though sometimes U4 surprised me there too, e.g being able to jump from a boat to dive underwater, when it was not the goal of the level or served any kind of purpose at all apart from just allowing the player to do it. Most linear games would've put an invisible wall up making it impossible to dive, and many of those more linear games puts up invisible walls so you can even fall down from cliffs, no such thing in those games. Had tons of fun with that game even though it's not really my genre of choice.

Take the biggest open world RPG's and even action RPG's of the last 10 years or so and you will directly see they all have great game world interactivity. Even games such as Assassins Creed, you can dive under water, climb, fly. Elden Ring, big upgrade from the Souls games in terms of exploration. Zelda BoTW, a game changer in terms of exploration, climb walls of mountains, skate, fly, use wind and other elements to interact with the world in interesting ways. Horizon, even better in Forbidden West (e.g you can now fly, which we now are expecting in these games).

Haven't you just defeated your own point here? Baldur's gate is without a doubt far more graphically sophisticated than Ultima 7, and yet features a fraction of the world interactivity or simulation systems.

Thus, it's not really correlated to graphical fidelity. Games have more or less interactivity because the developers choose to put resources towards it. You're referencing modern open world games but they're all functionally identical to older games like GTA:SA (a 2004 title, which achieves much of the same kind of gameplay despite having to work with the awful limitations of the PS2 architecture). The animations and meshes all are far more sophisticated, but the actual gameplay has barely evolved at all. In many cases, such as in the AssCreed series, there is an awful lot of smoke and mirrors going on to hide the fact that there is actually not that much meat on the bones.

 

[mkultra]

The more the graphics improves the less interactive the games become. If this trend continues...

What would graphics have to do with that.. i think games are getting more interactive overall, i think people would be pretty pissed if we can't jump in the next Witcher game, for example, or if you can't climb up on a building, or if water is just something which is there for decoration and with invisible walls around it. It's gotten way better.

Edit: lol. zero arguments. what a joke some of you are, bet you're likely 16-18 and with little to no knowledge of how games has advanced in terms of world interactivity. like i said, compare witcher 1 to witcher 3 in terms of how you can actually interact with the game environment, as just one of 100's of examples i could very easily make, you have nothing.

If anything, better graphics = better interactivity. Not because it's somehow related, but as time goes, more is expected. That's why graphics gets better, that's why we can swim, dive, climb and fly in most modern open world games, and it wasn't always like that.

W3 had approximately the same amount of interactivity as Gothic 2, a 2002 title did. Yes W3 has more "stuff" - more identical NPCs, more houses full of junk loot, more pointless underwater caves - but the level of interaction is about the same. I don't think interactivity has correlated with graphical fidelity at all. In fact, when I think of the movie game phenomena, I think precisely of big budget games like the uncharted series that look fantastic but functionally tie the player on a railroad cart through the scenery and dubious "gameplay".

The increment of world interactivity from W1 to W3 isn't a function of graphical fidelity, its a function of a studio turning from an almost shovelware outfit in EE into a company worth some allegedly 2 billion kwanzas.

Gothic 2 was an anomaly, just like the Ultima 7's it was inspired from.
When U7 was released i thought it was changing gaming forever, then BG and similar RPG's came out and i was so disappointed in them, they borrowed almost nothing from U7. No NPC schedules, no similar world interactivity etc.

Same with G2, apart from TES there weren't that many games that allowed for similar exploration, while nowadays you just expect it and it's there for the most part (in open world RPG's and survival sims).

Uncharted are linear games that doesn't allow much in terms of exploration, though sometimes U4 surprised me there too, e.g being able to jump from a boat to dive underwater, when it was not the goal of the level or served any kind of purpose at all apart from just allowing the player to do it. Most linear games would've put an invisible wall up making it impossible to dive, and many of those more linear games puts up invisible walls so you can even fall down from cliffs, no such thing in those games. Had tons of fun with that game even though it's not really my genre of choice.

Take the biggest open world RPG's and even action RPG's of the last 10 years or so and you will directly see they all have great game world interactivity. Even games such as Assassins Creed, you can dive under water, climb, fly. Elden Ring, big upgrade from the Souls games in terms of exploration. Zelda BoTW, a game changer in terms of exploration, climb walls of mountains, skate, fly, use wind and other elements to interact with the world in interesting ways. Horizon, even better in Forbidden West (e.g you can now fly, which we now are expecting in these games).

Haven't you just defeated your own point here? Baldur's gate is without a doubt far more graphically sophisticated than Ultima 7, and yet features a fraction of the world interactivity or simulation systems.

Thus, it's not really correlated to graphical fidelity. Games have more or less interactivity because the developers choose to put resources towards it. You're referencing modern open world games but they're all functionally identical to older games like GTA:SA (a 2004 title, which achieves much of the same kind of gameplay despite having to work with the awful limitations of the PS2 architecture). The animations and meshes all are far more sophisticated, but the actual gameplay has barely evolved at all. In many cases, such as in the AssCreed series, there is an awful lot of smoke and mirrors going on to hide the fact that there is actually not that much meat on the bones.

i've even said it has nothing to do with graphics, that the two are not related in any way, that's why i got into the argument in the first place..

BG's graphics are not more advanced than u7.. u7 had an entire open world that streamed seamlessly, there's very few modern games that achieves that, you get a loading screen if you enter a new location, no such thing in u7. It was way, way ahead of its time even graphically. I love its graphics even today if i upscale it in EXULT.

Games always use smoke and mirrors, you have to be more specific. I mean in AssCreed there's a ton of stuff that is just there and serves not greater purpose other than for the player to be able to do it. I much, much prefer that over not allowing a player to do something, e.g being able to dive vs being prevented from it.

About gameplay, i do agree that not too much is happening there, it has never been my argument, i'm just saying exploration has gotten better and game world interactivity has gotten better instead of just getting worse, a small victory at least.

Witcher - improving
Zelda - improving
Fallout (hate to say it but..) - improving
AssCreed - improving
Elden Ring (vs Souls) - improving
Horizon - Improving

these are all very big franchises (=huge influence over the market). Then there's the growing Sandbox Survival sim market (anything from Minecraft, ark to conan etc) and world interactivity is a big deal in those games, this will absolutely influence games overall, and not just that genre.

 

[gurugeorge]

here's something that looks really good, and it isn't just a demo. the lighting here is spectacular

Good fire exposion at the end there too.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

Witcher - improving
Zelda - improving
Fallout (hate to say it but..) - improving
AssCreed - improving
Elden Ring (vs Souls) - improving
Horizon - Improving

The most interactive games in this list are Zelda and Fallout. These are also the less advanced in terms of graphics.

 

[mkultra]

Witcher - improving
Zelda - improving
Fallout (hate to say it but..) - improving
AssCreed - improving
Elden Ring (vs Souls) - improving
Horizon - Improving

The most interactive games in this list are Zelda and Fallout. These are also the less advanced in terms of graphics.

Not really, in FO you can't fly, can't drive around in boats, there's no mount or equivalent, climbing and swaying from things or parkour or grappling hook isn't a thing, it's more about just trying to jump to get higher (like in more older games). It does have great object interactivity though, TES and FO is superior to almost anything in that regard.

The thing is we are not seeing a decline in world interactivity at all, it's just increasing over time which is great. There will always be games where it's mostly not a thing though, but for open world games and sandbox games it's just improving.

 

[mkultra]

Looks decent



Rather boring demo though.

 

[gurugeorge]

Looks decent



Rather boring demo though.

Very impressive though - desaturated environments (from cloud cover, etc.) have always been the worst-looking in videogames, and that looks very good indeed.

 

[mkultra]

Very impressive though - desaturated environments (from cloud cover, etc.) have always been the worst-looking in videogames, and that looks very good indeed.

No. There's a running joke among 3D artists that all good looking demos for 3D environments are always done in overcast weather, this because it's absolutely the easiest weather to use if you want it to look natural.
Here's a perfect example of that in a rather old game (2020):


There's also tons of impressive videos of modded GTA V in overcast weather which easily looks as good as above or better.

The most difficult is sunny weather, i thought that demo on the previous page with the medieval setting looked rather unnatural due to the lighting.

 

[gurugeorge]

Very impressive though - desaturated environments (from cloud cover, etc.) have always been the worst-looking in videogames, and that looks very good indeed.

No. There's a running joke among 3D artists that all good looking demos for 3D environments are always done in overcast weather, this because it's absolutely the easiest weather to use if you want it to look natural.
Here's a perfect example of that in a rather old game (2020):


There's also tons of impressive videos of modded GTA V in overcast weather which easily looks as good as above or better.

The most difficult is sunny weather, i thought that demo on the previous page with the medieval setting looked rather unnatural due to the lighting.

Subjectively, as an end-user, I've always found it the opposite. Until recently, overcast, desaturated environments have always looked terrible to me.

 

[mkultra]

Subjectively, as an end-user, I've always found it the opposite. Until recently, overcast, desaturated environments have always looked terrible to me.

Sure. There are plenty of games where it looks just as bad as sunny weather and where i would prefer sunny over it because at least that's bright and colorful.