• Crytek are finding it "increasingly difficult to wow people" with graphics
    74 replies, posted
[url]http://www.pcgamesn.com/ryse-son-of-rome/crytek-are-finding-it-increasingly-difficult-to-wow-people-with-graphics[/url]
it was a thing called imagination
Its already looks realistic, now make it look better
[QUOTE=Abaddon-ext4;46172717]Its already looks realistic, now make it look better[/QUOTE] It already looks good enough, now make the game halfway decent!
subsurface scattering, global illumination and realtime reflections are the only things that we need properly right now
[quote]but they know they’ll never again make jaws drop like they did with Crysis.[/quote] That's because until Crysis came along everybody made games that everybody could run decently, whereas Crysis was basically saying "fuck you, have a top of the line computer in order to run me decently. Want me maxed out? GLHF!". Nowadays all major titles demand you have a more than decent PC to begin with.
Just produce a more detailed game with higher resolution textures and models with more depth, simples!
currently the graphics are more than good enough what's more important is the art style it's composed in and the technologies and physics featured in the world, i find that a bigger wow factor than just "wow so real" graphics
Well they'd probably find it easier to appease the masses if they worked to make their games even half way decent instead of focusing solely on graphics and terrible 'Jell-o tit physics'.
[QUOTE=Giraffen93;46172731]subsurface scattering, global illumination and realtime reflections are the only things that we need properly right now[/QUOTE] We also need game engines that work well for both natural landscapes and urban environments. It seems very few graphics engines can do both well.
That's because graphics aren't everything If you make a game about flying pogo sticks, but have the graphics hyper-realistics, it will still be about flying pogo sticks and it will suck
[T][/T]The day has come: graphics are now full. [editline]edit[/editline] That was a joke jebus
You'll probably find that it would be a lot easier if you made PC exclusive titles and actually good games, instead of the consolized AAA trash you've been making in the last few years.
If there's one big thing that still needs to be improved graphics-wise, I think it's gotta be animations, especially in first person games where missing details can be spotted more easily and lead to an uncanny valley effect. It's mostly stuff you can't mocap like characters dynamically reacting to their virtual environment. For example, you've mocapped a generic grabbing motion, but it's not fine-tuned to fit the ingame objects the NPCs are interacting with, which makes the ingame motion look really awkward and often the grasp isn't even form-fitting. You also can't mocap NPCs turning around and looking at the moving player, Half-Life-2-style, which is one reason why masked characters, conversation cutscenes and audio briefing are so popular. Speaking of HL2, tho this is kinda getting away from the topic of graphics,I think it's still pretty rare to find interactive game environments. Stuff like being able to touch and move every little thing TES-style or actually using the physics engine beyond cool grenade explosions HL2-style. Maybe you could even come up with new features like NPCs searching for the player by throwing cardboard boxes out of the way or something. Not sure how much that is still related to graphics, but it certainly would make the worlds look more believable.
General resolutions seems like the sort of thing developers could keep pushing the more memory becomes available. What I'm looking for that will wow me are better, nicer looking simulations of things, like water, lightning, lighting, fire, foliage and physics.
Hard? Do the same thing you guys did in Crysis. That Alien ship and frozen jungle was and still is "wow" for me.
Maybe they could try actually having a unique art style.
All things said I'm pretty glad that we've reached a milestone where we can now focus more on other game aspects rather than realistic graphics. That and start exploring more adventurous art styles. Games are essentially the creation of imaginary worlds, may as well begin really pushing those boundaries.
For me, I stopped caring about ~dem fancee grafix~, and instead find the aesthetics to have a better hold over me. Maybe that's why I've been more impressed with titles on the Wii U than I have on the PS4. And for the love of god Crytek, make a good game next time
I never understood the massive hype of graphics, especially in Crytek titles. Playing a game that looks incredible is amazing at first but it's novelty wears down incredibly fast, having a high graphic fidelity can't carry a game on it's own. Perhaps I'm not really into graphic intense game because my pc is pretty old and I play a lot of titles on the console but still I never really had much enjoyment from a good that just looks good and lacks in other aspects. Having a good aesthetic style that fits the game is more important than having a superior texture quality, at least in my opinion.
[QUOTE=ser770;46172747]currently the graphics are more than good enough what's more important is the art style it's composed in and the technologies and physics featured in the world, i find that a bigger wow factor than just "wow so real" graphics[/QUOTE] This. Bioshock 1 is still an absolutely beautiful game today because it has a very solid and very unique art direction that is pleasing to the eye while being suitably run-down and fucked up. Modern games literally hurt my eyes with their central idea of "make shit stupidly realistic and then desaturate it a bit so it's like watching a broken HDTV".
Art direction is more important than sheer photorealism.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;46173186]Art direction is more important than sheer photorealism.[/QUOTE] Tru dat, games like Okami and Xenoblade have cool art directions and purty visuals, whilst being on the Wii (though Okami was on PS2 first, if I recall). Photorealism's a massive money sink, when all you really need is good framerate, decent resolution and a pretty art direction. Hell Dust: An Elysian Tail was a 2D Metroidvania game and it had pretty hand-drawn sprites and backgrounds, even if the characters seemed a little too "animu" in appearance, namely the classic oversized eyes, but otherwise it was damn pretty.
A little imagination away from current military can go a long way. Someone should drop by half a dozen Dulux color chart's through their post box while their at it, just to remind them that Brown and Grey aren't the only colors in the world. Are Crytek still following that Free to Play path that the decided to follow after Ryse? I can't take them seriously after Warface. [QUOTE=ironman17;46173223]Hell Dust: An Elysian Tail was a 2D Metroidvania game and it had pretty hand-drawn sprites and backgrounds, even if the characters seemed a little too "animu" in appearance, namely the classic oversized eyes, but otherwise it was damn pretty.[/QUOTE] Putting aside the Deviant Art-like art style which, well. Could be worse than it is but serviceable for the most part. (The environments where top notch though) Dust was a pretty good game. And that game was (for the most part, Music and Voice Acting aside) made by just a single guy. Hat's off to that dude he did a better job alone than some huge AAA studios.
[QUOTE=ironman17;46173223]Tru dat, games like Okami and Xenoblade have cool art directions and purty visuals, whilst being on the Wii (though Okami was on PS2 first, if I recall).[/QUOTE] That's correct. It was also missing a few of the fancy things the PS2 version had despite looking sharper and whatnot.
[QUOTE=Symwck;46172987]All things said I'm pretty glad that we've reached a milestone where we can now focus more on other game aspects rather than realistic graphics. That and start exploring more adventurous art styles. Games are essentially the creation of imaginary worlds, may as well begin really pushing those boundaries.[/QUOTE] People have been saying that since last gen already, combined with a deep worry for games cutting down on gameplay and level expansiveness because realistic graphics are such a huge money drain with diminishing returns the closer you try to get to true realism - and usually you'll fall into the uncanny valley for various reasons on the way anyway. I think one reason many devs/publishers are clinging to improving graphics is because it's easy to showcase and turn into promotional material, relatively risk-free, and suitable for pretty much any audience. Advancing gameplay for example could make it too complicated or overloaded for your audience, and there's no clear-cut "this is better" direction as with approaching realism. Assassin's Creed for example is a well-known example for adding more and more gadgets to a stockpile arsenal that nobody really cared about, or in general shifting the game away from assassination towards "adventures in historic settings" in an attempt to keep it fresh, even centering it around completely new gameplay like the ship combat in AC4. Increasing polies & texture size as more powerful hardware becomes available or you learn to exploit engines and console-hardware better strikes me as uncomplicated by comparison.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;46173186]Art direction is more important than sheer photorealism.[/QUOTE] Defo this. Games like The Wind Waker, The Neverhood and Abe's Oddysee will have a lot of trouble looking dated (if you exclude their native resolution), simply because of their art style.
Mario Kart 8 is probably one of the nicest looking games I've played this year, because it has a solid art direction on less than stellar hardware. It proves that art direction is just as if not more important than the technology it's based on
Fuck graphics we need better physics.
Good graphics don't make a good game, but that doesn't mean these companies shouldn't be working on tech that breaks new limits to graphical fidelity.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.