The most beautiful or good looking game you've played? - Games

[QUOTE=BmB;22516501]And? It's great.[/QUOTE] It's easy to have great graphics when they don't actually do anything. Dungeon Keeper 2 had a great animated intro, so does that mean it has great graphics?

[QUOTE=bud389;22516608]It's easy to have great graphics when they don't actually do anything. Dungeon Keeper 2 had a great animated intro, so does that mean it has great graphics?[/QUOTE] It was a lot harder in ninteen ninty fucking three.

You could also say something like Oddworld doesn't count because the sprites and backgrounds are just prerendered with some animation stuck in. Which is obviously false. It doesn't matter how you achieve the graphics as long as they are awesome. Whereas an intro movie is a little harder to justify as the game itself being good looking. Of course it's more impressive when it's something realtime like Crysis. But as Janus said, 1993.

Hell Myst and Riven still look fantastic. That's a serious achievement.

[QUOTE=BmB;22516812][B]You could also say something like Oddworld doesn't count because the sprites and backgrounds are just prerendered with some animation stuck in[/B]. Which is obviously false. It doesn't matter how you achieve the graphics as long as they are awesome. Whereas an intro movie is a little harder to justify as the game itself being good looking. Of course it's more impressive when it's something realtime like Crysis. But as Janus said, 1993.[/QUOTE] And you would be right... Or do you need to see the game with the "best graphics in the world" (according to you) [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdN67FnrsE8&feature=fvst[/media] [editline]09:01PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Janus Vesta;22516874]Hell Myst and Riven still look fantastic. That's a serious achievement.[/QUOTE] I bet every game would be a "technological achievement" if they were all still-frame screenshots of CGI environments...

I guess TF2 and Mirrors Edge don't count either then because a lot of what makes those good looking is the gratuitous baked global illumination. Heck do we even count the textures? Many textures are made from photographs, that's reality that's good looking there and not the game.

[QUOTE=BmB;22517064]I guess TF2 and Mirrors Edge don't count either then because a lot of what makes those good looking is the gratuitous baked global illumination.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between uninteractive, purely cosmetic CGI, compared to interactive, 3D game worlds. The lack of effort for any type of true interactivity pushes aside games that actually strive to achieve REAL graphics, like Crysis, Metro 2033, and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

[QUOTE=bud389;22516932]And you would be right... Or do you need to see the game with the "best graphics in the world" (according to you) I bet every game would be a "technological achievement" if they were all still-frame screenshots of CGI environments...[/QUOTE] First of all, 3D graphics have been around for what 15 years? Games have been around for forty. Using prerendered graphics are a perfectly legitimate way of showing off your game. Also, look at the scenes in Myst/Riven. They were made in [b]1993[/b]. Even with CGI screenshots that is an AMAZING job for 1993.

Myst is interactive. So is Oddworld. I can click a lever in Riven for example, and that lever will turn and do something to the world.

[QUOTE=bud389;22516387] Myst is a fucking slideshow.[/QUOTE] What? There's no fucking in it.

[QUOTE=BmB;22517064]I guess TF2 and Mirrors Edge don't count either then because a lot of what makes those good looking is the gratuitous baked global illumination. Heck do we even count the textures? Many textures are made from photographs, that's reality that's good looking there and not the game.[/QUOTE] It's jut not as impressive when it's prerendered. Sure, it may look nice, but it's no technical feat.

[QUOTE=Drasnus;22517179]What? There's no fucking in it.[/QUOTE] (Then where did Yeesha come from? :v: )

[QUOTE=bud389;22517152]There's a difference between uninteractive, purely cosmetic CGI, compared to interactive, 3D game worlds.[/QUOTE] Not really. CG backgrounds are used to hold the player in the world, as are 3D worlds. There's very little interactivity with the actual walls, floors and skies in 3D games. Dismissing 2D games for using technology available at the time is rediculous.

[QUOTE=Ganoric Mank;22517190]It's jut not as impressive when it's prerendered. Sure, it may look nice, but it's no technical feat.[/QUOTE] Myst and Riven were at the forefront of what 3D graphics could do. In fact as I said before I still consider Riven to be one of the best looking and most realistic uses of CGI to date. And that opinion probably won't change anytime soon. It looks like something right out of an unbiased renderer with skies and water from Terragen, and it's from the early 90's.

[QUOTE=Ganoric Mank;22517190]It's jut not as impressive when it's prerendered. Sure, it may look nice, but it's no technical feat.[/QUOTE] Textures in a 3D game are the EXACT same thing, just in a 3D world rather than a 2D one.

There's an equal amount of work that goes in to realtime graphics as there is pre rendered. You can't just make amazing graphics out of nowhere just because it's not real time. Both need tons of technology to produce a fantastic picture. Not to mention the art in pre rendered is generally top notch. It takes time too.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;22517243]Not really. CG backgrounds are used to hold the player in the world, as are 3D worlds. There's very little interactivity with the actual walls, floors and skies in 3D games. Dismissing 2D games for using technology available at the time is rediculous.[/QUOTE] When myst starts doing dynamicly what all it's graphics are already doing with prerendering, then come and tell me... Until then, i'll be looking at the REAL technological feats. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF5uLkfwiN0[/media]

Discounting the fact that you are ignoring which is that Myst and Riven were actually tehnological feats. We're talking about what is good looking here, not what is a graphical revolution.

I'm going to say Morrowind is the most beautiful game. Not necessarily because of graphics (even though they can be improved to near crysis-level with mods), but because of the awesome atmosphere. It was a small part of a massive, scary, hilarious and powerful universe, and there was a constant feeling of mystery - I always questioned how something came to be there, what its story was. A truly beautiful game.

:siren:[highlight]THIS THREAD ISN'T ABOUT TECHNOLOGICAL FEATS, IT'S ABOUT THE BEST LOOKING GAMES![/highlight]:siren: Myst and Riven both fill that criterion AND they used the most advanced CG of their time.

[QUOTE=bud389;22517415]When myst starts doing dynamicly what all it's graphics are already doing with prerendering, then come and tell me... Until then, i'll be looking at the REAL technological feats.[/QUOTE] Are you high? There's no magic make a perfect picture button. As there is tons of work put in to realtime rendering there is tons of work put in to photo realistic rendering.

[QUOTE=BmB;22517461]Discounting the fact that you are ignoring which is that Myst and Riven were actually tehnological feats. We're talking about what is good looking here, not what is a graphical revolution.[/QUOTE] No, it wasn't, sure, it showed what lied ahead for CGI effects, but not 3D gaming. [editline]09:19PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Pj The Dj;22517486]Are you high? There's no magic make a perfect picture button. As there is tons of work put in to realtime rendering there is tons of work put in to photo realistic rendering.[/QUOTE] It's alot harder to program all of that for use in a 3D interactive environment then just stitching together abunch of scenes with functions... It's lazy developing. Or, for the companies lacking money, "cheap" developing.

[QUOTE=bud389;22517541]No, it wasn't, sure, it showed what lied ahead for CGI effects, but not 3D gaming.[/QUOTE] IT WAS MADE IN 1993! It was a HUGE leap in 3D graphics. Was it realtime? No. Was it the most impressive 3D for a long time which still looks good to this day? YES! Name another game which still looks good 17 years later.

We're still not talking about whether it was a revolution btw. It looks bloody good.

[QUOTE=bud389;22517541] It's alot harder to program all of that for use in a 3D interactive environment then just stitching together abunch of scenes with functions... It's lazy developing. Or, for the companies lacking money, "cheap" developing.[/QUOTE] :bang:

[QUOTE=BmB;22517301]Myst and Riven were at the forefront of what 3D graphics could do. In fact as I said before I still consider Riven to be one of the best looking and most realistic uses of CGI to date. And that opinion probably won't change anytime soon. It looks like something right out of an unbiased renderer with skies and water from Terragen, and it's from the early 90's.[/QUOTE] The reason they're so pretty is the graphics aren't real. They've been rendered in advance and the early '90s hardware is just displaying them. Rendering them on the fly is what basically everything else does, and order to achieve a viable framerate you have to sacrifice visual quality, which is why it's impressive when a game has great graphics. Your approach is a bit weird, it's like me judging the graphics of the final fantasy games purely on the visual fidelity of the prerendered cinematics. It's like me playing an HD film on my PC and then being impressed because I'm watching something with true to life graphics, but I'm just watching a recording, I don't render the actors on the fly.

[QUOTE=Ganoric Mank;22517669]The reason they're so pretty is the graphics aren't real. They've been rendered in advance and the early '90s hardware is just displaying them. Rendering them on the fly is what basically everything else does, and order to achieve a viable framerate you have to sacrifice visual quality, which is why it's impressive when a game has great graphics. Your approach is a bit weird, it's like me judging the graphics of the final fantasy games purely on the visual fidelity of the prerendered cinematics. It's like me playing an HD film on my PC and then being impressed because I'm watching something with true to life graphics, but I'm just watching a recording, I don't render the actors on the fly.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Janus Vesta;22517481]:siren:[highlight]THIS THREAD ISN'T ABOUT TECHNOLOGICAL FEATS, IT'S ABOUT THE BEST LOOKING GAMES![/highlight]:siren: Myst and Riven both fill that criterion AND they used the most advanced CG of their time.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;22517603]IT WAS MADE IN 1993! It was a HUGE leap in 3D graphics. Was it realtime? No. [B]Was it the most impressive 3D for a long time which still looks good to this day? YES![/B] Name another game which still looks good 17 years later.[/QUOTE] No.... You DO realize there's a large difference between CGI and 3D right? A single person could create all those scenes in myst where as it takes an entire team to fully realize a 3D interactive game world. If any of what was going on in Myst was actually hardware intensive, then a fucking DOS computer wouldn't be able to run it. It's an interactive slideshow... Deal with it. It proved nothing more then how good they are at faking a 3D game. Are they pretty to look at? Sure, are they technological feats? No, GET OVER IT.

The difference between Final Fantasy and other heavily cinematic based games and Myst is that the prerendered content is the main interactive gameplay bit of it. Not because appreciating the cinematics in a game is wrong for this purpose. Obviously it's a large part of the games. I just don't apprceiate the art direction for that. I'd rather see the Oddworld cinematics for example. As a total experience mediocre realtime graphics in an FF game could drag down what the cinematics added too. That isn't the case in something like Oddworld where there is great consistency between gameplay and cinematic.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;22517711][/QUOTE] I guess. Kinda. Even though you're just clicking on a CG picture, I see your point. Even though it's not proper 3D.