• Crytek are finding it "increasingly difficult to wow people" with graphics
    74 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Chryseus;46173433]Fuck graphics we need better physics.[/QUOTE] But don't forget the gameplay. Gameplay is so important to games, you can't spell gameplay without game.
Probably because Crytek weren't innovative enough after Crysis, they let everyone else catch up to them. Heaps of room still exists for innovation in video game graphics; we're still to see a released game using real-time ray tracing, and even that is not the terminal point as real-time path tracing would also be a goal. But saying that, it probably won't be for another decade or two that we'll see either of those technologies used in mainstream video games.
GTA V is the perfect example of how a game doesn't need to have up-to-date tech to look utterly beautiful. As long as a game reaches a basic standard of modernity with its graphics, it stops being relevant to the overall experience.
[QUOTE=Wormy;46173522]I wish more developers would focus on smarter AI instead for better gameplay. [/QUOTE] It's pretty sad that Half Life 2 still has some of the best AI I've encountered in a single player FPS. They actually move around and flank and shit. Meanwhile AI in Destiny, Battlefield, and Call of Duty might as well be pop-up targets.
Optimize what you do have. 1080p60 on all major platforms should be the standard.
try making a game and not a showcase
[QUOTE=Pappi_man;46172943]Hard? Do the same thing you guys did in Crysis. That Alien ship and frozen jungle was and still is "wow" for me.[/QUOTE] Even if you were getting 5 fps
[QUOTE=Giraffen93;46172731]subsurface scattering, global illumination and realtime reflections are the only things that we need properly right now[/QUOTE] That and a more reliable physics middleware, sometimes even basic physx is very difficult to get working correctly in multiplayer environments. Havok is finally becoming more open with their licensing plans but its still pretty expensive if you plan on selling anything over $10.
[QUOTE=Craptasket;46174020]Even if you were getting 5 fps[/QUOTE] I remember playing Crysis when the most fps I had was 10 while looking on the ground.
[QUOTE=Giraffen93;46172731]subsurface scattering, global illumination and realtime reflections are the only things that we need properly right now[/QUOTE] Ray tracing is where its at, cant wait to see proper real time ray tracing
[QUOTE=download;46172758]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.[/QUOTE] The last of us pulls it off pretty well I have to say.
Graphics ain't much of a wow factor if they don't have a good art design behind them.
[QUOTE=viperfan7;46174491]Ray tracing is where its at, cant wait to see proper real time ray tracing[/QUOTE] Can't imagine the amount of RAM you'd need for that indoors, let alone in an open world.
What we really need to do is throw John Carmack into a cage, stick a computer in there, and throw in the latest GPUs as they come out on the market. We'd probably have real-time raytracing in under 2 years if we did that, but there might be human rights violations with that method.
I just want to play videog-
[QUOTE=junker154;46173124]Having a good aesthetic style that fits the game is more important than having a superior texture quality, at least in my opinion.[/QUOTE] it's the opinion most would agree on
That kinda reminds me of this old gem: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn6HZdMJwnU[/media]
[QUOTE=viperfan7;46174491]Ray tracing is where its at, cant wait to see proper real time ray tracing[/QUOTE] RT is not where it's at, and won't be for a long, LONG time. RT engines still look like each frame is printed on sandpaper while any one thing in view is moving, and the overabundance of calculation goes beyond the textbook definition of "diminishing returns", spending obnoxious amounts of computing power for scenes that 95% of the time could be spoofed with baked down lighting and dynamically combined but still simplistic lighting elements.
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;46173161]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".[/QUOTE] Have you run it recently? The textures are god-awful and almost all the surfaces were flat. Don't even get me started on Bioshock 2.
so wow people with gameplay
[QUOTE=booster;46174521]Graphics ain't much of a wow factor if they don't have a good art design behind them.[/QUOTE] Totally agree, but I can't stand it being used as an excuse either.
No. I'd be happy if graphics stayed the same for a while now. But I'd really like it if physics got a lot better. Real destructive environments. A bullet being fired, not just an animation, but an actual object being propelled. Full physics simulation on everything. Gimme plox.
Frankly, I'd be more impressed if they used the engines features in a practical sense. Have it serve the gameplay, rather than just being a pretty face.
[QUOTE=booster;46174521]Graphics ain't much of a wow factor if they don't have a good art design behind them.[/QUOTE] graphics don't matter at all if they're for a shit game. i mean yeah Ryse does look good but that's not gonna make me care about the game when it's a linear barebones hack and slash (if you can even call it that).
i dont understand the slack crytek gets for being a graphics-centric developer. i mean, somebodys gotta be that, right? its p.cool seeing what they can do in realtime.
I kinda wanna see some game with perhaps worse graphics, but then generally really fucking good physics and big game environment, lotsa destructible environment/NPC's etc. [editline]7th October 2014[/editline] I don't know what I'm saying, but over-designing things and "too insane" graphical detail sometimes means that the game is going to be really boring otherwise, like almost no room for anything else.
[QUOTE=TheWhiteFox1;46175139]graphics don't matter at all if they're for a shit game. i mean yeah Ryse does look good but that's not gonna make me care about the game when it's a linear barebones hack and slash (if you can even call it that).[/QUOTE] using ryse as an example was ironic in the fact that it's THE face of the gaming industry's hardon for graphics over content
[QUOTE=CQRPSE;46175231]i dont understand the slack crytek gets for being a graphics-centric developer. i mean, somebodys gotta be that, right? its p.cool seeing what they can do in realtime.[/QUOTE] it's that they went from being graphics-centric developers that still made good games (Far Cry and Crysis are fun af), to graphics-centric developers who make F2P games and Ryse [editline]7th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=dai;46175274]using ryse as an example was ironic in the fact that it's THE face of the gaming industry's hardon for graphics over content[/QUOTE] well at least ryse was pretty much panned across the board, right?
[QUOTE=TheWhiteFox1;46175278]it's that they went from being graphics-centric developers that still made good games (Far Cry and Crysis are fun af), to graphics-centric developers who make F2P games and Ryse[/QUOTE] i dont think that makes them a bad developer or anything tho. clearly theyve had a change in focus. i dont think a developer should be faulted for working with video games when their focus is clearly on pushign real time rendering as far ahead as they can. afterall, video games are great for real time demostrations. maybe im just crazy tho.
Graphics mean shit if the game isn't engaging, have the best of both worlds.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.