|
| Welcome to NoE Version 2. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. << Furthermore, adverts like these are removed as you sign up! Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| GRaphics vs. GRaphical Power | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 11 2008, 07:15 PM (220 Views) | |
| Col | May 11 2008, 07:15 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Not Poodle
|
I think the majority of us on here would agree that graphics are not the key element to making a good game. In fact, there is a very wide variety of games nowadays where some are very good, and some simply aren’t, yet graphically they are very similar. Well, maybe not in ters of the engine used to generate the graphics, but from the player’s perspective, each envirionment looks just as realistic as the next. But it wasn’t long ago when differences in graphics were quite easy to notice, as well as games having a varying degree of graphical realism. Compare Donkey Kong 64 to Conker’s Bad Fur Day for example – same developer, same hardware, same amount of “intended” realism (ie. The game is not designed to be realistic, but look realistic to a degree). Because both games are not intended to be or look real, they don’t, but there are a lot of effects in each which are designed to look real, such as the reflections and lights in DK64, and the environments in CBFD. So now we’re at the point where graphical variation isn’t really noticeable anymore. Even in games which are not designed to be realistic, it can be argued that they do indeed look realistic, such as Metroid Prime and Super Mario Sunshine, or newer incarnations of those franchises. So now we’ve reached the stage where those who buy a game for its graphics are spoilt for choice, and have to resort to the more normal attitude of buying a game for the experience. Yet, despite this lack of graphical variation between games, there is still quite a vast range of minimum hardware requirements from game to game. Why is that? Why is itt hat games which look so similar or use similar graphics engines can have such different requirements to run their graphical elements? Also, what do you think the limits are on the human brain in this field? What “frame rate” do you think the human eyes run at? You know when there’s a really annoying light or a TV screen flickering in the corner of your eye, but if you look directly at it, the flickering stops? Many of you may disagree with me here, but I think that’s because a TV does not actually run at the same frame rate as the human eye. Video cameras are just the same: if you start up the camera whilst it is pointing at the screen, you shouldn’t see any flicker in the recorded picture; but if you point it away and then back again, or slightly to the side, you will see flicker starting to appear on the screen. It is for this reason that I believe TVs do not run at the optimum frame rate for the human eye. I also get this with my DS. I can see the bottom screen of my DS flickering ever so slightly when I play it. IT never bothers me except when viewing a static image, but it’s definitely noticeable. Also, colours: how many colours do you think are detectable by the human eye? I personally disagree with the 16,777,216 that is currently generated by modern computers, consoles and TVs. If I look hard enough, for long enough, I can see a difference in the colour. Not sure about everyone else though. Thoughts? Or it might just be that the contrast on my monitor is set too high. And my final point for this topic: how realistic does a game have to look before you actually make yourself believe it looks real? There are some quite old games (now) that run on really crap hardware (by today’s standards), yet their graphics are good enough to trick the brain into thinking they look real, or real enough. Sometimes there is the odd effect or texture which has been forsaken and it will stick out like a sore thumb for not looking as realistic or smooth as the rest, but for the most part, even some old games on old hardware can look real. Examples include: Metroid Prime, most army-based games (MOHAA, Brothers in Arms, CoD) and many racing games. And while we’re at it (sorry, this really is my last point), I want to highlight the massive variation that we’ve seen in games over the years of explosion effects. Possibly except for the fact that they last too long, the explosions in GoldenEye and Perfect Dark are perhaps the most realistic I’ve ever seen, except, as I said, for the fact that they last far too long, and are very low-res, which makes them blurry. But the smoke effects in GoldenEye were far better than those in PD. Too many people claimed that smoke in GoldenEye lasted too long. Personally, I think it was just right, adn the smoke in PD disappears too quickly. Anyway, what are your thoughts in the points raised in this topic? |
![]() |
|
| - Razberi - | May 11 2008, 07:38 PM Post #2 |
![]()
|
I think Metroid Prime was designed to be real, it makes it more worrying that way. Permission to post this on the blog under your name? |
![]() |
|
| picollo no. | May 11 2008, 07:49 PM Post #3 |
|
Wolfos
|
Well I can understand games looking real, what I'm not so keen on is that for quite a few games the colour palette consists of mostly grey and browns which makes a technically good looking game look rather ugly and boring. |
![]() |
|
| Col | May 11 2008, 09:09 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Not Poodle
|
If you want. That'd be good. I have yet to look at the blog. Make sure you fix my mistakes in the title. :) |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |







