Moderator: JC Denton
by Chuplayer » 07 Sep 2006 03:12
by Jedah » 07 Sep 2006 11:25
by piyo » 07 Sep 2006 14:46
I believe that the PS3 and the Xbox 360 are not powerful enough to handle true HDTV resolutions, and at the same time deliver the large variety of new effects necessary to approach photorealism. The quest for photorealistic graphics is, after all, the main reason for designing new consoles every four or five years .
The extra power should be used for higher polygon counts and more complex effects, so that standard resolution games can become indiscernible from standard resolution movies. Only when we have achieved this should we move to vastly more powerful hardware and higher resolutions.
Progress in visual quality is being held back because of a policy cooked up by marketing people to suit their, and not the developers', needs. On the one hand this is not such a big deal; graphics aren't everything, and we'll eventually get there one way or another. But what upsets me more is all the gibberish "ZOMG HDTV!" nonsense that is being poured down people's ears, while no one goes on the record to refute it.
by icycalm » 07 Sep 2006 15:27
Chuplayer wrote:I think I'll actually prefer 480i on RCA A/V connectors for the new generation. Thanks to the color bleed and all the shit that goes on with RCA jacks, Snake looks like a real person. More realistic. He looks more convincing.
Now the way graphics cards work is that they have to perform all necessary calculations for every single pixel shown on screen. This means that a 1080i image requires, in the best case scenario, approximately seven times more calculations -- i.e. processing power -- than a 480i one (because it has approximately seven times more pixels). Accordingly, a 1080p image requires almost fourteen times more processing power.
If you want to double the amount of polygons and upgrade the graphics with newer, fancier effects, that will cost you extra. Say twice as much for a double improvement in overall visual quality.
piyo wrote:I don't believe people require all games to have the same visual quality as a movie. See any puzzle game or cartoony/anime game.
piyo wrote:I guess all we can do is lament how graphics could be better. So what should we do, vote with our wallets? Buy games that don't strive for the realism? Or knock down our expectations a notch?
by Pongism » 12 Sep 2006 18:37
DPS wrote:LASTLY! Alex Kierkegaard over at insomnia (see the link to the right?) wrote a little piece insulting, basically, graphics. Unfortunately, I can't defend most of what he says, mostly becasue I haven't read the whole thing. I mean, I did up until the part where he compared Dead or Alive 4 to the 2002 movie Hero. Not the upcoming crap-fest Dead or Alive movie starring Jaime Pressly and Devon Aoki, but the Oscar-nominated Hero that won like 40 awards worldwide. Also, Alex used scaled screenshots to compare the two side-by-side. If yellow journalism was in dire need of a comeback then Alex is, by far, the most likely asshole to do it.
(I bought my 360 specifically to play DoA4. Not watch it. Play it, jackass. FUCK GRAPHICS, and fuck you, too!)
by icycalm » 13 Sep 2006 19:57
by Chuplayer » 14 Sep 2006 03:32
Pongism wrote:DPS wrote:LASTLY! Alex Kierkegaard over at insomnia (see the link to the right?) wrote a little piece insulting, basically, graphics. Unfortunately, I can't defend most of what he says, mostly becasue I haven't read the whole thing. I mean, I did up until the part where he compared Dead or Alive 4 to the 2002 movie Hero. Not the upcoming crap-fest Dead or Alive movie starring Jaime Pressly and Devon Aoki, but the Oscar-nominated Hero that won like 40 awards worldwide. Also, Alex used scaled screenshots to compare the two side-by-side. If yellow journalism was in dire need of a comeback then Alex is, by far, the most likely asshole to do it.
(I bought my 360 specifically to play DoA4. Not watch it. Play it, jackass. FUCK GRAPHICS, and fuck you, too!)
Looks like DonMarco didn't like it.
I think the consoles are and will be plenty-powerful. Sharper images aren't selling points to true gamers, afterall. It's for the consumers that wander around BestBuy and the sales people there.
by Pongism » 14 Sep 2006 18:04
by icycalm » 15 Sep 2006 21:37
Graphics are an opiate for the masses, icycalm.
by lock » 11 Nov 2006 13:37
by GnaM » 10 Jun 2007 06:08
by eae » 04 Apr 2008 23:37
by icycalm » 04 Apr 2008 23:57
eae wrote:I hope it's ok to post a comment to such an old article
eae wrote:The reason why a movie looks very good even in a low resolution is that it was first "rendered" at a very high resolution (i.e. the "real world" scenes that happened in front of the camera), and then, the process of capturing it on film and then digitalizing it kinda "downscaled" it to a lower resolution
eae wrote:So if you want to produce low-res graphics that look photorealistic, you should follow the following process: first render the image at a very high resolution, then downscale it by averaging the pixels (or maybe some more refined method)
eae wrote:A similar thing goes for framerate: you don't need 60 Hz to give the impression of a fluid motion, and indeed movies appear fluid despite running at 25 Hz. But if you want to replicate this kind of fluidity on a low framerate videogame, you'll need to add an accurate motion blur effect
by raphael » 05 Apr 2008 01:45
eae wrote:Let me be the first one to disagree on your point. The reason why a movie looks very good even in a low resolution is that it was first "rendered" at a very high resolution
by icycalm » 05 Apr 2008 02:01
by icycalm » 05 Apr 2008 02:19
by rob » 10 Apr 2008 07:33
by icycalm » 10 Apr 2008 08:17
rob wrote:my problem with this article is that you begin by comparing a movie still with a game shot and make the point that the movie still looks better despite the lower res.
rob wrote:But this isn't what the shift is about.
rob wrote:There's more to making graphics than the simple numbers that the particular machine can kick around.
rob wrote:For a start, as you've said, there's the effects. Effects which need to be invented and probably included in the hardware so they can be done fast enough. So the current gen may not have been able to have them anyway.
rob wrote:If they could we're talking increased costs/sacrificing other stuff for something only a selection of games that want it may use.
rob wrote:Next, there's the sheer time it would take to make things look that good. If you compared a shot of any two games, one at 480i and one at 720p, the 720p would look better.
rob wrote:So at no cost in terms of dev time you've made every single game look better (2d aside).
rob wrote:Next, I don't agree that increasing res exponentially increases the power required.
rob wrote:Finally, what makes 480i so perfect anyway?
rob wrote:Surely by the writers arguments a movie at 400x300 would look more realistic than a 360 game, and require less power still - why not drop down further?
rob wrote:Note that I'm not actually that much of a techie so apologies if any of the terms I've used are wrong, but hopefully the point is clear...
by Anid Maro » 15 Apr 2008 05:33