/v/ - Video Games

it's fucking video games, baby

New Reply
Files Max 5 files32MB total
[New Reply]


[Hide] (3.3MB, 640x360, 01:00)
I feel like this is becoming more and more of an issue that no one really seems keen on addressing, or just dismissing after pointing it out briefly and moving on. Why is it that, during this age and era in gaming, video games have more than enough power to allow developers to create practically anything that they want, yet games seem to ironically look worse and worse? Or try to take short cuts in order to "compensate" for a system that should be having zero issues displaying the game proper in the first place.

And, the most ironic part that I keep finding about this is that I stumble across games from 10-15 years ago that look fine, and still look by all metrics. Some I dare say even looking better than the games currently coming out. So, what happened?
>>200578 (OP) 
Honestly I've been thinking lately that part of older media's "magic" was that it was visually distinct from IRL. I don't think video games need to look like real life
Replies: >>200643
>>200578 (OP) 
>Some I dare say even looking better than the games currently coming out.
Name a few
Replies: >>200586 >>200588
The Bayonetta series, the Dead or Alive series, the Grid series, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Binary Domain, Lost Planet, Inversion, Fast: Racing NEO. Those are ones that come to mind as being better than what I've seen recently in a lot of games.
Replies: >>200675
[Hide] (291.3KB, 488x442) Reverse
>>200578 (OP) 
Unreal Engine Presets and over-reliance on motion capture make all these new releases look uncanny and lifeless.
I don't know how to explain it but it makes the textures greasy and the cinematics look fake. RE4make is a good example of this.
I still awe at how some decade-old games like Killzone 2 look. Nowadays everything looks plastic-like.
[Hide] (7.5MB, 600x336, 01:16)
>Unreal Engine Presets
That's something I noticed as well. All the games that, artistically, look the worst are nearly all programmed in Unreal. Granted, that's not true of all games, (For example, Batman: AA was made in Unreal) but almost all the Unreal games that look the good are the games that, I think, use almost none of the default assets for the engine.
Replies: >>200640
>>200578 (OP) 
Same problem as modern software. It's all about eye-candy to wow the retards looking at someone else play the game so they'll buy it.
Whether it still holds up a few hours after purchase is another story entirely.
Replies: >>200645
[Hide] (2.1MB, 2560x1440) Reverse
[Hide] (746KB, 2560x1440) Reverse
They look worse than ever because they're rushed out the ass and fuck up every component from textures to basic lighting.
Dark and wet scenes are cheating, you can make that shit look great with prehistoric technology.
Replies: >>200666
[Hide] (78.1KB, 1024x609) Reverse
At one point games will turn to other styles because we can perfectly recreate reality. Right...?
Replies: >>200646 >>200657
I believe tools are part of the problem. In general with software (I don't do modelling, but some music and art) I see a trend of all the "industry standard" tools becoming more and more tailored for corporate use. These people want things to exactly cater to their very basic workflow, properly integrated with all their bloatware. They hate change. New tools scare them, and they probably think its a threat to their job. The developers dedicate most of their time to supporting this stupid bullshit, and as a result, the majority are not the types of people that actually use or would know what make for a good tool, but the type of person who knows platform specifications and other arcane nonsense that makes them irreplacable, but also totally clueless about the process of the people using their tools. This situation has created an economic equilibrium where both the artists and developers lose if they try to fix the unnecessary entry barrier. Meanwhile some actually good indie tools exist, but can only support narrow use cases because the bloat.

End result: old games were made by a few competent artists and designers, and so, actually had coherent artstyles, and often used internal tools to achieve it. Modern large budget games have whole teams of people conspiring against anybody who wants to do more than collect a paycheck.
Replies: >>200696
Yes, but the thing is that you need a beautiful zeitgeist for a beautiful style.
What you're going to get is those fugly clay dolls ala Fortnite, Valorant, Overwatch, etc.
Graphic fidelity basically hit a wall a decade ago and since then it's been the job of the marketing team to convince you that we haven't already hit the event horizon for diminishing returns. Why would they stop now, while they're still getting away with it?
Replies: >>200673
>Batman Arkham Knight looked beautiful, the game itself was repetitive garbage with a boring plot, but the graphics were beautiful, you could even see the capillaries on Harley Quinn"s boobs.
>Graphic fidelity basically hit a wall a decade ago
A decade ago the best things available were Crysis 1/3, Vanishing of Ethan Carter and maybe Battlefield 3. 

The technology is only getting more and more impressive. The problem however is that the skill of the developers has hit rock bottom. Almost no one knows how to create good textures or make the lighting look realistic. They instead rely on modern game engines to do the lighting themselves which results in every modern game looking the same and running at 45 fps when it should be running at 120.
Replies: >>200696
>the Dead or Alive series
Man Dead or Alive 2 and 3 still look impressive to this day.
Vaselineware aka UE4 is a blight upon humankind, can't even look at it without manual config edits and then it only hurts slightly less to look at.
[Hide] (364.6KB, 1024x768) Reverse
[Hide] (254KB, 1280x860) Reverse
>>200578 (OP) 
Unironically LCDs. Same problem has also hit TV/movies and even print to a lesser degree, but gaymurz were hit hardest:
<lcd sux at blacks, grays, colors, uniformity, viewing angles, motion blur, refresh, latency
<decline in print & theater viewership
<artists all use lcd so they can't see shit
<audiences all use lcd so they can't see quality
<newfags never used anything other than lcd because they grew up after lcd trannysition c. 2005
Because of the resultant blind-leading-the-blind situation, everything looks like shit for reasons people literally can't see.

Hopefully something will kill LCD sooner than later, and this will all be reduced to nothing more than a bad memory.

>I don't do modelling, but some music and art
Hahahaha! With all this talk about graphics, let's also have a moment of silence in memory of what the Creative/Aureal/DS3D/Vista/Azalia clusterfuck wrought on gaming audio to this day.
>These people want things to exactly cater to their very basic workflow, properly integrated with all their bloatware. They hate change. New tools scare them, and they probably think its a threat to their job.
>They instead rely on modern game engines to do the lighting themselves
I'm reminded of how nVidia chose to finally bring RTRT to the masses: Chained to Gouraud rasterization as hybrid renderers, rather than full-scene RTRT capable of things that the mere option of rasterization makes impossible, even on 9th-gen console exclusives where 100% of users have RT hardware!

What should be a massive technological advance was thus reduced to a seemingly worthless gimmick.
Replies: >>200697 >>200736
You seem to know more about RT than me. Is it actually a big deal? Because so far I haven't seen a single game example where RT actually makes the difference. 
Every single time the developers put nearly no effort in the non-RT options, so naturally the RT reflections or global illumination end up looking better. But I haven't seen anything that couldn't be done with traditional solutions yet. So why would a customer care about a tech that makes his games run like shit and the devs even lazier?
Replies: >>200702 >>200723
[Hide] (13.8MB, 954x714, 07:46)
Most obvious are perfectly smooth parametric hull and Boolean intersection geometry without the need to tessellate into polygons, shown in realtime as far back as the early '00s in demoscene cracktros. Subtler are the cumulative workflow benefits of building assets without the burden of optimizing around assumptions and edge-cases needed to accommodate the tricks rasterizers use to fake things (global illumination, reflection, refraction, shadows, etc.) that you get "for free" when using RT.

There's also some hard implementation limitations in DXR hardware due to the tiny amount of silicon dedicated to it, like very low maximum ray count and resultant overreliance on upscaling, that produce terrible speckle/dither artifacts even for minor tasks like localized reflections. This isn't an issue in systems capable of using the entire CPU & conventional GPGPU shader pipeline when necessary, like Intel Embree, nVidia OptiX, and AMD ProRender.
Replies: >>200736
>>200578 (OP) 
Big games are harder than ever to make and you're on a limited time budget to get it out the door to sell it to an audience that doesn't give a shit beyond "wow look at how realismistic it is i can do the car and play the football"
Also increased graphics fidelity has ironically regressed the industry in some areas, as certain things need to be chopped out so the game doesn't run like complete shit. Even then there's framedrops out the ass. It's the reason why old games could do mirrors and new games can't.
[Hide] (1016.9KB, 213x117) Reverse
People who won't shut the fuck up about RT are the same retards that claim to see the difference between 1080p and 4k as "night and day" and then they need to wear glasses to read because can't see shit.
These people only talk about 4k and RT only because they think those are they "new things" and everything that doesn't feature that shit is outdated and unplayable.
Same shit as those retards who need to buy the brand new iPhone model and can't even use its function except the basic ones that they also used on previous models.
If you can't see the difference between a 4k and a Full HD display you are fucking blind anon.
Replies: >>200734 >>200746
[Hide] (993.5KB, 1280x720) Reverse
>People who won't shut the fuck up about grapes are the same retards that claim to see the difference between 1080p and 4k as "night and day" and then they need to get new taste vuds because can't taste shit.
[Hide] (30.6KB, 480x200) Reverse
Anon, have you ever used even the simplest 3D modeler in your life? If so, have you ever made anything that causes you to think "gee I wish I could do that even half as well in vidya?"
[Hide] (3.6MB, 800x6207) Reverse
>that fox
[Hide] (15.1KB, 613x587) Reverse
I can't tbh.
Replies: >>200822
[Hide] (30.5MB, 720x480, 03:20)
LCDs have improved dramatically. It's like you're a frog in a pot, only the pot has been cooling down for nearly two decades but you still insist it's just as hot as it was when you were dropped into it. There are things that CRTs still do better, but saying that LCDs suck and rolling out a comparison image from 2005 is ignoring a lot of advancement.

That is not a cracktro, that's a demo. Cracktros were played before a cracked piece of software (see attached). While they share a common ancestor, demos are created separate from the software piracy scene.
Replies: >>200751 >>200822
[Hide] (30.5KB, 1024x576) Reverse
>>200578 (OP) 
>Why is it that, during this age and era in gaming, video games have more than enough power to allow developers to create practically anything that they want, yet games seem to ironically look worse and worse?
Limitations breed creativity. That's why devs created pure art in a time when they were limited to a mere 16 color palette.
Replies: >>200782
I have personally heard people saying that "night and day difference" shit as they played fucking pixel shit on their 40" TVs.
I bet that whenever they'll come out with the 8k meme as an excuse to sell new TVs you'll be the first one to lie to yourselves saying that anything below that looks blurry.
Replies: >>200762
dont reply to the schizo
Actually that photo is almost certainly shopped and some asshole just crunched a screenshot of Doom 3 into the viewable area of the CRT, otherwise you'd see some kind of moire effect.
Replies: >>200782 >>200822
The only way a monitor resolution would make things blurry would be if you were trying to run non-native non-integer scalable resolutions.
If it's the same DPI the monitor would just get larger; higher DPI and things on screen get smaller instead. Doesn't really have anything to do with "bluriness" but smaller text does get more readable with higher DPI like on, for example, smartphone screens.
[Hide] (24.5KB, 320x240) Reverse
This pretty much holds true to anything ever made, being movies, paintings or music.
I'd love seeing companies creating their in-game engines again, but that's wishful thinking on my end.
>don't reply to the only guy who knows shit in this thread, he's a schizo
>however, that image is shopped because every image of a CRT has to look like shit and I say so
>all the while not pertaining to the OP in any way
I think you should kill yourself anon.
[Hide] (106.7KB, 1280x720) Reverse
If you're sitting closer than 2.5' to a display bigger than 25", see an optometrist soon, your vision is worse than 20/20 in both eyes:

I was being (slightly) sarcastic with the old pic, and I acknowledge various refinements to LCDs over the years such as local dimming, Q-dot, extended gamma, HDR, overdrive, and strobed backlights have made them suck a lot less. Also that CRT has flaws other than "they stopped making better ones" compared to LCD, like sharpness, convergence, and flicker. But if you have a decent aperture grille tube plugged in for vidya & TV alongside LCDs for text/lineart on your desk, which I do, it's painfully obvious the gap between them in nearly every metric is still a fucking chasm.

But you don't have to take some anon's word on this. Here's a video from one of the leading tech analysis channels that's spent the prior decade painstakingly reviewing the latest hardware and games, but in a few years ago pulled an old CRT out of storage on a lark for a retro game. They were FLOORED at the quality they'd forgotten, then bought a maymay Sony GDW-FW900 to try with modern vidya, which proceeded to absolutely shit all over the best LCDs, and even gave OLED in its current state a run for its money:

<i can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shoops in my time
[Hide] (868.8KB, 1200x999) Reverse
ITT: Echochamber of things that have been said 1000 times on /v/

Video games have never been intended to and should never try to emulate reality. Any person sitting in their backyard staring at a tree will experience more reality than even the most fine tuned 10000 man hours vista landscape churned out by the industry. Trying to compete with reality is folly and yet it's constantly attempted for no reason other than vanity.

Were the creators of space invaders or pac-man attempting to emulate reality when they created their games? Games aren't meant to be anything more than something to either kill time or stimulate a social interaction. Spending so much fucking time trying to make the most realistic tree or building is so counter-intuitive to the entire idea of a game that it honestly baffles me.

When you reach the point where you have to most realistic world and the most realistic interactions, what then? Everybody interacting with it still knows it's through a screen and will inherently maintain some level of disconnection.

tl;dr stop wasting my hard drive space with this stupid shit and focus more on enjoyment than realism
Replies: >>200899
>>200578 (OP) 
>So, what happened?
Take your pick
>Games need to come out quicker to make more money, meaning less work on them
>Games as a Service (GaaS) over fun
>Shitty pay so actual devs just become software developers elsewhere and not gamedevs
>Diminishing returns on a GPUs performance and graphics 
>Monopoly of game engines and devs can no longer afford the cost/time to develop their own
Simply put the gaming industry has become old and overly corporate. Not like games were separate from the trends affecting the rest of the world, so it only makes sense the games become shittier as everything else does. It also doesn't help that the current trend is to go realistic on everything. Everything ends up looking the same as a result, and just because NVIDIA/AMD pretend the newest GPUs can do everything under the sun and go full 4K/120fps doesn't make it true. We've hit a wall in the graphics where the extra workload does not appear immediately different to the human eye. At least there are still indies that cannot afford full realistic graphics and are forced to create much more interesting styles.
Replies: >>200909 >>200949
Any game above 480p is overkill.
>>200578 (OP) 
Da Vinci was a better artist not because he had better tools than most animu drawers. It's about talent. No one is trying anymore alternatively because sheep will buy anything. Crisp moe is better than shakily drawn manga in other wrods. Crayons to Da Vinci is a better idea than a super computer to the autistic capitalist whores that make and or guy games.
[Hide] (47.5KB, 600x449) Reverse
>blah blah blah games r supposed to be fun!
Yeah, no shit retard. Nobody here implied that graphics > gameplay. That's not the point of this thread.
Replies: >>200903
He's not the retarded one that likes to talk about the same shit for eternity to be fair. Going back to when I was in HS around 2007ish people were already sick of xbox and or pc faggots with their 'muh graphics' bullshit.
Replies: >>200937
That's an awful lot of words when you could just say "the jews did it because they are evil and want everyone to be as miserable as they are" and make the exact same point.
Replies: >>200939
>Don't care about graphics or technology (because in your mind these 2 things don't make better games, somehow)
>Get into graphics thread to complain about people discussing video game graphics and technology
>Proceed to go play FEAR or Silent Hill 2, thinking to yourself how great these games look
Replies: >>200949
Do you have some aversion to effort? There's nothing wrong with specific information.
[Hide] (150.9KB, 1280x720) Reverse
[Hide] (150.9KB, 1280x720) Reverse
In particular I'd add that:
>Shitty pay so actual devs just become software developers elsewhere and not gamedevs
Is exacerbated by a tendency to write games as individual projects where most or all of the team is contracted as temps, at worst entire studios are fired & hired every with every game as a regular practice.
And totally agreed on the rest, except I differ on:
>Monopoly of game engines and devs can no longer afford the cost/time to develop their own
That was IMHO both a bad and good thing. In the case of FPSs, for instance, licensing their engines unleashed a flood of games far more innovative than Unreal (Deus Ex, Undying, Rune, etc.) or Quake (Jedi Knight, FAKK2, Alice, etc.). Also, writing new game engines still isn't that hard, whether by rearranging licensed middleware to original effect, or fully custom, as compared to something truly implacable like writing moreso maintaining really a modern web browser engine.
>Diminishing returns on a GPUs performance and graphics
I think the bigger problem here is GPUs themselves. Fixed-function hardware acceleration made every game feel samey from VooDoo 1 to GeForce 3, nothing but triangles, bitmap textures, and Gouraud shading allowed. Shaders helped a bit, but haven't really been used for much.

Back in the software rendering era there was a somewhat more competitive field including other 3D techniques like voxels, fractals, quads, the aforementioned raytracing, etc., still in serious use. Even after 3D accelerators took hold, there was a last gasp of alternative hardware in the '00s that was just barely capable of doing legacy polygon rasterization in software as fast as a GPU (original PS3 design with double the SPEs & no GSX, Intel Larabee/MIC/Phi) for fallback in addition to more exotic graphics, but they fell ultimately through.

In theory, multithreaded CPUs with vector units, programmable GPUs with more flexible APIs like Vulkan & DX12, as well as APIs capable of bridging both like SPIR-V, make this fixable. But an entire generation of devs (and their toolchains!) have been brainrotted in ways that have yet to be undone.

>Don't care about graphics or technology (because in your mind these 2 things don't make better games, somehow)
There is an arguable point there, that putting more effort into one means putting less into the other, at least for small teams or risk-averse projects. A rebuttal I lean toward is that relaxed technical constraints allow the same results to be achieved with less effort.

Of course, I understood most of OPs argument was less about what underlying technological advancement there has been, and more about the inability to match even the level of realism in older titles.
>>200578 (OP) 
I don't know what there is to discuss about this. Bigger consumer base means more people able to sustain shit devs who put zero effort into the games, that's about it.
Replies: >>200965
bro you didnt even use any irrelevant out of context jargon
whats wrong with you, think you can just make a point like that, how dare you
Replies: >>200969
Back to twitter
Replies: >>200973
you mean the electronic homosapien psycholinguistic interaction platform used as a digital weltanschauung emulation
Replies: >>200979
No that's /v/
[New Reply]
48 replies | 22 files | 35 UIDs
Show Post Actions



Select the solid/filled icons
- news - rules - faq -
jschan 0.10.2