Not impressed with modern graphics

[poetic codex]

I built a computer recently just to max out modern games and I regret it because I'm not particularly impressed.

The last time I was impressed with graphics in a computer game was when Half Life 2 first came out. That represented a noticeable leap forward. To me, it seems as if games haven't really progressed much past that point. Maybe the longevity of the 360 console is partly to blame.

The games I have played:

Crysis 1 with mods

Witcher 2

Metro 2033 and Metro Last Light

Batman Arkham City

Skyrim with ENB series mods

Battlefield 3

Tomb Raider 2013

These games usually make the lists when it comes to best graphics in a pc game, but none of them made my jaw drop.

I have narrowed it down to 3 main reasons:


1. Plastic look / Uncanny Valley.

It all started back in Doom 3. While it has gotten better, it's still pretty jarring to me.These modern games all use some kind of shading technique (I don't know the technical term) that makes skin look really weird and plastic. Unreal Engine 3 games are especially at fault in this area and the Mass Effect series suffered for it. I feel like I'm looking at these "almost human" "almost realistic" androids. I find it much less immersive than the cartoony style of older pc games.

Some examples:

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/screen0/469881_20040805_screen007.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/auj0J.png

http://imageshack.us/f/204/metro2033closeup.jpg/



2. Favoring realism over art style

While Alan Wake is never mentioned as much as Crysis or Witcher 2, I found this game to be the best looking PC game I've ever played. Why? Alan Wake has a very atmospheric art style with excellent use of lighting and shadows. They didn't aim for realism but an over the top film noir style which makes the game absolutely gorgeous in my opinion. The Crysis series aim for a more realistic look and once again this does nothing but highlight how artificial everything is.

http://i1.minus.com/ibfcwPsGB72NYM.png



3. Questionable effects like ambient occlusion, bloom/HDR, motion blur, depth of field etc

Witcher 2 shadows had an intentional dithering effect over grass and shadows and I'm not sure how the developers could love this look:

http://i.picpar.com/c6675bc937cb8444402802f23a58b29b2ebc2977.jpg

Depth of field usually just makes me feel like the character is suffering from myopia and forgot to put on his glasses.

Ambient occlusion only highlights that plastic look I was talking about. Very rarely is it done right

Head bobbing just gives me motion sickness and combined with the "cinematic" camera shaking and copious use of motion blur, it's just a recipe for headaches and nausea.

Because of the bright HDR glow, these mushrooms from Metro 2033 have an annoying shimmering effect when your character is in motion:

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/_...ges/3/3d/Metro2033_2013-01-18_21-50-46-39.png

Batman Arkham City had this pixel crawling along the edges of most surfaces because the Unreal Engine 3 doesn't like anti-aliasing.


-----------------------------------------------------

I went back to older games like Thief The Dark Project, System Shock 2 and Wizardry 8 and I'm finding the graphics much more immersive. Yeah they don't have those cool effects like HDR which give your screen a blinding radioactive glow, but they have distinctive art style and it's easier for my imagination to fill in the blanks.

 

[DalekFlay]

2. Favoring realism over art style

This is pretty much where I agree. I wish we had more artistic flair, but better graphics seem to have made developers focus on photo-realism.

That said I think graphics are fine. That's the least of my issues with modern games.

 

[sexbad?]

The impression I'm receiving of you is that you really like things that look good in still shots and don't care as much about games in motion. In this case, I would recommend you check out The Void. Its use of color is wonderful, and probably every screenshot looks like a nice painting imho.

Crysis and Last Light are two of my favorite lookers because of how they appear in motion (although pretty much every environment in LL is picturesque too). Their environments are full of reactant little details, like all the foliage in Crysis that sways when a grenade goes off nearby, so the visuals make running around and killing fuckers a lot more enjoyable.

I am also extremely fond of headbob, motion blur, depth of field and such when they're used properly, because they add to the sense of motion that I like, but they're definitely not for everybody. In the case that they can cause motion sickness, that doesn't make them bad entirely, but they should always be optional.

What I will agree on is fucking ambient occlusion, because so few games use it to actually shade scenes. In something like Far Cry 3 it just looks like there's a thick swarm of bugs surrounding every free-standing object, and you have to go into an XML file to disable it.

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

Don't worry guys. Developers are gonna make sure to even pour more time and money into the art pipeline to make sure those space marines look ~3.45% sharper at LOD stage 3. It's the kind of progress gamers appreciate.

"We got our priorities straight!"

But on a bit more serious note: One area of palpable visual improvements (left) to be achieved would be lighting. Realtime full-scene raytracing could definitely help making games look considerably more moody throughout all areas. But the sort of computing power you'd need to sustain decent resolutions and framerates would probably first require an end of the current paradigm of processor development & manufacturing (Semiconductors, Moore's law) and a switch to a new paradigm (Nanotubes?) that allows a huge jump in computational power. Not to mention the things that could be done then with AI.

So the next ~5-8 years with X1/PS4 are gonna stay more or less the same. Visual improvements will transpire, but more and more with diminishable return. After that, things might really start getting interesting. That is, if the game industry (or the world economy for that matter) hasn't crashed into a new dark age in the meantime.

 

[DramaticPopcorn]

2. Favoring realism over art style

While Alan Wake is never mentioned as much as Crysis or Witcher 2, I found this game to be the best looking PC game I've ever played. Why? Alan Wake has a very atmospheric art style with excellent use of lighting and shadows.

 

[BLOBERT]

BRO LOLPLLOLLO DONT GO ALL SKYWAY ON US

BRO LETS FIX THE GAMEPLAY A LITYLE FIRST

 

[wergle]

The problem is simply a focus on 'technologically advanced graphics' rather than 'visuals'.

 

[Gord]

I think we are long past a point of diminishing returns in graphics.
Aggravated by multiplatform development with outdated console hardware as the unfortunate baseline, most improvements in recent years are effects that give small increases to visual quality for a relatively large performance cost.
Photorealistic graphics are still out of reach and will stay for a while, while devs are usually going for a realistic art-style - which is the source of the plastic-y looks of many models and objects in games, I guess.
Not that there won't be a multitude of complaints if games go for more stylized graphics, as in e.g. Borderlands, Team Fortress, etc.

Anyway, poetic codex, one recent game that I thought had very beautiful graphics (maybe not the jaw-dropping variant, but a very nice art-style while still using modern technologies) was Trine 1/2. It's on sale on various platforms quite often, if you like puzzle/platform/Jump&Run games it might be worth checking out.

 

[Average Manatee]

2. Favoring realism over art style

3. Questionable effects like ambient occlusion, bloom/HDR, motion blur, depth of field etc

There are idiots who consider these to be "art style". I'm not even joking.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I agree on all points. I have that problem since 2006.

 

[MetalCraze]

2. Favoring realism over art style

REALISTIC AS FUCK

Questionable effects like ambient occlusion, bloom/HDR, motion blur, depth of field etc

Bro but that's because those effects are REALISTIC!!
And we know that best looking PC game from XBox360 Alan Wake uses none of them!

Codex hipsters never change.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Because there are lens-flares it means their focus is not on realistic graphics.

Skyway never learns to read.

 

[Multidirectional]

I agree on all points. I have that problem since 2006.

My comp is:
Intel Celeron 2,4 GHz (1 core)
1024 MB RAM
40GB IDE/ATA, Seagate
Geforce MX 4000 128mb RAM

I think first you need to upgrade to PC from 2006.

 

[taxalot]

I like pixels. I like low poly games. I think it's mostly because this means it looks like games. I like PS1 graphics better than PS4 demos. That makes me an aberration to the gaming world of nowadays.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I think first you need to upgrade to PC from 2006.

I never got motivated to sacrifice other stuff like books and musics to upgrade computer because of the decline in graphics. Why spend lots of money just to see creepy wallpaper textures and other uncanny valley shit? I saw demonstrations on other computers and

Though it would be nice to be able to play Operation Flashpoint on maximum detail and with maximum sight range ... I think it was one of the last games with realistic graphics where I didn't get the uncanny valley effect.

 

[MetalCraze]

Because there are lens-flares it means their focus is not on realistic graphics.

Skyway never learns to read.

So basically if we will disregard lens flares, bloom, overdone blue tint, overdone contrast then their focus will be on realistic graphics? Awesome!

Man I bet if we will remove textures from BF3 and leave only white polygons with ambient occlusion it can be quite artsy too.

 

[Renegen]

Half Life 2 was the first game I played on a new computer long ago and it was indeed gorgeous and a leap forward. But my latest PC I first played Crysis and found that jaw-dropping. Maybe you need a bigger monitor?

 

[DalekFlay]

Because there are lens-flares it means their focus is not on realistic graphics.

Every time I see fucking lens shit in a first-person game I want to scream THIS IS NOT A MOVIE YOU FUCKS!

 

[AstroZombie]

"I went back to older games like Thief The Dark Project, System Shock 2 and Wizardry 8 and I'm finding the graphics much more immersive. "

I think these games are much more pleasant to the eye because I can actually see stuff on them, unlike Battlefield 3 and other games that smear the screen with shitty post-processing and effects on every chance they get.

 

[Darth Slaughter]

I like pixels. I like low poly games. I think it's mostly because this means it looks like games. I like PS1 graphics better than PS4 demos. That makes me an aberration to the gaming world of nowadays.

Concerning graphics, what makes a game look great is having the the textures at the highest possible resolution. When you try to find a mod that improve graphics in old games, normally a Hi-Res texture pack makes wonders. I was looking on threads about modules for NWN 1 and 2, I decide to reinstall NWN1, which I never really liked graphics wise at the time. I installed NWNCQ, and the textures look sharp, and to be honest, I really like it now. I was kind of surprised how it really looks nice and colorfull. Deus ex New Vision, Morrowind texture packs, etc. They may sometimes distance themselves from the original look, but they do appear much better than the newest games. And that is not because old textures are bad. They were good for monitor resolutions of old times, like 320x240 or 640x480. Now in my monitor with full HD resolution, you can see the blurriness that you weren't able too see before.

Unreal 1, quake 2, dark engine in thief two look beautiful because of their colored lighting (even though quake is a little brown, but had color lighting).Nowadays, they're not trying to reach realism, they're trying to copy panavision lenses.

Every now and them they come with high demanding special effects like that SSAO, occlusion mapping, which really makes things worse, improves nothing, and even in movies I can't see a shadow aura around objects like this effect does in games.

It's just like when they're trying to convince 3D is more realistic because it simulates the way you see in real life. Bullshit. When I see a 3d movie, i'm constantly reminded that i'm looking at a 3d image, so is a councious knowledege, while in real life everything I see is just an image that looks flat 2d, though it is not, since the depth perception occurs at a uncounscious level.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

My favourite 3D graphics are from Syndicate Wars and Quake (without 3DFX).

 

[DalekFlay]

If you hate all the fuzzy processing effects at least on PC you can turn them off. Nothing gives me greater joy in a graphics menu than turning off blur, depth of field and other bullshit like that. Film grain is the worst, fuck off with that idiocy.

 

[poetic codex]

The impression I'm receiving of you is that you really like things that look good in still shots and don't care as much about games in motion. In this case, I would recommend you check out The Void. Its use of color is wonderful, and probably every screenshot looks like a nice painting imho.

Crysis and Last Light are two of my favorite lookers because of how they appear in motion (although pretty much every environment in LL is picturesque too). Their environments are full of reactant little details, like all the foliage in Crysis that sways when a grenade goes off nearby, so the visuals make running around and killing fuckers a lot more enjoyable.

I am also extremely fond of headbob, motion blur, depth of field and such when they're used properly, because they add to the sense of motion that I like, but they're definitely not for everybody. In the case that they can cause motion sickness, that doesn't make them bad entirely, but they should always be optional.

I think you brought up a good point here about motion. First of all, I suffer from motion sickness very easily particularly in first person games (can't play Amnesia the Dark Descent because of the crazy wobbly camera effects). Secondly, I am very quick at detecting motion based flaws that other people don't notice or don't care about. In Two Worlds 2, when you're running around in the savannah, there is this weird shimmering effect over the brown grass that bothered the heck out of me but doesn't seem to be much of an issue to other people. In Batman Arkham City, I see pixel crawling along most edges particularly around doors, but not too many people mention this as an issue.

This video shows Crysis 1 maxed out, but all I notice is the lack of anti-aliasing which creates jaggies / pixel crawling along the edges (look down at the wooden walkway)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wlfjRyhJQb4#t=130s


Modern games tend to utilize all kinds of "cool" effects like physx, and smoke/dust particle effects which gives more opportunities for texture shimmering to occur. I concede that it's probably just me though because I might be overly sensitive to that stuff.

 

[Trash]

Graphics? Art direction is what matters.

 

[sexbad?]

The impression I'm receiving of you is that you really like things that look good in still shots and don't care as much about games in motion. In this case, I would recommend you check out The Void. Its use of color is wonderful, and probably every screenshot looks like a nice painting imho.

Crysis and Last Light are two of my favorite lookers because of how they appear in motion (although pretty much every environment in LL is picturesque too). Their environments are full of reactant little details, like all the foliage in Crysis that sways when a grenade goes off nearby, so the visuals make running around and killing fuckers a lot more enjoyable.

I am also extremely fond of headbob, motion blur, depth of field and such when they're used properly, because they add to the sense of motion that I like, but they're definitely not for everybody. In the case that they can cause motion sickness, that doesn't make them bad entirely, but they should always be optional.

I think you brought up a good point here about motion. First of all, I suffer from motion sickness very easily particularly in first person games (can't play Amnesia the Dark Descent because of the crazy wobbly camera effects). Secondly, I am very quick at detecting motion based flaws that other people don't notice or don't care about. In Two Worlds 2, when you're running around in the savannah, there is this weird shimmering effect over the brown grass that bothered the heck out of me but doesn't seem to be much of an issue to other people. In Batman Arkham City, I see pixel crawling along most edges particularly around doors, but not too many people mention this as an issue.

This video shows Crysis 1 maxed out, but all I notice is the lack of anti-aliasing which creates jaggies / pixel crawling along the edges (look down at the wooden walkway)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wlfjRyhJQb4#t=130s


Modern games tend to utilize all kinds of "cool" effects like physx, and smoke/dust particle effects which gives more opportunities for texture shimmering to occur. I concede that it's probably just me though because I might be overly sensitive to that stuff.

Jagged edges also don't do much to ruin image quality for me either, since my vision is good enough that I don't normally wear glasses/contacts at my PC but just bad enough that the image isn't crystal clear to me.

Honestly, though, that video just looks like the guy had AA turned off. My computer can barely run Crysis with AA on, but I think when I did try turning it on there were very few rough edges at all.