game with best graphic so far!

[Neb]

That's what I'm talking about. At least LBP has 1 simple level from start to finish (But they didn't show me the initial load time... I might use MotorStorm as a worst case load time here). I have not even seen Lair, let alone R&C3 and KZ2 to comment about them. So I'll reserve my judgement.

EDIT:
Note that this is just my personal yardstick. You don't have to follow.

But you see to make a level in LBP doesnt require as much as making a level in Crysis (time to make different assets, think out the design and so on). So to show a whole level from Crysis would spoil several moths if not more of work for basically nothing. You really whant surpises to be shown instead of YOU discovering it on youre own?

 

[scooby_dooby]

I didn't here you or others complain in the LBP thread about the 400x300 or less res images posted in the first page of that thread, you would class them to as useless?
http://www.crysis-online.com/Media/[

Pretty much.

Neverthless just visit IGN or any other and view full size screens or must I guide you to them (I'll link them for you if you whant)?
http://www.crysis-online.com/Media/[

No, I'm fully aware of what crysis looks like. I just think those comparison shots are stupid. Downsize anything to 300px and it looks much more realistic.

 

[patsu]

But you see to make a level in LBP doesnt require as much as making a level in Crysis (time to make different assets, think out the design and so on). So to show a whole level from Crysis would spoil several moths if not more of work for basically nothing. You really whant surpises to be shown instead of YOU discovering it on youre own?

I'm just asking... I'm not demanding it. Something indicative of the complete user/gaming experience will do.

e.g., If it was Lair, I would expect them to load and show a round-trip (boring) mission with no surprises, plus some boundary cases (e.g., Many enemies and comrades fighting at the same time, flying up to see the end of the world, diving down as fast as possible to an arbitrary brick on the ground, that sort of things). Did you see the Crysis demos ? Can you talk more ?

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Crysis (as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong!) uses precalculated lighting maps (presumably including richer lighting detail like PRT?) and blends between them/processes them to adjust to changing lighting conditions.

I'm not sure about the indoor stuff, but it's certain that they're using a hemispherical skylight for outdoors. Quite advanced stuff, actually, there's been some slides on a japanese web page in english that go itno details. Try to look it up.
Shadows seem to be completely dynamic. You can't blend between prebaked lightmaps the way they show in the video, either.

That's a fundamentally different technique to LBP.

That's true though.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

The thing is that there are tons of screenshots/videos showing Crysis being played in real-time by devs or journalist where you can see the graphics upclose and they do look every bit as good as the far distant view screenshots.

Exactly, there's been plenty of evidence that Crysis looks pretty damn as good in actual gameplay as these images.

Of course the 320*200 comparision shots cheat away a lot of the details but in general it's still very, very advanced in technology, and looks quite good artistically.

 

[Capeta]

http://www.crysis-online.com/Media/Videos/

 

[betan]

Exactly, there's been plenty of evidence that Crysis looks pretty damn as good in actual gameplay as these images.

Far Cry was great and probably Crysis is the most advanced game around, but it is not even close to being realistic (except maybe for vegetation and lighting.)

LBP, on the other hand, is really like stop-motion animation.
While scale and camera is an factor, I somewhat recall the arguments were mostly reversed in case of Gears. (Not targeting anyone in particular)

Of course the 320*200 comparision shots cheat away a lot of the details but in general it's still very, very advanced in technology, and looks quite good artistically.

I fail to see any artistic value at all. Clearly they are after realism. Even the environment seems to be modeled after real places (based on those pictures). Most people would agree realism is boring .
So where exactly is the art? You mean like camera or sun positions? Maybe animation???

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I disagree, reproducing reality, especially in such a limited envorment as a real-time game engine, takes a lot of artistic knowledge, skill, and a very good eye. It should be all the more evident after looking at how many other games utterly fail at this.

This doesn't mean that everybody should like it or prefer it to other games. For example I prefer Bioshock's graphics to Crysis, but it doesn't mean that I can't objectively recognize the amazing achievments of the Crytek guys.

 

[betan]

I disagree, reproducing reality, especially in such a limited envorment as a real-time game engine, takes a lot of artistic knowledge, skill, and a very good eye.

Sure it takes a lot of skill, but there is little freedom regarding artistic creativity.
So it is more of a craft than art, from my POV.

That said, while by definition art is subjective, I am surprised to see that definition of art itself is as much subjective.

It should be all the more evident after looking at how many other games utterly fail at this.

Not sure. Those other games obviously failed (more) but since they clearly had inferior technology, this comparison seems to be unfair. Not being an artist, I should just shut up though.

What I do know is, for people targeting realism, technology will eventually do almost all the work in the near future.

This doesn't mean that everybody should like it or prefer it to other games. For example I prefer Bioshock's graphics to Crysis, but it doesn't mean that I can't objectively recognize the amazing achievments of the Crytek guys.

Regarding achievements of Crytek, I doubt anyone would disagree. Crysis is not even a console title, so it is almost fanboy-safe.

 

[Graham]

Time to take this thread in a slightly different direction...

Of all the games I have, the one that makes me 'forget' I'm playing a game, makes me say wow the most.. It's not gears. It's test drive unlimited.
Sure it can look like complete arse, and has some horrific graphical bugs, but when it works it looks utterly spectacular. Visually it's the most inconsistent game around.

I tried to capture what I mean... Took a few pictures, but they really don't do it justice.
http://hungryspoon.com/random/tdu/

And for sheer world size, I don't think there is a better looking game you can buy.

 

[Deepak]

Awesome pics, Graham!

Among the games I have played GT3 has wowed me most.

 

[infinity4]

just seen GTHD in hd, looks awesome. surely i am not the only person

 

[Neb]

Awesome pics, Graham!

Among the games I have played GT3 has wowed me most.

It shure was good for it's time, especially the water "mirror" effect on the roads. Kinda gave it the little extra when driving in a beauthiful rainy day at night!

 

[Neb]

I fail to see any artistic value at all. Clearly they are after realism. Even the environment seems to be modeled after real places (based on those pictures). Most people would agree realism is boring .
So where exactly is the art? You mean like camera or sun positions? Maybe animation???

But then would you call GT:HD, PGR3 boring looking games?
Perhaps you meant that you appreciate more art created from fantasy instead of art mostly copied from real world?
But remember that the places in Crysis may mostly be "copied" from the real island but how about unique objects, enemies/monsters, weapons, ships now that requires imagination!:smile:

 

[ManuVlad3.0]

So far:
Little Big Planet
Runner up: Uncharted and Ratchet and Clank: Tools of Destruction.

 

[Crayon]

I have to see Uncharted in the flesh. The screens look amazing....

I'm glad the new consoles are going to be dropping games that look this good. Until Gears came out I was worrying that warnings of diminishing returns were going to materialize.

 

[betan]

But then would you call GT:HD, PGR3 boring looking games?
Perhaps you meant that you appreciate more art created from fantasy instead of art mostly copied from real world?

Not really. I was merely referring to a saying which I assumed was common. Personally don't have much visual preferences like that. Actually, up until seeing PS Home, I never thought a "game" could literally look boring.

The fact is, when you are chasing realism, you just have less freedom to make something (visually) different. I have no problem with that though.

But remember that the places in Crysis may mostly be "copied" from the real island but how about unique objects, enemies/monsters, weapons, ships now that requires imagination!:smile:

Indeed, but we are yet to see them, and the discussion started from Laa-Yosh's comment on artistic quality.

Then again, I don't mind not having it there.

 

[_phil_]

Frankly ,when you have an engine so good at doing some sort of advanced lighting (i'm talking about Crysis) ,all you have to do to get realism is to paste photographs onto the polygons...

 

[nAo]

Frankly ,when you have an engine so good at doing some sort of advanced lighting (i'm talking about Crysis) ,all you have to do to get realism is to paste photographs onto the polygons...

Unfortunately it does not work that way..

 

[Cobra101]

Crysis looks great but really, what kind of rig will you need to make it look its best?

And then, its a shooter. Lord knows we need another one of those.

I think Little Big Planet looks great. Probably beaten by Crysis but not beaten in the innovation and gameplay department.