It still looks old gen. Witcher 3 spits on Xenoblade's petty graphicsXenoblade Chronicles X anyone? The scale is immense, in every Sense. Wildlife, Vegetation and so on!
It still looks old gen. Witcher 3 spits on Xenoblade's petty graphicsXenoblade Chronicles X anyone? The scale is immense, in every Sense. Wildlife, Vegetation and so on!
Added. Read updated OP.Witcher 3 is beautiful too (why not on the list?)
Maybe we should create an algorithm.
Best = [GraphicsWhoreVar] ^ (My Console)
I am sure there are a dozen or so other variables that may be included. The more the merrier.
No man's sky has way more chance winning GOTY 2016 than best graphics. What I have seen of Gears 4 was good but far from being graphics award worthy.So what do you guys think will win 2016!? We have a few potential early contenders;
Uncharted 4
Horizon
Tomorrow Children
No Mans Sky
Gears 4
Quantum Break
Crackdown
I think Battlefield 5 will be a serious contender if the game releases this year as rumored.Any others? I believe Dreams is Beta only so not included.
...
That's the take home point. Never again are to we have 'discussions' along the lines of "open world looks better/worse than corridor shooter".
The intro was pre-rendered. I think the scene with Blue TeamAlso, which cutscenes in Halo 5 were real-time? I thought they were all pre-recorded in-engine.
So far, it looks like the average gamer prefers pretty pixels packed into perfect, petite portions, with a smaller group of gamers prefering the graphical experience of a broader scape. What this really tells us is when asking what's the best graphics, there's a fairly clear subjective partition which never neds discussing again! Those who like high pixel quality (and maybe simulated cinema) no matter the cost can compare high-pixel quality games to find their best. Those who prefer clean, high framerate, open world titles can compare those games. And there's no need to try and compare across styles.
That's the take home point. Never again are to we have 'discussions' along the lines of "open world looks better/worse than corridor shooter".
So far, it looks like the average gamer prefers pretty pixels packed into perfect, petite portions, with a smaller group of gamers prefering the graphical experience of a broader scape. What this really tells us is when asking what's the best graphics, there's a fairly clear subjective partition which never neds discussing again! Those who like high pixel quality (and maybe simulated cinema) no matter the cost can compare high-pixel quality games to find their best. Those who prefer clean, high framerate, open world titles can compare those games. And there's no need to try and compare across styles.
That's the take home point. Never again are to we have 'discussions' along the lines of "open world looks better/worse than corridor shooter".
Or we could discuss whatever we want
Except the moderators have the responsibility and power to manage discussion for the health of the board. And if there's any future game thread where someone says, "this is the best looking game," and someone comes along comparing it to an unrelated game with completely different subjective values, I have the power and inclination to end such discussion to save the thread getting derailed. Only like-versus-like or point-by-point technical comparison is worth allowing.That sounds good in theory, but its inevitable that someone at some point makes a comment that such and such open world 60fps game is the best looking game they have ever played. This will sure result in someone arguing that it doesn't look nearly as good as such and such 30fps limited scope game. That's the life of a forum member, endlessly debating things that are a never ending cycle. LOL;-)
Except the moderators have the responsibility and power to manage discussion for the health of the board. And if there's any future game thread where someone says, "this is the best looking game," and someone comes along comparing it to an unrelated game with completely different subjective values, I have the power and inclination to end such discussion to save the thread getting derailed. Only like-versus-like or point-by-point technical comparison is worth allowing.
For me it is the exact opposite: TO has the cinema analogue look, BF and UD are too clean looking and super 'gamey' in comparison (except UD at the end, the particular scene I described earlier: this looks astounding to me).
That's the problem. If this thread was intended to be purely subjective it should be named: "Favorite graphics of 2015". Instead, it's named "Best looking games of 2015" which implies objective discussion and that includes different viewpoints on which criteria to use to make that selection.Except the moderators have the responsibility and power to manage discussion for the health of the board. And if there's any future game thread where someone says, "this is the best looking game," and someone comes along comparing it to an unrelated game with completely different subjective values, I have the power and inclination to end such discussion to save the thread getting derailed. Only like-versus-like or point-by-point technical comparison is worth allowing.