game with best graphic so far!

[DeathKnight]

Am I missing something? How can there be all these votes for LBP?

QFT! Its graphics are good and serve it well but I'm far from impressed or blown away like so many others seem to be. There aren't any surprises when you look at the people who are gushing over it though What impresses me with LBP is the gameplay.

 

[Eagle-Vision]

Kameo.

That gem is so underrated it's not even funny. If it had been released during this time instead of the "XB 1.5" period, most people would be drooling over it's graphics.

 

[Deepblue]

Also, I don't feel I can definitely name one game I feel has the best graphics. Especially when many of them excel equally in different areas. Also, I have a feeling that Halo 3 will look amazing, but I don't have media to back it up.

 

[Crayon]

There aren't any surprises when you look at the people who are gushing over it though

Is this ironic or is it absurd? Sometimes I get confused. Can anyone help?

 

[rounin]

Is this ironic or is it absurd? Sometimes I get confused. Can anyone help?

How's this version then:

There aren't any surprises when you look at the people who are not gushing over it though

 

[LogisticX]

How's this version then:

There aren't any surprises when you look at the people who are not gushing over it though

My thoughts exactly.

I really can't say much cause I haven't been keeping up with everythign really, so I will also have to put in LBP at this point. Lots of impressive stuff out there on all the platforms these days.

 

[Deepblue]

The wonderful thing about LBP is it is like a colour blindness test but for graphics/rendering knowledge. You just have to laugh when someone stands there looking at it and saying they don't get it...

I understand that it does what it does really well. It however, has very limited scope compared to most of the other contenders. It is far more akin to a enclosed tech demo than what we normally consider as a game environment.

Also, I take it you have not seen the Crysis nuke vid? Very little foliage in the scene, yet the game still manages to look so incredibly photoreal with excellent lighting and believable physics.

Furthermore - Gears of War - is no slouch as you dismiss it to be. Just because the art style (and I suspect, the platform) does not jive with you, does not make it "laughable." The biggest flaw is serious texture aliasing, a problem made all the more poignant with the RIDICULOUS amount of texture detail in almost every object. I also object to your assertion that Gears is "low-poly." Yes, the artists did use normal maps - to great effect. What shocks me, is your failure to intonate the monstrous amount of shaders used in Gears. No honest person can play through the third act of Gears of War and say that its "not a serious choice" for best graphics. As such, I strongly suspect you do not own a 360 nor Gears of War.

I'm not even going to bother with your last statement.

 

[Paul]

QFT! Its graphics are good and serve it well but I'm far from impressed or blown away like so many others seem to be. There aren't any surprises when you look at the people who are gushing over it though What impresses me with LBP is the gameplay.

Conversely there are also no surprises when you see who are trying to implement a sort of damage control when it comes to the games graphics. The agenda's are always crystal clear if you simply look at users histories/previous posting habits.

From a pure technical standpoint, Crysis wins hands down.

As for my favorite looking game? FF13 gets my vote, I just love the futuristic setting and art style as well as the 'CGI' looking visuals.

 

[Acert93]

Trusty Bell is more impressive than LBP to you?

Little Big Planet looks more impressive than Trusty Bell to you

2 can play that game! hehe I am not gonna dog anyones preference and opinion to what is most impressive/best to them, but I think comments like the above are not really fair to Trusty Bell at all. The goal of Trusty Bell is to look like a classic cartoon and it does an outstanding job, both technically and artistically, of absolutely NAILING that target. It is very, very rare for a game to get close to the target they wish to emulate -- be it reality or be it CGI. I believe Trusty Bell is closer to its targer than a game like Crysis is to its (semi-reality) or Little Big Planet (CGI cartoon).

A for giggles, and since I love Trusty Bell and think everyone should appreciate it even if they don't think it is the best looking game, click for larger pictures:













Trusty Bell / Eternal Sonata (US) looks like a cartoon. That is not an exaggeration. In motion it is even MORE beautiful--absolutely STUNNING. The animation as well as the "life" in the world are excellent and are on par for what I would expect from an animated movie. The convergance of technology and the quality of the art (and the art direction) are amazing.

Little Big Planet, while having some excellent IQ, is severly lacking in asset quality and art direction IMO. I think LBP looks good and is pleasing to the eye, but as a total package it has many holes whereas Trusty Bell hits its target dead center--it looks like a cartoon. LBP has some nice technology (as does Trusty Bell), but where they separate IMO is that Trusty Bell has fantastic art direction and asset quality across the board whereas LBP is really hit or miss in the media we have seen.

Of course if you don't like cartoons then I can see how Trusty Bell is totally unimpressive.

My personal list would look something like

Team Fortress 2
Trusty Bell
Battlefield Bad Company
Crysis

Oddly I am not a huge fan of cell shading. But so far I think Trusty Bell and TF2 are examples of games that picked technologies that have a very, very high IQ return and then have shown a mastery of the technology in regards to art direction and asset production. I love what Namco and Valve are doing with these games even if I am not a fan of cell shading--they have absolutely impressed my eyeballs. The games are pleasing to look at, even more so in motion. BFBC nailed one of my next gen wish lists (destructible worlds!) and then has shown some nice render technology and nice character cutscene animation. Everything seems to fit. And Crysis... the technology is great as is the general art. Just little things like seeing things like trees sway and their shadows, soft edges and all, moving cleanly across the jungle floor and seeing sunlight bleed through thin leaves and then whack--you shoot your tree down. A world you can interact with that is this detailed... beautiful.

My Honorable Mentions: Motorstorm (too many artifacts in the shadows, weeds, etc), PGR3 (aliasing), Viva Pinata (beautiful but just short artistically for my tastes), Lost Planet (kind of bland and unnatural animation for my tastes... until stuff blows up and then it becomes the best looking game out there), FNR3 (animations are a little stuff at times).

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Little Big Planet... It's just the most photorealistic 3d game out there.

? Can you really classify it as a 3D game though? Yeah, they use a lot of 3D rendering techniques, but it seems to be fundamentally a 2D scroller, and that extra confinement turns out to open up a lot of tricks to improve quality that don't apply for free-view 3D worlds. It looks great... but it is what it is, and I think that has to be taken into consideration when comparing to other games that have a much more difficult task to accomplish.

 

[LogisticX]

You mean like in the same way that other games don't allow for fully (at least to some extent) customizable environments and a huge ability for unique customization as was demonstrated in the video presentation?
I understand what you are saying, but to simply throw it aside because it isn't the same kind of game that others are isn't really fair if you don't consider all of the factors.

Also, to Joshua, Trusty Bell does look nice, but to me, it actually doesn't look like an actual cartoon. Well it DOES, but you can clearly tell that it isn't actually a cartoon. If you look at the in-game objects, they all present some sort of polygonal edges or some kind of giveaway that makes you recognize that it isn't something hand drawn. I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but I just disagree that it is easily mistakable for a REAL cartoon/anime.

The particular differences is where you compare the cinematic sequences with the actual ingame sequences. Both done in real time, but are pretty different visually.

This is all pretty stupid since this entire thread is based on pure subjectivity. Nobody is going to get anywhere with this.

 

[Acert93]

Conversely there are also no surprises when you see who are trying to implement a sort of damage control when it comes to the games graphics. The agenda's are always crystal clear if you simply look at users histories/previous posting habits.

I think, and maybe in defense of some, there is a very palpable and non-cynicle reason as well: A lot of posters own a specific console and are anticipating titles on said platform and therefor what is good looking is a) what they expose themselves to and b) what is on their wish list. Hard to get hyped over a game on a platform you don't plan to own... heck, you may not even look at said games if they are exclusives.

Graphical preference is part taste as well. Someone who loves realism may totally dislike LBP and Trusty Bell for example and dig the direct Crysis is going.

The question was fairly vague, so I took it as I always do in graphics: Equal weight on still visuals and animation and then trying to separate technology and IQ, assets, and the art direction that marries them. Of course this is my own little system, and even it isn't fool proof (e.g. I spotted a lot of little render issues in the BFBC trailer but the destructible worlds, to me, is a vitally important part to the "graphics" umbrella that some minor IQ issues to further immerse the user into the actual world is a vertical tradeoff others may not like, e.g. those who really dig Gears of War which didn't make my list).

What is pleasing to the eye is different to everyone. And that is ok. We all have filters in regards to what looks good to us. And even technically it isn't so easy to discern what is best:

Proven & Performant Technology used liberarly with very high quality or
New cutting edge technology used sparsely

Do 2 super high quality fighters on screen with amazing lighting impress you or 5,000 enemies on screen?

Obviously if someone had picked, say, Wii Sports as the best looking game on the market I think it would be pretty obvious what filters are on. I haven't seen any choices that bother me... although digging on a title like, "I cannot believe you think X looks better than Y!" is really assuming your taste is actually right on a topic of personal preferance. It is like telling someone that, "You cannot like game X better than game Y!" when the 2 games are totally different and good in their own right. Heck, I pretty much hate JRPGs but I wouldn't dare tell someone, "You are so wrong for liking FF12 more than BF1942". Just because I dislike JRPGs doesn't mean I cannot appreciate their excellence or that someone may really, really like them.

The inability of others to see the quality in another title always really bothers me in issues of preference when you are talking about 2 very good products. There are clear cut situations where 1 is better (BF1942 vs. Soildner for example) but when comparing a lot of good games it does come down to taste. To each their own. That is why there are hundreds of dev houses making many different games.

 

[StefanS]

Oh boy, I knew this topic would be rather emtional from the start, more so since the OP didn't define the topic exactly. So I'll try to give this some direction. Your post should should follow only simple guideline:

You're talking about the game that has the best graphics to you - subjective as this may be - and not having a go at other games, i.e. deride, in order to make your game look good. This doesn't mean you can't discuss the opinions of other posters, though, just be specific and respectful.

 

[icecold1983]

josh imo those screens would look good if it were an xbox 1 game.

 

[Capeta]

A for giggles, and since I love Trusty Bell and think everyone should appreciate it even if they don't think it is the best looking game

Thanks for reminding me about this game, I completely forgot about it. Indeed it is one of the best looking games this generation.

 

[Bad_Boy]

Little Big Planet looks more impressive than Trusty Bell to you

Indeed it does.

2 can play that game! hehe I am not gonna dog anyones preference and opinion to what is most impressive/best to them, but I think comments like the above are not really fair to Trusty Bell at all. The goal of Trusty Bell is to look like a classic cartoon and it does an outstanding job, both technically and artistically, of absolutely NAILING that target. It is very, very rare for a game to get close to the target they wish to emulate -- be it reality or be it CGI. I believe Trusty Bell is closer to its targer than a game like Crysis is to its (semi-reality) or Little Big Planet (CGI cartoon).

Artistically yeah, trusty bell probably pulls off the cartoon look pretty well. But other than that, it's nothing impressive at all. Even DBZ games pull the cartoon look off pretty well. On the technical side, TB doesn't hold a candle to LBP.

A for giggles, and since I love Trusty Bell and think everyone should appreciate it even if they don't think it is the best looking game, click for larger pictures:

And in every one of those screens the only good looking things are the characters themselves. The backgrounds, excuse me if I sound a little harsh, look like last gen environments. I can honestly say with a straight face, that in some of those screen shots, I've seen better environments in God of War 2 (Though obviously Trusty Bell has a higher resolution). On the technical side, LBP has much more going on. Physics, textures, motion blur, dof, lighting, animation rigging, et cetera.

Trusty Bell / Eternal Sonata (US) looks like a cartoon. That is not an exaggeration. In motion it is even MORE beautiful--absolutely STUNNING. The animation as well as the "life" in the world are excellent and are on par for what I would expect from an animated movie. The convergance of technology and the quality of the art (and the art direction) are amazing.

Little Big Planet, while having some excellent IQ, is severly lacking in asset quality and art direction IMO. I think LBP looks good and is pleasing to the eye, but as a total package it has many holes whereas Trusty Bell hits its target dead center--it looks like a cartoon. LBP has some nice technology (as does Trusty Bell), but where they separate IMO is that Trusty Bell has fantastic art direction and asset quality across the board whereas LBP is really hit or miss in the media we have seen.

Hmm... seems we may be talking about two different things. Art design is highly subjective, you either like it or you don't most of the time. What I'm talking about is graphical superiority, as I thought this is what the topic was about. If I were thinking strictly art design I would have said Okami looks better than Crysis. Art wise, LBP is nothing amazing, though it's cute and it works well.

Of course if you don't like cartoons then I can see how Trusty Bell is totally unimpressive.

I'm not much of a 3d cartoon guy (pixar/disney), but I do enjoy 2D cartoons still. ;p

 

[rounin]

Besides that, I don't think Trusty Bell (at least in those screens), look like their target render (anime) as much as they resemble imitations, like the FMV from Rogue Galaxy. They look distinctly like computer generated imitations and probably doesn't fool a lot of people. Whether it is closer to anime than LBP is to real-life/Pixar is probably a matter of preference, but I think a lot of people would vote for the latter.

All things said, Trusty Bell does look very good, but I think it hasn't got enough of the unique touch to separate it.

 

[Eagle-Vision]

Just a reminder of Kameo's graphical excellence.

And like other have said, while LBP looks very nice, you have to take into account how much stuff is being rendered on screen at once. It's a nice little tech demo, but I wouldn't put it on the same level as Kameo or GoW.

Also, for a game that's supposed to be pushing physics, it doesn't seem to do proper collision detection:

 

[aselto]

And in every one of those screens the only good looking things are the characters themselves. The backgrounds, excuse me if I sound a little harsh, look like last gen environments. I can honestly say with a straight face, that in some of those screen shots, I've seen better environments in God of War 2

Is it a troll atempt? Seriously Eternal Sonata isn't that poor (there's usually going on a lot in GoW2, but environments aren't too good. Even then God of War 2 is probably the best looking ps2 game - compare Eternal sonata to Shin Megami Tensei ).
As of Eternal Sonata, i was sceptic after seeing first screenshots, but GDC footage changed my mind - screenshots don't do it justice - artists at Tri Crescendo are very clever and they somehow make 2D sprites to compose well with 3D environments. The game is no technical wonder, but Tri Crescendo are beginners and I didn't see a good looking stuff from its publisher Namco for a very very long time...
For reference, here is (offscreen) ES's trailer:
http://xboxyde.com/leech_3573_en.html
As of LPB, it has amazing lighting techniques, but being sidescroller with fixed camera position helps it a lot. Art direction is also very good, but I doubt the game has the best/most efficient/fastest/most powerful engine out there.

If I had to choose which game I should buy, my money would go to LBP anyway. Eternal Sonata is just another boring jRPG.

Back to graphics, I think Assassin's Creed will have its moments as well. In trailer there were some frames where youi could see horizont miles away, so I assume climbing a belfry or another high point might be an incredible experience.:smile:

 

[icecold1983]

Just a reminder of Kameo's graphical excellence.

And like other have said, while LBP looks very nice, you have to take into account how much stuff is being rendered on screen at once. It's a nice little tech demo, but I wouldn't put it on the same level as Kameo or GoW.

Also, for a game that's supposed to be pushing physics, it doesn't seem to do proper collision detection:

agree, kameo looks amazing, definitely a contender after gow and gt hd for me. all 3 games have industry leading visuals atm