What game wins 'Best Graphics of 2014'?

DriedMangoes said:
Yes. Last I heard the X1 version is running at 720p. Not sure if they upgraded it since then.
Click to expand...
Well then that settles that, man I almost bought it, but if its only 720 not wasting my time. You know what was fun? That free game that came with the Wii, Wii sports. I'm nit ashamed to admit it either. That was probably the only game I owned for the thing. Spent untold hours practicing my homerun stance.
( Not kidding) the bowling golf Mmm something else tennis that was even fun! ( again not being sarcastic)
 
Frozpot said:
They could have all the talent in the world, but without resources and a large team, your chances of digging deep enough to tap put a system are pretty slim.
Click to expand...

Excellent point.

I should have said/mentioned that as well.
 
Last edited:
VaLLiancE said:
It and Crysis 3(both PC versions) were the best looking games IMO.
Gotta try the PS4 version.
Click to expand...
Metro is a pretty good looking game, but from a lighting/shader/modeling standpoint, it doesn't touch Crysis 3. That's objectively. Metro, good as it looks, still uses a lot of old methods to get where it's going. Crysis 3 is something else from a graphic standpoint. I actually think Ryse is a more advanced approach in it's shaders- especially the skin in cutscenes( there is just no match out there, especially the scenes where Marius and the General are talking and it gets close). It's a subtle difference, but it's there if you know what you are looking at.
 
Frozpot said:
Metro is a pretty good looking game, but from a lighting/shader/modeling standpoint, it doesn't touch Crysis 3. That's objectively. Metro, good as it looks, still uses a lot of old methods to get where it's going. Crysis 3 is something else from a graphic standpoint. I actually think Ryse is a more advanced approach in it's shaders- especially the skin in cutscenes( there is just no match out there, especially the scenes where Marius and the General are talking and it gets close). It's a subtle difference, but it's there if you know what you are looking at.
Click to expand...

Cutscenes don't count.. :p
 
Some games use different level of details (LODs) in cutscene or close up vs gameplay, & just about every huge open world game have LODs design. hence you often see things like pop in, when you see the switch when they replace a low poly/detail version of a tree with a higher level one close up.

Computer visualisation is all about smoke & mirrors. Its just about how good to use them, as much as how much hp the hardware has.

I think as long as its realtime, it should be more or less fine. But for me, whats important also is consitency. Its immersion beacking when cutscene character look so much better than during gameplay, or you have NPCs with so low res compare to the main character.
 
VFX_Veteran said:
Cutscenes don't count.. :p
Click to expand...

As long as they are being rendered in real-time, I'm fine with including them. Usually they don't include the highest implementation because the camera is pulled back far enough that you wouldn't see it anyway, so there is no point in stressing the system on unnecessary rendering techniques. It's still a balancing game, but you know that, lol.

There is still a lot of detail if you can wedge the camera in close enough during game-play. There is also the effect of scene lighting. Cut-scenes are lit very specifically to show off the detail in the materials. It isn't done this way in game-play because you can't direct the camera to only look from specific angles, obviously. Unless, of course you have different lights set to only affect certain objects, but then the scene doesn't coalesce. You know this too, I'm sure, but I'm merely pointing it out for others who may be reading the comment.

One of the things I really like that AC:Unity does, is it goes straight from cut-scene to game-play, and you can actually see it switching from scene lighting to game-play. I enjoy that for some reason.
 
Frozpot said:
As long as they are being rendered in real-time, I'm fine with including them. Usually they don't include the highest implementation because the camera is pulled back far enough that you wouldn't see it anyway, so there is no point in stressing the system on unnecessary rendering techniques. It's still a balancing game, but you know that, lol.

There is still a lot of detail if you can wedge the camera in close enough during game-play. There is also the effect of scene lighting. Cut-scenes are lit very specifically to show off the detail in the materials. It isn't done this way in game-play because you can't direct the camera to only look from specific angles, obviously. Unless, of course you have different lights set to only affect certain objects, but then the scene doesn't coalesce. You know this too, I'm sure, but I'm merely pointing it out for others who may be reading the comment.

One of the things I really like that AC:Unity does, is it goes straight from cut-scene to game-play, and you can actually see it switching from scene lighting to game-play. I enjoy that for some reason.
Click to expand...

Yea, I just like to compare gamplay shots because you can get away with a lot of mileage in cutscenes. Ryse still looks stunning even with gameplay shots. But the cutscenes are definitely on another level.
 
VFX_Veteran said:
Yea, I just like to compare gamplay shots because you can get away with a lot of mileage in cutscenes. Ryse still looks stunning even with gameplay shots. But the cutscenes are definitely on another level.
Click to expand...

It's just so hard to know how much they are actually doing in game-play because the functional lighting may not be conducive to displaying it. This is one of the reason fixed-camera type games can look so much better than a game with a free camera. Being able to control the lighting has such a huge impact on how a game looks. Especially now with the physical lighting games are implementing. It can be really easy for a game to look flat and washed out at one angle, and look absolutely mind-boggling at another. Unity is a great example of this. That game can look friggin' real at the right angle.
 
Ok, I want to throw Far Cry 4 in as a notable Graphics beast. Just played for the first time last night. Great lighting, skin shaders, and small detail to go with massive scale. It's really quite impressive :D

I also like how they are using more advanced graphical features. The use of fur shaders on all the animals is great (even if there is some strange artifacting) as well as used on the inside liners of some characters coats. There is also a TON of parallax mapping, which is nice to see, and really ups the detail depth. I also like how the trees react to explosions ala Battlefield, and the foliage density is pretty impressive too. All of this in an open world game?

Color me impressed :)
 
Frozpot said:
Ok, I want to throw Far Cry 4 in as a notable Graphics beast. Just played for the first time last night. Great lighting, skin shaders, and small detail to go with massive scale. It's really quite impressive :D

I also like how they are using more advanced graphical features. The use of fur shaders on all the animals is great (even if there is some strange artifacting) as well as used on the inside liners of some characters coats. There is also a TON of parallax mapping, which is nice to see, and really ups the detail depth. I also like how the trees react to explosions ala Battlefield, and the foliage density is pretty impressive too. All of this in an open world game?

Color me impressed :)
Click to expand...

I plan on getting that game pretty soon. But I'm sort of tired of FC gameplay mechanics right now. I might wait till after Dying Light ships.
 
AC Unity looks great, detailed world and great looking characters, with the extreme close ups to show it off haha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back