Random Gaming Thoughts

[RCBH928]

Alright, I guess I will check it out... I liked the creepy/Tim Burton like theme implemented by it.

[Forlorn Drifter]

There's a new idea going around that *the* way to fix YLOD on FAT PS3s is to change some of the capacitors out for better quality ones. I wonder if this is true- I've been looking for a way to get a BC PS3 that won't fry on me some day. Especially considering how much they cost nowadays. I really want that to be true, because my super slim is collecting dust because I never use it. If I had one that played PS2 discs however...

Plus, PS3 can play video files burned to a disc without authoring. AKA, playing HD quality files off of a DVD. Its my main use for it now.

[RCBH928]

you know a game guide is good if it has an ASCII art logo

[RCBH928]

So I was expecting Tomb Raider to be an action game with some platforming, turned out to be a puzzle platformer with some action. Its like a 3D Prince of Persia. While I am not a fan of puzzles or platforming something makes me want to continue to play. I really like how the developers maximised their imagination on taking advantage of the 3D capability compared to the still mainstream 2D.

I wanted to see the perspective of it at time of release and from Gamespot's review:
-Tomb Raider combines slick graphics with a fantastically agile character and an excellent story

One thing I noticed about reviews from that era people didn't really favour or were WOWed by 3D, all they care about is if the game fun or not. 2D or 3D does not matter.

[RCBH928]

My new rule with better graphics hardware is if I can't tell which one is better from the screenshot then it does not matter...no need to use CSI camera zooms to find that extra detailed difference.

[isiolia]

My new rule with better graphics hardware is if I can't tell which one is better from the screenshot then it does not matter...no need to use CSI camera zooms to find that extra detailed difference.

There'd be a couple big considerations there though.

First would be inherent limitations of your comparison. For instance, a screenshot isn't going to reflect potential differences in framerate/pacing or things like screen tearing. In turn, video comparisons may not accurately show the difference in HDR, resolution, framerate, and so on due to being compressed down into a streaming-friendly size/format.

Kind of the same sort of thing that, say, comparing stills or footage of an emulator or scaler without also looking at latency.


Second would be accounting for what additional power can do for development or design. For instance, real time lighting would have the potential to incorporate visual cues into gameplay, same as surround audio does. The better hardware gets, the more can be done like that versus baked in.

[Ziggy]

I stopped caring about better graphics a long time ago. I'm not sure if I ever really cared.

[PretentiousHipster]

I only care about graphics through an artistic sense. On the technical side sure they look cool now, but all we'll get in a few years are them looking outdated. Artistically pleasing graphics are timeless.

[RCBH928]

First would be inherent limitations of your comparison. For instance, a screenshot isn't going to reflect potential differences in framerate/pacing or things like screen tearing. In turn, video comparisons may not accurately show the difference in HDR, resolution, framerate, and so on due to being compressed down into a streaming-friendly size/format.

Kind of the same sort of thing that, say, comparing stills or footage of an emulator or scaler without also looking at latency.

Second would be accounting for what additional power can do for development or design. For instance, real time lighting would have the potential to incorporate visual cues into gameplay, same as surround audio does. The better hardware gets, the more can be done like that versus baked in.

You are not wrong but historically better hardware is associated with better graphics, as in looks better. When it comes to performance I consider frame dropping and screen tearing a flaw in the game and not an issue of the hardware since the other games on the system do not have it.

I would like to see more powerful hardware steered into another direction than better looking graphics. Something like VR, AR, or system AI. Whatever smart and innovative way they can think of. Something more than pushing more polygons on screen I guess.

I only care about graphics through an artistic sense. On the technical side sure they look cool now, but all we'll get in a few years are them looking outdated. Artistically pleasing graphics are timeless.

II wanted to quote something I liked about the tech side of audiovisual mediums in general, but I don't remember it exactly. To paraphrase: It's not important until you notice something wrong with it. For games that might be stuff like pop-in, an uneven framerate, cracks in the polygons, a voiced line being super low volume, etc. You can also compare something like Wind Waker to Wind Waker HD, where the latter might look "like you remember" the former without a direct comparison.

An ugly or inconsistent art style is immediately noticeable and for me it can be more important in terms of just looking at a game. But since it's an interactive medium, I have to take that into consideration and then it's usually not

couldn't have said it better. Sonic on Genesis still looks good and better than Die Hard Trilogy on Saturn where Saturn is multiple times more powerful. I am just bothered by the "PS4 vs XboxOne graphics" videos where they use scientific tools to prove which one looks better.

Although to comment on " It's not important until you notice something wrong with it", in videogames we saw graphics that we thought were "life-like" realistic, but after revisiting them a decade later we are shocked at how bad they were. So was there something ever wrong with them? subjective...

[isiolia]

I am just bothered by the "PS4 vs XboxOne graphics" videos where they use scientific tools to prove which one looks better.

If you mean stuff like Digital Foundry does, it's usually done to compare performance, and in turn, how well a particular version plays. Graphics fidelity and features in use are an appropriate part of that comparison though. For as much as the particular game or port can be at fault, a given machine only has so much potential. Games that are pushing the boundaries of what current hardware can support often need to make tradeoffs. It's not even that uncommon now to give the player the option to choose a priority - higher framerate or higher detail.
It's ultimately just comparing ports, as people have done since ever, and if one version plays better it'll probably get the nod over an inconsistent-yet-prettier one. Or, at the very least, the information is available for folks trying to determine which version they'd prefer to buy.