Woah! Look at those graphics!

[t0yrobo]

I don't want to get going because I could go on about this for a long time, so I'll keep it super short.
I always notice 2 things when I play most new games.
1: The graphics are horribly inconsistent. You can see the pores on the main characters face, but objects and npcs look like trash with low poly models and poor textures.
2: The art direction generally sucks.

[Pulsar_t]

[Lord_Santa]

Yeah, I worded that a little weird. I'm just saying that I think that graphics should try to be as realistic as possible, if the designer is going for realism. Or if the designer is going for perfect cartoon characters, it should be a close to perfect as possible. The closer it is, the better the graphics. All while using the latest technology. Sorry if that's not any clearer, I'm trying, I swear.

much better =)

you may have a point that they should try to do the best that they can with what they have available; per example GTAIV going for a gritty atmosphere, whilst Skyward Sword is going for a "cartoony/artistic"

but I just think that GTAIV (in this example) sacrifices too much draw-distance and minor "details" in order to gain as "realistic" graphics as possible

I think that GTAIV could've looked like GTA:SA and still be perfectly playable (albeit some darker colors, etc.)

it seems to me as if we're in an era of computers/consoles, where the companies are trying to push boundaries, which they clearly not are able to

mind you I don't play the "latest-greatest" releases, so I'm not sure if this holds true for every game out there

but of course if a game is supposed to look "real", it should go with that art-direction , but if it is necessary to sacrifice frame-rate and/or draw-distance, then I think that they should simply cut back on the realism part and work within the constraints that they are given

unfortunately it seems as if though realism is the new parallax scrolling (if you get my point?) and that "every" game out there is striving to look as "real" as possible

the thing I like about sprites, is that even-though Prince of Persia/Flashback may have realistic animations, they are still "cartoony" looking, thus giving me a sense of "fantasy", rather than realism

of course, if a company is going for realism, they should be allowed to, it just feels as if though there are too many sacrifices for graphics when it comes to minor details (I will once again point out the horrible draw-distance many of these games have)

of course all of this is my opinion, which will differ from others; albeit I do see your point that if a company is striving for realism than realism is what we'll get

I'm just wondering how many sacrifices they are prepared to make in order to put that extra pimple on the main-character

this applies (mostly) to consoles, however as PC's of today generally are more powerful
it just feels as if though the consoles are trying too hard, thus ending up with giving us a half-crap looking product, instead of toning it down and giving us the full graphical pleasure

this is the main reason why I traded my 360 for a Wii per example, as I played Risen and realized how much crappier than the PC version it truly was (the European edition don't get the patch that NA gets, no explanation as to why) and I felt "cheated" that I pay good money for a game that isn't even half as good looking on my (supposedly stronger) console than my PC

then again the Wii seems to take it's art-direction in a completely different direction, which I prefer, as it is the least powerful of the consoles, it focuses on working within the restraints it is given (not that I've played every Wii game out there, nor 360/PS3, but this is the feeling I get)

of course it all boils down to opinions and since this is a retro-forum and I (mainly) consider myself a retro-gamer, I thought this might be a better place to state opinions such as these, rather than on gamespot.com, or similar where people are striving to play the latest-greatest and couldn't care less for sprites, etc.

/rant

edit:

you'll have to forgive my repeats and general disorder in the wall of text, I've yet to take my medication and am rather confused at the moment

[RCBH928]

I am too amazed at some of the looks of the 16-bit games, they look awesome, better yet 2D games on 32-bit systems(saturn+psx).

I won't lie, I always wanted games that look real , like a 3D world. While I am impressed by the current graphics and how big a world a ps3 or 360 can put out(look at GTA4 and Red Dead) , somehow for the first time ever I feel the graphics of the current generation is lack, maybe they are trying to be TOO real?

I am not sure if its just me, but I can easily see pixel-like stuff around some characters in these new HD games, this is very clear when you play Infamous . Also the the 3D character for the first time I feel like he is not IN the game, I feel like the levels are pre-rendered 3D levels, and the characters are just pasted over it, they used to do this in older games, I feel the two are separated. Again, a good example of this is Infamous .

The other thing is when you play current games, even if they are 2D , there is just too much clutter on the screen and you can hardly identify the objects. When you play Sonic on Genesis, the background is very clear from the foreground, the platforms are clear, everything is clear. Maybe the technology today is able to make complex graphics that we are not able to grasp with our eyes? Or is it just bad art direction?
Any one other than me felt this?

[Luke]

Retrogamers tend to play older video games.

I completely agree with this statement.

[Niode]

Retrogamers tend to play older video games.

I completely agree with this statement.

I agree that you are in agreement with that statement.

[Jrecee]

I'm still impressed by the graphics in old games when they push the limits of the system they were on. I haven't really gotten that feeling during this generation. The more things become realistic, the more you start picking the little details apart. You never had very high expectations that Sonic's mouth would move along with his voice back in 1999, but now that character models are so realistic, it stands out that much more when they're poorly animated. Part of the problem is that 99% of games these days try to make everything look like real life. In the 16 bit days styles were all dramatically different.

[Anayo]

I agree that gaming consoles are more homogeneous today. Even the PS2/Gamecube/XBOX had dramatic distinctions to attract folks to one platform or another, whereas nowadays most AAA titles are multiplatform with similar system capabilities. If it weren't for Nintendo with the Wii and DS everything today would be the same.

[jfrost]

I don't really get it when people say a game is much better looking than others this generation. Everyone drools over Uncharted 2, but honestly, between the AAA titles, I can't really see which game has the graphical edge. At this stage, it's a moot point.

[ZeroAX]

I don't really get it when people say a game is much better looking than others this generation. Everyone drools over Uncharted 2, but honestly, between the AAA titles, I can't really see which game has the graphical edge. At this stage, it's a moot point.

Valkyria Chronicles (http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-20 ... cles/38377) and Little Big planet (http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gc-09 ... anet/54386).

The only games this gen (not counting some wii/DS games) that stand out graphically. How? They take advantage of the hardware and have a unique, stand out ,art direction.