How far do we want graphics to advance?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem is that as graphics improve, gameplay and story start to suck. Look at Call of Duty. Modern Warfare 2 had great graphics and gameplay, but the story was idiotic and implausible at best. Black Ops went a step further and ruined the game play AND the storyline; it was essentially Black (for the original XBox), but without the cliffhanger ending, or entertainment factor. Mass Effect 3 was the same way: great graphics, off-track gameplay. I just don't want this happen to my favorite XBox game. Warning: this has already happened to SOCOM, another favorite of mine.
 
Replying to your little quote more than anything (it actually has some degree of relevance here). I'm glad that somebody agrees with the idea of no-scoping. Bungie needs to take the damn reticle off the HUD when carrying the sniper rifle. Then it will actually take some skill to use. Although, to be fair, COD lacks the reticle, making it harder to no-scope. Did once at point-blank range, though . . .
 
When skyrim comes out, It will set the new bar for realism in games. much like TCOR Butcher bay did back in the day.

Thats true.

Crysis 2 had fantastic graphics, although they werent realistic . So this brings up a question , What do we view as "good" graphics?
 
Black Ops went a step further and ruined the game play AND the storyline
I find this funny because it's a flat out lie.

On topic:
I'd like a Holo deck, also the ARMY has a treadmill that goes in 32 directions I think it even has four projector screens too.
 
Mass Effect 3 hasn't come out yet. Mass Effect 2 is out though.....

anyway..... back on topic

Apparently the Japanese are making a quesy-holodeck kind-of-thing
Star Trek holo-room anyone? I want it to happen if it is real of course!

I'm waiting for the day where you have a holoroom kind of thing and play something of any genre in MMO style (with a campaign of course!) and have fun.
For me I want a post-apocalyptic game, Tactical Shooter/Tactical shooter sim, Zombie game, and Kickass action all around kind of game.

Like say halo becomes kind of a MMO-FPS 1000 vs 1000 person game on this you'd get the kind of adrenaline rush that you'd want to go along with halo.

Now in this theoretical game system that Star Trek calls a holo-deck, would games have "Hyper-realistic"- Real world or "Super-Dynamic-Realistic"- Cartoonish in some respects but still mostly realistic.

My take is that eventually everyones game console and computer will be a fast-as-blazses ultra-computer capable of ultra realistic phyisics and graphics that people like in inception probably lose their sense of reality in a "game" dream vs. the actual Real World.....hopefully not though.

but scientists are showing that we are making computers smarter faster and faster every year.

so yes the question probably is to take the proverbial Blue or the Red pill.

But my option is the blue pill A.K.A. better graphics
 
Depends, what pre-order bonuses do each come with?
Well played. You reminded me of Dragon Age 2.

On topic, I think we should be thinking about how to do more improved graphics using less power and system resources first, before we go too lifelike on the screens. Video cards now use more power and make more heat than ever before (Otherwise, why would we need liquid cooling setups?).
 
well, back when COD 2 big red one came out on the ps2 i said "graphics for games will never get better than this" and have eaten those words ever since. i dont mind if game graphics get better so long as the games are just as good (look at games like crysis 2 and Black ops, nice graphics, shame about the game) and also that the ability to power these games is affordable. i just recently got shafted by HP as the awesome computer i got from them turned out to be rubbish, and completely un customisable, so i have had to go and build a more flexible model, so so long as the cards and current motherboads are compatable, i dont care.
 
i just recently got shafted by HP as the awesome computer i got from them turned out to be rubbish, and completely un customisable, so i have had to go and build a more flexible model, so so long as the cards and current motherboads are compatable, i dont care.
There are only 2 big PC manufacturers that you can do any kind of "customization" with, and those are Dell and AlienWare. Both are incredibly expensive, and, really, overrated. Your best bet is to build it yourself. Cheaper machine, more power. You know, every part has its own warranty, even if you build it yourself. Keep it in mind.

And HPs are terrible. Every single component is all on one board, so that makes upgrading, past RAM, impossible. Can't stand my HP.
 
personnaly, the farthest i want graphics to go is to the point where it seems like its a fellow human i am playing as, even though i am not (no gamer play as death row convict killing other death row convict bull!)
 
If they make another Sci-Fi war game in another few years or so and so happens to have 2009 graphics (MW2 I'm speaking to you!), I'll be pissed!
 
(look at games like crysis 2 and Black ops, nice graphics, shame about the game)

I'm sorry for going off topic about the same thing as before but why do people keep hating a game that's very solid game and story wise?(And had a very good 1st DLC(Don't know about the rest) It's CoD4 With less lag, and until I'm provided with a Good list of reasons why it's sub-par I then will consider updating my opinion. Not just it's bad witch is all I've ever heard from anyone.

On topic:
What I would like is a VR that acts like the device in Inception, the would be the pinnacle of FPS and gaming in general.
 
Well, there is this thing my dad (A total computer whiz) told me about. There is a certain point between really REALLY good graphics, and those that look absolutely real. This area is called the Uncanny Valley or something. The problem is, our bodies KNOW that it isn't real, so our eyes are telling the brain "It's real!" and the brain is saying "No it isn't!", so it's like when you get sea-sick. Your eyes tell the brain that everything is staying still, but your sense of balance feels the boat rocking. This can cause you to throw up, or feel sick. In a nutshell, we need to keep our graphics from crossing that line.
 
I'm sorry for going off topic about the same thing as before but why do people keep hating a game that's very solid game and story wise?(And had a very good 1st DLC(Don't know about the rest) It's CoD4 With less lag, and until I'm provided with a Good list of reasons why it's sub-par I then will consider updating my opinion. Not just it's bad witch is all I've ever heard from anyone.

On topic:
What I would like is a VR that acts like the device in Inception, the would be the pinnacle of FPS and gaming in general.

It was yet another rehash of the exact same formula, which is an automatic jump into the negatives. The only changes from the previous game were a worse selection of maps, less balance between weapons, and the same ridiculous gimmick additions that are basically customary of Treyarch. Not to mention hilariously bad map packs. The story was actually decent for a CoD game, but the campaign gameplay itself was 50% scripted and 50% horrible hitboxes and terrible AI.

Now then, back on topic: The better the graphics, the longer the production time. I don't see the point in making amazing graphics past a certain point, since longer production times mean investors and publishers will want to reach a wider audience to recoup losses, which means it turns from a decent game into consolized trash like Call of Duty or (subjectively) Halo. PC games can get away from this because developers can release large patches to add graphics options, support for more advanced hardware, or new content that can make use of a more powerful machine, while still working on their next project. Console patches and updates have to use the same base game and must be within imposed limits by Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo, which are usually very strict.

All of which, of course, means that PC > Any and every console.
 
Well, there is this thing my dad (A total computer whiz) told me about. There is a certain point between really REALLY good graphics, and those that look absolutely real. This area is called the Uncanny Valley or something. The problem is, our bodies KNOW that it isn't real, so our eyes are telling the brain "It's real!" and the brain is saying "No it isn't!", so it's like when you get sea-sick. Your eyes tell the brain that everything is staying still, but your sense of balance feels the boat rocking. This can cause you to throw up, or feel sick. In a nutshell, we need to keep our graphics from crossing that line.
I've said Uncanny Valley like 6 times so far.
 

...approves of better graphics as long as the gameplay doesn't suffer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top