hmmm, what game would that be? i don't seem to recognize it OT: Decorated a new truck i got a few days ago:
It's a game from 2003 from a pretty small Hungarian developer, I think you can give the textures a pass.
Because if it isn't 900000000000x9000000000 10000000000000hz with 5000x5000 textures, it's shit. (imported from here)
Graphics and FPS are two very important aspects of gaming. Also, please give me an example of what PC gamers can't understand when they say "Muh graphix"
They are important if you're an entitled graphics whore, yeah, and they can't understand the fact no one gives a rats ass about their graphics elitism.
The texture resolution in that shot is actually pretty good, but the textures themselves tile pretty poorly and very often. And that's not a question of technology, it's one of artistry.
It's not elitism, more like perfectionism. Don't settle for 720p and 30fps, the fuck are you doing? 1080p, 60 fps, all settings maxed out You know who settles for low settings and 30 fps? The kind of people that leave the trash to pile up and make a disgusting mess because they're too lazy to take it out. Or maybe just a casual gamer who plays 2 hours a week and has more shit to do than buy a PC and upgrade parts etc.
"but the textures themselves tile pretty poorly and very often" The hell do you mean, the UV mapping of the textures on the models? And lol1080p. Garbage consumer grade 16:9 resolution. 1920x1440 is the best.
Remember nintendo? I don't think kids were like "OMG BETS GRAPHICZEZ EVER MOST REALISTIC" then. That's what gaming is, shouldn't look real, shouldn't be real. A game is a game, real life is real life. Graphics imo don't matter. I play 90's games because i can't stand new games where the stories/gameplay are the rushed part, and graphics are most cared about. So while everyone is bragging about their new $500 video cards, and running games at 1080p full settings, I'm playing 90's/early 2000's games that felt like actual games.
I think visuals matter, I just don't think that texture resolution and polygon count should define the appearance. I'm a big fan of how this guy puts it, that beauty defines the visuals, not the numbers. Neither do I think that visuals are the end all, be all. Sounds, composition, animations, writing, and vocal performances all factor in big.
here's the way i see it graphics matter, but they shouldn't be the defining feature of a game as gameplay matters, the story matters, optimisation matters (ubisoft, you need some of this) can't have a game without gameplay, a story, and you can't exactly play a game if it's so badly optimised that even top end pc's have trouble running it (*cough* AC:U *cough*) but i wouldn't want to play a game that doesn't have decent graphics either (at least in this day and age, if it's an old game obviously those don't count, because for their day they probably did have decent graphics) so basically: a good game (at least IMHO) = decent graphics, a good story, great gameplay, and well done optimisation TL;DR: graphics matter, but so do gameplay, a story, and optimisation, can't have a game without those
I think it has more to do with how the art style and graphics match. For example FarCry 4 looks absolutely stunning to the point where i will occasionally stop playing just to admire the view for a bit. I also think that Mini Metro looks amazing because of its great art style and how good it looks on an HD screen. On the other hand i really dislike how the original Nintendo Wii looked because it tried to go for an art style that it could not pull off. Things looked awful due to all of the jaggies when if they were in HD with smoother mesh's they would have looked fine, that said i really like how games on the Wii U looks since they fixed the issues. I also really like the way games look on much older systems because they were designed with the limitations in mind, so they took the limitations into consideration and made something beautiful that works in tandem with them.
Here is a highlight video from my friends and I running monster trucks on one of my races on gta online.
I never said everything should have the best graphics ever. But I found the massive difference between shader and texture quality quite annoying to look at. Wouldn't look bad with old shading, wouldn't look bad with HD textures. And while graphics are certainly not the most important bit of a game, it's nicer to look at something realistic than a bunch of aliased polygons. Heck, none of my favourite games (GTA, Skyrim, Portal 2, L.A. Noire, Gran Turismo 5/6, TF2) are known for their amazing graphics. GT6 looks terrible when compared to Forza and it's still a better game IMO because driving physics. GTA VC looked like an utter pile of low-poly crap and it was one of the best games in the series. And sometimes a game's graphics are just ugly, no matter how good or bad, new or old. For example, I've never liked TFC's graphic style, but the old Counter-Strike games look fine. Both use the same engine and have the same graphics quality. GTA IV had decent graphics for 2008 but the shaders were just absolutely hideous (orange skies all day). GTA V (original PS3/360 version) hadn't improved much in terms of graphics quality, but it looked much much better because of the new, more colourful shader style. Of course the PS4/XB1/PC version looks even better with HD textures and stuff.
