Dont understand why the need to push higher Graphics

Still rocking sli 580s

I look back and still have buyers remorse on how much they cost 5 years ago.

Oh and the fact good graphics do not make a good game. I would go as fat to say after 1hrs play you wouldn't even notice 80% of the being.
 
I want them to keep pushing graphics until it is indistinguishable from reality :D

Never stop improving I say!

But that said they should optimise more and do more beta testing before release.
 
dishonoured 1 had lots of places where the low res textures made me go D:

the art style helped but some textures where definitely shrunk in size after creation
 
But something has to push the need for new tech. If all games run perfectly on a 4 year old GPU, why bother making a new GPU?
Why go to the R&D to make a new GPU if nobody needs it?
I doubt the development time on games is the same as GPUs so asking devs to make new titles to be released exactly when new hardware is released is also asking a lot I feel.

And as it has been stated, the people that do the graphics probably aren't the people responsible for doing the storylines or the game mechanics.

Can always turn the settings down, don't need to use the highest preset, especially if you don't care how the game looks.

Back when Doom 1 was first released everyone probably thought those were good graphics. If we'd applied this argument then we'd still be on Doom 1 graphics running at 320*240 resolution.

I don't think I've yet seen a game with people that you can't tell is a computer game, so I think there's plenty more improvements to be made.
 
I personally like when a game adds something new visually. I think it can add to a game. Sometimes it's unnecessary and even counterproductive, but games like the witcher 3 benefited. Little things like the hair made a big difference when compared to the plastic hair of dragon age inquisition.
 
I remember playing COD MW on my 6800gt and thought it was great. When I replaced it with a 9800gt, I was blown away. I could see the pressure waves of the grenades etc!!
It was like a whole new game:)
 
It's just natural progression of the industry these days where realism sells. It's not necessarily a bad thing however as Devrij pointed out. I do find a lot of people though mistake games with bleeding-edge graphics where a 1080 GTX can't get 60 FPS at 1080p as "that's just the cost of it looking so good" instead of looking at its poorly designed engine, client or/and drivers.

I'd still take a game with an amazing story over graphics any day, although to a point. I find it really difficult these days to get that involved with a game with sprites even if it has a top-notch story (like To the Moon).
 
People always want to push the boundaries, it's why man has become the dominant species.

TBF though, great GFX does not necessarily equal great gameplay.

I'm planning a boys night on Friday with a Retropie a few beers and some good old Mario Kart.
 
I have a few mates rocking 460s and 570s and they manage to play most titles without issues on lower settings, still looks pretty decent.

However dishonoured looks awful, it hasn't aged well at all.

If your not getting 60 fps on that card, then the game or/and user is flawed.

Quite often, games are rushed, poorly optimised so need beefier systems to get desired performance, people often mistake this for a game being demanding.
 
Yeah I should clarify that a game can look amazing and run well too if it's put together well on a good engine (eg bf1, alien isolation), but it shouldn't be an excuse for a poorly optimized game. I welcome cool new graphics, but only if it doesn't require a disproportionate amount of gpu grunt.
 
We want games to keep getting prettier as they will also stand up in years to come.

However,graphics are good enough for the time being and really we should concentrating on gameplay instead of releasing bang average games that offer nothing new except a new type of AA
 
I don't agree, better graphics are hugely important. Play BF3 now and it's looks ugly compared to BF1, but you remember being blown away by the graphics of the game.

Its immersive

And Dishounerd looks like crap!
 
Drollic said:
One of the crazier threads right? Dishonored 1...looks good :eek:
Click to expand...

I love the look of it... the art style is deliberately painterly, rather than realistic. It's a bit like some of the cell shaded games, that attempt to go for a different look... I guess it makes it a bit Marmite.

As far as D2 is concerned I think it's engine problems rather than fidelity that is causing the issues... If they had used UE4 or Tech6 then I'm positive it would have run perfectly well on most PC with the same visual content.

I personally want to see a continued upward trajectory with graphics, and its one of the things that keeps me interested in gaming... I'm interested in the tech as much as the gameplay.
 
redline said:
I personally want to see a continued upward trajectory with graphics, and its one of the things that keeps me interested in gaming... I'm interested in the tech as much as the gameplay.
Click to expand...

Yea, this is why I am suprised the OP is shanky!

Don't worry shanky, I know AMD have made you wait for too long to upgrade, but Vega will be here soon enough bro :D
 
Another way is, we are getting tierd of paying out £700 per gpu to find out next year the latest game runs like a potato and be told "turn the settings to medium or buy blar blar and sell your 12 month old spud for 50 quid". After nearly 30 years in pc gaming I for one have paid enough already. Battlefield 1 does look good though ;-p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom