Go Back   OC3D Forums > [OC3D] General Forums > OC3D News
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
  #61  
Old 06-11-15, 01:45 PM
Jbo1234's Avatar
Jbo1234 Jbo1234 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPS View Post
What a load of crap lol.

You could play a game with just boxes that were modeled with millions of polys and 8K textures, doesn't mean it's good..
Yet that compared to other games would be naff.....like what I said. Also what about wireframe models? That makes a huge difference. The thing is you can't just reject that graphics is purely technical and has some really gnarly maths behind it which you can use as a metric. Aesthetics are subjective as that brings in style, but graphics are not.

Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 06-11-15, 02:13 PM
shambles1980's Avatar
shambles1980 shambles1980 is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: North wales
Posts: 1,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jbo1234 View Post
Yet that compared to other games would be naff.....like what I said. Also what about wireframe models? That makes a huge difference. The thing is you can't just reject that graphics is purely technical and has some really gnarly maths behind it which you can use as a metric. Aesthetics are subjective as that brings in style, but graphics are not.

there's a lot of factors to "graphics" you have lighting, shading, textures, colour pallet, as well as mip maping , bump maping, polygons then AA quality or which it uses and all that other stuff..
you could have the exact same everything but change any one of those and people would debate whether graphics were good. just using colours that some deem too vibrant would cause a debate.
And people can use the same engine with the same tech doing the same amount of work but that does not mean that it will look the same.

So im not quite sure which part of graphics you are saying is not subjective.
Some parts are measurable no doubt, but the overall out come will never be the same even if the measurable parts are equal "resolution, polygons, aa, etc"; the outcome will be subjective, and the outcome is "graphics"

now if we compare this:

to this:


and we debate which looks better it will end up being a subjective debate.. one uses some blurring smudging the textures up a bit and adds some fogging effect. but for the most part uses a better pallet.

the other one has a much more crisp look not blurring things, but also suffers a bit because of that. and color vibrancy is a bit high. the fogging effect is more uniformed and so obscures less of the area, and atleast from a distance trees seem to look better. (or do they?)

the games aren't any where near the same age at all.. but people can and will pick and chose parts that are more palatable.
they can also for the most part describe what part of each is displeasing. But what is not pleasing to me may be pleasing to you..
and that is without entering in to the art style debate where you have games like borderlands.

Im not saying fallout looks as good as it could. im not saying it looks as good as some other games that probably spent the same money. All im saying is the games that look better for the same money are lacking in other departments, its a balance all game devs have to address. and in the case of fallout. im sorry but they are right to prioritize graphics lower than core game features, and i think others should do the same.
__________________
i7 2600, intel dz77sl-50k, 16gb 1600 DDR3, 900d case, gtx 780 @ 1306/1727 "xspc block", 1x 240 1x360 1x480 rads 2 bay res, http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14829772
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 06-11-15, 02:30 PM
SPS SPS is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 6,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jbo1234 View Post
Yet that compared to other games would be naff.....like what I said. Also what about wireframe models? That makes a huge difference. The thing is you can't just reject that graphics is purely technical and has some really gnarly maths behind it which you can use as a metric. Aesthetics are subjective as that brings in style, but graphics are not.
You don't make sense.
What are you mentioning wireframes for?

Thing is, I can reject that statement and I will reject it, you can't compare poly count to measure quality of graphics. You could develop a heuristic to take into account technical data as a ratio of how good it looks, but determining if something looks good is subjective.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 06-11-15, 03:29 PM
Jbo1234's Avatar
Jbo1234 Jbo1234 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by shambles1980 View Post
there's a lot of factors to "graphics" you have lighting, shading, textures, colour pallet, as well as mip maping , bump maping, polygons then AA quality or which it uses and all that other stuff..
you could have the exact same everything but change any one of those and people would debate whether graphics were good. just using colours that some deem too vibrant would cause a debate.
And people can use the same engine with the same tech doing the same amount of work but that does not mean that it will look the same.

So im not quite sure which part of graphics you are saying is not subjective.
Some parts are measurable no doubt, but the overall out come will never be the same even if the measurable parts are equal "resolution, polygons, aa, etc"; the outcome will be subjective, and the outcome is "graphics"

now if we compare this:

to this:


and we debate which looks better it will end up being a subjective debate.. one uses some blurring smudging the textures up a bit and adds some fogging effect. but for the most part uses a better pallet.

the other one has a much more crisp look not blurring things, but also suffers a bit because of that. and color vibrancy is a bit high. the fogging effect is more uniformed and so obscures less of the area, and atleast from a distance trees seem to look better. (or do they?)

the games aren't any where near the same age at all.. but people can and will pick and chose parts that are more palatable.
they can also for the most part describe what part of each is displeasing. But what is not pleasing to me may be pleasing to you..
and that is without entering in to the art style debate where you have games like borderlands.

Im not saying fallout looks as good as it could. im not saying it looks as good as some other games that probably spent the same money. All im saying is the games that look better for the same money are lacking in other departments, its a balance all game devs have to address. and in the case of fallout. im sorry but they are right to prioritize graphics lower than core game features, and i think others should do the same.
I see your point, but what is subjective is their approach to generating what they think looks the best. What is debatable as you point out is the palette, contrast (however palette and contract could be chosen due to aesthetics - think of WoW and how vibrant it is), what the devs want to put more time into etc. It is the same as saying "what makes the best sports car?". No one will claim a slow heap that breaks down is the best as you have metrics e.g. must go fast - fast being based on what is possible. The same goes for graphics e.g. must have good textures, clear objects, and so on.
But if we compared both screenshots to say, Minecraft , it would be impossible to argue that MC had better graphics and that proves my point. Graphics do have metrics. Aesthetics however do not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SPS View Post
You don't make sense.
What are you mentioning wireframes for?

Thing is, I can reject that statement and I will reject it, you can't compare poly count to measure quality of graphics. You could develop a heuristic to take into account technical data as a ratio of how good it looks, but determining if something looks good is subjective.
It makes perfect sense and I was just showing why your analogy was wrong. Sure, you can reject it like rejecting the world is round. Doesn't mean you are right though.
And you can quite easily determine if something looks good (technically)- compare it to actual life or the best cgi possible and go from there. That isn't exactly rocket science.
But if you are talking about the "I think this painting looks good", then you are talking about aesthetics as I've mentioned before.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 06-11-15, 04:15 PM
SPS SPS is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 6,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jbo1234 View Post
It makes perfect sense and I was just showing why your analogy was wrong. Sure, you can reject it like rejecting the world is round. Doesn't mean you are right though.
And you can quite easily determine if something looks good (technically)- compare it to actual life or the best cgi possible and go from there. That isn't exactly rocket science.
But if you are talking about the "I think this painting looks good", then you are talking about aesthetics as I've mentioned before.
Umm, no. You're saying that for something to be technically impressive then it must look photo-realistc.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 06-11-15, 05:10 PM
Jbo1234's Avatar
Jbo1234 Jbo1234 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPS View Post
Umm, no. You're saying that for something to be technically impressive then it must look photo-realistc.
Well they aim to be photo realistic. This is why so many ingame techniques are just simplified attempts at things like ray shading. Anything else is aesthetics rather than just graphics..as I've said numerous times now. Both can be separate - take Limbo. Dire graphics (but it is only a side scroller) but great aesthetics.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 06-11-15, 05:22 PM
SPS SPS is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 6,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jbo1234 View Post
Well they aim to be photo realistic. This is why so many ingame techniques are just simplified attempts at things like ray shading. Anything else is aesthetics rather than just graphics..as I've said numerous times now. Both can be separate - take Limbo. Dire graphics (but it is only a side scroller) but great aesthetics.
Ray shading?
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 06-11-15, 06:05 PM
shambles1980's Avatar
shambles1980 shambles1980 is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: North wales
Posts: 1,185
the sports car analogy is reasonably good. you can make a really fast car "best possible gfx" but it's only any good in a straight line.

you can make a slower car but is decent at going round corners too..

or you can make a hot hatch. which is fast enough, but wont win any competitions. corners really well, and can take the kids to school, and bring your shopping home all at the same time..
Hot hatch's sell really well and are all round better.

its all about balance.
And there aren't that many people who just want to go fast in a straight line.
__________________
i7 2600, intel dz77sl-50k, 16gb 1600 DDR3, 900d case, gtx 780 @ 1306/1727 "xspc block", 1x 240 1x360 1x480 rads 2 bay res, http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14829772
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 06-11-15, 11:07 PM
Jbo1234's Avatar
Jbo1234 Jbo1234 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPS View Post
Ray shading?
*Ray tracing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shambles1980 View Post
the sports car analogy is reasonably good. you can make a really fast car "best possible gfx" but it's only any good in a straight line.

you can make a slower car but is decent at going round corners too..

or you can make a hot hatch. which is fast enough, but wont win any competitions. corners really well, and can take the kids to school, and bring your shopping home all at the same time..
Hot hatch's sell really well and are all round better.

its all about balance.
And there aren't that many people who just want to go fast in a straight line.
Very true and good examples. Though I want my games to be the Bentley/Rolls Royces as they can do everything but just come with a big price tag
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 06-11-15, 11:48 PM
shambles1980's Avatar
shambles1980 shambles1980 is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: North wales
Posts: 1,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jbo1234 View Post
*Ray tracing.



Very true and good examples. Though I want my games to be the Bentley/Rolls Royces as they can do everything but just come with a big price tag

with fear of taking it OT..
those dont corner well. and arent that fast, and suprizingly little space for shopping lol.
__________________
i7 2600, intel dz77sl-50k, 16gb 1600 DDR3, 900d case, gtx 780 @ 1306/1727 "xspc block", 1x 240 1x360 1x480 rads 2 bay res, http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14829772
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump










All times are GMT. The time now is 08:02 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.