Was the move to HD graphics+ worth it? - The Bear and Badger

Moot_Geeza

Blue Swirl wrote:

It'll all be worth it when the HD Zelda hits Wii U.

Cartoon style visuals do seem to benefit from HD, moreso than I expected. It depends on the game, but it also highlights the lack of progression in the newer consoles when it comes to this style of visuals. Mario Kart 8 looks lovelier than Knack, for example. Unless the more expansive world of Zelda makes it take a sizeable hit in fidelity when compared to World or Toad, there doesn't seem any pressing need for Nintendo games to improve visually, which is why Zelda is the game I'm most looking forward to viewing too.

Fight Night Round 3 is probably the high water mark of 'omg HD' for me, but I've welcomed it since (its just become standard). So yes, HD is good.

davyK

HD+ would be worth the journey if Treasure got their finger out and created a new Parodius.

Speedhaak

Hard to be objective here. I guess my biggest fear is that development cycles have to reach a boiling point. We can't keep progressing in a way that sees games taking longer and longer and longer to go from concept to finished product. I can deal with a year or two, but anything over this is starting to push it in my eyes. Some of the biggest contributions to disappointment this generation has been over-hyped product. Because they're in the public eye for so long, certain games get long in the tooth before they've even been released.

Skerret

I still marvel at graphix occasionally. Wandering around GTAV, in the hills overlooking the city, wee shivers. brb

I'm not bothered about fidelity after the first few hours, if it plays like shit I'm not interested.

mistercrayon

JonB wrote:

Paul the sparky wrote:

Still not sure where the upgrade to HD comes into all of this.

Yeah, it's not that specifically, more general changes based on the size and scope of big games now. There's too much breadth and not enough depth in something like GTA, and it's got worse as they've got more ambitious, which is related to the tech available.

This is basically It for me. The amount of work just to be accacceptable now feels much higher to the detriment of new ideas and systems in the top tier of games. This knocks onto the time it takes for new games to be made and their eventual cost. The principle benefit seems to have been graphics which are great but I don't feel the graphical upgrade is that significant to the progress of games since about 2006.

davyK

Time and effort means money. Big money has to equate to low risk. Which means more of the same - not new stuff.

Pretty pictures have always disguised lack of innovation - at least when it comes to the less discerning customer - which nowadays - lets face it and at the risk of being elitist - is the majority since gaming has become close to mainstream.

Too many people who know little and care even less for the medium have input to what is churned out now. It's business now.

Roujin

It was worth it.

GG Xrd finally gave us 3d stuff that looks convincingly like 2d stuff, as opposed to 3d stuff you can tell is being cell shaded to look 2d.

Brooks

Is that much to do with any of the console corps, exactly? You're right, it's a real breakthrough, but.

mistercrayon

Roujin wrote:

It was worth it.

GG Xrd finally gave us 3d stuff that looks convincingly like 2d stuff, as opposed to 3d stuff you can tell is being cell shaded to look 2d.

The first time I saw vexille I felt the same.

Smang

Brooks wrote:

Is that much to do with any of the console corps, exactly? You're right, it's a real breakthrough, but.

resolution really helps the effect, it's noticeable when you compare the PS4 version for the PS3 one.

Xrd looks better than any 2d fighter in that one sense - you can't see any jaggies. even the smoothest 2D animations had them back in the day innit.

i guess Dragons crown is another game that mainly benefits form modern resolutions.

Brooks

No I mean was any of that development paid for by Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo etc. Beyond-HD has been the reality on PCs for yonks, it's only when the next round of set-top boxes emerge that the gen is considered to change, which is a bit weird.

[Deleted User]

For me, yes. This 4k PC Witcher 3 screenshot would be far blurrier and less impressive looking at lower resolutions:

Roujin

Devs finally on the cusp of bettering modded Skyrim it seems, this pleases me. I really should get onto The Witcher, got 1 and 2 in a steam sale, played an hour or so of 1 but got mad bored. Even more bored then when I get bored of looking at modded Skyrim and actually have to try and play the fucking thing.

djchump

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-03-21-rich-stanton-on-other-worlds-and-the-inner-eye

[Deleted User]

VR would be pretty fucked without HD screens.

LazyGunn

modded skyrim sucks arse

and its completely obvious vr would be fucked without hd screens, you talk about pixel pitch to your own vision, a reg monitor contains a 1080p image in a small recatangle that at normal viewing distances (at a desk) maybe takes up a 1/20th of your vision? In VR it is 100% of your vision, VR needs a lot of grunt, it can be acceptable on 1080p (im perfectly happy with 1080p in my usage) but to recreate the pixel pitch of a monitor youre looking at 10k+

When everyones had a go and realised.. they cant go back, the somewhat incremental advances in gpu power will explode, which is fine becauise they can do this, incremental improvements is not a hardware limitation but a market force limitation, crazy resolutions, at crazy refresh rates, will become standard, they already can, but VR puts the the heat on it (The transition to AR even more heat)

[Deleted User]

Jesus fucking wept.

mistercrayon

The FUTURE!

LazyGunn

Some artists left with twiddling thumbs for a few days?

Bollockoff

I'd rather have real time calorie counting so I could purposefully be a fat Witcher the entire game.

Roujin

The article clearly states its not real Tim beard growth though so everyone can can calm the fuck down and back away from the ledge.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories