#1 Posted by AnnouncerGXZ (702 posts) -

DIRT 2 graphic look better than DIRT 3

WWE SMACKDOWN VS RAW 2008 graphic look better WWE 12

MOTORSTORM PACIFIC RIFT graphic look better than MOTORSTORM APOCALYPSE

why?

#2 Posted by selbie (1991 posts) -

Because video games.

#3 Posted by LordXavierBritish (6319 posts) -

Time travel.

#4 Posted by Little_Socrates (5733 posts) -

Because the technical fidelity-based arms race is finally coming to a close and we're in a day and age where it's not even remotely controversial to refer to Journey as the best looking game on the PS3.

#5 Posted by prestonhedges (1960 posts) -

Because the consoles won.

#6 Posted by JasonR86 (9742 posts) -

@AnnouncerGXZ said:

DIRT 2 graphic look better than DIRT 3

WWE SMACKDOWN VS RAW 2008 graphic look better WWE 12

MOTORSTORM PACIFIC RIFT graphic look better than MOTORSTORM APOCALYPSE

why?

Because that's your opinion. I think it's wrong and that's my opinion.

...opinions, man.

Online
#7 Posted by FreakAche (2957 posts) -

AnnouncerGXZ is back!

#8 Posted by deathstriker666 (1337 posts) -

Don't you get so annoy?

#9 Posted by Blackout62 (1442 posts) -

@Little_Socrates said:

Because the technical fidelity-based arms race is finally coming to a close and we're in a day and age where it's not even remotely controversial to refer to Journey as the best looking game on the PS3.

Journey is pretty damned good looking, though I wish they'd found a way to hide the aliasing.

#10 Edited by WilltheMagicAsian (1542 posts) -

I no, it annoy me sometimes as well. Why can't game all look like crysis? (Ironically, Crysis 2 felt like a downgrade over Crysis Warhead, although Crytek 3 seems like better tech.)

#11 Posted by Patman99 (1633 posts) -

@Little_Socrates said:

Because the technical fidelity-based arms race is finally coming to a close and we're in a day and age where it's not even remotely controversial to refer to Journey as the best looking game on the PS3.

Although I agree with the notion of perhaps more artistically engaging visual styles becoming more of a focus in discussing graphics, the idea that we are at the "peak" of the evolution of graphics is wrong. You didnt exactly say that but a lot of people have. Yeah, the "arms-race" may be slowing but it will never stop and we will always slowly be improving in the graphics department. But Journey and other games with a similar approach on graphics are quickly becoming my preferred graphical style.

#12 Posted by Sackmanjones (4773 posts) -

Uhhh

#13 Posted by hoossy (943 posts) -
#14 Posted by ESREVER (2707 posts) -

I'd go as far as to say Wizorb is the best looking game of the year for me so far. Actually, it may be tied with Journey.

#15 Posted by TruthTellah (9534 posts) -

We're at the time in the console cycle where mechanics are differentiating games far more than pure graphics; so, if cutting the graphics back a bit can make the game more complex or run better, developers seem to be taking that route over cutting features for the sake of pure graphics power.

Online
#16 Posted by Little_Socrates (5733 posts) -

@Patman99: Didn't mean to imply that graphics could no longer be improved; actually, at some point, we will hopefully reach a point that causes current graphics to look completely ridiculous. But games already cost too much to make these days; one way to cut cost is to slow fidelity and asset development. The goal right now for game developers is to figure out how to make amazing games in the scope of an epic title or experience while still finding a way to cut some spending.

#17 Posted by ZenaxPure (2569 posts) -
@FreakAche said:
AnnouncerGXZ is back!
He has always been an enigma to me, I wish there was like a documentary of his life or something. Based on his posts over the years I can only imagine he is a fascinating individual.
#18 Edited by DarthOrange (3921 posts) -

@AnnouncerGXZ said:

#19 Posted by biospank (657 posts) -

uh motorstorm they needed to make it 3d so less awesome-like graphics needed to make a stable fps.

#20 Posted by Stonyman65 (2915 posts) -

@gladspooky said:

Because the consoles won.

Actually, PCs won. That's why everyone is making console games now.

And THAT is why we are having this problem in the first place.

#21 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7617 posts) -

It's simply because people care less about graphics these days. We would rather have better features, more cars on the track, games that move at 60fps, or simply a better art style. As others have said, Journey is so far, easily the best looking game this year, despite being very simplistic. Creating a better user experience is more important than "OMG, THIS IS TEH BEST LOOKING GAME EVER" (until the next game comes out).

Expect the next-gen systems to continue like this.

#22 Posted by iam3green (14390 posts) -

changing stuff. i don't know either. i do wish that they used the engine that they used crysis on. i have to say that its' the best graphics engine out there.

#23 Posted by Patman99 (1633 posts) -

@Little_Socrates: Ah, that makes more sense. I agree. I personally love games that try to have a more artistic art style. Really puts the visual art aspect into video games.

#24 Posted by fuzzybunny566 (454 posts) -

8-bit 4 life!

#25 Posted by DeF (5001 posts) -

ooh ... teh graphikz

#26 Posted by AlexanderSheen (5150 posts) -

@DarthOrange said:

@AnnouncerGXZ said:

Aren't you annoy?

#27 Posted by Saethir (352 posts) -

I think the simple explanation, though I can't say if it is right, would be to blame feature creep. The games are running on the same tech, but the sequel wants to do more things. Therefore the priority gets shifted to that rather than making the graphics better, and in some cases, the graphics are worse to allow things like more enemies, different lighting, larger environments, or what have you.

#28 Posted by Humanity (10490 posts) -

Every game I bought at the end of 2011 made me think the graphics made a real leap forward compared to the games from late 2010. Dead Space 2 looked phenomenal, Gears 3 looked better than past gears games. Arkham City looked on bar if not better with Asylum.Skyrim looked great and certainly better than Oblivion or any of the Fallouts. Saints Row the Third looked a ton better than Saints Row 2 etc etc. I'm not really seeing it.

At most I thought Battlefield 3 didn't look all that much different than Bad Company 2 (on console that is) but I think it was just all the weird special effects they slapped on BF3.

#29 Posted by Hockeymask27 (3683 posts) -

Usually do to fps concerns. Lots of 07 sport games had awesome detail and sweat but only ran at 30 fps max.

#30 Posted by Bulby33 (622 posts) -

I remember Gears 3 and Uncharted 3 looking much better than Gears 2 and Uncharted 2, respectively. Lots of games look better looking than their predecessors.

#31 Posted by James_Giant_Peach (751 posts) -

Because the Mayans were right!

#32 Posted by AlexW00d (6503 posts) -

Because consoles.

Although Dirt 3 does indeed to look better than Dirt 2.

Online
#33 Posted by Demoskinos (15300 posts) -

Joke topic right? Right? =\

#34 Posted by believer258 (12323 posts) -

I'd rather have better performance than better graphics. A game with flat textures that moves at a constant 60FPS? I'll take it!

Yeah, I know, I could just get a gaming PC. Next generation, maybe. Right now I can't justify that when already owning a nice laptop and an Xbox.

#35 Posted by Slaegar (746 posts) -

@WinterSnowblind said:

It's simply because people care less about graphics these days. We would rather have better features, more cars on the track, games that move at 60fps, or simply a better art style. As others have said, Journey is so far, easily the best looking game this year, despite being very simplistic. Creating a better user experience is more important than "OMG, THIS IS TEH BEST LOOKING GAME EVER" (until the next game comes out).

Expect the next-gen systems to continue like this.

You know they took the ability to holster your gun away in Mass Effect 3 to save resources used to make the game look "better"?

http://www.giantbomb.com/mass-effect-3/61-29935/holster-your-weapon-help/35-538697/

You must be ignoring all the thing they sacrifice to make games look marginally better on consoles.

As for me, my game graphics keep looking better. Crysis to Metro 2033 to Battlefield 3, heck my games look better all the time:

http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/browse?searchtexthidden=&childpublishedfileid=0&section=items&appid=72850&browsesort=trend&requiredtags%5B%5D=Graphics

#36 Posted by xbob42 (552 posts) -

Because the consoles are old as fuck and as games get bigger they have to look worse on these ancient ass consoles to actually fucking run.

#37 Posted by phrali (646 posts) -

TOPICS ARE GETTING STUPIDER ALL THE TIME WHHHYYYYY

#38 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7617 posts) -

@Slaegar: There are obviously exceptions. Some companies/people still think graphics are the only thing that matters, even if it means sacrificing gameplay. In my opinion, that's stupid.

And no, I don't care about your PC.

#39 Posted by Masha2932 (1242 posts) -

I actually prefer that games graphics embrace unique artistic art styles instead of the realism most games are striving for. Games like POP 08, Valkyria chronicles, Wind waker, Okami, El-Shaddai will still look great years from now because of their distinct styles. Many 2D side scrollers from the NES era still look good as well.

#40 Posted by Wikitoups (921 posts) -
@Stonyman65

@gladspooky said:

Because the consoles won.

Actually, PCs won. That's why everyone is making console games now.

And THAT is why we are having this problem in the first place.

CONSPIRACY!!!!
#41 Posted by fox01313 (5089 posts) -

Depends on the schedule of the game, amount of people at the studio (if the same studio) that they put to it & if there's some differences in the engines used between the game. I remember from the bombcast where they were talking about the game Damnation & how they downgraded a lot of the art quite a bit from how it was supposed to look. Maybe they were redoing a lot of the better high resolution art & ran out of time or because of budget they were just going to rush it out without the better art from the previous game. Or maybe you're focusing so much on how different the game looks from the previous one that it blocks the ability of you enjoying playing the sequel.

#42 Posted by ajamafalous (12234 posts) -

Don't you get annoy when graphic go back?

#43 Posted by JasonR86 (9742 posts) -

@phrali said:

TOPICS ARE GETTING STUPIDER ALL THE TIME WHHHYYYYY

Topic go backward with time. Bit like graphic, no?

Online
#44 Posted by Sammo21 (3710 posts) -

the graphics weren't the worst problem with the new Motorstorm. I think they ruined the entire formula for that series. The second Motorstorm is still amazing.

#45 Edited by whyareyoucrouchingspock (975 posts) -

I'v heard some people claim Napoleon looks better than Shogun 2.

It looks more realistic due to the art direction though, Shogun 2 is technically better graphically.

Crysis 2 is the main one that comes to mind. The tight enviroments, uninteractive enviroments and lack of draw distance was a sign of console development. Waste of money. Crytek big sellouts.

#46 Posted by Yanngc33 (4461 posts) -

@fuzzybunny566 said:

8-bit 4 life!

awwwwww snap