PDA

View Full Version : What graphic features interest you the most ?


Pages : [1] 2

SH64
09-20-05, 10:50 AM
Ok this question goes for both PC & console guys .. no discrimination :D
what graphic features interest you the most when playing a game ??
graphics wh0res version of the Q : what graphic features make your penis stand up ?? :condom:

Me like the shadows & lighting system .. the more advanced the more the jer..err interest :D
afterall i see it as the basic feature for any game to get it toward reality. without advanced lights & shadows the game is dead IMO.

my friend though would sacrifice his life just to see some bump-mapping .. yep! he want to reinstall UT2004 from scratch just to see the bumpmaps in the Icecube map heh.

so what is yours ?

msxyz
09-20-05, 11:19 AM
Texture quality for me is mandatory... The games that left me satisifed in this area over tha last 5 years can be counted on the fingers of one hand. There's nothing like approaching a surface and see it becoming a blurred splotch of colored squares

Then comes bump mapping in all its forms... from the simple fake like microtexturing to the most advanced like offset mapping (no game yet but featured in Oblivion and UT2007).

|MaguS|
09-20-05, 11:29 AM
I have to choose Texture Quality and Lighting/Shadow System. They both create a far more immersive enviroment. I look at WoW which has such great art but the lack of any decent shadowing hurts it alot IMO.

DoomUK
09-20-05, 11:33 AM
I voted for 'Other', as I can't really choose what exact area of graphics interests/impresses me the most. Since Far Cry, Doom 3 et all a modern game environment can't skip any of the stated if it is to be considered graphically immersive imo.

Edge
09-20-05, 11:53 AM
Good lighting and shadows are pretty important to me, I still remember playing Nocturn for the first time and being amazed at how it looked. Plus it's one of the few raw graphic effects that can have a major affect on gameplay.

However, I'd have to say that the most impressive recent overall technology enhancement would be physics. Though really, physics does count as a graphic effect too, except through animation and motion rather than image quality.

Ninjaman09
09-20-05, 12:37 PM
Lighting, by far. A more realistic lighting system can go much further in creating a realistic scene, in my opinion, than any of the other graphic technologies (though displacement mapping is close).

superklye
09-20-05, 12:52 PM
Textures, but bump/parallax mapping is a close second.

stncttr908
09-20-05, 01:20 PM
The first thing I do when I get a new game is look for some water. :D

Intel17
09-20-05, 02:53 PM
I think any one feature alone is not sufficient to make something look good. It's the combination of multiple features that allows a game to look good. I've written a few simple graphics demos showing off certain new rendering features, but they still look like crap compared to a complete, older engine with a game built on it.

I am quite partial to Phong-Shading though! :)

SH64
09-20-05, 02:55 PM
I think any one feature alone is not sufficient to make something look good. It's the combination of multiple features that allows a game to look good. I've written a few simple graphics demos showing off certain new rendering features, but they still look like crap compared to a complete, older engine with a game built on it.

I am quite partial to Phong-Shading though! :)

We already know that.
The question wasnt "which feature is better ?" , but rather "which or what interest you more" ?

jAkUp
09-20-05, 03:04 PM
I'm gonna have to go with texture quality. Max Payne 2 was an amazing looking game, it lacked nice graphical features but the textures were amazing.

I think the reflection/refraction of water is a close second however. RT Shadows are nice, but not a huge deal to me :)

SH64
09-20-05, 03:06 PM
I'm gonna have to go with texture quality. Max Payne 2 was an amazing looking game, it lacked nice graphical features but the textures were amazing.

I think the reflection/refraction of water is a close second however. RT Shadows are nice, but not a huge deal to me :)

What ? you no like b00b-mapping ? :(

jAkUp
09-20-05, 03:09 PM
Thats 3rd place ;)

nrs421
09-20-05, 03:31 PM
all of them.....

Intel17
09-20-05, 03:40 PM
We already know that.
The question wasnt "which feature is better ?" , but rather "which or what interest you more" ?

Well, again, from a development perspective, no feature really is awe-inducing when in isolation (HDR in isolation isn't very interesting, nor are any other latest DX9-level feature), and they all are dependent on one another to make a dramatic impact.

Now, from a coding perspective, I think that realistic lighting models are infinitely interesting. :D

Ruined
09-20-05, 03:51 PM
Since Doom3 was to me the most visually impressive game overall recently, I'll have to go with Lighting/Shadowing.

Aphot
09-20-05, 04:22 PM
I really like the lighting part, and I love the shadows in FEAR, they are so good.

LycosV
09-20-05, 07:02 PM
Textures make a game look good. With some sharp texturing you can forgive a lack of realistic lighting and bump mapping.

I think something you didn't list that I find the most impressive though is raw polygonal power. When I loaded up UT2003 for the first time and they had all those hanging cables and metal hand holds all over the map I was awestruck. The move from fake (2d textures or bumpmapping) to real 3D has always been the most impressive improvement in my book.

aAv7
09-20-05, 07:06 PM
i voted textures, without hig quality textures, I dont care how good your lighting is....doom 3 is a perfect example of great lighting mixed with sh*t textures. Textures make a game...look at ut2k4.

MustangSVT
09-20-05, 07:36 PM
I voted textures. The stuff that I look for first thing is always high quality and detailed textures, and then comes the bump mapping (& related). The lighting, yeah, it's very important, but I'm always impressed by good textures and good bump mapping more.

russ_3d
09-20-05, 08:15 PM
i voted other - this procedural stuff that slick was (i think it was him defending xbox) talking about sounds the best imho.

having another core change stuff on the fly and send that to renderer (im not sure the technicalities) is the coolest.

procedural textures. zoom as far as you want - never the same texture - cool. check.

procedural geometry. again, never the same beast twice? cool. check.

and, if im not mistaken this may bring up the realm of procedural animation -

which is one of the holy grails of game graphics as far as im concerned.

surely all these scripted scenes look ace because of the animations are good, and not wooden, if you can make every jump individual and footsteps random - that would take a large chunk of immersion and shove it into ur head. so to speak.

if im wrong sorry, im just thinking out aloud and may have taken what was said wrong, as i do all the time. but this would be the coolest if possible.

Acid Rain
09-20-05, 11:12 PM
You really pinned me with this one. I get fragged while staring like a deer in headlights at all these goodies. I had to go with the mapping technologies, as they can bring dull textured surfaces to life, and done right, they look amazing, virtually making traditional texturing obsolete. I love the 3D illusion they create. Following that, I'd say water (done right), post processing effects and lighting/shadowing systems are tied. Hell, they are all tied!!! Why'd you do this to us???

jAkUp
09-20-05, 11:17 PM
BTW, nice topic SH64 :) I like these type of discussions.

SH64
09-21-05, 09:38 AM
BTW, nice topic SH64 :) I like these type of discussions.

Thanks me too :)
before getting into any game i like to inspect the graphics tech used first .. i think i'm turning into a graphics wh0re without knowing about it heh ..
same goes to me friends aswell.

Skinner
09-21-05, 09:51 AM
Textures all the way. Offcourse only textures make no level, but I can't live without higres (and nice) textures.