PSO2 & graphics

[FacelessRed]

There better be some graphical updates in this game's future, 'cause it's gonna look REAL long in the tooth when the next-gen consoles hit...

Next gen consoles are not using anything different than current PC's are using. The game like many MMO's was designed to be playable by a wide range of Machine specs.

In other words, the game graphically isn't going to be any more or less at odds with the current graphics world or the one 10 years from now.

[Z-0]

He's saying that even at "maximum graphics", this game is pretty much current gen. It's nothing spectacular and isn't exactly breathtaking.

[pkemr4]

by the time next gen consoles come out there graphics power will be 1 year behind pc's graphics.... capabilitys

[Zyrusticae]

by the time next gen consoles come out there graphics power will be 1 year behind pc's graphics.... capabilitys
And PSO2 itself was waaaaaaaaaaaaaay behind top-end graphics on PCs to begin with, plus the baseline rising means that PC multiplatform games will be far superior graphically to anything we saw on the current generation short of games like Crysis 3 and Metro: Last Light.

More to the point, though, let's be honest - the environments look like ass now. There is literally nothing in the environments that makes me think "wow" like the original PSO did. Even if all they did was upgrade the shaders (like NCSoft did with Aion 2.5), that would be a major improvement over what we have now.

Even next to other online games - TERA and FFXIV especially - the game simply does not hold up well. The only thing that stands out are the character and monster graphics, and that's about it. We don't get any fancy particle effects or nifty shader effects or anything to that effect, just the bare minimum to not look like a last-generation game.

Of course, on the upside, this means that the framerate is pretty stable and I will likely be able to run it smoothly at 4k resolution when I get an upgrade down the line, but that's really not very encouraging as once another year or two passes, it will really start to look horribly dated in comparison.

Just look at FFXIV'x Thanalan, and try to compare that to PSO2's desert, and you'll just leave horribly depressed.
[spoiler-box]https://sd4xaw.blu.livefilestore.com/y2pU3beb_BPZ7hnUgsoMOEhWDKRVipnrn_fEsoINFyPIe47wx9 USBrnSlzvaaRdqS1dZlKLuIaC1gPim86ntA60ome2EDSn2yZKg 6g1mVLf7Y0/ffxiv.exe_DX9_20130817_165407.jpg?psid=1
https://sd4xaw.blu.livefilestore.com/y2pm2LrYIYizpkdmSAiREKTYZYUZr4HyTqhGKUafU6LVaElY0b M7t0ggprSFxkEKf5IRAJNJXIDFNDHbSCxFetGLiKZs9thLaNU0 oz7CVnS5BY/ffxiv.exe_DX9_20130817_165312.jpg?psid=1
https://sd4xaw.blu.livefilestore.com/y2p5tGL6Yp3xqztiFgbOkvejM4Z7NRjEBWI5MVBpd-90wNS8cPoQBoseo0Q6oIblfKA1fLsC_e1L_FwI1v3POTG91R7g rVdxMN47Bhw8koV6nQ/ffxiv.exe_DX9_20130817_025725.jpg?psid=1
https://sd4xaw.blu.livefilestore.com/y2p6bQH687hKmG7rRP7qYO7iV1T2_7lfNNqxKJibOXGh-Ek5XfXYQuDePrwfNi1ydvkfndx1nCStCIkFSW_ievFjzWTgzwe vwi9PJT8ZcNCIpU/ffxiv.exe_DX9_20130817_023640.jpg?psid=1
[/spoiler-box]

[gigawuts]

And PSO2 itself was waaaaaaaaaaaaaay behind top-end graphics on PCs to begin with, plus the baseline rising means that PC multiplatform games will be far superior graphically to anything we saw on the current generation short of games like Crysis 3 and Metro: Last Light.

More to the point, though, let's be honest - the environments look like ass now. There is literally nothing in the environments that makes me think "wow" like the original PSO did. Even if all they did was upgrade the shaders (like NCSoft did with Aion 2.5), that would be a major improvement over what we have now.

Even next to other online games - TERA and FFXIV especially - the game simply does not hold up well. The only thing that stands out are the character and monster graphics, and that's about it. We don't get any fancy particle effects or nifty shader effects or anything to that effect, just the bare minimum to not look like a last-generation game.

Of course, on the upside, this means that the framerate is pretty stable and I will likely be able to run it smoothly at 4k resolution when I get an upgrade down the line, but that's really not very encouraging as once another year or two passes, it will really start to look horribly dated in comparison.

Just look at FFXIV'x Thanalan, and try to compare that to PSO2's desert, and you'll just leave horribly depressed.
[spoiler-box]https://sd4xaw.blu.livefilestore.com/y2pU3beb_BPZ7hnUgsoMOEhWDKRVipnrn_fEsoINFyPIe47wx9 USBrnSlzvaaRdqS1dZlKLuIaC1gPim86ntA60ome2EDSn2yZKg 6g1mVLf7Y0/ffxiv.exe_DX9_20130817_165407.jpg?psid=1
https://sd4xaw.blu.livefilestore.com/y2pm2LrYIYizpkdmSAiREKTYZYUZr4HyTqhGKUafU6LVaElY0b M7t0ggprSFxkEKf5IRAJNJXIDFNDHbSCxFetGLiKZs9thLaNU0 oz7CVnS5BY/ffxiv.exe_DX9_20130817_165312.jpg?psid=1
https://sd4xaw.blu.livefilestore.com/y2p5tGL6Yp3xqztiFgbOkvejM4Z7NRjEBWI5MVBpd-90wNS8cPoQBoseo0Q6oIblfKA1fLsC_e1L_FwI1v3POTG91R7g rVdxMN47Bhw8koV6nQ/ffxiv.exe_DX9_20130817_025725.jpg?psid=1
https://sd4xaw.blu.livefilestore.com/y2p6bQH687hKmG7rRP7qYO7iV1T2_7lfNNqxKJibOXGh-Ek5XfXYQuDePrwfNi1ydvkfndx1nCStCIkFSW_ievFjzWTgzwe vwi9PJT8ZcNCIpU/ffxiv.exe_DX9_20130817_023640.jpg?psid=1
[/spoiler-box]

i don't want to be a dick but even those screens look like they were taken right out of Reboot

[Zyrusticae]

i don't want to be a dick but even those screens look like they were taken right out of Reboot
If that looks like Reboot, what does PSO2 look like? Papercraft?
[spoiler-box]https://ucxrag.bn1.livefilestore.com/y2puXYhrz-C6wl56gvsczHyLawF6-_hHz9bYYUCVgXmByVvu0pplGGAjQYnkXAJA3FNLnSb29uEZJ-S_910i0Od5sXJ_5G5X3S2EMc9HTNGaBY/pso20130402_192245_007.jpg?psid=1[/spoiler-box]

[gigawuts]

If that looks like Reboot, what does PSO2 look like? Papercraft?
[spoiler-box]https://ucxrag.bn1.livefilestore.com/y2puXYhrz-C6wl56gvsczHyLawF6-_hHz9bYYUCVgXmByVvu0pplGGAjQYnkXAJA3FNLnSb29uEZJ-S_910i0Od5sXJ_5G5X3S2EMc9HTNGaBY/pso20130402_192245_007.jpg?psid=1[/spoiler-box]

Well, yes, actually...

(I was more thinking paper mache though)

[Zyrusticae]

Welll... yeah, I'd much rather it look like Reboot than papercraft. :)

In an ideal world, they'd catch up to TERA's lovingly detailed environments, but this is SEGA, so...

[blinddagger]

I think pso2 graphics are fine, they really arent that important in the grand scheme but the game needs more competition besides tacos

[jooozek]

HEY AT LEAST YOU CAN PLAY IT ON YOUR VITA JUST LIKE YOU COULD PLAY PSU ON PS2

[gigawuts]

Jesus, in an ideal world they'd catch up to PSO1's lovingly detailed environments.

They threw together some pretty beautiful settings with gamecube graphics on, I believe, what was still the same engine used on the DC version (just on better hardware). I could be wrong on that, though.

What really matters is the setting and its presentation, not the poly count or texture resolution. I'll take rocks that look like cubes in a beautiful, uncluttered environment over crysis-level graphics with a busy, distracting, ugly environment.

[blinddagger]

HEY AT LEAST YOU CAN PLAY IT ON YOUR VITA JUST LIKE YOU COULD PLAY PSU ON PS2

Qft, thats a pretty great leap in gaming to be on the go and still be able to play with your friends on the pc, pso2 is a great game in its own right for all of us pve loving wanna be anime heroes lol

[Zyrusticae]

Yeah, I just can't agree with that. Times have moved on since then. No amount of artistry is going to make low-fidelity 3D graphics look good in this day and age.

Not that it matters, the point is that it's unnecessary to be so conservative, especially when you have the option to scale graphics down for slower PCs. Throw me a bone, at least?

[gigawuts]

Yeah, I just can't agree with that. Times have moved on since then. No amount of artistry is going to make low-fidelity 3D graphics look good in this day and age.

Not that it matters, the point is that it's unnecessary to be so conservative, especially when you have the option to scale graphics down for slower PCs. Throw me a bone, at least?

Man, you must hate books.

I just don't value high res graphics. I don't see the point of them. If I wanted hyper realism I'd just open my front door. What I want is an interesting, well thought out, generally neat environment in my games.

Something like seabed or mines from PSO1 had a beautiful combination of colors, a fairly neat premise, and a nice presentation with stuff filling the area (computer terminals, etc.). It wasn't overly busy, either, and had very different rooms mixed in to break the monotony.

Here though, I dunno. They just don't do that here. The colors all start to meld together, things tend to be busy instead of interesting, etc. I'd like ruins a lot more if the plant growth wasn't so damn visually busy.

But, then, I'm someone that can still go back to Half Life 1 and say it looks good, so what do I know.

[Simperheve]

Graphic quality isn't that important to me. If it were i would have never played Minecraft.

I'm also grateful that PSO2's graphic burden is low. My laptop isn't the greatest in the world and i enjoy being able to play a game without having to scale the graphic options down.

[BlankM]

Man, you must hate books.

I just don't value high res graphics. I don't see the point of them. If I wanted hyper realism I'd just open my front door. What I want is an interesting, well thought out, generally neat environment in my games.

Something like seabed or mines from PSO1 had a beautiful combination of colors, a fairly neat premise, and a nice presentation with stuff filling the area (computer terminals, etc.). It wasn't overly busy, either, and had very different rooms mixed in to break the monotony.

Here though, I dunno. They just don't do that here. The colors all start to meld together, things tend to be busy instead of interesting, etc. I'd like ruins a lot more if the plant growth wasn't so damn visually busy.

But, then, I'm someone that can still go back to Half Life 1 and say it looks good, so what do I know.

Pretty much. I mean, lower-end graphics is what keeps the game accessible to more people. Japan is not really known for their PC gaming and when I was there almost every household's PC was way outdated.

What a game needs to look good is well-designed environments. Its basically aesthetics vs. graphics. There are things I like about PSO2 visually, but design-wise for environments/levels its pretty bland like most MMOs. Big barren open fields, low levels of interaction and variety, and nothing really creative or subtle. A lot of it becomes familiar far too quickly and then instead of taking that familiarity and skewing it in twisted ways that make you second guess yourself, they're simply recycled into other enemies and areas.

I will say I'm interested in the upcoming areas. Coast has been nice, but even when you compare it to a map like seaside in PSOBB its lacking a lot. PSOBB's seaside didn't just have a tiny patches of sand sorrounded by water. It was a genuine environment, a location. It had tiny enclosed caves to walk in, plateaus you could teleport on top of, coasts that had boxes hidden in tiny corners with shallow bits of water you didn't even know you could walk into. It was subtle, immersive, and most importantly it was varied. Variety gives the sense of progression, something PSO2 sorely lacks. There is no sense of progression in a game where many things you do hardly differ from your previous activity.

[Zipzo]

There better be some graphical updates in this game's future, 'cause it's gonna look REAL long in the tooth when the next-gen consoles hit...

Hasn't stopped other games going on 20 year ages...

[gigawuts]

I really like coast; I feel like it's the best designed area so far. It's got some pretty interesting rooms, nice theming, a beautiful combination of colors, and neat things in the background to keep it interesting.

It's absolutely a step in the right direction.

[Z-0]

On the other hand I feel coast is very bland and boring... It's just a big beach if you're playing Beach Wars or Free Field. Org Blan's map design however, is much more interesting and we should see more of that.

[The Walrus]

Beach looks pretty, has good music and the best Free Field boss in the game...other than that meh.

I have no idea how this is gonna continue for 9 more years...

[Shirokami]

Beach looks pretty, has good music and the best Free Field boss in the game...other than that meh.

I have no idea how this is gonna continue for 9 more years...

Aion got a graphics boost patch, why not PSO2?

[The Walrus]

I wasn't talking about the graphics. I meant the game in general.

[Zyrusticae]

Hasn't stopped other games going on 20 year ages...
None of them have subscriber/player counts worth a damn.

And the one that does - the only one that matters to me - is EVE Online, which does do regular graphics updates, to the point of replacing entire ship designs when they're not up to snuff.

Even World of Warcraft at least does a few token enhancements here and there (even if they don't make as much of a difference as I'd like).

Man, you must hate books.

I just don't value high res graphics. I don't see the point of them. If I wanted hyper realism I'd just open my front door. What I want is an interesting, well thought out, generally neat environment in my games.

Something like seabed or mines from PSO1 had a beautiful combination of colors, a fairly neat premise, and a nice presentation with stuff filling the area (computer terminals, etc.). It wasn't overly busy, either, and had very different rooms mixed in to break the monotony.

Here though, I dunno. They just don't do that here. The colors all start to meld together, things tend to be busy instead of interesting, etc. I'd like ruins a lot more if the plant growth wasn't so damn visually busy.

But, then, I'm someone that can still go back to Half Life 1 and say it looks good, so what do I know.
This is just an absurd argument.

Video games are profoundly visual medium. This is fact. This is inarguable. You may argue whether or not you care that much for the visuals, but that is entirely on you.

This kind of argument is among the same lines as saying that the Renaissance didn't matter because all they were doing was experimenting with various forms of realism, or that CG graphics were perfectly fine twenty years ago even though the lighting was simplistic and the characters were made out of simplified shapes, and compositing was always incredibly obvious and distracting. Sure, some people don't give a shit. I am not one of those people.

The most important thing is that having better graphics does NOT hurt. The worst that can happen is that the minimum requirements go up, but that only happens if you fail to make them scalable. Any shader-based addition can be made entirely optional - furthermore, they can even provide the ability to scale the effect of graphical features themselves (such as changing shadow map resolution, maximum number of light sources, number of particle effects, and so on). There's literally no point to arguing that "better graphics = less people play the game" unless they actually do something like jump up to DX11 or something, and even then that only matters if they make DX11 a requirement (they could very easily make it optional, y'know, like most current-gen games with a DX11 version).

More to the point, I give MANY shits about my graphical quality. I don't give a shit if you don't give a shit, you are irrelevant to me. Your opinion means nothing to me. I paid $800 on my GPUs alone just so I can get the best visuals possible within my budget, and I will be fucked if I simply accept that things will not get better because some guys on the internet don't give a shit.

[Shadowth117]

On the other hand I feel coast is very bland and boring... It's just a big beach if you're playing Beach Wars or Free Field. Org Blan's map design however, is much more interesting and we should see more of that.

Dude, what design? Other than the vague templates that normal missions try to adhere to, its all just... random. No real thought put in other than "hurr we'll shape this place somewhat like this". I'll admit, I thought the idea of randomly generated missions was really cool at first. In some ways, it really is honestly. But the missions just blend together to feel very similar because of this if you ask me. There's nothing memorable about them other than "oh yeah, you do this emergency trial at the end".

The TA missions, story missions, den, and I *guess* the arks gp missions, which are pretty much TA missions with no rewards if you really feel like counting them, are the only missions where we don't have that random layout/spawn crap that plagues every mission. There's not even any regular missions I can honestly say are hard because there's no design in the first place to make them that way. So I suppose you could say I hate how they've made this game into "durr lets hunt for PSE burst gaiz and then spam one powerful aoe attack" rather than "hey, lets all run this mission which may or may not be difficult, and if we all learn it and play it efficiently we'll have more chances at rares" as I was familiar with in PSU, PSP2, etc. There's not even end drops, aside from boss drops, in ANY mission which would help to at least *somewhat* shatter the monotony.

Not to mention there is absolutely jack shit for content designed for people who want to play alone. That's great and all that we've got all these things made for parties I mean, but there is NOTHING specifically for people who want to play alone besides story quests, which are a joke and give nothing to the player so far. And of course in almost every mission, well you better have 4 people or go to hell you're not getting as many spawns and your exp is nerfed. There's no reasonable missions at all designed for 1-3 players to go through, and that's really disappointing to me.

Ahem, forgive me, but I can't honestly call these RNG based maps "designed" almost at all. I seriously want to like this and in some regards I very much do. But things like that are really driving me away from it and it bothers me because this game has potential to be way better than it is. I honestly think, and this is just my opinion before someone decides to go "lolno couldn't happen", that if they seriously put effort into the game with content and they gave a ton more mission variety as well as missions themselves they could totally have a game that destroys the Monster Hunter games and stands alone as a very popular online game internationally. But instead so far it looks to me that the publisher here, at the very least, is intent on keeping this game not only restricted to one region in all honesty, but restricted from gaining the content it needs to actually be good. If nothing else, I think this game's conglomerate of awful review scores, among various things my friends have discussed with me, supports my argument.

[Korazenn]

Yeah, I just can't agree with that. Times have moved on since then. No amount of artistry is going to make low-fidelity 3D graphics look good in this day and age.

Not that it matters, the point is that it's unnecessary to be so conservative, especially when you have the option to scale graphics down for slower PCs. Throw me a bone, at least?

Totally not related, but Super Mario Galaxy, The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, Sonic: Lost World, Sly Cooper (series), LittleBigPlanet, and Portal says "Hi."


Man, you must hate books.

I just don't value high res graphics. I don't see the point of them. If I wanted hyper realism I'd just open my front door. What I want is an interesting, well thought out, generally neat environment in my games.

Definitely.

One example is with an old game I used to play: Starsiege Tribes. The game would still hold up today if it weren't for the main servers being down, but the newer version of the game, Tribes: Ascend, just tried to stick a realistic engine onto the game with bogged down environments and called it a day.

That just doesn't cut it.

Good game design (and any game developer would tell you this) comes down to the actual worlds, settings, triggers, mobs, and more (including things like music and sound fx as both provide ambiance). Not how "cutting-edge" your graphics engine is. As some would say: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Something like seabed or mines from PSO1 had a beautiful combination of colors, a fairly neat premise, and a nice presentation with stuff filling the area (computer terminals, etc.). It wasn't overly busy, either, and had very different rooms mixed in to break the monotony.

I can't even begin to tell you the nightmares to be had when 10-year-old me played through Seabed for the first time. Such a beautifully designed level that would send chills down your spine just by listening to the music. Seabed was the definition of the perfect final level. It sucks because I think that Subterranean Desert wasn't even nearly as captivating as Seabed was. Maybe it's a nostalgia thing. :-?


Here though, I dunno. They just don't do that here. The colors all start to meld together, things tend to be busy instead of interesting, etc. I'd like ruins a lot more if the plant growth wasn't so damn visually busy.

Yeah, it really seems like SEGA just clumped together a bunch of different stage props and had absolutely no thought put into where they should go or how they should be arranged to match up with suitable level design. Out of all levels, I think Amduscia's Volcanic Cave has to be one of the worst, as an example. Twitchy platforming, confusing twists and turns through its maze-like structure, enormous issues with prop-blocking, etc.

Those things they can't really improve now, but I would appreciate them putting more clever thought into their designs with these newer levels from now on, at the very least. I mean, hey, if SEGA is the same company capable of making the each new level in a Sonic game never feel exactly the same as the last one, then I'm sure they can pull through. Other than Nintendo, SEGA is one of the few leading innovators when it comes to game design still left in the industry.

Of course, all this is arguable, but that's not really the point of this discussion in the first place. :-P

[Zipzo]

None of them have subscriber/player counts worth a damn.

Define "worth a damn"?

I doubt people playing Maple Story have any issue forming groups, and that's not even a great game, and has about the worst graphics on MMO market. They have the 2nd most registered users in the world next to League of Legends (which also is pretty shitty looking BTW).


This is just an absurd argument.

Video games are profoundly visual medium. This is fact. This is inarguable. You may argue whether or not you care that much for the visuals, but that is entirely on you.

Your argument is the one that makes no sense. You simply value something that isn't empirically what makes game successful or not. That's on you. There's no question that high quality graphics has the potential to win eyes, hearts, and minds, but to say that it's a necessity is to speak against very real examples that exist and utterly contradict your "inarguable" point.

[gigawuts]

This is just an absurd argument.

Video games are profoundly visual medium. This is fact. This is inarguable. You may argue whether or not you care that much for the visuals, but that is entirely on you.

This kind of argument is among the same lines as saying that the Renaissance didn't matter because all they were doing was experimenting with various forms of realism, or that CG graphics were perfectly fine twenty years ago even though the lighting was simplistic and the characters were made out of simplified shapes, and compositing was always incredibly obvious and distracting. Sure, some people don't give a shit. I am not one of those people.

The most important thing is that having better graphics does NOT hurt. The worst that can happen is that the minimum requirements go up, but that only happens if you fail to make them scalable. Any shader-based addition can be made entirely optional - furthermore, they can even provide the ability to scale the effect of graphical features themselves (such as changing shadow map resolution, maximum number of light sources, number of particle effects, and so on). There's literally no point to arguing that "better graphics = less people play the game" unless they actually do something like jump up to DX11 or something, and even then that only matters if they make DX11 a requirement (they could very easily make it optional, y'know, like most current-gen games with a DX11 version).

More to the point, I give MANY shits about my graphical quality. I don't give a shit if you don't give a shit, you are irrelevant to me. Your opinion means nothing to me. I paid $800 on my GPUs alone just so I can get the best visuals possible within my budget, and I will be fucked if I simply accept that things will not get better because some guys on the internet don't give a shit.

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh

in what way is stating my opinion an "argument?"

you care about graphics - go you

have an ice cream cone

i really fucking don't, and neither do lots of other people

what i do care about is what they achieve with the graphics they have, not how good the graphics they have are

[Zyrusticae]

Define "worth a damn"?

I doubt people playing Maple Story have any issue forming groups, and that's not even a great game, and has about the worst graphics on MMO market. They have the 2nd most registered users in the world next to League of Legends (which also is pretty shitty looking BTW).
Maple Story is a 2D side-scroller. League of Legends uses an isometric perspective. Neither are comparable to an over-the-shoulder action RPG.

Speaking of, even League of Legends' developers are updating old character models and improving the graphics over time. Newer character models are considerably more detailed than the ones they had at launch.

Your argument is the one that makes no sense. You simply value something that isn't empirically what makes game successful or not. That's on you. There's no question that high quality graphics has the potential to win eyes, hearts, and minds, but to say that it's a necessity is to speak against very real examples that exist and utterly contradict your "inarguable" point.
I don't give a fuck what "empirically makes games successful or not". I only care that the game doesn't become an outdated turd when games with far superior visuals come out and that it actually uses some of the incredibly powerful hardware that is inevitably going to be released in the future. Otherwise I can't even imagine sticking with this game for a decade (or anything close to it, for that matter).

My whole point is that this is what I care about. You don't care? Fine, what the fuck ever, you're entitled to your opinion. Whether or not a ton of people don't give a shit is completely irrelevant to me. This is what I want to see and, frankly, I am really sick and fucking tired of all these people who say "graphics mean nothing" when good graphics can make such a massive difference to my play experience to the point of overlooking sub-par gameplay.

It's also a dramatic oversimplification when it is all the components of a game in tandem that make it what it is, not one thing or the other. You need everything to be up to par or the things that aren't quite there drag everything else down. There is simply no reason to vie for mediocrity, in any area.

Totally not related, but Super Mario Galaxy, The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, Sonic: Lost World, Sly Cooper (series), LittleBigPlanet, and Portal says "Hi."All of those Gamecube/Wii games look tons better run by an emulator on the PC. LittleBigPlanet actually has decent graphics to begin with, and the same goes for Portal (which is also extremely simplistic in its use of geometric shapes for textures and models, with no humans in sight aside from the PC).

Also, all of those games look better than PSO2. Yes, I said it. PSO2 just looks that bad.

Definitely.

One example is with an old game I used to play: Starsiege Tribes. The game would still hold up today if it weren't for the main servers being down, but the newer version of the game, Tribes: Ascend, just tried to stick a realistic engine onto the game with bogged down environments and called it a day.

That just doesn't cut it.

Good game design (and any game developer would tell you this) comes down to the actual worlds, settings, triggers, mobs, and more (including things like music and sound fx as both provide ambiance). Not how "cutting-edge" your graphics engine is. As some would say: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Well DUH. I'm talking about the GRAPHICS. Updating the GRAPHICS on a game that ALREADY EXISTS.

Fuck's sake, stick with the goddamn argument and stop talking about irrelevant bullshit, already!

[AgemFrostMage]

Maple Story is a 2D side-scroller. League of Legends uses an isometric perspective. Neither are comparable to an over-the-shoulder action RPG.

Speaking of, even League of Legends' developers are updating old character models and improving the graphics over time. Newer character models are considerably more detailed than the ones they had at launch.

I don't give a fuck what "empirically makes games successful or not". I only care that the game doesn't become an outdated turd when games with far superior visuals come out and that it actually uses some of the incredibly powerful hardware that is inevitably going to be released in the future. Otherwise I can't even imagine sticking with this game for a decade (or anything close to it, for that matter).

My whole point is that this is what I care about. You don't care? Fine, what the fuck ever, you're entitled to your opinion. Whether or not a ton of people don't give a shit is completely irrelevant to me. This is what I want to see and, frankly, I am really sick and fucking tired of all these people who say "graphics mean nothing" when good graphics can make such a massive difference to my play experience to the point of overlooking sub-par gameplay.

It's also a dramatic oversimplification when it is all the components of a game in tandem that make it what it is, not one thing or the other. You need everything to be up to par or the things that aren't quite there drag everything else down. There is simply no reason to vie for mediocrity, in any area.
All of those Gamecube/Wii games look tons better run by an emulator on the PC. LittleBigPlanet actually has decent graphics to begin with, and the same goes for Portal (which is also extremely simplistic in its use of geometric shapes for textures and models, with no humans in sight aside from the PC).

Also, all of those games look better than PSO2. Yes, I said it. PSO2 just looks that bad.

Well DUH. I'm talking about the GRAPHICS. Updating the GRAPHICS on a game that ALREADY EXISTS.

Fuck's sake, stick with the goddamn argument and stop talking about irrelevant bullshit, already!


But... how can anyone say this looks bad:

[SPOILER-BOX]http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa445/wow176/pso20130819_090724_022_zps99ce4770.png

http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa445/wow176/pso20130819_090605_007_zpsdf8b07b6.png

http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa445/wow176/pso20130819_095604_094_zps07a2a902.png[/SPOILER-BOX]

That's not even getting into the player characters in tiaras, white gloves, and wedding dresses ^_^

You have to admit that character creator and animation style is the best.

[gigawuts]

Zyru, dude, you seem to really be into this topic, and that's cool, but you seem to be getting a bit more riled up than the subject would call for here. It's kind of... well, I like it more when we're not arguing over silly differences of opinion on things that don't really merit it.

[AgemFrostMage]

Regardless of graphics I don't think this game can last 10 years on the content its running. At the very least I don't think I'd want to play the game for 10 years. I would hope much better games are out at that point.

Do I think SEGA will eventually start releasing better content? Yes. Will it fix all of the games problems? Pretty doubtful.

We went from Doom and Quake to Call of Duty and "story areas", and RPGs are practically non-existent apart from DS remakes so don't expect things to get better.

[Zyrusticae]

But... how can anyone say this looks bad:

[SPOILER-BOX]http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa445/wow176/pso20130819_090724_022_zps99ce4770.png

http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa445/wow176/pso20130819_090605_007_zpsdf8b07b6.png

http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa445/wow176/pso20130819_095604_094_zps07a2a902.png[/SPOILER-BOX]

That's not even getting into the player characters in tiaras, white gloves, and wedding dresses ^_^

You have to admit that character creator and animation style is the best.
Not really.

The hair is flatly lit, the materials are simplistic, there's no material shading for the environments, there's no ambient occlusion (come on! it's a fucking cheap effect and does wonders for depth perception), the skin shader is often more appropriate for a doll than a human being (the only time I can say it actually looks good is in very specific lighting situations), some of the clothing models look bloody awful (like pretty much anything based off of actual cloth)... the whole thing is an extremely mixed bag. Sometimes the character models look excellent, but this varies tremendously with the lighting and clothing models.

The environments all look terrible, however. None of them look good. Some of them look passable (ruins, sanctum, for me those are the only ones), but the rest look like they belong in an Xbox game or something.


Zyru, dude, you seem to really be into this topic, and that's cool, but you seem to be getting a bit more riled up than the subject would call for here. It's kind of... well, I like it more when we're not arguing over silly differences of opinion on things that don't really merit it.
I'm sorry, but it is an absolute berserk button for me at this point when anyone questions the relevancy of graphics in modern 3D games. It just pisses me right the fuck off, because I've been putting up with that shit for years. How do you think I feel when someone tells me my career is completely irrelevant? Haha! Yeah, think about that for a second. That's not cool, man. Not fucking cool at all.

[gigawuts]

I'm sorry, but it is an absolute berserk button for me at this point when anyone questions the relevancy of graphics in modern 3D games. It just pisses me right the fuck off, because I've been putting up with that shit for years. How do you think I feel when someone tells me my career is completely irrelevant? Haha! Yeah, think about that for a second. That's not cool, man. Not fucking cool at all.

I'm not saying it's irrelevant, I'm saying the medium is less important than the actual creation.

You called it an art form - which I agree with - but let's try comparing with another. Are any of the great works of art any less great because they weren't created with more modern materials? All of these paintings that need preserving - are they less great than every single thing created with modern materials simply because of what they were created with? Or are they great because of the image and message created with the intent they were created with, which would have come out regardless of the medium used?

Yeah, if graphics can be better they should be, but good graphics alone do not a beautiful setting make. You could turn PSO2's desert into the highest resolution, highest polycount - no, fuck it, the first flawlessly running atom-sized-voxel-based game level ever created, and it would still be a bland, monotonous, generic looking, unmemorable map with sandstorm weather effects that are neat exactly one time and annoying every other time.

PSO1's seabed created with modern graphics would be better than PSO1's seabed created back then, but PSO1's seabed is still better than PSO2's desert in every way that counts, IMO.

[AgemFrostMage]

Not really.

The hair is flatly lit, the materials are simplistic, there's no material shading for the environments, there's no ambient occlusion (come on! it's a fucking cheap effect and does wonders for depth perception), the skin shader is often more appropriate for a doll than a human being (the only time I can say it actually looks good is in very specific lighting situations), some of the clothing models look bloody awful (like pretty much anything based off of actual cloth)... the whole thing is an extremely mixed bag. Sometimes the character models look excellent, but this varies tremendously with the lighting and clothing models.

The environments all look terrible, however. None of them look good. Some of them look passable (ruins, sanctum, for me those are the only ones), but the rest look like they belong in an Xbox game or something.


I'm sorry, but it is an absolute berserk button for me at this point when anyone questions the relevancy of graphics in modern 3D games. It just pisses me right the fuck off, because I've been putting up with that shit for years. How do you think I feel when someone tells me my career is completely irrelevant? Haha! Yeah, think about that for a second. That's not cool, man. Not fucking cool at all.

Doll thing can explain why many CAST look like they're made of plastic instead of metal I put in a lot of effort to get a metallic shine. Still, Quna and many characters are cute and I like cute things ^_^

And X-Box? You kidding me? The style is far from western!

Graphics somewhat matter and I bought a 670 because I care, but gameplay and what you do with the graphics matter too.

Why shouldn't materials be simplistic if that's what it is? The future has more advanced materials and stuff harvested from places not Earth so of course they'd have different fabrics. I personally like my pirate look with the scouter =) I am an Arks captain and now I look the part ^_^

[The Walrus]

Pretty sure he meant that the graphics look like they belong in an old Xbox game, not the style.

[BlankM]

I'm sorry, but it is an absolute berserk button for me at this point when anyone questions the relevancy of graphics in modern 3D games. It just pisses me right the fuck off, because I've been putting up with that shit for years. How do you think I feel when someone tells me my career is completely irrelevant? Haha! Yeah, think about that for a second. That's not cool, man. Not fucking cool at all.

Do you have an account on Polycount by chance?

[Zyrusticae]

[spoiler-box]I'm not saying it's irrelevant, I'm saying the medium is less important than the actual creation.

You called it an art form - which I agree with - but let's try comparing with another. Are any of the great works of art any less great because they weren't created with more modern materials? All of these paintings that need preserving - are they less great than every single thing created with modern materials simply because of what they were created with? Or are they great because of the image and message created with the intent they were created with, which would have come out regardless of the medium used?

Yeah, if graphics can be better they should be, but good graphics alone do not a beautiful setting make. You could turn PSO2's desert into the highest resolution, highest polycount - no, fuck it, the first flawlessly running atom-sized-voxel-based game level ever created, and it would still be a bland, monotonous, generic looking, unmemorable map with sandstorm weather effects that are neat exactly one time and annoying every other time.

PSO1's seabed created with modern graphics would be better than PSO1's seabed created back then, but PSO1's seabed is still better than PSO2's desert in every way that counts, IMO.[/spoiler-box]Well of course I don't disagree that changing the actual design of the levels is extremely important for making them more interesting - as I said, every part needs to be up to par or else there's problems.

However, I still disagree with the idea that graphics are simply "a medium". When it comes to 3D graphics, there is a ground truth that you can use as a reference, and it is EXTREMELY obvious and glaring (at least to me) when things deviate from this "ground truth". We're only just now approaching a state where we're even anywhere close to being able to render that in render farms, much less in real-time on a high-end PC.

Foliage, for example, is the biggest offender. In most games, it looks like paper cutouts. It looks like shit. It often doesn't even approach verisimilitude. In many games, as soon as I see their cardboard-cutout foliage, my immersion is instantaneously broken and I am not as able to put investment into that world. I will cry tears of joy the day my character realistically brushes against grass and leaves and they don't look like bizarre two-dimensional paper billboards.

There are so many examples of these in games as of right now (skin shaders, hair, water simulation, environment destructibility, so on and so forth) that I honestly cannot comprehend the idea of simply being okay with what we have, or putting tremendous amounts of focus into other areas. As far as I'm concerned, technology is meant to be pushed, and 3D graphics are as much an aspect of technology as the processors that render them out to your screen.

There is such a thing as 'objectively better' graphics, and while that may intersect with artwork in oftentimes obfuscating ways, I think it is a good thing that we can get closer and closer to that "ground truth" in as many games as we can. Good artwork can look good with mediocre graphics, but that same artwork can look excellent with high-quality models pre-rendered with path-traced global illumination. (Case in point: this Dragon Quest X trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TeBK4Gbgig), which uses the same models as the actual game but with far superior shading and tessellation.)

I should also mention that better technology and more 'physically plausible' gameplay go hand-in-hand. If you want environmental destructibility, if you want pixel-accurate hit detection, if you want complex AI and animation, these are all dependent on technology catching up to the point where they are feasible. Without technology to drive us forward, we get stuck with a limited toolset of interaction, and I think that's a terrible thing.

Do you have an account on Polycount by chance?
I do, but I don't post there.

[Valimer]

There better be some graphical updates in this game's future, 'cause it's gonna look REAL long in the tooth when the next-gen consoles hit...

Meh, it looks long in the tooth now, at least compared to FFXIV and Tera. And it's just the environments, if they improved the environments the game would look great.

[Zipzo]

[spoiler-box]Maple Story is a 2D side-scroller. League of Legends uses an isometric perspective. Neither are comparable to an over-the-shoulder action RPG.

Speaking of, even League of Legends' developers are updating old character models and improving the graphics over time. Newer character models are considerably more detailed than the ones they had at launch.

I don't give a fuck what "empirically makes games successful or not". I only care that the game doesn't become an outdated turd when games with far superior visuals come out and that it actually uses some of the incredibly powerful hardware that is inevitably going to be released in the future. Otherwise I can't even imagine sticking with this game for a decade (or anything close to it, for that matter).

My whole point is that this is what I care about. You don't care? Fine, what the fuck ever, you're entitled to your opinion. Whether or not a ton of people don't give a shit is completely irrelevant to me. This is what I want to see and, frankly, I am really sick and fucking tired of all these people who say "graphics mean nothing" when good graphics can make such a massive difference to my play experience to the point of overlooking sub-par gameplay.

It's also a dramatic oversimplification when it is all the components of a game in tandem that make it what it is, not one thing or the other. You need everything to be up to par or the things that aren't quite there drag everything else down. There is simply no reason to vie for mediocrity, in any area.
All of those Gamecube/Wii games look tons better run by an emulator on the PC. LittleBigPlanet actually has decent graphics to begin with, and the same goes for Portal (which is also extremely simplistic in its use of geometric shapes for textures and models, with no humans in sight aside from the PC).

Also, all of those games look better than PSO2. Yes, I said it. PSO2 just looks that bad.

Well DUH. I'm talking about the GRAPHICS. Updating the GRAPHICS on a game that ALREADY EXISTS.

Fuck's sake, stick with the goddamn argument and stop talking about irrelevant bullshit, already![/spoiler-box]

http://www.folkingmetal.com/pickors/calm-down-bro-lemur.jpg

[Zyrusticae]

Don't worry, I'm not as angry anymore. I think.


Meh, it looks long in the tooth now, at least compared to FFXIV and Tera. And it's just the environments, if they improved the environments the game would look great.
Exactly. This guy has it. The game just needs far better environments and it'd actually look really good (aside from the hiccups in the character art that I mentioned already).

[Valimer]

Doll thing can explain why many CAST look like they're made of plastic instead of metal I put in a lot of effort to get a metallic shine. Still, Quna and many characters are cute and I like cute things ^_^

And X-Box? You kidding me? The style is far from western!

Graphics somewhat matter and I bought a 670 because I care, but gameplay and what you do with the graphics matter too.

Why shouldn't materials be simplistic if that's what it is? The future has more advanced materials and stuff harvested from places not Earth so of course they'd have different fabrics. I personally like my pirate look with the scouter =) I am an Arks captain and now I look the part ^_^

I don't think he meant that the style is western because the graphics are on par technically with x-box. (also there are foreign games on x-box)

The graphics really are first generation hardware capable. I admire that SEGA wanted to make sure people could play PSO2 on their 5 year old macbook (my friend does... barely.) but it REALLY sacrificed a bar of quality that really could have made PSO2 shine and stand out.

[Nitro Vordex]

As far as I'm concerned, the graphics fit just fine. It's anime looking as hell. which hurts so goddamn much I really like the Coast, but that's because it's simplicity and colors work well together. Plus I don't have to see low poly rocks with shit textures. Seriously, I've seen higher polygon rocks in like Dreamcast/GC games. The textures are really low res as well. I will admit that I'd like to see some kind of graphical update, or option for DX11. I might be playing sometimes and think, "Gee, I should turn up the graphics." Then I remember that I have everything on, and I just kinda go "Oh."

[MetalDude]

Foliage, for example, is the biggest offender. In most games, it looks like paper cutouts. It looks like shit. It often doesn't even approach verisimilitude. In many games, as soon as I see their cardboard-cutout foliage, my immersion is instantaneously broken and I am not as able to put investment into that world. I will cry tears of joy the day my character realistically brushes against grass and leaves and they don't look like bizarre two-dimensional paper billboards.

Not gonna lie, I also hate this a lot.

[supersonix9]

dude pso1 had better graphics than this game

[gigawuts]

Well of course I don't disagree that changing the actual design of the levels is extremely important for making them more interesting - as I said, every part needs to be up to par or else there's problems.

However, I still disagree with the idea that graphics are simply "a medium". When it comes to 3D graphics, there is a ground truth that you can use as a reference, and it is EXTREMELY obvious and glaring (at least to me) when things deviate from this "ground truth". We're only just now approaching a state where we're even anywhere close to being able to render that in render farms, much less in real-time on a high-end PC.

Foliage, for example, is the biggest offender. In most games, it looks like paper cutouts. It looks like shit. It often doesn't even approach verisimilitude. In many games, as soon as I see their cardboard-cutout foliage, my immersion is instantaneously broken and I am not as able to put investment into that world. I will cry tears of joy the day my character realistically brushes against grass and leaves and they don't look like bizarre two-dimensional paper billboards.

There are so many examples of these in games as of right now (skin shaders, hair, water simulation, environment destructibility, so on and so forth) that I honestly cannot comprehend the idea of simply being okay with what we have, or putting tremendous amounts of focus into other areas. As far as I'm concerned, technology is meant to be pushed, and 3D graphics are as much an aspect of technology as the processors that render them out to your screen.

There is such a thing as 'objectively better' graphics, and while that may intersect with artwork in oftentimes obfuscating ways, I think it is a good thing that we can get closer and closer to that "ground truth" in as many games as we can. Good artwork can look good with mediocre graphics, but that same artwork can look excellent with high-quality models pre-rendered with path-traced global illumination. (Case in point: this Dragon Quest X trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TeBK4Gbgig), which uses the same models as the actual game but with far superior shading and tessellation.)

I should also mention that better technology and more 'physically plausible' gameplay go hand-in-hand. If you want environmental destructibility, if you want pixel-accurate hit detection, if you want complex AI and animation, these are all dependent on technology catching up to the point where they are feasible. Without technology to drive us forward, we get stuck with a limited toolset of interaction, and I think that's a terrible thing.

I do, but I don't post there.

I agree with some of this, but I also disagree with some of it.

At the end of the day I deposit game graphics in the same box I deposit media in general: suspension of disbelief.

I understand the limitations of writers, that they may not understand much about computers. When someone says they're going to backtrace an IP using visual basic to write a gui or whatever that line was I laugh a bit, but don't think any less of the show for it. I'd prefer they did some research first, but it got the point across - she's going to try to figure out what happened and computers are just the plot device.

Same with graphics. That tree is a 2d cutout? I'd prefer they did better, but it got the point across - there's a tree over there.

More details and accuracy are nice, but not a requirement for me to enjoy something.

[GuardianGirth]

Anyone QQing about graphics when we already live in an era where most games have easily recognizable features is pathetic.

Graphics dont mean shit in the way of how fun the core gameplay is and how smooth the controls are.

Go back to Mario Bros Bitches.

[Kondibon]

I'll just leave this here. It seems relevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oK8UTRgvJU


Totally not related, but Super Mario Galaxy, The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, Sonic: Lost World, Sly Cooper (series), LittleBigPlanet, and Portal says "Hi."
Also I wanted to mention. Notice that all of those games have very stylized settings and characters. Stylised stuff ages better because anything trying to look too realistic triggers stuff like the uncanny valley if it falls short. Realistic games are only recently starting to get over the valley, and even then just barely.

That said. PSO2's character designs are stylized as well, but the environments are relatively realistic, so it makes a strange contrast with the graphics. There's lots of things I could say about the game's aesthetic but I'm not sure how to put them into words.

[gigawuts]

I'll just leave this here. It seems relevant.
Extra Credits: Graphics vs. Aesthetics - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oK8UTRgvJU)


Also I wanted to mention. Notice that all of those games have very stylized settings and characters. Stylised stuff ages better because anything trying to look too realistic triggers stuff like the uncanny valley if it falls short. Realistic games are only recently starting to get over the valley, and even then just barely.

That said. PSO2's character designs are stylized as well, but the environments are relatively realistic, so it makes a strange contrast with the graphics. There's lots of things I could say about the game's aesthetic but I'm not sure how to put them into words.

This nails what I'm trying to say better than I can say it, thanks for linking it.

[Kondibon]

This nails what I'm trying to say better than I can say it, thanks for linking it.

To be honest I actually agree with Zyrusticae that the game needs a graphic overhaul AND an aesthetic one. Neither seems likely at this point though.

[gigawuts]

I can agree with wanting different aesthetics, but I really don't expect it to get one. If the game could be as vibrant and interesting as PSO1's premise that'd be superb, but that was not only made in a different era of gaming but it was an entirely different genre of game. That helped invent the genre it was part of, so they had to bring in everything they knew worked before to try to make it a success.

Here they know what works: Scratch cards and tits.

Not much else matters. Not much else will be put in. Trying to separate that from what PSO2 is, or is trying to be, is like trying to separate profits from corporate interests: They are literally the same thing.

[Kondibon]

I can agree with wanting different aesthetics, but I really don't expect it to get one. If the game could be as vibrant and interesting as PSO1's premise that'd be superb, but that was not only made in a different era of gaming but it was an entirely different genre of game. That helped invent the genre it was part of, so they had to bring in everything they knew worked before to try to make it a success.

Here they know what works: Scratch cards and tits.

Not much else matters. Not much else will be put in. Trying to separate that from what PSO2 is, or is trying to be, is like trying to separate profits from corporate interests: They are literally the same thing.

At best I suspect they'll go the Mabi route and have new things that look visually superior to old things but without doing much to the old content. Creating a visual ingame evolution. It's amusing but hardly ideal, since it just makes the new stuff stand out in a weird way.

[gigawuts]

That's what I'd expect too, yeah. Then they'll make early game content easy to breeze through and endgame content accessible earlier on, just like they did with beach (which unlocked after, like, subterranean tunnels or something)

[Zipzo]

Slender looked like absolute balls but it, without contest, is the most frightening game I've ever played in my life. Graphics might mean a lot to you, Zy, but they are not important for a game to be good. They are a collateral improvement. There's no arguing that. As in...most every studio would never complain about being able to give their game better graphics, and the graphics will continue to get better over time, but it absolutely has no bearing on the success potential of a game.

In reference to PSO2 specifically, I don't really see a huge issue. The graphics are pretty good, and they do a great job achieving that "anime in 3D" feel. It's the designs in almost all cases that are somewhat boring (the areas). This, to me, isn't a graphical issue. If you place such a huge amount of your enjoyment of your games on graphics alone then I honestly...I don't know, that's just so typical of some random bone-head "gamer", in my opinion.

[Korazenn]

I agree, Kon.

The difference in PSO2's case is most certainly that there is a lack of polish in terms of actual game design with environments trying to simulate reality at one point (Naberius' Forest, Amduscia Volcanic Caves, and Lillipa Desert) and keeping to the actual stylized nature of the game's character and enemy models the next (Coast and the Lobby come to mind).

It doesn't know which side of the bridge it belongs on, so it's caught in limbo. Quite sad, if I do say so myself, because PSO knew exactly what it was all about at all times.

I'll admit, while it is far-fetched, there is still the possibility that SEGA will revamp the game's structure to suit the stylistic approach that PSO demands for PSO2. There's still time to work on adding more new features into the game. While they wouldn't be too drastic, we might not even need anything drastic to begin with. All we need are environments that are properly designed with the game's unique style in-mind.

Phantasy Star has always been known for its unique art styles and dynamic characters, particularly with character models. While the character models have massively improved in PSO2 and character creation is so robust that I've never seen anything before like it, the unique art style the franchise is known for has taken a hit in quality. Hopefully, SEGA JP musters up the willpower to at least provide more suitable level design for fans.

As an example, the only reason I tend to forget about a lot of Phantasy Star III was due to its boring, gritty, realistic visual style that it took in stark contrast to Phantasy Star I, II, and IV's bright, colorful environments that evoked their own sense of being.

[Zyrusticae]

I'll just leave this here. It seems relevant.
Extra Credits: Graphics vs. Aesthetics - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oK8UTRgvJU)
Extra Credits videos are always nice.

The top comment is also pretty interesting:

One thing that I didn't hear mentioned, which a ton of developers don't seem to grasp: The detail of your graphics must have parity with the level of interactivity in your game design.
If you have a game with high-end near photo-realistic graphics, but your interaction with the world and characters doesn't match the visual fidelity, the gameplay itself will feel hollow. So your aesthetic needs to allow the maximum graphical fidelity that your GAME DESIGN will allow on a technical level.


Slender looked like absolute balls but it, without contest, is the most frightening game I've ever played in my life. Graphics might mean a lot to you, Zy, but they are not important for a game to be good. They are a collateral improvement. There's no arguing that. As in...most every studio would never complain about being able to give their game better graphics, and the graphics will continue to get better over time, but it absolutely has no bearing on the success potential of a game.
But this is patently incorrect.

Do you think Killzone would be as successful if it weren't for their ridiculous graphics? What about the Crysis series? Uncharted? Battlefield?

It certainly isn't the only factor, or even the driving factor in many cases, but to say it has absolutely no bearing is, well, an absolute, and in this case that is something you cannot quantify.


In reference to PSO2 specifically, I don't really see a huge issue. The graphics are pretty good, and they do a great job achieving that "anime in 3D" feel. It's the designs in almost all cases that are somewhat boring (the areas). This, to me, isn't a graphical issue. If you place such a huge amount of your enjoyment of your games on graphics alone then I honestly...I don't know, that's just so typical of some random bone-head "gamer", in my opinion.But what the hell is wrong with that? What's wrong with me deriving a lot of enjoyment out of my games' technical quality? I don't understand this mindset at all.

That is what I like. That is all there is to it. I appreciate that stuff, on a level probably far beyond anything you are capable of (as is clearly evident from your posts). And you are telling me that there is something wrong with that? This is exactly the shit I'm talking about. I'm not even allowed to appreciate this stuff without being labeled a "random bone-head gamer".

I wonder what you think of the guys posting in this thread (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=506297). A whole bunch of people who admire graphics (and aesthetics, naturally) and play a bunch of games just so they can take screenshots of those pretty graphics. Are they all wrong in the head somehow for admiring the stuff they do? Are their priorities mismanaged? I wonder about that.

And in the end, I will never agree with anyone who says "the graphics are pretty good". Because when it comes to the environments, PSO2's graphics are
SUCK!

[Kondibon]

Extra Credits videos are always nice.

The top comment is also pretty interesting:
I'm surprised you're quoting that since he's basically saying that it's possible to have too much fidelity.

Also, when you bring up Crysis it's important to remember that the graphics were pretty much the whole selling point. The series was built around them and a lot of people got the game just to say "My computer can run crysis". People want different things out of different games, and people make games to cater to different people. It's also worth mentioning that being successful doesn't necessarily mean well made.

While I respect your opinion, and do agree that good graphics can help a game a lot, I don't think every game needs super high end graphics. There are plenty of people who go for LOWER end graphics for the sake of a particular style, and it ends up being more memorable for it.

Paper Mario for instance looked at the low poly counts in N64 games and said "everything looks like it's made of paper? Then everything is made of paper" and just rolled with it. Good graphics always help but how much they're NEEDED to fulfill the aesthetics of the game varies from game to game, and not every game needs to push the graphical boundaries to be innovative and engaging.

But again. I agree with you, PSO2's graphics don't feel as good as they should be given the way the game is. Particularly the environments and texture resolutions. People keep talking about how this is an "uguu dressup game" so Sega doesn't even care about environment graphics, but it even falls short on that since the texture resolutions are so bad, zooming in for close ups makes everything pixely.


Because when it comes to the environments, PSO2's graphics are
[spoiler-box]https://cnsuqw.blu.livefilestore.com/y2pbdxulzyadJ1aUaHoHYJkH6Abp-xQz-1nVdvP1Mw2W_8xNsX0E9zT9xZuNxTL-Di6jsAdQpEq4W8s0MOP1LJiEaDoCZtSzLWkaY8OA5c-34Q/3916_b3ee_960.jpg?psid=1[/spoiler-box]

I have to ask.

Compaired to what? ._.

[Zyrusticae]

Well, more accurately he's saying it's possible to fail to live up to your fidelity in the way of not having enough environmental interaction, which, yes, I do agree with.

Of course not every game needs high graphical fidelity... but as far as I'm concerned, no game suffers from having too high a fidelity, only from being lacking in other areas.



But again. I agree with you, PSO2's graphics don't feel as good as they should be given the way the game is. Particularly the environments and texture resolutions. People keep talking about how this is an "uguu dressup game" so Sega doesn't even care about environment graphics, but it even falls short on that since the texture resolutions are so bad, zooming in for close ups makes everything pixely.
Well, it's not just the resolution (though that's part of it), but the fact that there's no normal mapping or specularity or anything of that sort whatsoever, even though the characters themselves have plenty of it. It's incredibly inconsistent and rather jarring at times.

I have to ask.

Compaired to what? ._.
TERA, FFXIV, Dark Souls, Skyrim (especially MODDED Skyrim), The Witcher 2, Guild Wars 2, Warframe, Hawken (omg if Mines looked like one of its levels, I would never, ever complain), all of the Crysis series, Battlefield 3, Mirror's Edge (they should totally remake the city in that image)... you know, I could probably just list every single current-generation game ever released and they would probably have better environment graphics.

That's just sad.

I am now depressed.

[Aomber]

Slender looked like absolute balls but it, without contest, is the most frightening game I've ever played in my life. Graphics might mean a lot to you, Zy, but they are not important for a game to be good. They are a collateral improvement. There's no arguing that. As in...most every studio would never complain about being able to give their game better graphics, and the graphics will continue to get better over time, but it absolutely has no bearing on the success potential of a game.

In reference to PSO2 specifically, I don't really see a huge issue. The graphics are pretty good, and they do a great job achieving that "anime in 3D" feel. It's the designs in almost all cases that are somewhat boring (the areas). This, to me, isn't a graphical issue. If you place such a huge amount of your enjoyment of your games on graphics alone then I honestly...I don't know, that's just so typical of some random bone-head "gamer", in my opinion.

You do realize Phantasy Star Online 2 is a PC game being played by these so called "bone-head gamers", right?

One of the biggest reasons for gaming on a PC is for good graphics. I'm sorry, but that's one of the biggest appeals of PC gaming whether you agree with it or not. This is a game created in 2012 - from a corporation like Sega with the amount of money they have, I expect the graphics to be on par with something like Guild Wars 2 (which is also F2P in its own respect) strictly in terms of graphical fidelity. I also happen to enjoy games with good graphics a lot. There's a reason I have an i5 3570k and an HD 7850 so I can run very high settings on games - it's because I can appreciate the beauty of any game more than I would on the console version of the game. You cannot deny that this game would be a better experience with better graphics considering how beautiful the environments are. Yes its fun factor might hold up, but the graphical fidelity holds back a big part of the enjoyment of the game. To me, looking at the different settings/environments in a game are really important to me, and that sucks that they're beautiful in this game but ugly at the same time. That's disappointing for any PC gamer. It also shows how much money they really put into this game, but I think that was already obvious with the lack of long term appealing content.

You also have to realize that while graphics will improve, there will be serious limitations placed on how much can be done due to the graphics engine used for the game in the first place. If you take a game like World of Warcraft, yes it looks better than it did in 2004, but not that much better and definitely not competitive with games releasing with more modern technology. It's gonna be even worse in comparison to other games when next gen consoles really start to pick up

[Kondibon]

Well, more accurately he's saying it's possible to fail to live up to your fidelity in the way of not having enough environmental interaction, which, yes, I do agree with.

Of course not every game needs high graphical fidelity... but as far as I'm concerned, no game suffers from having too high a fidelity, only from being lacking in other areas.Generally resources have to be taking from other parts of the game in order to put more into the graphics. You're right though. The graphics themselves don't take anything away from the game just by being there. That's why HD remakes are so popular nowadays.



TERA, FFXIV, Dark Souls, Skyrim (especially MODDED Skyrim), The Witcher 2, Guild Wars 2, Warframe, Hawken (omg if Mines looked like one of its levels, I would never, ever complain), all of the Crysis series, Battlefield 3, Mirror's Edge (they should totally remake the city in that image)... you know, I could probably just list every single current-generation game ever released and they would probably have better environment graphics.

That's just sad.

I am now depressed.Ok that's better. Just wondering mostly. Though to be honest. That's still a pretty broad spectrum (GW2 on the same list as Hawken and the Crysis games?). I mean... There's really no point in comparing graphics between games just because even then they'll get outdated eventually. At least until we're capable of perfect photorealism. But by that point I think it'll come down to preference and resources.

I'm not saying better graphics wouldn't help PSO2 look better, no one is. Only that updating the graphics alone wouldn't make the game look any better because the designs are poor all together. Sure, it might look more realistic, and sure it might look crisper, but forest would still be bland, caves would still be ugly, and ruins would still be cluttered (though I feel ruins being cluttered fits the aesthetic... just... not the gameplay).

You mention that you like Hawken's scenery, well I like it too. However it's definitely the aesthetic of it that's working there, not just the graphics, since even as PIXEL ART that stuff would look damn amazing compared to PSO2.

[Cyron Tanryoku]

PSO2 needs higher res textures

[Zyrusticae]

Generally resources have to be taking from other parts of the game in order to put more into the graphics. You're right though. The graphics themselves don't take anything away from the game just by being there. That's why HD remakes are so popular nowadays.In terms of manpower, certainly. Generally, however, they already split the work based on their own hiring practices. It's not like artists are going to be working on gameplay iteration, after all.

Ok that's better. Just wondering mostly. Though to be honest. That's still a pretty broad spectrum (GW2 on the same list as Hawken and the Crysis games?). I mean... There's really no point in comparing graphics between games just because even then they'll get outdated eventually. At least until we're capable of perfect photorealism. But by that point I think it'll come down to preference and resources.
Well, I mentioned them together because they're all games with decent environment graphics. ;)

TBH, I think Crysis has aged extremely well. I mean, it was released all the way back in 2007 and it still holds up next to next-generation games (from what we've seen of them, anyways). That tells me that it really isn't a waste of time to shoot for the stars - if you can afford to do so, anyway.

I'm not saying better graphics wouldn't help PSO2 look better, no one is. Only that updating the graphics alone wouldn't make the game look any better because the designs are poor all together. Sure, it might look more realistic, and sure it might look crisper, but forest would still be bland, caves would still be ugly, and ruins would still be cluttered (though I feel ruins being cluttered fits the aesthetic... just... not the gameplay).

You mention that you like Hawken's scenery, well I like it too. However it's definitely the aesthetic of it that's working there, not just the graphics, since even as PIXEL ART that stuff would look damn amazing compared to PSO2.
Well, I don't know about that! I honestly think the caves would look amazing if the walls had the shine of actual volcanic rock (http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/rocks_pics/lava_flow.jpg), for example. Same thing with the mines - some reflectivity (and depth) in the metallic plating would do wonders for its rather plain appearance. It's the only reason that Doom 3 (https://u5ob4a.bay.livefilestore.com/y2p36lTmVUA3R6uNrzqb0_npoPxWXvdXIRFamZHKq05bzNujRc UeLzsJsTCl8ntVBWpbNUSW8pIp80rn2koaweL3y0bzsHuECBz-U_VTdLVE5A/shot00048.png?psid=1) looks as good as it does, after all.

The most important thing, however, is that it's simply low-hanging fruit - it wouldn't take a lot of manpower to implement, which I why I suggest it. A full redesign, on the other hand, would take a lot of development time to complete, so I wouldn't think it plausible even in the best-case scenarios.

[Shadowth117]

Relavant. I'm sure everyone is glad to hear of this:
[spoiler-box]http://i.imgur.com/PDiWrgG.jpg[/spoiler-box]

Edit: Blank inspired this by the way.

[Korazenn]

Relavant. I'm sure everyone is glad to hear of this:
[spoiler-box]http://i.imgur.com/PDiWrgG.jpg[/spoiler-box]

Edit: Blank inspired this by the way.

You caught me mid-stare. Haha! XD

[Nitro Vordex]

I wonder what you think of the guys posting in this thread (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=506297). A whole bunch of people who admire graphics (and aesthetics, naturally) and play a bunch of games just so they can take screenshots of those pretty graphics. Are they all wrong in the head somehow for admiring the stuff they do? Are their priorities mismanaged? I wonder about that.

They're wrong in the head for not mentioning Metro 2033 earlier. God /damn/ that game was pretty. Please as /fuck/.

A lot of the games in that thread are kinda ugly, to be honest. Some of them do look good, but I don't like the look of a lot of those games.


Relavant. I'm sure everyone is glad to hear of this:
*massive picture*

Edit: Blank inspired this by the way.

Two things.

1. Who the hell are you?
2. Get a spoiler-box, like, now.

[Zipzo]

Way to not spoiler box a mega-fucking-huge screen stretching picture, Shadow.


But this is patently incorrect.

Do you think Killzone would be as successful if it weren't for their ridiculous graphics? What about the Crysis series? Uncharted? Battlefield?

It certainly isn't the only factor, or even the driving factor in many cases, but to say it has absolutely no bearing is, well, an absolute, and in this case that is something you cannot quantify.

Who's to say they couldn't be? In the cases of the games you've named here, graphics are designed to be one of those games most intimidating factors, but let's pretend that each of those studios were given...a graphical threshold. A point at which they weren't allowed to make the graphics better, for example, forcing them to put more thought and detail in to other measures of the game.

There's absolutely no reason those games still couldn't be successful. So this point I find pretty moot.


But what the hell is wrong with that? What's wrong with me deriving a lot of enjoyment out of my games' technical quality? I don't understand this mindset at all.

That is what I like. That is all there is to it. I appreciate that stuff, on a level probably far beyond anything you are capable of (as is clearly evident from your posts). And you are telling me that there is something wrong with that? This is exactly the shit I'm talking about. I'm not even allowed to appreciate this stuff without being labeled a "random bone-head gamer".

I wonder what you think of the guys posting in this thread (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=506297). A whole bunch of people who admire graphics (and aesthetics, naturally) and play a bunch of games just so they can take screenshots of those pretty graphics. Are they all wrong in the head somehow for admiring the stuff they do? Are their priorities mismanaged? I wonder about that.

Okay, now you're just victimizing yourself. There's nothing wrong with you deriving enjoyment from the technical quality of games (never was this implied). I appreciate the existence of such people so that our games can further improve in graphical quality as those folks get in to the right jobs.

What I find you to be obtuse over is thinking that the success of a game completely hinges on its graphics. That's what makes you a bonehead.


And in the end, I will never agree with anyone who says "the graphics are pretty good". Because when it comes to the environments, PSO2's graphics are shit.

Opinions are like assholes.

[Shadowth117]

Oh, this is also relevant- Wait, putting a spoiler box for those who believe we still live in 2000 and aren't aware of the existence of humor:

[spoiler-box]http://i.imgur.com/EEACuyk.jpg[/spoiler-box]

[Zyrusticae]

Who's to say they couldn't be? In the cases of the games you've named here, graphics are designed to be one of those games most intimidating factors, but let's pretend that each of those studios were given...a graphical threshold. A point at which they weren't allowed to make the graphics better, for example, forcing them to put more thought and detail in to other measures of the game.

There's absolutely no reason those games still couldn't be successful. So this point I find pretty moot.
But even so, to say it has absolutely no bearing? Yeah, I'm beginning to think I should just ignore this argument at this point, it's so stupid it's damaging.

We've already reached the point where you will admit no wrong, because you are simply incapable of doing so.

Okay, now you're just victimizing yourself. There's nothing wrong with you deriving enjoyment from the technical quality of games (never was this implied). I appreciate the existence of such people so that our games can further improve in graphical quality as those folks get in to the right jobs.

What I find you to be obtuse over is thinking that the success of a game completely hinges on its graphics. That's what makes you a bonehead.
Seriously, enough with this fucking strawman already. I never, EVER argued that the success of a game hinges on its graphics. I only said that I WANT TO SEE BETTER GRAPHICS. I don't even know how you made that leap in the first place, except it wasn't a leap, it was something you fucking invented so you could try to make me look bad.

Yeah, I'm seriously done with this. If you can't even stay on the right track, what the hell is even the point?

Opinions are like assholes.
And some stink way the hell more than others.

[Zipzo]

But even so, to say it has absolutely no bearing? Yeah, I'm beginning to think I should just ignore this argument at this point, it's so stupid it's damaging.

We've already reached the point where you will admit no wrong, because you are simply incapable of doing so.

Seriously, enough with this fucking strawman already. I never, EVER argued that the success of a game hinges on its graphics. I only said that I WANT TO SEE BETTER GRAPHICS. I don't even know how you made that leap in the first place, except it wasn't a leap, it was something you fucking invented so you could try to make me look bad.

Yeah, I'm seriously done with this. If you can't even stay on the right track, what the hell is even the point?

And some stink way the hell more than others.

Your "arguments" simply elicit a tone as if everyone else is saying good graphics are bad. That's the real strawman, when in fact, nobody is saying so. Better graphics can never be bad, we all agree with that. The only point to make is that graphical proficiency doesn't decide whether a game is successful or not, and then you bounced back with examples of games that wouldn't have been as successful if not for graphics alone.

I think you should take a step back, because it's not any of us who can't seem to see the ground from the trees.

I have one single point in this discussion : graphics do not make a game successful, nor does it weigh a game down from being successful (unless of course everything else in the game is shit in which case nobody is playing it anyway). You want me to admit that I'm wrong on this point? Well...I never will...because that would simply be ignoring real life evidence that profoundly validates that point.

Your point is only backed by your own undeniably passionate feelings about graphics. You hook yourself up with an awesome GPU, you're less immersed unless things are on point, you obviously care very much about your damn graphics but I can assure you, that is you. Not everyone. You are in the minority. Get over it.

[gigawuts]

I think the crux of it is this:

Good aesthetics last an eternity

Good graphics last a hardware generation, at best

[Shadowth117]

Just for the record, I feel Zyr makes some really damn good points. I mean I'm sorry, but do you really feel immersed still when you see stuff like this?:
[spoiler-box]http://i.imgur.com/ENfGR7S.jpg[/spoiler-box]

Because if you do, you might literally want to take a hike.

PSU actually had very similar issues graphically in that its environments weren't really up to par for what systems could do even then. Even for a PS2 game, a lot of those areas really weren't especially well done given what they had to work with aside from a few places. That seems to have carried over very much to here which is rather sad, but it is what it is. I've said before that most areas aren't as cool looking as they could be for sure and I stand by that. The other details he's got on as well are valid, but I'm definitely most bothered by how the various areas look in general personally. There's certainly no lack of weight behind what he's saying.

[Zipzo]

Just for the record, I feel Zyr makes some really damn good points. I mean I'm sorry, but do you really feel immersed still when you see stuff like this?:
[spoiler-box]http://i.imgur.com/ENfGR7S.jpg[/spoiler-box]

Because if you do, you might literally want to take a hike.

PSU actually had very similar issues graphically in that its environments weren't really up to par for what systems could do even then. Even for a PS2 game, a lot of those areas really weren't especially well done given what they had to work with aside from a few places. That seems to have carried over very much to here which is rather sad, but it is what it is. I've said before that most areas aren't as cool looking as they could be for sure and I stand by that. The other details he's got on as well are valid, but I'm definitely most bothered by how the various areas look in general personally. There's certainly no lack of weight behind what he's saying.

His point is simply that graphics matter. No shit. Ice cream is tasty. Have I made a good point too? The debated area is in how they matter, and there is no point you could make in the entire world that would make them matter in how much potential a game has to be successful.

[gigawuts]

Just for the record, I feel Zyr makes some really damn good points. I mean I'm sorry, but do you really feel immersed still when you see stuff like this?:
[spoiler-box]http://i.imgur.com/ENfGR7S.jpg[/spoiler-box]

Because if you do, you might literally want to take a hike.

that's aesthetics m8

you could render that ceiling in 5 million polys with photorealistic textures and lighting and it would still look out of place

[BlankM]

Yes geometrical design is aesthetics. Arguably polycount is not even a huge factor in budgeting. Its the draw calls.

[Shadowth117]

that's aesthetics m8

you could render that ceiling in 5 million polys with photorealistic textures and lighting and it would still look out of place

It is aesthetics, but its also the sheer carelessness with which they through that together. They could literally have just moved a few vertexes around and it would have looked nicer. At least with N64 games, they were forced to make decent use of polys if they wanted it to look good.

[gigawuts]

It is aesthetics, but its also the sheer carelessness with which they through that together. They could literally have just moved a few vertexes around and it would have looked nicer. At least with N64 games, they were forced to make decent use of polys if they wanted it to look good.

And all of that is aesthetics.

As a side note, I do agree that games looked better a generation or two ago for the time than they do now. They had to make every bit count, and damn they sure did in a whole lot of games. Now they throw polys and hardware rendering power at games and don't do much else.

[BlankM]

How to make next-gen games.

Automatically generated terrain, trees and skyboxes. Baked-in lighting. Lens flare...oh and BLOOM!

[Zyrusticae]

Your point is only backed by your own undeniably passionate feelings about graphics. You hook yourself up with an awesome GPU, you're less immersed unless things are on point, you obviously care very much about your damn graphics but I can assure you, that is you. Not everyone. You are in the minority. Get over it.Goddamn, you are ridiculous.

OF COURSE NOT EVERYONE FEELS THE SAME GODDAMN WAY. I ALREADY SAID THIS. Why the hell do you need to fucking- fuck you, I said I was done and I am fucking done. Why do you intend to keep going ON AND ON AND ON ABOUT A POINT THAT DOESN'T EVEN NEED TO BE SAID?

Fuck's sake, I can't believe this shit.

And all of that is aesthetics.

As a side note, I do agree that games looked better a generation or two ago for the time than they do now. They had to make every bit count, and damn they sure did in a whole lot of games. Now they throw polys and hardware rendering power at games and don't do much else.
Except PSO2 didn't even do that. So we get the double-whammy of poor graphics and poor aesthetics. WONDERFUL.

[Zipzo]

Goddamn, you are ridiculous.

OF COURSE NOT EVERYONE FEELS THE SAME GODDAMN WAY. I ALREADY SAID THIS. Why the hell do you need to fucking- fuck you, I said I was done and I am fucking done. Why do you intend to keep going ON AND ON AND ON ABOUT A POINT THAT DOESN'T EVEN NEED TO BE SAID?

Fuck's sake, I can't believe this shit.

I'm ridiculous?

I'm proving a point that you made to be incorrect for discussion purposes. You're cursing like a 15 year old...

...and I'm ridiculous?

The hilarity.

[Zyrusticae]

ONE LAST TIME, in the hopes that you will understand (you probably won't, but hey, at least I tried):
You can provide plenty of examples of games that were successful despite simplistic graphics. However, you cannot say that no game ever has ever been successful because of its graphics, nor can you say that a game series has never made a single sale because of its graphics alone. This is simply because you are not psychic nor omniscient and cannot qualify the purchasing decisions of entire swathes of people without performing the research to do so. In other words, yes, PLENTY of games are successful without good graphics. But that is not the same thing as NO GAME EVER WILL EVER BE SUCCESSFUL JUST BECAUSE IT HAS GOOD GRAPHICS.

Somehow that point is completely lost on you, and if you can't figure it out after this post, seriously, there is no hope.

[Zipzo]

ONE LAST TIME, in the hopes that you will understand (you probably won't, but hey, at least I tried):
You can provide plenty of examples of games that were successful despite simplistic graphics. However, you cannot say that no game ever has ever been successful because of its graphics, nor can you say that a game series has never made a single sale because of its graphics alone. This is simply because you are not psychic nor omniscient and cannot qualify the purchasing decisions of entire swathes of people without performing the research to do so. In other words, yes, PLENTY of games are successful without good graphics. But that is not the same thing as NO GAME EVER WILL EVER BE SUCCESSFUL JUST BECAUSE IT HAS GOOD GRAPHICS.

Somehow that point is completely lost on you, and if you can't figure it out after this post, seriously, there is no hope.

I'm going to do my utter best to deconstruct this mind-bending paragraph here, because frankly I can't quite follow your train of thought when you use so many double negatives, even after reading it twice. Maybe it's just your confusing way of wording things.

You're making the circumstance too simple with each of your italicized statements. One cannot say that "no game has ever been successful because of its graphics", but I can definitely say that no game has ever been successful solely because of its graphics. It's just not that simple. Graphics are a piece of the puzzle, and the puzzle cannot be complete without that piece. This has already been identified in this discussion.

Basically, again, you're essentially stating the obvious.

Okay. You're right. You cannot say that a game wasn't successful because of it's graphics. That's just like saying "You can't say that graphics didn't help!"...uhm...no shit. Except that's not what anybody is saying. Of course they help, but they aren't required at the level you deem to be necessary for you to enjoy a game.

So you can either try to find an easier way to explain what your trying to say if I'm still misunderstanding your point, or you can just revert to 15 year old Zyr again.

[Zyrusticae]

And since when was anyone saying a game has ever been successful solely because of its graphics? This is the invented argument bullshit I was talking about. You make shit up to argue with just so you can have shit to argue about when there's no point to argue.

Fuck's sake, man.

[Zipzo]

Do you think Killzone would be as successful if it weren't for their ridiculous graphics? What about the Crysis series? Uncharted? Battlefield?

How does this comment not directly imply that you believe graphics to be a inherently important factor in a games success? You essentially invented the "invented argument" that you're fighting against.

If you agree that a games success isn't in any way weighted by its graphics, then rescind the quoted statement or forever contradict yourself.

...but wait. You do believe a games success is weighted by its graphics, right? Don't turn tail now Zyr, we're getting to the part where you start to openly contradict yourself in front of everyone. The full circle.

[Shadowth117]

How does this comment not directly imply that you believe graphics to be a inherently important factor in a games success? You essentially invented the "invented argument" that you're fighting against.

If you agree that a games success isn't in any way weighted by its graphics, then rescind the quoted statement or forever contradict yourself.

...but wait. You do believe a games success is weighted by its graphics, right? Don't turn tail now Zyr, we're getting to the part where you start to openly contradict yourself in front of everyone. The full circle.

He didn't say that, he said its not possible to see statistically whether that alone attracts people or doesn't, but it IS a factor in whether people like the game. And I'm pretty sure YOU even agreed to that.

There's literally nothing more to talk about there.

[gigawuts]

There's literally nothing more to talk about there.

Don't worry, we won't let that stop us.

[Arkanoid]

PSO3 / PSU2 (yeah right) will have more gooderer GFX.

However, the RNG will switch each area between 5 levels of detail which you have no control over, ranging from "toxic swamp mud textures" to "Crysis 5 HD 3D whether your computer could handle it or not".

[Shadowth117]

Don't worry, we won't let that stop us.

I'm saying in regard to Zipzo's pointless assault on Zyr. The rest of the thread is another matter.

[Korazenn]

PSO3 / PSU2 (yeah right) will have more gooderer GFX.

However, the RNG will switch each area between 5 levels of detail which you have no control over, ranging from "toxic swamp mud textures" to "Crysis 5 HD 3D whether your computer could handle it or not".

Am I the only one that would actually like to see SEGA make the next Phantasy Star game completely cel-shaded?

[Kilich]

I'm saying in regard to Zipzo's pointless assault on Zyr. The rest of the thread is another matter.
I'm not so sure about who's attacking who, really.

Also, I like most of PSO2 visuals, they just don't do enough with them. For example, costumes are either NPC worn, or crossover. Ships have only a small lobby to explore, maps have only the intro overhead fly over.

And that hanging rock kinda makes sense I think, since it could be full of the ore that made the pieces of planet crust tear themselves away and hover in the air.

[Korazenn]

I'm not so sure about who's attacking who, really.

Also, I like most of PSO2 visuals, they just don't do enough with them. For example, costumes are either NPC worn, or crossover. Ships have only a small lobby to explore, maps have only the intro overhead fly over.

And that hanging rock kinda makes sense I think, since it could be full of the ore that made the pieces of planet crust tear themselves away and hover in the air.

NPC Costumes can be received through the FUN and AC Scratches as they rotate. I find the lobby is quite large compared to what the original PSO had.

[Lumpen Thingy]

PSO3 / PSU2 (yeah right) will have more gooderer GFX.

However, the RNG will switch each area between 5 levels of detail which you have no control over, ranging from "toxic swamp mud textures" to "Crysis 5 HD 3D whether your computer could handle it or not".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiBBqwwdpe8

[Zipzo]

He didn't say that, he said its not possible to see statistically whether that alone attracts people or doesn't, but it IS a factor in whether people like the game. And I'm pretty sure YOU even agreed to that.

There's literally nothing more to talk about there.

He didn't say what? The quote that came directly from one of his posts? Try getting a clue before you butt in like a hero.

Your post right here is irrelevant to what either of us are saying. I never contested that we were speaking of figures that would be impossible to quantify. I never contested that it could be a factor in somebody's enjoyment of a game.

I simply spoke to a simple idea that came from Zyr's mouth (or typing hands), that graphics are not necessary for a games success. They are a factor in some games success because it allows for a more flexible aesthetic, but they are not, never were, and probably never will be necessary. Zyr himself said that the balance, the empirical success of the games he spoke of was inherently due to the graphics.

No, graphics did not play a part in Battlefield, Killzone, or whatever other game you want to mentions' success.

You, Shadow, are just saying nothing.

[Lumpen Thingy]

He didn't say what? The quote that came directly from one of his posts? Try getting a clue before you butt in like a hero.

Your post right here is irrelevant to what either of us are saying. I never contested that we were speaking of figures that would be impossible to quantify. I never contested that it could be a factor in somebody's enjoyment of a game.

I simply spoke to a simple idea that came from Zyr's mouth (or typing hands), that graphics are not necessary for a games success. They are a factor in some games success because it allows for a more flexible aesthetic, but they are not, never were, and probably never will be necessary. Zyr himself said that the balance, the empirical success of the games he spoke of was inherently due to the graphics.

No, graphics did not play a part in Battlefield, Killzone, or whatever other game you want to mentions' success.

You, Shadow, are just saying nothing.

Pac-man and tetris were totally successful because of its graphics

[gigawuts]

Pac-man and tetris were totally successful because of its graphics

The thing is at the time those were phenomenal, and a lot of kids today will say they refuse to play anything less than whatever the current gen offers because everything older looks so bad.

Jesus, when people saw shit like pacman back then they had to pick their jaws up off the floor.

[Zyrusticae]

I simply spoke to a simple idea that came from Zyr's mouth (or typing hands), that graphics are not necessary for a games success. They are a factor in some games success because it allows for a more flexible aesthetic, but they are not, never were, and probably never will be necessary. Zyr himself said that the balance, the empirical success of the games he spoke of was inherently due to the graphics.

No, graphics did not play a part in Battlefield, Killzone, or whatever other game you want to mentions' success.
You're fucking delusional.

Goddamn, you are completely delusional.

There's literally no point to trying to argue with you. This is a level of sheer delusion beyond anything I can manage. I couldn't be this delusional even if I did my damnedest to be so.

[Arkanoid]

No, graphics did not play a part in Battlefield, Killzone, or whatever other game you want to mentions' success.


TBH those two examples are pretty funny because certain entries reached greater success because of their graphics. Battlefield 3 - a game which had to compete with Modern Warefare 3 and would do it by having significantly better graphics and destructible walls. Killzone 2 - a sequel to a PS2 game that didn't really catch on which caught a lot of attention by basically having a completely fake trailer that made it look like it had ridiculously good graphics that had never been seen before.

[jooozek]

cod vs bf
brown vs blue

[MetalDude]

Probably because the games looked ridiculously similar at a glance and needed more distinguishing visual traits.

[Vashyron]

This talk of aesthetics man. I remind myself of PSO and it's very nice visually designed areas such as Seaside and pretty much all the CCA locations. Then I look at PSO2 and it's coast... blargh.

If people even remember PSO EP3 it had even further nice looking areas too, sure can be put forward to them basically being small arenas... Then I look at PSO2 and it's bland Extreme Quest arena. :wacko:

[NoiseHERO]

I actually like all of PSO2 area's CONCEPT wise.

Ingame/level design wise it's just a collage of kitten pictures you're sick of looking at.

[gigawuts]

Even the concepts fall short though.

Not to mention the execution.

The areas tell little to no story. The quests that take you there tell even less of one. Quests should be about doing something for someone, and finding out things about the game world in the process. Are they? No. You're just told to go to some alien planet and commit some more genocide.

[AgemFrostMage]

Even the concepts fall short though.

Not to mention the execution.

The areas tell little to no story. The quests that take you there tell even less of one. Quests should be about doing something for someone, and finding out things about the game world in the process. Are they? No. You're just told to go to some alien planet and commit some more genocide.

That blank slate I love though! You don't see any people being herded like cattle, so you imagine offscreen areas where they are (my made up story for Amadeusca, rescue humans from being eaten by dragons). You don't commit genocide on those planets you destroy Dark Force's minions, and everything you kill works for him.

[The Walrus]

Nope. Genocide. So Franka can cook them for you later.

Galactic foodies.

[Zalana]

I wish they did update the graphics in the game because, I feel like my video cards went to waste playing this game. :| Would be nice to see a DX11 version of the game or something of that nature.

[Zipzo]

You're fucking delusional.

Goddamn, you are completely delusional.

There's literally no point to trying to argue with you. This is a level of sheer delusion beyond anything I can manage. I couldn't be this delusional even if I did my damnedest to be so.

The only delusion here is that you think I'm the one that's being difficult... ¬_¬

[Shadowth117]

The only delusion here is that you think I'm the one that's being difficult... ¬_¬

If that's not the case why did you say anything more right there? He's at fault too as far as that goes, but you're persisting and acting like you're clean here.

[Aeris]

I wish they did update the graphics in the game because, I feel like my video cards went to waste playing this game. :| Would be nice to see a DX11 version of the game or something of that nature.

Would be nice though, better high rez textures at the cost of performance, also takes longer to code for DX11 then to do so in DX9 if they take the time to put it as a selectable option for the game, then most people have to get DX11 cards to see how it is :-P.