Support NeoGAF

[Sosokrates]

Lighting,textures and geometry

 

[Kazekage1981]

what about cinematic realistic silky fluid movement? Im getting tired of the protagonist and NPC's looking like stiff puppet dolls. Soul Calibur for sega dreamcast and bayonetta are the most fluid silky smooth 60fps games, and I could care less about them not having great textures.

I have not played the last of us series and I don't have PlayStation so I can't comment on that.

Not to mention the unrealistic facial animations and movements. Games still have that stiff manikin doll look. The next frontier in graphics is not ray tracing, hyper realistic textures, its actually cinematic silky smooth realistic movement. I would rather have cinematic silky smooth realistic movement baked into the game then 'simulated' cause that's just another reason to tank performance.

 

[GymWolf]

Getting the feeling you're not understanding me at all.

There's more to lighting than ray tracing btw.

Maybe, but you said that lights can transform even something like minecraft and the question the op is asking is what is more important between textures and other factors like lights etc.

And if that is not a proof that only good lights achieve jack shit without detailed textures, i don't know what other proof people need.

Again, you are not gonna convince me that the minecraft demo looks impressive in any shape or form unless you like the vomit inducing minecraft artstyle to begin with, but that's more of a personal thing than a real argument.

 

[Kimahri]

Maybe, but you said that lights can transform even something like minecraft and the question the op is asking is what is more important between textures and other factors like lights etc.

And if that is not a proof that only good lights achieve jack shit without detailed textures, i don't know what other proof people need.

Again, you are not gonna convince me that the minecraft demo looks impressive in any shape or form unless you like the vomit inducing minecraft artstyle to begin with, but that's more of a personal thing than a real argument.

My point is that the right light can take the ugly minecraft brick and make it look like a real (ugly) brick. It can look like I made a box and painted it.

No textures can do that. With poor light, all textures fall apart.

All of them.

 

[64bitmodels]

Again, you are not gonna convince me that the minecraft demo looks impressive in any shape or form unless you like the vomit inducing minecraft artstyle to begin with, but that's more of a personal thing than a real argument.

There have been minecraft resource packs that replace the games textures with realistic versions and it all tends to look off. Minecraft is a giant voxel, it would never look good with realistic textures because the juxtaposition between the lifelike textures and the blocky design actually kills my immersion more than anything. Minecraft is intentionally meant to look pixellated and when you remove that, the game looks uncanny. Better textures isn't worth completely fucking up the artstyle that made the game what it is.

 

[GymWolf]

My point is that the right light can take the ugly minecraft brick and make it look like a real (ugly) brick. It can look like I made a box and painted it.

No textures can do that. With poor light, all textures fall apart.

All of them.

Ok i get that (although they don't look any more real to me, just different shade of low details stuff).

My problem is that i think at rtx like something that aim to improve realism, and my brain can't see any realism on games like minecraft or quake 2 so rtx on these games is absolutely pointless to me because even with realistic lights, those shitty textures remain shitty and not realistic at all.

I see the point of rtx on good\realistic looking games, but not on stuff with old ass graphic unoless you also work on the textures (like another famous rtx minecraft demo that looks much better than the one i posted)

 

[GymWolf]

There have been minecraft resource packs that replace the games textures with realistic versions and it all tends to look off. Minecraft is a giant voxel, it would never look good with realistic textures because the juxtaposition between the lifelike textures and the blocky design actually kills my immersion more than anything. Minecraft is intentionally meant to look pixellated and when you remove that, the game looks uncanny. Better textures isn't worth completely fucking up the artstyle that made the game what it is.

I saw the trailer with realistic looking minecraft and yeah it still look like shit because i hate the art design, but to me it looks vastly better than the trailer with only rtx lights without texture rework.

The more we go far from minecraft artstyle the more i like it.

 

[consoul]

flat-shaded Virtua Fighter 1 & Virtua Racing would like you to know textures are overrated

 

[64bitmodels]

My point is that the right light can take the ugly minecraft brick and make it look like a real (ugly) brick. It can look like I made a box and painted it.

No textures can do that. With poor light, all textures fall apart.

All of them.

Cool, but when I play final fantasy 7 remake I'm playing a game that ISNT painted, neither is it a voxel game. It's a realistic, cinematic reinterpretation of the original back in 1997. I expect everything to look good, and mediocre lighting wouldn't affect me that much since I can still feel immersed into the world and characters. That never happens when a pixellated, blurry texture completely fucks up the illusion and you see the curtains behind the beautiful environments. It's the reverse situation of minecraft, blocky textures with beautiful, immersive design

 

[64bitmodels]

flat-shaded Virtua Fighter 1 & Virtua Racing would like you to know textures are overrated

Scud Race looks better than both of em.

 

[Kimahri]

Ok i get that (although they don't look any more real to me, just different shade of low details stuff).

My problem is that i think at rtx like something that aim to improve realism, and my brain can't see any realism on games like minecraft or quake 2 so rtx on these games is absolutely pointless to me because even with realistic lights, those shitty textures remain shitty and not realistic at all.

I see the point of rtx on good\realistic looking games, but not on stuff with old ass graphic unoless you also work on the textures (like another famous rtx minecraft demo that looks much better than the one i posted)

I think RTX is overrated honestly. It does it's thing, but there are other ways of doing things. An old game like Blue Dragon for example at times it still looks like it's just built out of playdough or something. It's obviously far more complex than just one thing, and the overall art direction is hugely imoportant, but just slapping on som ray tracing and calling it a day isn't gonna make anything look life like.

 

[captainnapalm]

This is an interesting topic for me, considering I played Uncharted 2 for the first time recently and was pretty blown away. It really feels like one of the best-looking games I've ever played, even by today's standards. One of the things that stood out for me was how many interactive elements they managed to include in every scene - wind, dust, moving objects, destructible objects and so on - to make the scenes come alive. Also the incredible art direction, colors and lighting. It's embarrassing that a game from 2009 can put modern games to shame in this respect.

 

[lh032]

yea we are in 2022, some part of texture is still blurry for some reason.
Dear Devs, we gamers do look around you know.

 

[Lethal01]

I think RTX is overrated honestly. It does it's thing, but there are other ways of doing things. An old game like Blue Dragon for example at times it still looks like it's just built out of playdough or something. It's obviously far more complex than just one thing, and the overall art direction is hugely imoportant, but just slapping on som ray tracing and calling it a day isn't gonna make anything look life like.

In terms of looking real Lighting is absolutely the most important thing by far. If it looks like playdough fine, it will look like Playdough.
If you raytrace legos you get real looking legos, Accurate lighting makes everything look like a real something.

 

[SpokkX]

Lightning is way more important

See ray tracing

 

[lh032]

In terms of looking real Lighting is absolutely the most important thing by far. If it looks like playdough fine, it will look like Playdough.
If you raytrace legos you get real looking legos, Accurate lighting makes everything look like a real something.

but stray and demon souls look good though, they dont have rtx.

 

[DelireMan7]

Minecraft still looks absolute shit if you don't mod the textures tho





You are not gonna convince me of the opposite.

As someone who doesn't care about visuals and tech in games, I am really impressed by the difference shown here. Thanks !

> Photorealism in games

My thoughts when I saw these screenshots
"Indeed this looks quite realistic. Why would I want to play this game ?"

I don't want realism in my games.

 

[Philfrag]

Good visuals are nothing without good audio when it comes to immersion. So much of how we experience a sense of space is done through hearing. Try playing your most immersive game with the sound off. Or think of a time when a game you were playing bugged out and the audio broke, it suddenly becomes a completely different experience. When I talk audio I mean foley and the production surrounding it, not necessarily the soundtrack. Although music used sparingly can definitely immerse you.

TLDR - Good audio will sell visuals so much more than trying to squeeze as much graphical fidelity out of a game. Especially when referring to immersion

 

[RoboFu]

I don’t care how sharp your textures are if your game is boring and lifeless.

 

[Ferdimage]

I don’t care how sharp your textures are if your game is boring and lifeless.

Order 1886 vibes?

 

[SirTerry-T]

Art Style IS a part of textures...

Best Texture not means "All in 8K ultra HI-RES lol"

I think the poster means art direction...and they are correct. If a game has shitty art direction, all the bells and whistles of 4k textures and ray traced lighting are not going to save it.

 

[SF Kosmo]

Materials, not textures. Textures is way too limited, it's not just about that, especially in the era of physically based rendering.

 

[64bitmodels]

I think RTX is overrated honestly.

I agree, there's certainly a less taxing way to have accurate light than RTX and it's goofy performance

 

[jm89]

Nier automata was one of the worst cases I've seen last gen. Some areas had PS2 textures, it wasn't widespread so wasn't a huge deal but when you saw it it was serously jarring.

 

[Lethal01]

but stray and demon souls look good though, they dont have rtx.

And I love the look of Mario64 and Final Fantasy 9 but we're talking about looking realistic. And yes Demon's Souls and Stray would look far more realistic with raytracing.

 

[64bitmodels]

And I love the look of Mario64 and Final Fantasy 9 but we re talking about looking realistic aren't we? And yes Demon's Souls and Stray would look far more realistic with raytracing.

Mario 64 and FF9 are vastly different games from stray and demons souls, the former look far less realistic than the latter (though i think FF9 is one of the best looking games ever made)

 

[Lethal01]

I agree, there's certainly a less taxing way to have accurate light than RTX and it's goofy performance

There actually isn't

Mario 64 and FF9 are vastly different games from stray and demons souls, the former look far more realistic than the latter (though i think FF9 is one of the best looking games ever made)

Again, the point here is that with better lighting those games would look far more realistic.