Thread #734134725
File: 1702837883231.webm (3.9 MB)
3.9 MB WEBM
Do we really need better graphics?
20 RepliesView Thread
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: hrmm.jpg (33.4 KB)
33.4 KB JPG
>>734134725
Its nice, its cool to look at. But ultimately I kind of appreciate unique artstyles more than photorealistic shit. I want to be transported to another world, not see the same one we already live in
>>
RDR2 looks great in the blurry webms but doesn't look very good when you're playing it
>>
File: AVGN squinting.jpg (40.4 KB)
40.4 KB JPG
Why does the distant landscape look like its just a painted landscape backdrop
>>
>>
>>734134725
RDR2 has decent graphics and scale but the image quality and gamefeel is fucking awful it's indescribable. The game is so blurry that 4k native looks like 1080p, and the input delay is so gigantic that it feels like I'm playing with the input delay of 4x frame generation. On those merits it's hard for me to praise the technical quality of the game.
>>
File: 1753454969452010.jpg (1.2 MB)
1.2 MB JPG
>>734134725
Sorta, yes. IF you want to do actual graphics outside of ((muh trees and grass)) you will need modern lighting techniques. Take a look at the best looking raster games that don't rely on foliage and natural landscapes e.g. Watch Dogs 2, Watch Dogs Legion and see how they fall apart inside or during certain times of day.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Imagine how good a modern Splinter Cell game could look and play if designed and built by the same type of talent that was responsible for Chaos Theory with access to modern tools and hardware
But instead of Sam Fisher we get a shinobi dyke and a nigger samurai
RIP Harambe we are in the worst possible timeline
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>734135689
>the input delay is so gigantic that it feels like I'm playing with the input delay of 4x frame generation
this
functionally there is no difference between a pretty game that runs at 15fps and needs FGx4 to run at 60fps, and RDR2 running at 60fps
the former would be eviscerated but the latter is ok i guess