Ganoncrotch said:
What I am saying to you is there is no point in having the upper 2 on this list if the 3rd is just completely ignored though, you can have a 4k game running at 60fps but with starfox esque graphics from the SNES as the number of triangles and texture detail are down on the priorities, for a game to look its best imo you always need a smooth balance of all of the above, I would equally think that a game with perfect looking textures and AA would look completely wrong without correct lighting and shadows to it, would ruin the whole effect of what is being displayed. I would see your view being equal to someone who suggests the only thing which matters about a painting is the canvas which is used being of a certain size and quality, regardless of if a child were to use crayons to scribble on it, would still be a fine painting because of it's size and image quality. |
I know what you're saying but you're taking what I said out of context. I'm not saying texture details, triangle numbers are not important. But too much emphasis is put on them, at the expense of a higher resolution. When playing far cry games for example, I want to be able to easily distinguish allies from enemies (not forsaking ability to mark them), but from point of view of sub-optimal resolution and somewhat blurry anti-aliasing, those things do NOT help, especially amidst dense foliage and lots of movement in the wind.
I'm sorry but lighting and shadows when using graphics intensive code are wankathon effects. You can do these on low resource and they still look half-decent. And I disagree with your point about a game with 'perfect looking textures' looking wrong without superlative added effects. For the simple reason that there's no such thing as perfect looking textures. I've never seen a game that looks genuinely photo-realistic.
That being said, imo it's better for graphics programmers to concentrate on smooth motion and sharp clear images before anything else.
