KratosLives said:
The post is graphically ahead of its time, not what was most technical. You could have a game with a real life rendered object and it would be boring to look at and no one would think twice about it. Graphically, we are talking overall visual pleasing taking into consideration tech and artistic design. The screenshot of crysis put up was boring, heaving use depth of field , blurred backgrounds and the same greenery. Uncharted will always look better due to the variety of assets and little details used, and the range of colors which made it feel more alive and dynamic. Also what they achieved on the ps3 for that game is more staggering considering the specs they could work with.
|
They are games which were on the technical cutting edge, which meant graphically they were ahead of their time as other games took time to catch up.
Your argument is based entirely on art and personal taste, not the technical merits... In that case I could assert that Super Mario World on the SNES is superior to Uncharted.
The Playstation 3 was constantly "talked up" due to the "power of the cell". It still couldn't beat a PC however.
hinch said:
Pemalite said:
It's the stencil shadows that really made it stand out visually.
|
It was impressive at the time but its aged badly. I thought they way overused/overcooked spectacular maps and the low res textures and normal maps didn't help. Character models were quite low poly too.
In the same year (2004) Half Life 2 released and tbh it still looks quite serviceable today.
|
The modelling does have a plastic-like presentation to it, but having so many stencil shadows back on a Geforce FX/Radeon 9700 was pretty impressive back in the day... And I would argue that those stencil shadows have held up pretty well considering all the other effects games used back then like... Bloom. Ugh.