Did graphics really need to improve from this point?

Did graphics really need to improve from this point?

colors BAD

Black Flag is where graphics peaked.

Nope, they should have stuck to the PS3/360 gen levels of graphics and improved everything else.

All you need is this graphics in 60+ FPS
youtu.be/LIgY8Uscq4k?si=9PbcG8hn68Bf2Xh3&t=661

Why did Anon Babble hated the old asscreed series again?

yes

Why isn't the Oblivion remaster like this?

Bethesda always cuts corners.

Devs are still trying to catch up to a game from 2018 and they haven't even come close. RDR2 also runs way better than games that have come after it.

Just realized how much this game was carried by the sky box. It's so gorgeous, so close to the real deal and one of the best in this gaming industry.

It's not a skybox. Those are actual clouds that you can fly through.

improve

My nigger, AssCreed was fugly brown and bloom console shit day 1.

Things have only been declining since 2007.

Because it's Unreal 5 Pajeet slop.

fucking phoneposters and their tracking links

wrong, besides the water and the smoke, AC4 looks like absolute trash
Unity is better

what makes this look better than assassins creed? i think assassins creed color palette fits the game brooding atmosphere pretty well, the harem is one of the most mystical places in videogame history and besides that damascus is pretty colorful. i think what really does the game justice is the textures in the architectural details, they can be breathtaking at times.

Yes. The game looks like shit.

what makes this look better than assassins creed?

Actual color, depth, contrast, texture, lighting and effects. Also 10x more world interaction.

RDR2 is a really amazing looking game even today. The only other game I could think of that looks this good graphically is Batman Arkham Knight.

Too bad Crytek doesn't know how to make actual games on top of the engine that doesn't run well on anything.

Acre is supposed to look depressing as fuck, the game happens right after a huge siege of the city

the city was all colorful and great but then a siege happened and everything turned grey

I want my cities to be bright and colorful with rainbow flags

I see.

Yes, that looks like absolute shit.

yeah because of the body pyres and fires making everything smoky and the rain that this brings

It's fun to keep pushing past good and try to get really good

Imagine randomly pulling up some political topic because someone said they want their game to have more color in it instead of just brown and grey with a piss filter
Call your dad and apologize for being a failure of a son

50 shades of grey the game

that looks soulful though

dude, you can make artistic decisions to convey a vibe.
not everything has to be 1:1 with real life.
When you arrive to the city you can already feel it.
Sick people everywhere, crumbled walls, ruined housing etc.
visual storytelling faggot

Jesus fucking christ how horrible
Why does this game look so drab and brown?
It's not even realistic
Even the fucking skybox is brown
Why were the devs afraid of color?

Far Cry 1 ran just fine on a 2003 tier mid-tier hardware (2Ghz 1-core AMD Athlon + 1GB DDR + Geforce FX 5600 256mb), the same stuff needed to run Doom 3 and HL2 smoothly.

The same setup with 1.5GB RAM did run Crysis 1 "okay" at 800x600, medium settings. As in roughly 20-25fps average. Low was much better, but looked worse than FC1 back in 2004.
Fortunately, at that point you could get a Core2duo 6600 + 4GB DDR2 + GTX 7800 or 8800GT 512MB for a very modest price, and enjoy the game at HD res, all high, 60fps.

It's also funny to see zoomers shit on CryEngine, since the Crysis 3 could be ran at "console quality" (720p / 30fps on low) on an Intel HD Graphics 4000 laptop, back in 2014.
And now, both Kindom Come Deliverance games run on custom Cryengine, and run + look waaay better than the average UE5 slop.

Does not excuse the lack of distance detail, lack of shading, lack of texture, lack of water effects and lack of world interaction. Or those waxy human character models that would've looked bad even on PS2.
Console trash of 7th gen looked like utter ass. There's a reason why the bloom + blur + brown (or occasionally BLUE) were the meme mark of the era.

Does not excuse the lack of distance detail, lack of shading, lack of texture, lack of water effects and lack of world interaction

nigga it was 2007
it looks great for being the first game of its type and having to cram the tech for parkour in

works on my toaster

Everything after PS2--graphics wise--were a complete mistake.

Yes

See, this is how you do fog. It's dependent on the time of day, hags in valleys, etc. Bethesda should learn from this.

Imagine being so gay you suck cocks. Oh. You don't have to imagine it.

remastered using trillions of triangles per asset

this is a flex

with the right shaders 6k triangles will look the same as 60k triangles.
now games run like shit when they dont have to cause they insist on pushing past the point of diminishing returns

Does not excuse the lack of distance detail, lack of shading, lack of texture, lack of water effects and lack of world interaction

The top of the line GPU at the time was an 8800GTX which had 512mb of ram and cost $600.

i was blown away by how good this looked in 2008

also I found a youtube video of a guy playing Crisis 1 with an 8800GTX at 1020x1024 very high settings it runs at 16-27fps.

So yeah I wonder why Assasin's Creed 1 is so foggy and all the buildings are so low poly at a distance when the player is high enough to see the entire city in the frame! It's ALMOST like the game was released in 2007 and was targeting GPUs that people actually had access to!

1280x1024*

Crisis 1 with an 8800GTX at 1020x1024 very high settings it runs at 16-27fps.

That can't be right, I used to get 50+ FPS on 1280x102 and high settings with my 8600GT

this is a mobile game

yes

The real problem with modern games is the lack of sharpness in the image. Everything is blurry and fucked up.
I'm playing Talos Principle Reawakened and the visuals are terrible the whole time you're moving the screen, there's no clarity at all, everything loses sharpness and leaves traces on the screen when you move, and fine details like vegetation, fences, etc., create a whole noise around them because of the DLSS tech which is horrible, but nobody seems to care because the standards of both critics and the public are almost zero.

BRO CHECK OUT THE STONE IT LOOKS SO REAL

LOOK AT THE CLOTH ON THE FLAGS MAN

meanwhile I can count the triangles in the gigantic ass window grate on my fingers

normal maps and their consequences have been a disaster for rendering pipeline optimization. To answer your question, OP, yes, graphics needed to get better from that point

it looks great for being the first game of its type

Bitch didn't ever play a single Prince Of Persia game, huh?

It looked ancient as fuck back in 2008.

Yes, and you did not need any of that to run Crysis.
Like said, most of us chose 8800GT, not GTX, because it was way cheaper and ran shockingly close to its bigger cousin.
Even before that, a Geforce 6600GT was more than enough to run any game up until ~2011 or so.

Just turn off DLSS?

What you're missing is that a competently made game will move from the 600k triangle asset to the 6k triangle asset based on how much screen space it occupies, thus saving that rendering cost. Meanwhile the "right shaders" spend 200MB of VRAM and 250 instructions per draw call trying to fake 500 triangles' worth of detail even though modern rendering hardware is nothing more than machinery for rasterizing triangles as fast as possible. An old ass 970 can rasterize tens of millions of triangles at 60FPS without breaking a sweat.

then comes to point of quad overdraws where you try to fit a few thousand triangles into the same 4 pixels, wasting a lot performance especially when scaling up resolution

I'm googling and look at old bench mark results.
I think you really really forgot how hard Crysis pushed peoples hardware. I lived through it. I remember. Every gaming publication tested cards against it for years.

This is too much detail and it hurts my eyes/brain.

Art style is more important than graphics quality. BotW looks fine even though the graphics are pretty shit

This is not a viable option. My RTX3090 can't maintain 30fps in TP 2 and reawakened without some kind of algorithm reconstructing the image, even in 1440p. The only way to do that is to turn off ray tracing altogether, more sophisticated global illumination, etc., but then you're left with a crippled game that clearly wasn't meant to be played that way by the artists and developers.
This is going to be the reality from now on, for both AAAs and AAs. To see clear images in native resolution again, you'll have to either play games from 15 years ago, or play things made by indies on their own engines.

You should try going outside every now and then

the zoomer mind is an enigma

Well you could just, you know, not play the game. If everyone did this maybe the devs would get the message that nobody wants blurry shit that runs like shit

The whole point of LOD is to reduce quad overdraw. That's WHY you switch from the 600k triangle asset to the 6k triangle asset based on screen space.

Why are you niggers still stuck in 2007? get a job and upgrade your shitbox

and thats not whats happening in modern games.
the art of good LODs has been replaced by nanite, which kills performance.

i did :)

Graphics aren't even getting better, I've been noticing more garbage artifacts in recent games than I've ever noticed subpar graphics in 10 year old games
At 4k with native resolution scaling, this shit looks like I fingerpainted it, and why? What fucking causes this? How do you even manage this?

I could take bad textures, I could take shitty bushes, but this shit is actively making me instantly uninstall demos and never look back. How fucking hard can it be to just render the model like they did ten years ago and move on?

this is the only modern game that actually looks good other than kcd1/2 and maybe death stranding. why can't modern games look this good?

When they make worthwhile games I will

sands of time look really peak. some of the assassins hideouts looked a lot like it and some caves too, you could really tell it was a sequence to them.

nta, but i'm 32 and so used to lower fidelity games where if you could see something in the world it meant you could interact with it somehow
ever since 360 era and beyond i got super annoyed at games that seemingly have a lot of stuff in them but it's all just set dressing

it feels wasteful or something? and at worst distracting or makes you believe the game is cooler than it really is and then you find out "oh, it's just a static prop, how lame"

meanwhile games that have a more rudimentari look and only show the bare minimum of what's there can feel barren with poor artdirectiona nd gameplay, but i usually can get immersed into those just fine despite looking like crude origami compared to the games i mentioned before

such a shame that she doesn't have good porn

just for fun posting some low fidelity kino as contrast

lol yes she does, in fact she's my favorite after Sarah

You see that mountain? You can't actually get to it, only the predetermined paths the devs built

It's crazy how much of a better game Breath of the Wild was yet RDR2 got all the awards because it went for realism in graphics and mind numbing tedium for gameplay.

Nanite is realtime LOD that aims for one polygon per pixel
Yes it has a higher performance overhead than traditional LOD systems
But it's still not rendering "a few thousand triangles into the same 4 pixels"

I don't even like nanite but maybe spend a couple minutes researching what you're talking about

You can't actually get to it, only the predetermined paths the devs built

No problem, there's plenty of areas for me to go to, thanks R* :)

Zoomers cannot comprehend this. It's like GTAV having way more detail than IV but it feels like V has much less interaction. Like you can't go inside fast food buildings, you can't buy food from vendors. Physics and card damage is dumbed down. Yeah lighting is better but also the characters look less impressive because they look more realistic. Less unique. Also I think about how much development time is wasted in placing trash or objects in the world, while older games just used simple effects to generate trash.

hags in valleys

I will admit that I'm far from a graphics expert, but its hard not to notice the drop in graphical quality and performance over the last decade.
like the witcher 3 looks and runs great, while anything on UE5 is the exact opposite.

Anything with Unreal suffers. That's why it was a pain being a Switch fan all this years. New Switch game? If it runs on unreal that means it won't hit a stable 30fps and will look blurry because the devs didn't optimize the graphics. It's also pathetic that the id Tech games run much better and look much better than Unreal games but nobody mentions it. I think the only Unreal games to have optimization are Tony Hawk 1+2 and Dragon Quest because the devs reworked the assets. Also every official Nintendo game that ran Unreal like Yoshis Crafted World and Princess Peach Showtime ran like shit. Even Pikmin 4 has the usual Unreal texture pop in hiccups.

I don't even need graphics to be as high fidelity as in OP.

Nanite isn't even close to UE5's worst offender.
In terms of performance impact, VSMs and lumen are far heavier.
But honestly the real issue is that Unreal's level streaming system is fucking aids. And it has been since at least UE4.
There is no way to load a new map in Unreal without causing hitching.
And their new open world system doesn't fix anything.

Async my ass.

and they haven't even come close

I think AC Shadows looks better than RDR2.

The biggest criticism I'd have of AC Shadows is that due to Ubisoft design philosophy, there's no fields as open as what you'll see in certain areas of RDR2.
The map in general is designed more cynical and utilitarian, because they have to plop down hills everywhere to avoid letting you see the 10 Ubisoft towers/castles that are a stone's throw away.

But the actual game, despite my quibbles with the map design, actually looks breathtaking.

anti-soul gas

into the trash it goes

Ubisoft has always been really good at graphics. That Avatar Pandora game looks incredible and even Star Wars Outlaws has its moments. They just can't into game design.

no. all we've been doing for the last 10-15 years is desperately polishing our pixels to higher degrees of shininess because the (((gpu manufacturers))) shit out a new product line every 18 months facilitating an extra 10% of pixel shininess. there was no need to be wasting dev time on gay bullshit like water effects or raytracing. all it has done is create the vidya version of audiophiles where the average slopper faggot spends 3 hours optimizing their game settings and running benchmarks before inevitably getting filtered by the shitty story and broken gameplay. despite visually looking the best it ever has, vidya is dead. it's over

Whoops my fault, you already posted the same webm.

Did graphics NEED to go beyond this point?

Since UE5 is so shit, when will some autists get together and build an open source engine that shits all over UE?

Lol it's a shorter version with higher bitrate

Peaked at Unity, been downhill ever since.

Yeah probably.
Thief 2 is pretty rough looking.
But something like Black Parade or System Shock 2 Remaster would be fine.
Low poly models + high res textures is a kino combination.

there's no fields as open as what you'll see in certain areas of RDR2.

I think that's because they aimed for the highest amount of trees/flora in a game. It's baffling in a good way to see how easy it is to get lost in forests and clip through trees blocking the camera and view

UE5 is a good engine in specific circumstances. It's just not built for these massive, open world games and unfortunately that's what every dev wants to make now. For an indie dev making a level based game it should be fine.

Bitch didn't ever play a single Prince Of Persia game, huh?

POP wasnt a free roam game retard

the cloud jpeg looks great. the models are so-so

Do you think the average player would give a shit if they were explained how devs being lazy and or incompetent with UE results in worse looking and performing games or would they just ignore you because they can still go around killing stuff while looking at something they consider pretty because they dont know any better?

How does this work in-game? Is there a season cycle based on the day/night cycle or does it just advance to a different season depending on story progress?

It's already been surpassed by Mirage. Unity had it easy because the time of day was static with baked lighting while the others always had dynamic time.

The original Oblivion ran at 15-20fps and stuttered every 15 feet and it sold tens of millions of copies on the 360.
Bloodborne ran at a solid 22 fps with frequent stutters. Elden Ring still frequently stutters even on top end hardware.
My ex played Hogwarts Legacy on the Switch and "had a good time".
Your average person doesn't give that much of a fuck about performance issues. The only people who do are people who you'll never please no matter what you do.

nigga posting webms of RDR2 as if playing the game isnt the equivalent of trying to swim trough molasses

Unity has a day night cycle and baked lighting.
So does Mirage.
They use the exact same system. It's probe based GI that they bake out for 8 times per day and blend between them.
Even Shadows uses the same system (if you're not using raytracing) in the city areas but not for the entire world because it would've been too much memory.
The devs talk about it in the Digital Foundry video.

It works based off of time advancing.
On the map screen you have a gauge that shows you how close you are to the next season.

Each season has two stages to it (So technically 8 seasons, you have early/late versions of Winter, Fall, Spring, and Summer).
Once the gauge fills up for the season stage you're in, you can manually advance to the next stage yourself with a button. Otherwise, it will advance automatically once you switch characters or fast travel or complete a major story mission.

I love it since it keeps the game looking dynamic, on top of the weather system also being pretty great.
My biggest problem though is that even post-game there's no way to force season changes prematurely, you just gotta wait it out. Same with time of day. So if you wanna take screenshots/webms or just see the game in a particular season, you gotta wait it out.

It's dynamic and based on how many playing hours have passed. When a season reaches its peak it'll automatically change when reloading the world through a quest or fast travel.

To be honest, it's mostly a visual effect. though it resets the scouts and enemy placement, besides winter slowing down the movement speed.

its better in motion
youtu.be/UBChZmHvcsQ?t=48

Heh.
So it's not actually a dynamic season system? They just re-built the environment and swap between them?
That's kind of disappointing to hear.

I'm pretty sure there's no real cycle it's just time presets

The only people who do are people who you'll never please no matter what you do.

Shit eater detected.

You're right.
But they do use the same system.

Unity does have a day/night cycle

Thanks for the info pals, sounds dope as fuck. I haven't played AC since Origins but I wanna try some of the newer ones now.

Modern games are rarely killed by triangle-driven quad overdraw. It does happen, but it's rarer than you think.

Far more common offenders:
Enormous texture size usage, textures ballooning to 4k has caused massive problems because textures have to be streamed in and out constantly to get around VRAM limits
transparency overdraw, especially thanks to the over-use of particle effect spam
dynamic lighting causing the scene to be rendered multiple times (each asset needs to be rasterized per light source)
substance-designer-driven workflows causing every single object to be broken into dozens of draw calls because devs can't atlas for shit
shader compilation stuttering (this is a problem with how DX12/Vulkan work)

The biggest problem with heavy triangle counts today appears on skeletal meshes, because there it's not an issue of the rasterization, but computing the position of so many vertices when a bone deforms a mesh. Shit like the infamous dragon from Forspoken cause issues because it has the triangle density of the landscape, but every time it moves a wing bone 70,000 vertices have to be recomputed.

Keep in mind it doesn't happen in real-time so temper your expectations a bit

Yeah I guess. Did you expect for the seasons to subtly change over the course of like 12 hours or something?
I think they did it about as best as you could. Has any game other than, like, Shenmue ever tried seasons the way you want? (Key word: TRIED. I don't think Shenmue can actually change seasons they only showed it at tech demos.)

I can't fathom what point you're trying to make with such a question

colors=graphic evolution

Did you expect for the seasons to subtly change over the course of like 12 hours or something?

Honestly yeah. I've never seen a game do it before and thought Ubisoft had finally figured it out. It goes from being a cool technical feat to being a matter of just throwing more man hours into it to rebuild the world 4 times.
I remember seeing a video with snow melting so I'm guessing there is some variance to it though?

*2015

rebuild the world 4 times

eight times. Each season has two stages, and different regions experience it to different degrees.

I remember seeing a video with snow melting so I'm guessing there is some variance to it though?

Yes/no.

Weather like rain and snow will build up and form puddles and snowy ground, but you won't get temporary snow banks from a snow storm if thats what you mean.

No. It should've went into making big hand crafted worlds with tons of interaction.
Instead we got movies. I can appreciate technically good looking games but I am not interested in playing far cry 3, the last of us, or batman for the 100th time.

You can't see 'tons of interaction' in a screenshot. you can see pretty graphics though

honestly i hate this even more than if it was just plainly bad in all aspects. like bf1 had beautiful looking maps and guns and ok sounds, then ruined all the beautiful scenarios with immersion breaking africans and ridiculous out of place gameplay. desu ubishit always excelled at this. i remember playing ac2 and thinking the story was the gayest most retarded shit i've ever seen (i was such a sweet summer child who didn't know how bad it would get) but the cities were so well made and beautiful and the ik animations made the game so fun to play you could overlook the shitty story. now they take it too far up to the point it can't be ignored anymore. crazy how low the bar is, just don't make ezio black or a woman, that's how easy it is.

I miss the early style of graphics from the ps3/360 era... It didnt stick around long enough.

crazy how low the bar is, just don't make ezio black or a woman, that's how easy it is.

I don't care about that shit because I'm not brain rotted by Anon Babblefags.

I don't care about that shit because

... i'm a tasteless normie imbecile

normie

Go back to L*ddit already faggot.

Arkham Knight ran notoriously shitty.

you're the cuckold seeing the Anon Babble boogeyman everywhere, just like all rebbidiots. you go back

You're obviously a tourist, using words only tourists use.
Fuck off.

Fixed relatively early, now the game just shines as a 10-year-old graphical achievement

you're obviously a race cuckold rebbitor seething about Anon Babble for no reason other than being triggered. go back to your safe space, cucky, i'm talking about videogames here

What a weird way to spell Odyssey. The difference is lighting.

No, the adults were talking about videogames.
You're a faggot crying about playing as females in videogames. Go back to your femboy threads, faggot.

For the most part, no. Extremely few games get any mileage out of photorealistic faces, let alone 8k ferns etc and yet it balloons the development costs. But studios believe normies won't buy new games that look like the ones on PS3, so it keeps happening. Maybe they are right idk

having a blast too with it!
a return to form!

seriously nigga

Kek, retarded tourist doesn't even know the rules

still here pussy go cry to the mods some more

le nonsensical rules have to be le followed waaa waaa waaa

meanwhile you're here derailing my thread

This is not as impressive looking once you know something about videogame engines.

I loved Mirage and the return to form, but while some parts of Baghdad and the region were very nice, it didn't live up to Paris. Especially glaring were the crowd sizes - Paris is packed, as it should be, but parts of Mirage that should have huge crowds (say, the bazaar auction when investigating the Treasurer) only have a dozen and a half people in a large area that should be packed with crowds.

How are you going to cry about reporting someone, and then cry that the jannies deleted that very same post?
A brainlet/tourist/hypocrite lacking self-awareness rolled into one.

You should really go back.

Yes, looks like shit

anybody else unable to access arch.b4k.dev/v/ ?

it was merely a threat for you to behave but now you done goofed

Down for me too :(

You say that
But could you post games instead? Witcher 3 is still unmatched for how towns and landscapes look at its fidelity.
Red Dead is also competing with the insanity of 90s western/colonial movies being 30-50% landscape porn, which is impressive that it can keep up.

any idea why, with the content that they archive, they aren't being nuked from the Internet?
I've always been wondering

and they didn't
many modern games look worse yet run slower

Sometimes sites just go down, anon

no that's just a second question that I was asking there
different from the first
unless you couldn't parse it

maybe but it's impressive that no one else seems to be able to replicate it smartass

IS this the AC thread?
store.steampowered.com/app/368500/Assassins_Creed_Syndicate/

IS syndicate worth 10 buckaroos?