Graphics

Graphics aren't determind by how realalistic it is,
Realism dosn't matter too much, details is what make or break a game.
Also, try not to use the same textures to much, break it up with dents or scratches or maybe just a slightly off color piece.
Doom 3 had good graphics because it was not chunky-like and they diverted your eyes with odd things here and there to break up the norm.

Hope that was what you are looking for. ~S of the L~

Quote:

Original post by Servant of the Lord Graphics aren't determind by how realalistic it is, Realism dosn't matter too much, details is what make or break a game. Also, try not to use the same textures to much, break it up with dents or scratches or maybe just a slightly off color piece. Doom 3 had good graphics because it was not chunky-like and they diverted your eyes with odd things here and there to break up the norm. Hope that was what you are looking for. ~S of the L~

And what about all those who go "Look at how realistic that is!" Isn't unpredictability in say a texture the same as real life? No single area will be the same, there will always be random distortion on a surface in real life..

"good graphics" is primarily the ratio of change between frames over the change in time between frames. If an image falls under the "critical fusion point" of maximum perceptable detail, it is percieved as low quality.

For example, the human eye can only perceive around 40 - 50 frames per second. Anything faster than that is wasted energy on part of the video; it looks no different. Frame rate is a bit more complex than that, in reallity. If the ratio of change between frames over the change in time between frames is too high, then it looks bad. So, by either increasing the frame rate (time between frames), or decreasing the amount of change between frames (move objects slower, or apply motion blur), you can increase the quality of the video.

That's why TV video can run as low as 24FPS. Because of how the image is captured, there is a fair amount of motion blur. This blurring decreases the amount of change between each frame. Try watching a TV video of quickly moving objects frame-by-frame. The frame will be quite blurry. When rendering in a game, frames are rendered without blurring (which is actually technically impossible with real video, there will always be some blurring, no mamtter how small) simulating that kind of blurring is extremely expensive, so 24FPS just doesn't cut it.

Increasing the screen resolution can also decrease the amount of change per frame. If you imagine a screen with pixels an inch wide, an object moving across the screen will jerk an inch at a time.

After that, "good graphics" depends on how closely the rendering matches the vision of the designer. I would technically rate Katamari Damacy as have "good graphics". They are simplistic, but they are fast, high resolution, and meet the stylistic vision of the creator.

That's pretty much the official word.

When talking about 'graphics', there are 3 main things it can refer to: Technology, Utilization, and style.

Most of the time people mention 'graphics', they're talking about the technology behind them. This is why people were 'ooh'ing and 'ah'ing about things like plastic-looking shiny rocks when various types of fake reflections became doable in different ways. Sure, rocks should be rough and not at all shiny, but the fact that a new technique was available made any people ignore the misuse of the technology.

The next most common things 'graphics' is used to mean is utilization of technology. Continuing the previous example, the technology used to make things shiny could be put on things that should be shiny for good effect. For example, a new car is usually fairly reflective and shiny, so applying the technology there is probably a good use of it (much better than putting it on rocks, at least =-)

Finally, 'graphics' sometimes is used to refer to the style of art. For example, 'Warcraft 3' is generally considered to have stylish graphics. In this case, the style is somewhat cartoonish and vibrant, and it makes the art have a certain appearance that makes the gameplay experience quite different than it would be if they had gone for a realistic style.

For a game to have good graphics in the public's mind, it has to do well at each of the three meanings, in the order I listed above. First, it has to include the latest and greatest technology that most people won't be able to use because it only runs on the latest graphics cards. Next, it has to use the technology in a sensible way to add to the feel of the game. Finally, the style of art needs to fit the reality that the game is trying to portray so that the player doesn't received mixed messages while playing the game (imagine a horror game taht takes place in a world fully of bright colors and cartoon-like exaggerations - the stuff of disturbing nightmares).

Good graphics are graphics that I look at and go "wow, that's cool-looking."

Quote:

Original post by capn_midnight For example, the human eye can only perceive around 40 - 50 frames per second. Anything faster than that is wasted energy on part of the video; it looks no different.

This is totally false. People say things like this all the time around here but can't back it up. The human capacity to perceive frames is amazing, and even if there is a 'cutoff' it is nowhere near as low as you suggest.

Quote:

Original post by MasterWorks Quote: Original post by capn_midnight For example, the human eye can only perceive around 40 - 50 frames per second. Anything faster than that is wasted energy on part of the video; it looks no different. This is totally false. People say things like this all the time around here but can't back it up. The human capacity to perceive frames is amazing, and even if there is a 'cutoff' it is nowhere near as low as you suggest.

it's not totally false. 60fps is the concensus maximum, especially for the amount of work involved. Like I said, it's more complex than just framerate.

Quote:

Original post by MasterWorks This is totally false. People say things like this all the time around here but can't back it up. The human capacity to perceive frames is amazing, and even if there is a 'cutoff' it is nowhere near as low as you suggest.

Make sure you're differentiating between persistence of vision and perception of strobing. Humans can tell that something's flashing at 60 hertz, but not that individual frames are being displayed.

Quote:

Original post by capn_midnight [...]it's not totally false. 60fps is the concensus maximum, especially for the amount of work involved. Like I said, it's more complex than just framerate.

I don't see anywhere in there that talks about the maximum refresh rate that they eye can tell is different from some higher refresh rate. I'd argue that in fast paced games where the visible image changes often (such as FPS) that I can tell the difference between 60FPS and 100FPS, so that my eyes must be able to tell the difference between the two. I can't see 60 individual images, but I can tell that the 100FPS version is much smoother because of the way it feels - the response to input will be much quicker, things will move in smaller jumps across the screen (manifested as an apparent motion blur when compared to the slower FPS version), etc.

Quote:

Original post by Extrarius Quote: Original post by capn_midnight [...]it's not totally false. 60fps is the concensus maximum, especially for the amount of work involved. Like I said, it's more complex than just framerate. I don't see anywhere in there that talks about the maximum refresh rate that they eye can tell is different from some higher refresh rate. I'd argue that in fast paced games where the visible image changes often (such as FPS) that I can tell the difference between 60FPS and 100FPS, so that my eyes must be able to tell the difference between the two. I can't see 60 individual images, but I can tell that the 100FPS version is much smoother because of the way it feels - the response to input will be much quicker, things will move in smaller jumps across the screen (manifested as an apparent motion blur when compared to the slower FPS version), etc.

reread my previous posts in this very thread

Quote:

Original post by capn_midnight [...]reread my previous posts in this very thread

I read it as '25 fps is good enough for movies, but in games you need at most 50 fps because ...'

Quote:

Original post by Extrarius Quote: Original post by capn_midnight [...]reread my previous posts in this very thread I read it as '25 fps is good enough for movies, but in games you need at most 50 fps because ...'

did you not see the part about motion blur making up for lower frame rate? I didn't suffer through 10 page essay midterms on this stuff for nothing.

Quote:

Original post by capn_midnight Quote: Original post by MasterWorks Quote: Original post by capn_midnight For example, the human eye can only perceive around 40 - 50 frames per second. Anything faster than that is wasted energy on part of the video; it looks no different. This is totally false. People say things like this all the time around here but can't back it up. The human capacity to perceive frames is amazing, and even if there is a 'cutoff' it is nowhere near as low as you suggest. it's not totally false. 60fps is the concensus maximum, especially for the amount of work involved. Like I said, it's more complex than just framerate.

I've noticed that 60Hz on a CRT looks terrible, while 60Hz on an LCD looks perfectly smooth to me. It's mainly an issue of the strobing.

Quote:

Original post by nagromo Quote: Original post by capn_midnight Quote: Original post by MasterWorks Quote: Original post by capn_midnight For example, the human eye can only perceive around 40 - 50 frames per second. Anything faster than that is wasted energy on part of the video; it looks no different. This is totally false. People say things like this all the time around here but can't back it up. The human capacity to perceive frames is amazing, and even if there is a 'cutoff' it is nowhere near as low as you suggest. it's not totally false. 60fps is the concensus maximum, especially for the amount of work involved. Like I said, it's more complex than just framerate. I've noticed that 60Hz on a CRT looks terrible, while 60Hz on an LCD looks perfectly smooth to me. It's mainly an issue of the strobing.

check the refresh rate of your monitor. My CRT is set to 75Hz by default, whereas my LCD is set to 60Hz.

Quote:

Original post by capn_midnight Quote: Original post by nagromo Quote: Original post by capn_midnight Quote: Original post by MasterWorks Quote: Original post by capn_midnight For example, the human eye can only perceive around 40 - 50 frames per second. Anything faster than that is wasted energy on part of the video; it looks no different. This is totally false. People say things like this all the time around here but can't back it up. The human capacity to perceive frames is amazing, and even if there is a 'cutoff' it is nowhere near as low as you suggest. it's not totally false. 60fps is the concensus maximum, especially for the amount of work involved. Like I said, it's more complex than just framerate. I've noticed that 60Hz on a CRT looks terrible, while 60Hz on an LCD looks perfectly smooth to me. It's mainly an issue of the strobing. check the refresh rate of your monitor. My CRT is set to 75Hz by default, whereas my LCD is set to 60Hz.

My CRT only supports 60Hz when I set it to 1280x1024, and anything lower than that makes my desktop look way too big. When I have it at lower resolutions I use higher refresh rates, though.

You can pretty much sumerize "good graphics" with HL2.(or the Source engine I guess)

Quote:

Original post by capn_midnight Quote: Original post by Extrarius [...]I read it as '25 fps is good enough for movies, but in games you need at most 50 fps because ...' did you not see the part about motion blur making up for lower frame rate? I didn't suffer through 10 page essay midterms on this stuff for nothing.

I read it as the reason that movies can make do with 25 but games the need higher rate of 50 fps

Good artists make good graphics.

Quote:

Original post by nagromo Quote: Original post by capn_midnight Quote: Original post by MasterWorks Quote: Original post by capn_midnight For example, the human eye can only perceive around 40 - 50 frames per second. Anything faster than that is wasted energy on part of the video; it looks no different. This is totally false. People say things like this all the time around here but can't back it up. The human capacity to perceive frames is amazing, and even if there is a 'cutoff' it is nowhere near as low as you suggest. it's not totally false. 60fps is the concensus maximum, especially for the amount of work involved. Like I said, it's more complex than just framerate. I've noticed that 60Hz on a CRT looks terrible, while 60Hz on an LCD looks perfectly smooth to me. It's mainly an issue of the strobing.

Your LCD screen also has a slower grey-to-grey time, which means you'll have residual colours in the transition, meaning unintended hardware blurring. It's more noticable for lights on blacks, however it prevelant everywhere, and may account for your eyes thinking things are smoother.