2019

because people who work on graphics and animations are different from gameplay designers

>Scale down 6000 poly model by a factor of 10
>It loses definition
>Scale it up with some shitty smoothing algorithm by a factor of 10
>It looks like a 6000 poly model with shitty smoothing
Now try the same thing with an actual 60k poly model you mongoloid. Or better yet, take the 60 poly model and scale it up to 600 with no additional geometry information and then argue 60 triangles is the limit of fidelity. Retard. Absolute fucking bumbling moron.

Attached: gorilla2.jpg (1294x478, 115K)

Then again muh graphics is one of the reasons why everything interactive has to glow like a motherfucker because there's so much clutter on the screen

Attached: FO08ohN.jpg (625x313, 34K)

Munch munch

Have sex bigot.

Munxh munch crunch

Attached: images (7).jpg (263x191, 10K)

Attached: 19F2E9F0-17EB-4C99-B5B2-18A9069A7E03.jpg (1800x1200, 321K)

Imagine a world where you didn't spend several million dollars on a single voice actor and paid your coders better.

Attached: Patrick_Stewart.jpg (650x720, 66K)

eh, it depends. Low poly shit will have weird shadows at certain angles because of the smoothing. Aside from that, textures take a shitton of memory, while computing polygons with around the same detail isn't that expensive. Also, remember, tessellation is basically creating more triangles as well. It's a dilemma that has existed since the beginning of computing.

>triangles

Attached: 1562984381371.gif (244x255, 605K)

If graphics were the end all be all then prerendered backgrounds would still be around.

>Graphics don't take away "development time" from gameplay.
This. All the time & money goes into a legion of artists (plus their support). This has been the case for a long time in the AAA space. Funny thing is, most games are still fuck-ugly because of weak visual direction and risk aversion.

The two ways out of that mess are more experimentation with different visual styles, and more exotic renderers (e.g. Dreams). Naturally, AAA gayme dev is so stagnant that there's little interest in either.

that's not how polygons work

Just because there are no lines doesn't mean that the faces are not triangulated.

This.
>600
>Add details manually
>6000
>Add details manually
>60000
>Add no details manually
shit propaganda.

kill yourself pixelshit shill

go play templeos games and fuck off

hahhah it is hilarious when cucks defend that man

its worded incorrectly. the largest polygon size was made first, then they scaled it down by lowering the polygon count. This is easily done in programs like zBrush I've done it to my own models to lower the file size.

Its just trying to show you that after a certain point, more graphic fidelity doesn't add much to the model. That much is correct.

are you retarded?

no u

You arent forced to play 80 hour games

This is the problem with modern gamers. Fuck's sake, gaming seriously declined in the mid-90s and you fucking kids didn't even know because you were born right into the massive brainwashing that told you garbage like fucking Mario 64, MGS, and Half-Life were actually good.
Every single fucking modern "gamer" should be FORCED to play ONLY pre-1995 games for at least three years. Guaranteed after those three years you'll see modern "gaming" as the absolute goddamn clusterfuck that it is.
>BUT BAD GAMES BACK THEN TOO
And we actually rated them as bad. WHAT A FUCKING CONCEPT. HOLY SHIT. CALLING A BAD GAME BAD. Instead of "game of the fucking year all years" like fucking pain in the ass shit controls bad camera clusterfuck Mario 64.

Attached: 03-SM64.png (613x238, 100K)

yep, the need for high-end graphics and animation massively cuts into development budgets and makes games take a hell of a lot longer than they should to produce. meanwhile games still run on AI that's as retarded as it was in the early '90s.

>Its just trying to show you that after a certain point, more graphic fidelity doesn't add much to the model. That much is correct.
Depends on the model and functionality of it. You could add a lot more detail in the last model shown in the image as well. If you go still go beyond that, then even that'd have functional value- like SSS and other generative and calculated details, very detailed animations and so on. You could go with a completely texture-less approach if you want to.

Nobody cares about complex AI when there are multiplayer games.

multiplayer games are for tards.

It's not correct at all. The more polygons the more detailed the surface, the question is how close you are to the model to be able to appreciate all those extra details.

That's because you are bad at them.

user you have to realize different people play games for different reasons. If you only want gameplay play Gameboy Tetris. Graphics are very important in setting atmosphere and mood. Do you want to play an ugly game?
That being said we see a lot of games nowadays catching that late 80s pixel graphics look. I wish we would have some games that did the same with mid-late 90s 3d look.
Does something like that exist?

>cod before 2013 next gen
>looked good and only took up 10-20 GB
>cod after 2013 next gen
>10 times more grafix and now took up 50 GB
The last couple of cods have all taken up 0.1 TB, that arena shooter franchise have no goddamn business being anywhere over 20 GB.

Attached: nani.gif (500x281, 706K)

>Graphics are very important in setting atmosphere and mood.
You're lost. You're looking for Yea Forums, not Yea Forums. Videogames are about gameplay. Graphics aren't important. At all.

>t plays fortnite and shit for 400+ hours

Have fun playing text adventures. Or is that too Yea Forums for you? I guess pong counts?

Nah, I'm above average, but as I've grown and matured I've concluded that they attract kids and retarded people with limited attention spans, with little in between.

I read boatloads as battletoads

The 6000 is he original and 60000 triangles mesh is procedurally generated from it. This picture was not even trying from the beginning.

...

>60, 600
SOUL
>6000, 60000
soulless

>soul vs soulless meme
Get euthanized. I'm not even joking, kill yourself.

Too bad the website on your pic doesn't seem to exist anymore, it could have been a fun read.

Gimme 10000 triangles with very good textures.

I did too.

Imagine how stupid you are for making this thread.
You are the type of person that says "am I the only one who.. " and of course the subject has been discussed and decimated time and time again.
Lurk before you post user, you only confirm your idiocy by opening this thread.

nice try, faggot

Attached: 6vCXW0G.png (1006x1007, 492K)

People who obsess about graphics in a game are the epitome of pretentious.
Having a game look incredibly realistic doesn't add much to its entertainment value in the long-term. Unless you're a graphic designer yourself.

I always liked how in this one, the
>20000 polygons (original mesh with added details)
looks straight of some shitty ~2002 game with bump mapping

OP BTFO!

You can only roll a turd in so much glitter. The image still demonstrates that the original comparison is flawed, because it's like upscaling a 1080p game to 4K and going "SEE 4K IS SHIT!"

it's the idea that it has far more detail, dents and shit and still has same polycount that should concern you not how it looks.

>If you only want gameplay play Gameboy Tetris.
If you only want grafixxx then watch tech demos on YT.

Great thread
PS3 tier graphics is more than adequate. Trade needless resources spent on horse testicles on better performance so that we can have destructible environments, large crowds, better AI and shit.

>If you only want graphics
Lel I never said that retard

Looking back on some of my favorite games, I admit its hard to go back and play on account of their low-res as fuck graphics.

However, I'm not bothered at all by it if its pixelated. I adore 16-bit style, its pretty timeless.

Of course. It's just funny that both the original and rebuttal share the silly premise that
>more detail is better
when that's not strictly true. The functional and aesthetic aspects of game graphics require deeper, case-by-case attention.

Technically, diminishing returns on increasing detail is real, because perceptual detail is only proportional to the number of data points for 1D data. Roughly speaking, a triangle mesh is 2D-embedded-in-3D, so you have to quadruple the triangles to obtain somewhere between 2-3 times the perceptual detail. Even the rebuttal illustrates that. I don't think anyone would argue that the second leap on the bottom row is as big as the first.

based and GODpilled

textures>polygons
THIS
youtu.be/zKu1Y-LlfNQ

All I see are 3 squares on every box.

racism is usually pretty retarded as far as I can tell actually
it's pure emotion

If you weren't retarded you'd realize you could have 6(six) high detail mozart busts on screen at the same time. Or better yet a full body mozart.

Attached: Hokuto no Ken 032 (DVD 640x476 x264 10bit AC3) [E4AAD9E4].mkv_snapshot_04.02_[2018.05.12_18.09.08].j (640x476, 54K)

op image is retarded but I agree, the focus on graphics has ruined video games, I'd be happy if everything were stuck at PS2 levels of fidelity for the rest of time if it meant we got more games in more genres with more experimental gameplay

is this why minecraft is god tier game?

>The last couple of cods have all taken up 0.1 TB, that arena shooter franchise have no goddamn business being anywhere over 20 GB.
this
>wanted to give QC a try
>its 20gb big

600 triangles was the true peak.

poorfag

Yes we can make detailed character models, and they probably wont look much better than they already do, but there is a lot more to 'good graphics than a high tri count.

thats high poly shit dumbass
also not realistic to how much effort devs will put in

>as far as I can tell
So not too far at all.

take your bitching back to /vp/