Originally posted by: frozentundra123456
Obviously Crysis, but it seems to me that COD4 is really outstanding for the rather low hardware requirements. Any game should look good if you throw enough hardware at it.
I also thought Mass Effect was outstanding and Half Life 2 for an older game.
I have a fairly low end system and dont play that many shooters, so I havent played a lot of the other games mentioned.
An RTS that nobody has mentioned is Universe at War. I thought that game looked really nice for an older RTS.
Crysis looked good for obvious reasons.
Mass Effect and COD4 I think looked good because of the excellent texture detail. I remember setting mass effect textures to very high and being absolutely surprised I could see hundreds of lines in the armor dividing up the hard armor plates into small, square sections.
I figure there's 3 things that help a game to look good,
1. General art direction. I think Super Mario Bros graphics were amazing and would look great even today in a 2D platformer with a higher resolution.
2. Geometry art design. Octagon-circles be damned, if you can hide the hard edges in a curved object, you can make things look good even with low poly models. That's why Stalker looks comparatively pretty bad compared to COD4.
3. Texture art design. The higher rez you can play with, suddenly the better everything looks. When you can zoom in on armor and see small details unpixelated, it serves as probably the greatest benefit. Again, compare say, Crysis with the really nice texturing to the low rez Stalker.
The one thing I think devs try too hard is with lighting. With all the HDR and Bloom, it's almost as if they added too much contrast just for the hell of it. Take a look at
this, basically, life usually doesn't have this kind of dynamic range that you see so much in games nowadays and I think toning down the insane amounts of light and shadow would help. It's like they assume every day is a 100% sunny day at high noon where you've just come out of a pitch black room.