Remus said:
Graphic fidelity itself isn't a problem - it's how those graphics are used. If they're not used in a way to encourage the player to keep playing then all the realism in the world won't make the game any more fun. The Witcher 3 does it right for the same reason Skyrim did - it triggers wanderlust in a player, that desire to see that lighthouse on the cliff or that tree at the top of the mountain, the valley with a stream rolling through it or the natural greenhouse in the center of a cave.
Your argument isn't exactly wrong, but it specifically applies to RPG-type games that are usually open world. A cynic might refer to them as Ocarina of Time clones. Every game of that type wants to have its Hyrule Field moment.
Oh, what's over that hill, I wonder? Let's just wander up this path and find out.
Remus said:
Medieval open world RPGs are full of moments like this, but it's rare to find the same thing in a modern day setting. Hardline may have the high res textures, the lighting, the rain effects, realistic character models, but there's no point if it's wrapped around an otherwise unappealing game.
The problem here is that Hardline is a linear-with-open-areas stealth FPS. It's not an open world game. Its graphics are not supposed to evoke a sense of wonder. It's supposed to create atmosphere and to facilitate storytelling. "A picture says a thousand words" and all that.
Once upon a time, this might have been a prerendered cutscene with visuals that look totally different to the game. You can SEE determination on your partner's face. You can "feel" the seediness of the hotel where you are about to make an arrest. The peeling wallpaper, the stained floors. The fact this is the only room in the hallway with a "do not disturb" sign. The game isn't supposed to make you want to explore. It's supposed to make you want to arrest all these perps without a firefight. The word "immersion" is kinda flimsy, but that's basically what these graphics are trying to do. Immerse you in the world. (And on a very important note, Hardline's MP and SP were by different sub-teams, which is very likely why MP has vastly inferior lighting, art design, and all that.)
There also is an interplay between graphics and gameplay. Something as simple as characters casting proper dynamic shadows has huge effects. In Conker's Bad Fur Day, our plucky protagonist has a dynamic shadow. Huge technological achievement. This shadow is a framebuffer-based shadowmap using a low LOD version of Conker. It responds to the strongest light source. It also destroys depth perception, making Conker kinda hard to "platform" at times.
See, Mario's simple blob shadow in Mario 64 isn't just a cosmetic nicety. It serves to provide a depth reference between Mario and his environment. Conker lacks this basic method for determining where he is in relation to the game world because his shadow is cast in random directions by light sources.
Anyhow, on the subject of "good graphics", I find Battlefront III to be a totally unappealing game. I have zero interest in MP-only FPS games. But I can look at this screenshot and admire it. I can even begrudgingly admit that DICE have surpassed Visceral graphically.
A Fork said:
Since Fallout 4 has been mentioned alot, it's plainly obvious what the issue is. It is basically Skyrim with more post-processing. It may look good when you're being blinded by godrays, but its lighting is still meh.
Notice how all the shadows have no variation in them, like they are the same hue and tone. It really doesn't help that they are so dark. There is no diffuse reflection from sunlight. If you are ever in a large area of shadow, you can notice how little variation in lighting there is, like seeing only textures and no lighting data in an editor.
Is it realistic to expect real time global illumination in an open world game? No, but there are reasons why Fallout 4 looks dated. There is no prebaked lighting, so you won't get realistic lighting. Textures are either grainy or plastic looking, giving this really annoying noise effect, like one of those texture mods with really bumpy normals. Is it an aesthetic choice to have a game look artificial? Not really. It's more like a technical limitation.
Fallout 4 is more advanced than its predecessors for two main reasons. One, a majority of entities cast shadows. Everything from basketballs to cue balls to tins of dog food. That's kind of a big deal, and also a huge performance drain. Secondly, Fallout 4 has sunlight shadows. And the truth is that sunlight shadows are a huge technological problem. Fallout 4 and MGS V both suffer from noticable shadow movement. MGS V has stuttering shadows. Fallout 4 resorts to moving the sun light source in significant increments. The shadows move a foot or so, stop moving, move another foot or so. It's rather glaring if you look closely.
Because the shadows are all cast by a single light source, the sun, that causes them to all have the same level of brightness. This isn't unrealistic, per se. But in real life, shadows do not look the same at three feet and three meters. And as you point out, there is no reflection of light from that rather light-coloured ground.
Various methods can be used to make shadows look more realistic based on distance, but they're a huge performance drain, especially in open world games, solving half the problem. But in fact this is where the rub lies. Fallout 4 has massive draw call bottlenecking problems with its shadows on higher draw distance settings. Fallout 4 has no problem rendering a pantry full of tin cans all casting very nice shadows on the tables and such. But outdoor environments are a massive headache to shadow, especially during the day. That's often why open world "urban" games often look way better at night, when everything is lit in a controlled, artistically pleasing manner. Modern Assassin's Creed games support soft shadowing systems, and they destroy performance.
