Most Anticipated Video Games

[talonmalon333]

It's being developed on a new in-house engine, so there's no way of knowing until it comes out.

Darn it. Well, it's getting released on the PS3 and 360, so I still think technology shouldn't be an issue if those consoles can handle it.

[Foggle]

Impressions from people who somehow already have copies of The Evil Within are mostly glowing. They keep throwing around phrases like "the real sequel to Resident Evil 4" and such. The game seems to be about 15-17 hours long, is filled with variety, has an interesting story, and gets really challenging at times even on Normal mode. Also, apparently the PS3 version (and I assume, by proxy, the 360 version) is rock solid.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Sounds great to me!

While I could get this game for my. Birthday, I think that I'll hold off until Christmas since I just don't have that much time for such a long game right now.

[Foggle]

I'll let you know how it is when I finish it.

[Lord Il]

Also, apparently the PS3 version (and I assume, by proxy, the 360 version) is rock solid.

That's excellent news to hear. I was concerned if it was even going to be ported to the PS3 at all. I'm not making the move to a PS4 for a while yet.

[Foggle]

Well, while the last gen version of TEW apparently runs well enough, here's a graphical comparison (stolen from GAF):

PS3/360:


PS4/Xbone/PC:


Damn, it almost looks like a completely different game. Will definitely be double dipping when I eventually get a PS4.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Eh, I really don't care that much about graphics. It's one of those things that becomes almost completely superficial with most games once your eyes adjust to it. If the 360/PS3 version were to have frame rate issues, though, then that'd be a different matter entirely, since that actually affects gameplay.

[Foggle]

Graphics aren't super important, but I'd rather play the game in the way it was intended to look. The PS4 version looks atmospheric and detailed while the PS3 version looks muddy and dated. Since I'm getting a PS4 someday anyway, I'd have no reason not to buy it again if it turns out well; Mikami's games are never not worth playing over and over.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

If it looks muddy and dated, then that means bad art design. For instance, I find that RE4 still looks excellent from a design standpoint. The textures are dated, but the environments and use of lighting still hold up to this day, as do the character models. If games don't have interesting looking levels and characters to begin with, then the best graphics in the world won't help because, quite frankly it won't be the best for long. Even with how much better the XBONE and PS4 versions look, they'll look just as dated in about 5-10 years, hence why I wouldn't buy this game again, myself, even if I did eventually get one of those consoles.

To put things in perspective, I just replayed Gears of War 1 not long ago, and the brown and gray dominant color scheme makes the game look so ugly to me now, when it used to look really impressive to me in terms of graphics. In contrast, The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, an older game on a much less powerful system, looks far better to me than that game, because the art design holds up far better (and keep in mind, I'm talking about the SD version here, not including any graph I'll enhancements from the HD port).

[Foggle]

If it looks muddy and dated, then that means bad art design. For instance, I find that RE4 still looks excellent from a design standpoint. The textures are dated, but the environments and use of lighting still hold up to this day, as do the character models. If games don't have interesting looking levels and characters to begin with, then the best graphics in the world won't help because, quite frankly it won't be the best for long. Even with how much better the XBONE and PS4 versions look, they'll look just as dated in about 5-10 years, hence why I wouldn't buy this game again, myself, even if I did eventually get one of those consoles.

I'm talking about the technical aspect, not the art style. You can see the cracks and crevices in every stair, you can see the water dripping from the roof, Sebastian's jacket and hair have actually changed states due to being wet, the pillars look completely different, the lighting and shadows are both about 3x better. The game's graphics have been downgraded because the intended version is not capable of running at an acceptable frame rate on old hardware. The art style of TEW is fantastic, and while the last gen version doesn't look awful, the current gen version is head and shoulders above last gen's in every capacity.

To put things in perspective, I just replayed Gears of War 1 not long ago, and the brown and gray dominant color scheme makes the game look so ugly to me now, when it used to look really impressive to me in terms of graphics. In contrast, The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, an older game on a much less powerful system, looks far better to me than that game, because the art design holds up far better (and keep in mind, I'm talking about the SD version here, not including any graph I'll enhancements from the HD port).

Okay, but if Nintendo made a new Zelda game on the Wii U with the exact same art style as Wind Waker, obviously the newer one would look better than the GameCube one because of technological advances. I'm not comparing The Evil Within to Resident Evil, I'm comparing the PS3 version to the PS4 version.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

My point was that all those extra "cracks and crevices" will still look extremely dated anyways by next gen, hence why I don't consider it a big deal that the last gen versions had to downgrade that stuff.

[Foggle]

My point was that all those extra "cracks and crevices" will still look extremely dated anyways by next gen, hence why I don't consider it a big deal that the last gen versions had to downgrade that stuff.

But like you said, it's the art style that keeps games looking good in the future. The intended art style has been compromised by the old hardware, resulting in far inferior textures and lighting - both of which are a major part of the art design, especially in a horror game. There is a difference between comparing Unreal Tournament 3 to Unreal Tournament 2004 and comparing The Evil Within on PS4 to The Evil Within on PS3. The art style does not shine through as well on the PS3 because it does not handle the graphics in the intended way, and concession to be made to accommodate this. If REmake were released on the N64, with no differences in actual art design, and the game was exactly the same except for downgraded textures and lighting, the art style would not have come across nearly as well. My previous Zelda example was a bad one, I admit.

[Foggle]

Here's another example of this, from a released product.

This is Hitman: Blood Money on the 360: http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/703/703603/hitman-blood-money-20060427043314810.jpg

It's an old game, but it still looks good due to its vibrant and almost cartoon-like art style.

Now here is Hitman: Blood Money on the PS2: http://cdn0.spong.com/screen-shot/h/i/hitmanbloo209040l/_-Hitman-Blood-Money-PS2-_.jpg

Same game, same level, but downgraded textures and lighting. The art style fails to shine through like it does on the 360, the colors are all washed out, and the little graphical details on the rocks and such are gone.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

But in that example, you're using two shots from completely different parts of the game. The one you used for the 360 version looks good artistically, but the shot from the PS2 version doesn't, HOWEVER it's also from a much less interesting looking area in the game from what I can tell. I'd need to see screenshots of the exact same location to make a proper comparison.

As for The Evil Within, I'll need to see both versions in motion to make a comparison there as well, but I still think that there's a discrepancy between what counts as graphical finesse and art design that we aren't seeing on the same level. When you take stuff like really specific textures into account, I tend to think more along the lines of graphical power. If we're talking about added details in the design, than perhaps you have a point there, but then I fail to understand how they couldn't have added those artistic details into the game in the first place.

For instance, take Halo: Combat Evolved and its Anniversary edition. The Anniversary edition clearly looks better because of some obvious HD upgrades, but more so because of added artistic details in the environments. However, I can't help but feel that in this case, the original version could've handled those sorts of details, but Bungie had never thought to add them, so when 343 revamped the game, they decided to add in interesting patterns within the structures to make the environments feel less plane. I'm actually surprised that you didn't just use that example, yourself. It fits in better with your point, but also kind of defends mine as well, if that makes any sense at all.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

In fact, here's an example of what I'm talking about: http://cloud.mmgn.com.s3.amazonaws.com/images/assets/Halo_CE_2001VS2011/Halo_HD16.jpg

For one thing, both versions of the game look dated by modern graphics standards, anyways, going in with my point about how sharper graphics ultimately don't mean all that much to me. However, those extra details in the Anniversary version make it look better for sure, but those patterns on the wall are what I consider an art design improvement over a graphical one. They aren't super complex details, and I think that those could've been put into the regular XBOX version. It's just that 343 were actually pretty clever by adding in that design to make the level look less plane, whereas Bungie didn't do it because back when they designed the game, they were going for a different look.