|
Post by Xeogred on Mar 22, 2019 19:21:59 GMT -5
There's a lot of modern classic OST's to me I could mention, but they'd all be Japanese titles so I think that's a trend in cultural styles over the years... and admittedly my tastes. But yeah, just because some games now have monster sized budgets and unlimited options for music composition, does not automatically bake a great cake or anything. The generic orchestrated stuff is indeed very bland and totally overdone. I'd find it nigh impossible to think of modern movies that have good soundtracks too though. I think some newer Western sci-fi games get by better on this usually when they throw in some of those synths and such. But I'm still waiting for a Deus Ex sequel or anything to have even half the atmosphere of the first game and its MOD tracker mastery.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Mar 22, 2019 21:20:34 GMT -5
I'm getting to the point where I can recognize Two Steps From Hell if their work is used in a movie, and I generally like their stuff. Orchestral, but with a bit of an edge to it. The last album has one song, though, that's really weird in that it uses some synths and basically eventually turns into a sort of rave party? Kinda? It's a strange mix, that's for sure. I actually have to be careful listening to some of their stuff when I'm driving. It gets epic, and I want to floor it.
|
|
|
Post by anayo on Mar 30, 2019 16:04:53 GMT -5
Admittedly I haven’t had much hands-on time with current gen console or PC games, though I avoid total ignorance about that world via destructoid, kotaku, and digital foundry. Anyway, some footage from a recent AAA game reminded me of a “wish list” I compiled during the XBOX 360 generation. The inability or unwillingness to deliver on this wish list has a lot to do with my ambivalence for the current gen.
In Fallout 3, I admired how geometry and shaders were detailed enough to look tangible. The tech excelled at shiny surfaces, such as polished metal and moist rocks. I can’t express the same sentiment for organic surfaces like human skin, dog fur, or burlap. These materials looked tangible, but in the way that an expensive plastic figurine on someone’s shelf looks tangible. Recent digital foundry videos indicate this has improved. Subsurface scattering is now used for realistic human skin. Nvidia’s hairworks can render fuzzy doggies. So far so good.
But those are just surface details. I had a similar wishlist covering physics simulations. Now, I love how physics engines were added to the seventh generation of video game consoles, so much so that I was endlessly amused by knocking objects off tables like a petulant cat. But after awhile I noticed everything behaved like it was made of the same “stuff”. For example, a tin can and a basketball would both bounce the exact same way when dropped. It also got under my skin how parts of the scenery were indestructible. There’s something deeply jarring about seeing a tangibly realistic man fire a rocket launcher and exploding a squad of human targets into the air, but the scrap wood shanty they were hiding inside stands its ground like it’s made of adamantium. I daresay would prefer plainer visuals if it meant that the environment responded more to my actions.
Sometimes the games’ technical aspects were fine, certain details would just strain my suspension of disbelief. For instance in Call of Duty Modern Warfare, all the enemies look and move like tangible people. So it really takes me out of it when I shoot them and they just keep moving like terminators. Their facial expressions don’t even change. I’m not a professional animator, but is it possible to address this without taxing computational power any further? Just making a shot guy limp or stagger would probably satisfy this. Hell, make him wince. I shot him in the femur and he’s just looking at me with the same neutral face as before. And what about enemy AI? When 007 Goldeneye was brand new, I used to fantasize about game consoles powerful enough to control cunning enemies that would maneuver and plot against me. But I still see a lot of dumb running through walls and failing to notice dead comrades 3 feet away this generation.
Anyway, I feel like most normal people ooh and awe over how good screenshots and trailers look, whereas I feel like it’s just adamantium mazes full of terminators with more and more convincing rubber skin. And when I point this out to average people they mostly shrug and say, “Well it’s just a game.” It makes me question my sanity a little bit. Anyway, to me, old games sidestep this problem by visual abstraction. If an enemy soldier doesn't look one hundred percent like a tangible human, then it doesn't both me if he doesn't behave quite like one.
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Mar 30, 2019 21:38:25 GMT -5
In Fallout 3, I admired how geometry and shaders were detailed enough to look tangible. The tech excelled at shiny surfaces, such as polished metal and moist rocks. I can’t express the same sentiment for organic surfaces like human skin, dog fur, or burlap. These materials looked tangible, but in the way that an expensive plastic figurine on someone’s shelf looks tangible. I laughed while reading this, can confirm (as I'm still playing it) that New Vegas maintains that same wet aesthetic. Those moist rocks sure do look moist! Actually that same level of physics was added to sixth gen first. Lots of sixth gen games used the Havok middleware to achieve the kind of physics you're talking about. (It was first implemented back in 2000.) Unfortunately the lack of weighty realism you're describing didn't improve much in the seventh gen. The trouble there is you're playing roller coaster FPS games designed to please the masses, rather than FPS games designed to portray a believable simulation. To find the kind of enemy damage modeling you're describing, you'll need to check out serious military style shooters. I'm talking about stuff like the ARMA and Red Orchestra series. The earlier entries in the Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six series have decent damage modeling as well.
|
|