I feel like in some modern big games graphics are overdone. I believe it was the reason why Mafia 2 turned out to be a polished turd - they concentrated on the graphics too much leaving everything else out.

I loved Mafia 2.

*shrug*

Oh right.. I played the demo it was pretty good and it surely must have been worth of five euros. That first ones controls are which make me bend over and stick a mouse in my ass.. and it doesn't even is good with controller. nowadays even games are linear but we all should all ways drive cars with controllers even in real life.

In that demo in mafia 2 i really liked how in fistfight that other people got his head in a side of a pool, man that looked evil.

Edit2. I mean I have a scar from a pool.. so it looked pretty realistic. =D

Wasteland 2 is almost certainly going to have an amazing mod community when they ship the tools. Oh yeah, and the game, gotta remember to ship the game.

I would be surprised if that was prerendered, considering it didn't cause me a similar wow effect as e.g. the Crysis 3 tech demo video. I recall already in the 90s space combat sims used to have the greatest looks simply because there was less to render. After all, you were in empty space so all detail could be used on the space ships. No vegetation to render everywhere or pseudo-realistic water effects, etc.

And I agree consoles could probably run that too, especially with the next console generation around the corner (and possibly even with the current consoles). At least for me the graphics have never been the reason to dismiss consoles, I think they are doing fine on that front. I just want to avoid walled gardens, that's why I prefer PC gaming mostly. Oh and KB+M for FPS games... :)

Crysis 3... only now I realized it is supposed to come out next month already, ie. it is not some kind of "next gen rendering technology". I wonder if it is raising the bar for PC requirements, or whether it is supposed to run with great detail on similar PCs as e.g. Far Cry 3 and CoD Black Ops 2?

It is interesting really how Crysis 1 still appears to be one of the most demanding PC games out there. I have several newer games too where I seem to run at least as well or even better than Crysis. Crysis runs pretty nicely too, but still surprising.

I am not sure whether that is because Crysis 1 was just designed more future-proof (ie. it scales quite far from the 2007 level graphics), or if it is just coded inefficiently? Either way, even 2012 games like Spec Ops: The Line and others seem to tax my gaming hardware less than Crysis 1.

Maybe it is simply because Crysis was PC-original?

Crysis. "Future armor maximum"
CPU: "I'm dying here"
Crysis: "I have no warranty if I made you machine invalid"
CPU: "Well fuck.."
Crysis "Best of luck, I'm needed elsewere.. Gotta go"
Cpu: "Maximum speed, dammit"

You just lost all credibility as game recommender.

j/k

Yes it does, i don't want games with bigger budgets than movies because you need 400 or 500 graphic artists.
I don't want games that take more than 10 years to make.
Hell, i'm ok with a graphic level that's almost 10 years old now, what's the point, they're called video games not interactive movies.

There are still so many areas they can improve on... Higher res textures, more draw distance, more objects on the screen at the same time, better water / weather, lights, shadows, better models,, better physics / animations.

Why would you stop?

What resolution and quality settings do you generally use?
Crysis isn't actually that demanding nowadays. I have an AMD 6870 and a i3, but it still runs fine on max. Better than games like Metro 2033 and Serious Sam 3.

Serious is pretty serious.. I played it.. I didn't finish I just hate that game and Metro 2033 now that's tough in your face. but both still runs better than Crysis one. I must have used really crap settings.. Anyway After Far cry 3.. I just need olny Far cry 3. A week a go I pleyed far Cry 2 with realism mod, I liked the game so I had to buy that and it seems that I almost love Cry 3.. There was hold em poker. ^^

Edit: sorry about the some typos, I.. Well I'm a human

Give me some criticism that doesn't revolve around it not being like GTA and I will be happy to debate it. :)

When it comes to improving how a game feels, there's three areas where a LOT more work can be done:

- sound: there's too much stock sounds and not enough ambient noise in games. Sound and music is what really drags you into a game - our ears play a vital part in the experience. A gorgeous game with poor sounds and noises is not going to feel right. At least 95% of all games made screw up massively in this area and the reason why, is because marketing folks should get slapped in the face - they're the reason. They can't market sound so they pump all the money into better graphics.

- physics: we have great graphics but it all falls to pieces the moment physics become involved. Rag dolls still look ridiculous, nothing in game worlds reacts correctly, When you consider how important physics are to create a believable world ... . Even such things as wind and flowers, plants, trees require decent physics.

- animation: as far as animation has come, it's still not perfect - especially when you consider the animation of non-human elements like animals, equipment, etc.

- AI. Seriously, AI hasn't improved one iota in 10 years. In fact, it has gotten worse for most AAA games. Even in big budget games like GTA IV, you see tons of very poor AI - and in racing games, AI is worse than what it was in the 90's!

Seriously, graphics have progressed far but they cost a lot to make and there's other elements that can be improved that would contribute to a much richer experience.

This! Definitely this! Games NEED better sound. Even today, even tho they're kinda trying, most games are incredibly shallow as far as they're sound goes and once you turn away from the pretty graphics and start to actually 'listen', very few deliver.

Great post. I hope they learn these lessons this time around, but I would guess the new console games will focus on flash over any of this.