Has anyone ever really noticed how samey everything looks right now? It’s a bit hard to explain, because it’s not the aesthetics of any kind of art style used, but the tech employed and how it’s employed. Remember how a lot of early 3D in film just looked like it was plastic? It’s like that, but with a wider variety of materials than plastic. Yet every modern game kinda looks like it’s made using toys.
Like, 20 years from now I think it would be possible to look at any given game that is contemporary right now and be able to tell by how it looks when it was made. The way PS1 era games have a certain quality to them that marks when they were made, or how games of the early 2000’s are denoted by their use of browns and grays.
Games look samey because Game Studios don’t have ideas anymore. They just try to sell 20 h of playtime - that is essentially empty. It’s literally just a bunch of materials and “common techniques” squashed into a sellable product. In the early times of gaming, people had ideas before they had techniques to implement them. Nowadays, we have techniques and think the ideas are unimportant. It’s uninspired and uninspiring. That’s why.
Oh yeah this isn’t a complaint, because I think it looks good. It’s just I notice it, and it probably is from almost everything being made on UE5 these days. However, I think MGSV was one of the first games to have this particular look to it, and that’s on its own in-house engine (FOX Engine). It could just be how the lighting and shadowing are done. Those two things are getting so close to photorealism that it’s the texturing and modeling work that puts things (usually human characters) into the uncanny valley. A scene of a forest can look so real… And then you put a person walking through it and the illusion is lost. lol
It’s everyone using UE-based mocap tools that cause the hyperrealistic-yet-puffy faces, is what I suspect he’s talking about, along with the same photogrammetry tools/libraries.
Honestly the biggest thing missing in general lighting is usually rough specular reflections and small scale global illumination, which are very hard to do consistently without raytracing (or huge light bakes)
Activision has a good technique for baking static light maps with rough specular reflections. It’s fairly efficient, however it’s still a lot of data. Their recent games have been in the 100-200 gb range apparently. I’m sure light bakes make up a good portion of that. It’s also not dynamic of course.
So, what I’m saying is, raytracing will help with this, hardware will advance, and everyone will get more realistic looking games hopefully.
Has anyone ever really noticed how samey everything looks right now? It’s a bit hard to explain, because it’s not the aesthetics of any kind of art style used, but the tech employed and how it’s employed. Remember how a lot of early 3D in film just looked like it was plastic? It’s like that, but with a wider variety of materials than plastic. Yet every modern game kinda looks like it’s made using toys.
Like, 20 years from now I think it would be possible to look at any given game that is contemporary right now and be able to tell by how it looks when it was made. The way PS1 era games have a certain quality to them that marks when they were made, or how games of the early 2000’s are denoted by their use of browns and grays.
Games look samey because Game Studios don’t have ideas anymore. They just try to sell 20 h of playtime - that is essentially empty. It’s literally just a bunch of materials and “common techniques” squashed into a sellable product. In the early times of gaming, people had ideas before they had techniques to implement them. Nowadays, we have techniques and think the ideas are unimportant. It’s uninspired and uninspiring. That’s why.
My guess is a lot of convergence to a smaller set of known game engines. Godot, unreal, unity, plus a few others and some in-house like valves source.
I could be wrong but I presume in the past almost every game was made with its own custom engine. Now a lot of them have the “unreal engine” look.
But I’m not complaining. Looks great to me and leads to better performance and fewer bugs in the long run. Of course there are some caveats
Oh yeah this isn’t a complaint, because I think it looks good. It’s just I notice it, and it probably is from almost everything being made on UE5 these days. However, I think MGSV was one of the first games to have this particular look to it, and that’s on its own in-house engine (FOX Engine). It could just be how the lighting and shadowing are done. Those two things are getting so close to photorealism that it’s the texturing and modeling work that puts things (usually human characters) into the uncanny valley. A scene of a forest can look so real… And then you put a person walking through it and the illusion is lost. lol
Yes, definitely. It has to be that they’re all using the exact same engines and methods or something.
It’s everyone using UE-based mocap tools that cause the hyperrealistic-yet-puffy faces, is what I suspect he’s talking about, along with the same photogrammetry tools/libraries.
What do you mean, “everything”.
I wish this place was better for images, but… just pulling from my recently played list disproves this hard.
Honestly the biggest thing missing in general lighting is usually rough specular reflections and small scale global illumination, which are very hard to do consistently without raytracing (or huge light bakes)
Activision has a good technique for baking static light maps with rough specular reflections. It’s fairly efficient, however it’s still a lot of data. Their recent games have been in the 100-200 gb range apparently. I’m sure light bakes make up a good portion of that. It’s also not dynamic of course.
So, what I’m saying is, raytracing will help with this, hardware will advance, and everyone will get more realistic looking games hopefully.
Horizon really shone in movement and how fluid the environment felt. It came out a long time ago now, though.
I thought it had a pretty good art direction for what it was