Borrow it from a friend or if you just want to experience it almost movie like see a play through of it on youtube. Funny I do not own a ps3 yet lol been an xbox guy for a while.
I was of the learning that if you wanted to be a game artist you should only do game art and nothing else for the rest of your life.
I'm hoping the rest of your life doesn't exclude social activities or playing games. I don't want to be always in my armchair doing art on my spare time.
While I completely agree with this, even though it sounds like the most shameless plug I've heard in a while.
I feel no shame in plugging Uncharted. The Uncharted series is fantastic and I am happy to have worked on the latest installment. And based on the tons of artistic achievement awards we won for Uncharted 3 I would say its a good pickup
Other fantastic ones to pick up would be Journey, God of War 3, Unfinished Swan, Ratchet and Clank: Crack in Time so on and so forth.
I was of the learning that if you wanted to be a game artist you should only do game art and nothing else for the rest of your life.
This is ridiculous, there is so much more to life than sitting infront of a computer doing 3d art. And those things you do in life make your art better. Even playing games and seeing art from others in the context of a game can only help you build better environments. Just dont spend all day playing games
Not so sure about getting a PS3 for the art. Consoles are extremely limited when it comes to "next gen" graphics, rather they age fast. So its best to stick to PC if you are going to be looking for graphical aspects in which to be inspired/pull from. Even the Last of Us didnt look as good as it could have on the PS3. Thankfully it looks like they had some high rez assets to swap from for the in game cinematics.
That said, another issue with consoles is that they do more to hold games and their design back rather than push them forward. There is only so much you can do with a controller and the hardware specs.
Anyways, doesnt look like the consoles are going anywhere soon. So you either have to buy into their whole business scheme to play exclusives or you just move on.
Not so sure about getting a PS3 for the art. Consoles are extremely limited when it comes to "next gen" graphics, rather they age fast. So its best to stick to PC if you are going to be looking for graphical aspects in which to be inspired/pull from. Even the Last of Us didnt look as good as it could have on the PS3. Thankfully it looks like they had some high rez assets to swap from for the in game cinematics.
That said, another issue with consoles is that they do more to hold games and their design back rather than push them forward. There is only so much you can do with a controller and the hardware specs.
Anyways, doesnt look like the consoles are going anywhere soon. So you either have to buy into their whole business scheme to play exclusives or you just move on.
Games shouldn't be just about the graphics... its the experience that really matters and The Last of Us was spectacular in many other ways as well, as well as other exclusives titles.
Games shouldn't be just about the graphics... its the experience that really matters and The Last of Us was spectacular in many other ways as well, as well as other exclusives titles.
I didnt say games should be just about graphics (so I agree with you on that front), but if an artist is looking for games to pull from for their skill set, then the graphics matter. So as far as priorities go, if an artist is looking for artistic inspiration when playing a game, consoles are usually not the place to go.
Graphics also have the power to immerse or alienate via emotional response, both negative or positive. Low rez tiled textures over everything, bad or lack of normal/spec maps, stretched UVs, no vertex normals being smoothed out... ect. As artists, I think we are more aware of these and its up to the person whether they can get passed them or not. For me personally, I strive for perfection in art, so those sloppy little details or lack there of do get to me. Its not something I would ever want to mimic or think is OK in the long run.
Anyways thats a different topic for a different time. This next gen of console hardware looks like they will be able to reach that next gen threshold more so than before...now its up to the console developers to start pushing those next gen techniques.
Aesthetics also play a big factor into how a game looks and feels. You could have great graphics but if the aesthetics is all boring (say entirely brown palette) then ultimately the world feels dull.
I don't care how good the graphics look if it doesn't captivate me into caring about the world. Though I'm also partially biased because I absolutely adore stylized video games and cel-shaded ones.
On a side note the market for high end computers is always going to be smaller than the console base. You can certainly push the graphical fidelity up but who's going to buy it?
well, I'd have to buy a TV too, and something to put it on...and thats almost enough cash to buy a top line nVidia card.
I'll wait for the PS4 if I finally do get a console.
I miss out on good games from time to time, c'est la vie (muhahaha! it's in your head now, you'll be hearing it for the rest of the weekend.)
probably for the best, as it leaves me more hours to blindly pioneer into the world of run-time texturing.
Well the good news is that you dont need a TV. If you are a computer user, chances are you have a monitor that can accept HDMI. Additionally, you get an excuse to invest in a nice monitor which can benefit your computer based workflow as well as gaming.
I have 2 monitors right now that can be connected to a PS3 and a 40 inch hdtv which was used as a computer monitor. The perk to using monitors is that you can sit much closer to the screen.
"I didnt say games should be just about graphics (so I agree with you on that front), but if an artist is looking for games to pull from for their skill set, then the graphics matter. So as far as priorities go, if an artist is looking for artistic inspiration when playing a game, consoles are usually not the place to go."
I´ll say that for you as a game artist, or aspiring game artist, playing any game and looking at the graphics in it is not about how pretty they are, but HOW they manage to pull of what is there.
A game like Uncharted 3, and more significantly The Last of Us really do a great job if you look close at the assets in it, of showing you just how well you can balance the artwork to get the most out of the limited resources you have at your disposal.
A great portion of your job as a games artist is knowing not only how to make great looking artwork and assets, but how to get those into the game you are working on in the best possible way and with the least amount of sacrifice in detail and quality given the resources, technical limitations, time restrictions and things like view distance and intended view angles to said objects.
"I didnt say games should be just about graphics (so I agree with you on that front), but if an artist is looking for games to pull from for their skill set, then the graphics matter. So as far as priorities go, if an artist is looking for artistic inspiration when playing a game, consoles are usually not the place to go."
I´ll say that for you as a game artist, or aspiring game artist, playing any game and looking at the graphics in it is not about how pretty they are, but HOW they manage to pull of what is there.
A game like Uncharted 3, and more significantly The Last of Us really do a great job if you look close at the assets in it, of showing you just how well you can balance the artwork to get the most out of the limited resources you have at your disposal.
A great portion of your job as a games artist is knowing not only how to make great looking artwork and assets, but how to get those into the game you are working on in the best possible way and with the least amount of sacrifice in detail and quality given the resources, technical limitations, time restrictions and things like view distance and intended view angles to said objects.
Oh I wont disagree that implementation should be overlooked nor did I imply otherwise, but most of the time there's not much to be impressed by or something evident enough to find impressive. For example, the impressive part comes not from the game, but coming on here or say reading Vertex and seeing how the artist made it. How would anyone know about some of the design choices in Uncharted 3 in without seeing it from the artist themselves?
The point here is that if something was implemented in a very intelligent manner to get around the console's weaknesses or to reduce the cost of such assets, it wont be self evident until explained by the artist. If you go in knowing the hardware's limitations, then it might be worth looking into how it was done but then thats just looking at it more as a technical artist and not so much as an artist artist, if that makes any sense. Just my opinion though.
Notice we keep using Naughty Dog as an example, and its probably not a fair example because they are very good at what they do and as a first party developer, they probably know the hardware best or more so than the third party developers... Even then, I noticed some things in the Last of Us that were not so good, but thats not what this thread is about. It was a good game regardless, and I am happy to own its collectors edition.
The quality of the asset and what techniques you can use are important, though hands may be tied in what you can get away with, it still doesnt excuse the fact the hardware is limiting what the artist wants to convey.
That said, another issue with consoles is that they do more to hold games and their design back rather than push them forward. There is only so much you can do with a controller and the hardware specs.
What about all those situations where artist/designers have extolled the virtues of having more restriction than freedom. While I agree that there's quite the beauty and wonder in cutting-edge, I've been far more impressed with the games that did so much with so little.
IMO games like Metal Gear Solid are tantamount to this theory.
What about all those situations where artist/designers have extolled the virtues of having more restriction than freedom. While I agree that there's quite the beauty and wonder in cutting-edge, I've been far more impressed with the games that did so much with so little.
IMO games like Metal Gear Solid are tantamount to this theory.
I agree with this.
While I do agree that console games are holding some aspects of game development back, it is mostly in the technical areas like graphic fidelity due to memory limitations, all of which will pretty much be negated for a few years with the release of the next gen consoles.
A PC game will not automatically be better due to the input method, if anything a lot of PC only games become overly complicated and convoluted and in most cases gain almost nothing by it when it comes to input.
I will not agree that gameplay wise, that consoles are holding gaming back as some of the very best games I have played in recent years have been on consoles.
As for learning from playing games like The Last of Us.. you just have to look around in game, you dont need to be told everything in detail.
You can see texture density on the objects, and roughly the polygon counts being used just by looking.
I was amazed while playing through it at how high res some of the textures were, and wondering just how they managed that with such a large open area in front of me. A sign would be placed on a building and it was very sharp and nice looking, and then you start looking at the other objects in the scene and you start noticing how clever they were in using lower resolution stuff around on some of the objects that you would´t spot unless you were actively looking for it.
Amazingly well managed assets and just downright amazing use of lighting that trumps anything I have seen in a PC game in my 30 odd years of gaming.
Yes games like Crysis on the PC might look better at first glance, but they really aren´t all that far ahead of this game in anything other than texture resolutions and object density.
And Crysis 1 through 3 are usually hailed as the kings of PC graphics.
As games, The Last of Us is much better than any Crysis game I have played. Much more engaging, much more emotional, and the storytelling miles better than anything I have seen in a PC game.
Complexity does not a good game make in my view.
I wish there was a PC game out that gave me the same "oh good god how are they pulling this off!" moments in the few seconds my brain detaches from the excellent game I am playing but I have yet to find one and I am mostly a PC gamer.
I would also argue that there is not a single PC game out there, bar MMO´s with their abilities bars and chat, that can not be mirrored onto a consoles controller quite easilly.
Well and flight sims with all their convoluted controls spread unintelligently all over the keyboard
Skimmed over this thread so I am sorry if I am being a bland repeat here...
Seriously if you can, nab a ps3 and grab the uncharted series and the last of us. All absolutely incredible games and after the last of us I am ready to start referring to my ps3 as the naughty dog game machine.
If i recall well, there's one for the ubi game "The Division"
I personally would not pay for a new ps3 when the ps4 is for this xmas... it's pointless, an absurb and a waste of money. And sorry, i would think you are totally nuts, crazy, if you buy a console just for a single game. You are not going to die if you don't play a game... all this is insane.
BTW, most people here play ps3/xbox360 games on a pc monitor via hdmi, so 720p is VERY noticeable. The only guys i know that uses a console with a huge TV are a few, and mostly with the WiiU .
In contrast I do not know anyone that plays their console on a computer monitor on a regular basis.
Most popular is a 720p 32 inch LCD tv, followed by 42" and 50" plasmas that are evenly distributed between 720 and 1080p with a couple of people still hanging on to their old CRT tv´s and using Scart connectors for 480p blurry vision gaming glory in their hobby rooms.
I swap between a 720p 50" plasma and a 120" projector that is 720p.
Both accept 1080p input for downscaling, but as we know downscaling generally nets you an image that is no better than the native 720p in anyway apart from the occational UI text.
On both screens, my console games look great given the view distance from their respected screens and I doubt I will swap them out for a 1080p native setup with the new generation of consoles in the first 2 or 3 years.
Most PC monitors that are 1080p native or 1920x1200 make 720p output look horrible due to their craptastic built in upscalers in most of the cheaper consumer monitors, so yes on those it will look terrible and be very jaggy.
Ubisoft´s Division was a game that was I believe considered for the PC, being a multiplatform game from the start, and they encouraged people to sign the PC petition to see just how many would sign up for that.
Given the trends in recent years however, the end numbers of the PC sales would probably be a tiny fraction compared to the console sales, so they would be debating hard on weather or not to pursue porting to the PC.
I personally would not pay for a new ps3 when the ps4 is for this xmas... it's pointless, an absurb and a waste of money.
You think the PS3 will come down in price a lot immediately following the PS4 launch? Otherwise I'm not sure how it would be a waste given the PS4 is not backwards compatible (there's Gaikai streaming but I don't think that's supposed to be available at launch, and latency might be an issue).
Or. Or.
Just watch an hd video gameplay through of it on YouTube. Afterall it is pretty linear from the accounts I have heard. So should be like watching a low quality super extended.cg movie.
That, or you know, make friends and play the game at their homes.
but then their wives get pissed because they're having fun with someone else.:poly122:
I think the only place hardware has been holding back gaming is level size/linearity. hopefully we can get away from that now and no longer have games that lead you by the hand.
I think the only place hardware has been holding back gaming is level size/linearity. hopefully we can get away from that now and no longer have games that lead you by the hand.
Oh how I hope this is the case. Linear level design has affected way too many games this generation. It's not like every game should be a vast open world or anything, but there's a happy medium between corridor shooters and open world games that doesn't seem to be struck very often anymore.
I remember when playing a game meant calling up your friends (on a telephone that connected to the wall) and having them come over to the house (with no concern of quacks and weirdo's) and setting up a table for a round of Ad&D, Car Wars or some other rpg....topped with pizza and coke.
So its best to stick to PC if you are going to be looking for graphical aspects in which to be inspired/pull from.
If you think higher texture resolution/geometry density has ANYTHING to do with actual art and what to be inspired by then you clearly show you know nothing about art.
If you think higher texture resolution/geometry density has ANYTHING to do with actual art and what to be inspired by then you clearly show you know nothing about art.
Why do you make that kind of assumption?
Art is also subjective and vague... So when it comes to making comments about art, it helps to be specific. In this case I made it clear that its my opinion with regards to game art...current gen game art. The techniques used and the quality of the assets are something we can objectively measure. For level design, we can appreciate the design choices. For game assets, its more of a technical accomplishment.
Seeing a unique asset with its own UV set, making good use of both spec and normal maps...even tessellation, is drastically different than say assets made up of tiled textures, low poly counts and a mere diffuse map.
So specifically, it is better in my opinion to pull from and be inspired by game assets that are for current gen PCs than for consoles made back in 2006 and limited by 2006 hardware.
Simply assuming my comment is merely about the texture resolution or how dense a scene is far from the opinion based point I was making and it was merely part of the feed back I gave to the OPs inquiry. Naughty Dog games have generally proven to be far better at pushing the PS3s hardware though, most likely due to the first party status and the fact they attract good artists (such as yourself), additionally this doesnt take into consideration some stylized content which admittingly can shine on the consoles.
My comment is only further enforced by your last post.
You are measuring the artistic quality of a game/asset by its technical merits. Which again, have nothing to do with art. Tessellation for example dose not make ANYTHING more artistic. It is nothing more than a way to give an object more geometry. It dose not change the artistic quality of an object. It might make that object look more "real" or look overall "better" with higher geo, but that dose not make it artistically better.
Art is the creative and aesthetically pleasing nature of any given thing. The technical aspects of how something is done has nothing to do with how great the art is. Weather its a hand painted and stylized or a realistic game using normal maps, tessellation and huge texture resolution. Its the art behind those technical decisions that makes something artistic. The tech is just how you build that art. Are you building your art out of wood or steel. Just because steel is technologically stronger dose not make the art created from it any better.
With your being of the opinion that games on current gen PC's are better artistically/inspirationaly than games that came a few years ago proves that for you, you define art only by the cutting edge of technology. Which frankly is wrong.
With that line of thought, it dismisses any type of 2D game, any retro art or hand painted art. As non of these things are a unique assets, making good use of both spec and normal maps and tessellation. They would look the same on a current gen PC as they do on a console from 20 years ago.
This generation I think Journey, Limbo and the Unfinished Swan are some of the most outstanding artistically created games. None of them are these super next gen games like Battlefield. Yes games like Battlefield and Crysis are fantastic looking games and technical masterpieces. But are they the best artistic games? The most inspirational? Not even close.
Or. Or.
Just watch an hd video gameplay through of it on YouTube. Afterall it is pretty linear from the accounts I have heard. So should be like watching a low quality super extended.cg movie.
Oh, I went there.
Yep. If you're not a fan of linear shooters you'll probably be better off just watching a playthrough. I watched a 3 hour cut of all the cinematics and enjoyed it as that. I know there is some stuff I missed in the dialogue while you play, but I got the jist of it I think. It's kind of like watching an altered Children of Men CG movie (not that there's anything wrong with that -- just felt like a movie). If you enjoy the big production fancy AAA shooter stuff that tends to have similar gameplay you'll really enjoy it.
My comment is only further enforced by your last post.
You are measuring the artistic quality of a game/asset by its technical merits. Which again, have nothing to do with art. Tessellation for example dose not make ANYTHING more artistic. It is nothing more than a way to give an object more geometry. It dose not change the artistic quality of an object. It might make that object look more "real" or look overall "better" with higher geo, but that dose not make it artistically better.
Art is the creative and aesthetically pleasing nature of any given thing. The technical aspects of how something is done has nothing to do with how great the art is. Weather its a hand painted and stylized or a realistic game using normal maps, tessellation and huge texture resolution. Its the art behind those technical decisions that makes something artistic. The tech is just how you build that art. Are you building your art out of wood or steel. Just because steel is technologically stronger dose not make the art created from it any better.
With your being of the opinion that games on current gen PC's are better artistically/inspirationaly than games that came a few years ago proves that for you, you define art only by the cutting edge of technology. Which frankly is wrong.
With that line of thought, it dismisses any type of 2D game, any retro art or hand painted art. As non of these things are a unique assets, making good use of both spec and normal maps and tessellation. They would look the same on a current gen PC as they do on a console from 20 years ago.
This generation I think Journey, Limbo and the Unfinished Swan are some of the most outstanding artistically created games. None of them are these super next gen games like Battlefield. Yes games like Battlefield and Crysis are fantastic looking games and technical masterpieces. But are they the best artistic games? The most inspirational? Not even close.
Yes and no. I specifically defined what I am calling art. When referring to technical art and what can inspire it, there are objective means to measure whether something is more impressive than the other in terms of technical makeup.
On the fine art side, you can say anything is art...including but not limited to human feces painted on a cork board wall. The point being, art in that sense is entirely subjective and vague. One's idea of art may not be another's idea of art much less what makes it good or not.
The problem here is that I havent said anything contrary to this and have basically fallen into the revision you posted, which is talking about the definition of art itself...which was never the point of my original post.
You keep saying I am wrong, but you are wrong in that you are not being objective in how you interpret my post. I am clearly talking about a technical aspect within the realm of game art (as made more evident by this forum). You want to argue semantics and I think thats more or less a distraction from the original post.
In short you are also saying my opinion is wrong based on some selective interpretation of my post. I think that is intellectually dishonest.
I also have not dismissed any other stylized art, which I made clear in the previous post towards the end. Are you reading my posts properly or just being reactionary?
I ask that if you choose to reply to my opinion, at least be objective in how you are reading and responding to my posts rather than inject your own interpretation and argument into my words.
Finally, in regards to the mention of Journey and Limbo, those are more or less artistic in their DESIGN. This is different than what I am talking about in regards to actual assets. You seem to be confusing or intentionally bundling the design, the challenge mechanics, the art direction...into the subject I presented. A game designer might pull more from those than someone who is making next gen game assets. I talking about a specific element as related to the nature of this forum and the jobs within, not the artistic design choices that were part of the design document.
I think this argument can get out of hand quickly so ill try to simplify both points.
Dataday : Your saying more advances in tech on the PC can show a glimpse of what is possible, so for an artist it is a good idea to see PC tech.
I agree on that end since I tend to look at forward tech UDK, Cryengine and other sources so I can expect what will come next gen. For example I was not really surprised with the jump in game tech on e3 showings since we could almost all say the tech was already around and available to us.
Autocon : What I can get is that your saying new tech is nice, but even if it gives glimpses it is still valuable to see current gen games or just great art direction in games. That even if you have awesome tech it does not mean it will make something artistically pleasing.
I agree also, More polies does not make better visuals. It is just like when I look back at older Zelda games and still I can admire the work behind them and the artistic choices at the time due to limitations, but still are very solid and polished art directed games.
For example I use to love Unreal style graphics but the more my sensibilities became matured (not saying everyone should have my sensibilities) for composition, color theory, and form... I kind of started to dislike it. Do not get me wrong the individual artist are my idols I have immense respect for them... I use to work with them. When all the assets are together it is just a noisy over detailed mess. Some people like the mess and will go oooooo. I go ooooo too but I can look back and see a damn awesome prop but it gets lost in the mess and tech pushing. The unreal tech is one of the best in the world and the artists are also the one of best. But more tech more polies more general noise does not make an appealing game.
But I do agree artists should study the next gen stuff or PC games due to the up coming tech. But I also agree when you see a game like Uncharted or last of us that have well balanced compositions in most areas, you can start to appreciate the balance it takes to make such art assets. I would say a well balanced scene is harder to do than to dump tons of detail. I think having control and balance of your works is more valuable than an over abundance of cool looking detail.
If were to judge The Last of Us asset next to an asset to lets say Gear of War assets... I think most people would say the individual asset in Gears of War looks amazing than anything on The last of Us. But when you see the whole put together the art assets are much better balanced in the Last of Us or other great Art directed well balanced games than gears.
Hell yeah, If NG had published their game in PC, it would have been Aweesome, but they dont..
Last time, I wanted to play "Uncharted 2 Among thieves" too badly..
I could somehow buy a PS3 but would again need costly monitor with HDMI port and all...
so, all I did was watched the game play and got satisfied, hehe
I didnt say games should be just about graphics (so I agree with you on that front), but if an artist is looking for games to pull from for their skill set, then the graphics matter. So as far as priorities go, if an artist is looking for artistic inspiration when playing a game, consoles are usually not the place to go.
Graphics also have the power to immerse or alienate via emotional response, both negative or positive. Low rez tiled textures over everything, bad or lack of normal/spec maps, stretched UVs, no vertex normals being smoothed out... ect. As artists, I think we are more aware of these and its up to the person whether they can get passed them or not. For me personally, I strive for perfection in art, so those sloppy little details or lack there of do get to me. Its not something I would ever want to mimic or think is OK in the long run.
Anyways thats a different topic for a different time. This next gen of console hardware looks like they will be able to reach that next gen threshold more so than before...now its up to the console developers to start pushing those next gen techniques.
oh there is so much more you learn from the naughtydog games (or other top of the line this consolegen games) than just techniques, colors, composition, mood. There is more to an image than using the latest shaders, highest resolution textures and more geometry - those are details, not what makes or breaks the picture you're looking at.
If i recall well, there's one for the ubi game "The Division"
I personally would not pay for a new ps3 when the ps4 is for this xmas... it's pointless, an absurb and a waste of money. And sorry, i would think you are totally nuts, crazy, if you buy a console just for a single game. You are not going to die if you don't play a game... all this is insane.
BTW, most people here play ps3/xbox360 games on a pc monitor via hdmi, so 720p is VERY noticeable. The only guys i know that uses a console with a huge TV are a few, and mostly with the WiiU .
just my 2 cents.
I did exactly that. And I DON'T regret spending a single cent on it. (Of course, I've always wanted to look at the Little Big Planet series as well, so perhaps it was for just a little bit more than one game)
There are times when one game makes a console. Super Mario 64 comes to mind. It was worth buying the console just so you can play that game. Final Fantasy 7 was worth as much for PS1. And I think The Last of Us also fits right up there with those games. It's not that much of an investment, anyway: quit smoking, for example, and you'll get that money in two months doing nothing else.
Oh how I hope this is the case. Linear level design has affected way too many games this generation. It's not like every game should be a vast open world or anything, but there's a happy medium between corridor shooters and open world games that doesn't seem to be struck very often anymore.
Problem with that is that you'll be forced to either extend studio sizes or extend the length of time it takes to develop a game. And of course, cost will go up, which means prices probably will, too.
Problem with that is that you'll be forced to either extend studio sizes or extend the length of time it takes to develop a game. And of course, cost will go up, which means prices probably will, too.
Games with extremely linear level design almost always make up for it with tons of scripted sequences, with levels that can be explored you generally don't need to create such things in excess to keep the player interested.
It should be much easier and cheaper to make a game and release it to one platform, and then afterwards decided to release to another platform and make it for that, because all the assets has already been made, and the company has already gotten money in from the initial sales from the previous platform. So I would say it makes sense to make the game for another platform afterwards, even for the publishers who is just thinking about the bottomline.
Haha, what kind of hilariousness is going on here If you want to learn about art, study last of us, because no PC exclusive games are anywhere close to the technical profiency in that game. Most PC exclusive games are subpar technically and just uses all that extra horsepower to take shortcuts, while the Last of Us actually had to do things the hard way. It was a long time since a game pushed PC tech really hard.
I'm a game artist and I don't own a PS3. Wanna buy me one?
haven't you read, you're not a game artist if you don't own a PS3. I own one but I haven't played a game on it in 6 months, I think the Gamer Police are going to come over to revoke my game artist title, I'm just going to be an artist now *sob*
haven't you read, you're not a game artist if you don't own a PS3. I own one but I haven't played a game on it in 6 months, I think the Gamer Police are going to come over to revoke my game artist title, I'm just going to be an artist now *sob*
Man, I hate living in the adult world! I want to live in the magical place of money trees and booze fountains!
I bought a PS3 just so I could enjoy the environments in the Infamous series, and am now thankful to have one for the Last of US. I'd say owning a PS3 has been an asset in my growth as an artist ^_^
Replies
PS3's are only 200 bucks and have a fantastic library, such as all the Uncharted games!
This and
That.
While I completely agree with this, even though it sounds like the most shameless plug I've heard in a while.
I was of the learning that if you wanted to be a game artist you should only do game art and nothing else for the rest of your life.
The real question is whether or not it'll be available on Gaikai/PSN for PS4.
I'm hoping the rest of your life doesn't exclude social activities or playing games. I don't want to be always in my armchair doing art on my spare time.
I feel no shame in plugging Uncharted. The Uncharted series is fantastic and I am happy to have worked on the latest installment. And based on the tons of artistic achievement awards we won for Uncharted 3 I would say its a good pickup
Other fantastic ones to pick up would be Journey, God of War 3, Unfinished Swan, Ratchet and Clank: Crack in Time so on and so forth.
This is ridiculous, there is so much more to life than sitting infront of a computer doing 3d art. And those things you do in life make your art better. Even playing games and seeing art from others in the context of a game can only help you build better environments. Just dont spend all day playing games
That said, another issue with consoles is that they do more to hold games and their design back rather than push them forward. There is only so much you can do with a controller and the hardware specs.
Anyways, doesnt look like the consoles are going anywhere soon. So you either have to buy into their whole business scheme to play exclusives or you just move on.
Games shouldn't be just about the graphics... its the experience that really matters and The Last of Us was spectacular in many other ways as well, as well as other exclusives titles.
I didnt say games should be just about graphics (so I agree with you on that front), but if an artist is looking for games to pull from for their skill set, then the graphics matter. So as far as priorities go, if an artist is looking for artistic inspiration when playing a game, consoles are usually not the place to go.
Graphics also have the power to immerse or alienate via emotional response, both negative or positive. Low rez tiled textures over everything, bad or lack of normal/spec maps, stretched UVs, no vertex normals being smoothed out... ect. As artists, I think we are more aware of these and its up to the person whether they can get passed them or not. For me personally, I strive for perfection in art, so those sloppy little details or lack there of do get to me. Its not something I would ever want to mimic or think is OK in the long run.
Anyways thats a different topic for a different time. This next gen of console hardware looks like they will be able to reach that next gen threshold more so than before...now its up to the console developers to start pushing those next gen techniques.
I don't care how good the graphics look if it doesn't captivate me into caring about the world. Though I'm also partially biased because I absolutely adore stylized video games and cel-shaded ones.
On a side note the market for high end computers is always going to be smaller than the console base. You can certainly push the graphical fidelity up but who's going to buy it?
well, I'd have to buy a TV too, and something to put it on...and thats almost enough cash to buy a top line nVidia card.
I'll wait for the PS4 if I finally do get a console.
I miss out on good games from time to time, c'est la vie (muhahaha! it's in your head now, you'll be hearing it for the rest of the weekend.)
probably for the best, as it leaves me more hours to blindly pioneer into the world of run-time texturing.
Well the good news is that you dont need a TV. If you are a computer user, chances are you have a monitor that can accept HDMI. Additionally, you get an excuse to invest in a nice monitor which can benefit your computer based workflow as well as gaming.
I have 2 monitors right now that can be connected to a PS3 and a 40 inch hdtv which was used as a computer monitor. The perk to using monitors is that you can sit much closer to the screen.
I´ll say that for you as a game artist, or aspiring game artist, playing any game and looking at the graphics in it is not about how pretty they are, but HOW they manage to pull of what is there.
A game like Uncharted 3, and more significantly The Last of Us really do a great job if you look close at the assets in it, of showing you just how well you can balance the artwork to get the most out of the limited resources you have at your disposal.
A great portion of your job as a games artist is knowing not only how to make great looking artwork and assets, but how to get those into the game you are working on in the best possible way and with the least amount of sacrifice in detail and quality given the resources, technical limitations, time restrictions and things like view distance and intended view angles to said objects.
Oh I wont disagree that implementation should be overlooked nor did I imply otherwise, but most of the time there's not much to be impressed by or something evident enough to find impressive. For example, the impressive part comes not from the game, but coming on here or say reading Vertex and seeing how the artist made it. How would anyone know about some of the design choices in Uncharted 3 in without seeing it from the artist themselves?
The point here is that if something was implemented in a very intelligent manner to get around the console's weaknesses or to reduce the cost of such assets, it wont be self evident until explained by the artist. If you go in knowing the hardware's limitations, then it might be worth looking into how it was done but then thats just looking at it more as a technical artist and not so much as an artist artist, if that makes any sense. Just my opinion though.
Notice we keep using Naughty Dog as an example, and its probably not a fair example because they are very good at what they do and as a first party developer, they probably know the hardware best or more so than the third party developers... Even then, I noticed some things in the Last of Us that were not so good, but thats not what this thread is about. It was a good game regardless, and I am happy to own its collectors edition.
The quality of the asset and what techniques you can use are important, though hands may be tied in what you can get away with, it still doesnt excuse the fact the hardware is limiting what the artist wants to convey.
What about all those situations where artist/designers have extolled the virtues of having more restriction than freedom. While I agree that there's quite the beauty and wonder in cutting-edge, I've been far more impressed with the games that did so much with so little.
IMO games like Metal Gear Solid are tantamount to this theory.
*Autocon then goes back to playing TLoU at 120fps on a tri-1600p monitor setup.*
I agree with this.
While I do agree that console games are holding some aspects of game development back, it is mostly in the technical areas like graphic fidelity due to memory limitations, all of which will pretty much be negated for a few years with the release of the next gen consoles.
A PC game will not automatically be better due to the input method, if anything a lot of PC only games become overly complicated and convoluted and in most cases gain almost nothing by it when it comes to input.
I will not agree that gameplay wise, that consoles are holding gaming back as some of the very best games I have played in recent years have been on consoles.
As for learning from playing games like The Last of Us.. you just have to look around in game, you dont need to be told everything in detail.
You can see texture density on the objects, and roughly the polygon counts being used just by looking.
I was amazed while playing through it at how high res some of the textures were, and wondering just how they managed that with such a large open area in front of me. A sign would be placed on a building and it was very sharp and nice looking, and then you start looking at the other objects in the scene and you start noticing how clever they were in using lower resolution stuff around on some of the objects that you would´t spot unless you were actively looking for it.
Amazingly well managed assets and just downright amazing use of lighting that trumps anything I have seen in a PC game in my 30 odd years of gaming.
Yes games like Crysis on the PC might look better at first glance, but they really aren´t all that far ahead of this game in anything other than texture resolutions and object density.
And Crysis 1 through 3 are usually hailed as the kings of PC graphics.
As games, The Last of Us is much better than any Crysis game I have played. Much more engaging, much more emotional, and the storytelling miles better than anything I have seen in a PC game.
Complexity does not a good game make in my view.
I wish there was a PC game out that gave me the same "oh good god how are they pulling this off!" moments in the few seconds my brain detaches from the excellent game I am playing but I have yet to find one and I am mostly a PC gamer.
I would also argue that there is not a single PC game out there, bar MMO´s with their abilities bars and chat, that can not be mirrored onto a consoles controller quite easilly.
Well and flight sims with all their convoluted controls spread unintelligently all over the keyboard
Seriously if you can, nab a ps3 and grab the uncharted series and the last of us. All absolutely incredible games and after the last of us I am ready to start referring to my ps3 as the naughty dog game machine.
That, or you know, make friends and play the game at their homes.
If i recall well, there's one for the ubi game "The Division"
I personally would not pay for a new ps3 when the ps4 is for this xmas... it's pointless, an absurb and a waste of money. And sorry, i would think you are totally nuts, crazy, if you buy a console just for a single game. You are not going to die if you don't play a game... all this is insane.
BTW, most people here play ps3/xbox360 games on a pc monitor via hdmi, so 720p is VERY noticeable. The only guys i know that uses a console with a huge TV are a few, and mostly with the WiiU
just my 2 cents.
Most popular is a 720p 32 inch LCD tv, followed by 42" and 50" plasmas that are evenly distributed between 720 and 1080p with a couple of people still hanging on to their old CRT tv´s and using Scart connectors for 480p blurry vision gaming glory in their hobby rooms.
I swap between a 720p 50" plasma and a 120" projector that is 720p.
Both accept 1080p input for downscaling, but as we know downscaling generally nets you an image that is no better than the native 720p in anyway apart from the occational UI text.
On both screens, my console games look great given the view distance from their respected screens and I doubt I will swap them out for a 1080p native setup with the new generation of consoles in the first 2 or 3 years.
Most PC monitors that are 1080p native or 1920x1200 make 720p output look horrible due to their craptastic built in upscalers in most of the cheaper consumer monitors, so yes on those it will look terrible and be very jaggy.
Ubisoft´s Division was a game that was I believe considered for the PC, being a multiplatform game from the start, and they encouraged people to sign the PC petition to see just how many would sign up for that.
Given the trends in recent years however, the end numbers of the PC sales would probably be a tiny fraction compared to the console sales, so they would be debating hard on weather or not to pursue porting to the PC.
You think the PS3 will come down in price a lot immediately following the PS4 launch? Otherwise I'm not sure how it would be a waste given the PS4 is not backwards compatible (there's Gaikai streaming but I don't think that's supposed to be available at launch, and latency might be an issue).
Just watch an hd video gameplay through of it on YouTube. Afterall it is pretty linear from the accounts I have heard. So should be like watching a low quality super extended.cg movie.
Oh, I went there.
but then their wives get pissed because they're having fun with someone else.:poly122:
I think the only place hardware has been holding back gaming is level size/linearity. hopefully we can get away from that now and no longer have games that lead you by the hand.
Oh how I hope this is the case. Linear level design has affected way too many games this generation. It's not like every game should be a vast open world or anything, but there's a happy medium between corridor shooters and open world games that doesn't seem to be struck very often anymore.
What happened?
If you think higher texture resolution/geometry density has ANYTHING to do with actual art and what to be inspired by then you clearly show you know nothing about art.
Why do you make that kind of assumption?
Art is also subjective and vague... So when it comes to making comments about art, it helps to be specific. In this case I made it clear that its my opinion with regards to game art...current gen game art. The techniques used and the quality of the assets are something we can objectively measure. For level design, we can appreciate the design choices. For game assets, its more of a technical accomplishment.
Seeing a unique asset with its own UV set, making good use of both spec and normal maps...even tessellation, is drastically different than say assets made up of tiled textures, low poly counts and a mere diffuse map.
So specifically, it is better in my opinion to pull from and be inspired by game assets that are for current gen PCs than for consoles made back in 2006 and limited by 2006 hardware.
Simply assuming my comment is merely about the texture resolution or how dense a scene is far from the opinion based point I was making and it was merely part of the feed back I gave to the OPs inquiry. Naughty Dog games have generally proven to be far better at pushing the PS3s hardware though, most likely due to the first party status and the fact they attract good artists (such as yourself), additionally this doesnt take into consideration some stylized content which admittingly can shine on the consoles.
You are measuring the artistic quality of a game/asset by its technical merits. Which again, have nothing to do with art. Tessellation for example dose not make ANYTHING more artistic. It is nothing more than a way to give an object more geometry. It dose not change the artistic quality of an object. It might make that object look more "real" or look overall "better" with higher geo, but that dose not make it artistically better.
Art is the creative and aesthetically pleasing nature of any given thing. The technical aspects of how something is done has nothing to do with how great the art is. Weather its a hand painted and stylized or a realistic game using normal maps, tessellation and huge texture resolution. Its the art behind those technical decisions that makes something artistic. The tech is just how you build that art. Are you building your art out of wood or steel. Just because steel is technologically stronger dose not make the art created from it any better.
With your being of the opinion that games on current gen PC's are better artistically/inspirationaly than games that came a few years ago proves that for you, you define art only by the cutting edge of technology. Which frankly is wrong.
With that line of thought, it dismisses any type of 2D game, any retro art or hand painted art. As non of these things are a unique assets, making good use of both spec and normal maps and tessellation. They would look the same on a current gen PC as they do on a console from 20 years ago.
This generation I think Journey, Limbo and the Unfinished Swan are some of the most outstanding artistically created games. None of them are these super next gen games like Battlefield. Yes games like Battlefield and Crysis are fantastic looking games and technical masterpieces. But are they the best artistic games? The most inspirational? Not even close.
Yep. If you're not a fan of linear shooters you'll probably be better off just watching a playthrough. I watched a 3 hour cut of all the cinematics and enjoyed it as that. I know there is some stuff I missed in the dialogue while you play, but I got the jist of it I think. It's kind of like watching an altered Children of Men CG movie (not that there's anything wrong with that -- just felt like a movie). If you enjoy the big production fancy AAA shooter stuff that tends to have similar gameplay you'll really enjoy it.
Yes and no. I specifically defined what I am calling art. When referring to technical art and what can inspire it, there are objective means to measure whether something is more impressive than the other in terms of technical makeup.
On the fine art side, you can say anything is art...including but not limited to human feces painted on a cork board wall. The point being, art in that sense is entirely subjective and vague. One's idea of art may not be another's idea of art much less what makes it good or not.
The problem here is that I havent said anything contrary to this and have basically fallen into the revision you posted, which is talking about the definition of art itself...which was never the point of my original post.
You keep saying I am wrong, but you are wrong in that you are not being objective in how you interpret my post. I am clearly talking about a technical aspect within the realm of game art (as made more evident by this forum). You want to argue semantics and I think thats more or less a distraction from the original post.
In short you are also saying my opinion is wrong based on some selective interpretation of my post. I think that is intellectually dishonest.
I also have not dismissed any other stylized art, which I made clear in the previous post towards the end. Are you reading my posts properly or just being reactionary?
I ask that if you choose to reply to my opinion, at least be objective in how you are reading and responding to my posts rather than inject your own interpretation and argument into my words.
Finally, in regards to the mention of Journey and Limbo, those are more or less artistic in their DESIGN. This is different than what I am talking about in regards to actual assets. You seem to be confusing or intentionally bundling the design, the challenge mechanics, the art direction...into the subject I presented. A game designer might pull more from those than someone who is making next gen game assets. I talking about a specific element as related to the nature of this forum and the jobs within, not the artistic design choices that were part of the design document.
Dataday : Your saying more advances in tech on the PC can show a glimpse of what is possible, so for an artist it is a good idea to see PC tech.
I agree on that end since I tend to look at forward tech UDK, Cryengine and other sources so I can expect what will come next gen. For example I was not really surprised with the jump in game tech on e3 showings since we could almost all say the tech was already around and available to us.
Autocon : What I can get is that your saying new tech is nice, but even if it gives glimpses it is still valuable to see current gen games or just great art direction in games. That even if you have awesome tech it does not mean it will make something artistically pleasing.
I agree also, More polies does not make better visuals. It is just like when I look back at older Zelda games and still I can admire the work behind them and the artistic choices at the time due to limitations, but still are very solid and polished art directed games.
For example I use to love Unreal style graphics but the more my sensibilities became matured (not saying everyone should have my sensibilities) for composition, color theory, and form... I kind of started to dislike it. Do not get me wrong the individual artist are my idols I have immense respect for them... I use to work with them. When all the assets are together it is just a noisy over detailed mess. Some people like the mess and will go oooooo. I go ooooo too but I can look back and see a damn awesome prop but it gets lost in the mess and tech pushing. The unreal tech is one of the best in the world and the artists are also the one of best. But more tech more polies more general noise does not make an appealing game.
But I do agree artists should study the next gen stuff or PC games due to the up coming tech. But I also agree when you see a game like Uncharted or last of us that have well balanced compositions in most areas, you can start to appreciate the balance it takes to make such art assets. I would say a well balanced scene is harder to do than to dump tons of detail. I think having control and balance of your works is more valuable than an over abundance of cool looking detail.
If were to judge The Last of Us asset next to an asset to lets say Gear of War assets... I think most people would say the individual asset in Gears of War looks amazing than anything on The last of Us. But when you see the whole put together the art assets are much better balanced in the Last of Us or other great Art directed well balanced games than gears.
Last time, I wanted to play "Uncharted 2 Among thieves" too badly..
I could somehow buy a PS3 but would again need costly monitor with HDMI port and all...
so, all I did was watched the game play and got satisfied, hehe
oh there is so much more you learn from the naughtydog games (or other top of the line this consolegen games) than just techniques, colors, composition, mood. There is more to an image than using the latest shaders, highest resolution textures and more geometry - those are details, not what makes or breaks the picture you're looking at.
Emulators with internet play, baby!
I did exactly that. And I DON'T regret spending a single cent on it. (Of course, I've always wanted to look at the Little Big Planet series as well, so perhaps it was for just a little bit more than one game)
There are times when one game makes a console. Super Mario 64 comes to mind. It was worth buying the console just so you can play that game. Final Fantasy 7 was worth as much for PS1. And I think The Last of Us also fits right up there with those games. It's not that much of an investment, anyway: quit smoking, for example, and you'll get that money in two months doing nothing else.
Problem with that is that you'll be forced to either extend studio sizes or extend the length of time it takes to develop a game. And of course, cost will go up, which means prices probably will, too.
Games with extremely linear level design almost always make up for it with tons of scripted sequences, with levels that can be explored you generally don't need to create such things in excess to keep the player interested.
I'm a game artist and I don't own a PS3. Wanna buy me one?
haven't you read, you're not a game artist if you don't own a PS3. I own one but I haven't played a game on it in 6 months, I think the Gamer Police are going to come over to revoke my game artist title, I'm just going to be an artist now *sob*
Man, I hate living in the adult world! I want to live in the magical place of money trees and booze fountains!