What vidya games and engines have the best balance between performance and visual quality...

Their own engines. Arma 3 is alright, but it's netcode is pretty garbage. Performance degrades rapidly the longer a server is up and periodic reboots every 2-3 hours are the norm just to get people to have playable framerates regardless of their system

That picture is pretty bullshit tbh.

Portal looks worse then that shooter game.
Indie Hipster SJW Time Reversal is a small indie game, not a big team with time or money to focus on graphics.
Crysis looks better because it's Crysis and has a actually good game engine.

No, ARMA 3 is not alright, not alright by any sane metric. The game handles CPU in the most retarded way possible, performance is always erratic. Not to mention they can't write AI to save their lives, but that's a different matter entirely.
Their new world size engine looks even worse, Bohemia is just a bunch of useless hacks.

Crysis has a shit engine, you're stupid.

A lot better then Gamebyro.

Unfortunately in the real world using the Fox Engine vs using Gamebryo or Unity won't make your game better. What will is having programmers who knows what they are doing and time.

Doom Reboot has been ridiculed for having extreme map size and enemy number limitations. Yeah, it runs well, because what you actually see on screen has been adapter to its capabilities, not the other way around.
You can make great games even on Gamebryo, if you're not Bethesda (Bully, Catherine, Rocksmith and Civ4 are all on Gamebryo.)

As such, your ranking is just a wide load of bullshit.

I can make a good game in fucking java.
But that doesn't mean it will run well, look good or be optimized you moron. Only the technical aspects matter.

Stop posting this newfag image.
It was already pozzed before bazinga.

Right now? I think Unreal 4 and Foxengine.

Downside is fox engine is private and U4 has Tecent as shareholder which maybe could impact future Unreal games if they criticize china I guess, I don't know.

yeah but it's not that bad.now imagine if that was a 1999 vs 2007 img the difference would be wayy more noticeable .

I wish they'd sell foxengine or release it for free. they'd make a lot of money out of it if it's userfriendly enough.

You can make a java game run well too. Besides, Java is a not a game development engine, but a language. Even in java, you can add libraries, or go further all the way to integrating your own efficient rendering solution that uses Java in background.

Why do you speak so confidently when you clearly understand nothing of programming or game development?

I don't think a moonrune engine would ever be user friendly.

...

This, 2005 was the real year everything turned to shit.

no it was 2000. the world should have ended in 1999

No it's pretty fucking garbage. It's a Source Engine game so it has fucking trash textures.

From that tiny picture telling much is hard, but that shooter game still looks better from afar and probably close up as well.

By that logic you can fix every game engine or programming language by simply fixing or circumventing its flaws, so nothing is bad.

Shame your autistic rhetoric isn't realistic

I think this world just shouldnt exist period.

You can also make good efficient games by writing code on paper in binary.

That's exactly the point. Engines can't be compared by performance, which is not dependent on the engines, but by the time savings they provide to programmers, which is dependent on the type of game being made.

So if you want to compare engines in absolute terms you have to use an average cost/efficiency ratio.
Of course you can try comparing something like GameMaker and Unreal4, but that is equally pointless, just like comparing commercial engines and unreleased engines like the FoxEngine. Even if they released the FoxEngine tomorrow, it would be completely worthless if, say, it didn't have extensive documentation provided with it, (something that easily takes months, if not years of work to write), its pricing model was not attractive to good publishers, or even in the case its pipeline required too many intermediate or third party tools.

To repeat my point: engine or even language performance matters little when you're engineering entertainment software, because that is defined by the state of the art.

Well-documented, messy shit is still messy shit. Performance is also dependant on engine architecture and language choices: most of the time using a Java engine isn't worth the language's crippling flaws even if it saves a Java programmer time because he can't be assed to learn anything else.

Metal Gear Solid V
Half Life 2

you faggots dont even realize you are part of the problem. the internet has been getting shittier every year. 1993 was the first step, then 1999, then 2005, then 2007 its just accelerating.

just wait until more highspeed access is rolled out in africa and south america, newfags now will look back and think the current year +1 was back in the good days.

Gee, why would an image about graphic quality be 7 MB.

I feel like this is considered porn in some part of the country.

No u.
Joking aside: be the change you want to see. Fight the jews power and all that jazz.

The shit on the right looks far better, especially when it comes to lighting. Was the picture trying to say the opposite?

go back to your containment site retard

...

Now that I see these images, I think a vietnam-era game with lots of weapons and a psychedelic filter and classic rock would make a lot of money.

Source 2. It's amazing how Valve managed to make DOTA 2 look decent and run smoothly on thousands of russian vodka-powered PCs.

Integrated intel laptops can't run it though.
Old Source could be ran even by them

The COD screenshot looks decent, LiS looks okay but is absolutely terrible when blown up to fullscreen where you can see the shoddy textures and models. Frankly, the changes in visual fidelity often aren't worth the higher system requirements.
The original image used Portal 2 instead of Portal, not sure why either of the people who worked on it decided to include that game.

thats a lie with more and more patches the game grew in requirements and what before you could run on high is lagging on low now

t. owner of vodka powered PC

The lighting in Fallout blows it away based on the screenshot. What's it trying to showcase in the crysis screenshot, that it can render lots of sprite foliage?

Well, of course it does, lighting is the only thing that saw tangible improvements tech wise on the gaming industry.
Worth pointing out: Most materials have fucked PBR setting on FO4 to the point it isn't even funny, a really amateur mistake that is wasting performance. The screenshot doesn't show the LOD issues FO4 has or how erratic the performance is.
Cryengine might be shit, but leaving some lighting effects aside, Crysis looks and works better than FO4.

To be fair.

Cryengine is pretty neat but its a bit of a beast when you're getting the most out of it.
And the original Crysis was pretty much a tech demo that pushed it to the limits it had at the time.

The Fo4 engine is a beast even if you're not getting anything out of it

The documentation is shit, the default netcode is shit, the editor gets broken all the time and a lot of functions are buggy as shit.

The LOD management on that game is laughable. 2007 games had way better LOD than that shit.

here's a correction OP, that's how PC games looked in 2007 vs 2015/16. Uncharted 4 and Bloodborne looks better than all of them.

why would you re-save compressed jpegs with tons of colors from compression as an uncompressed format

Quality bait.

Uncharted does look better than most PC games. The lever of detail is amazingly high.
It's not bait.

of course you can't refute it, you haven't played either. The truth is too hard for you to face.

Could be diamond in the rough, how's the engine as far as performance though?

If it can run at a solid 30 on a ps4 it must be good
Or at least Naughty Dog knows how to optimise amazingly well

Impressive for a PS4 game, maybe.

Sorry user but this thread was about games with good performance.

Just because they locked it at 30 doesn't mean it doesn't look amazing

I'd love to hear a better looking game than it

superior hardware to play the only good pc games from the 1990s

yeah that's kind of retarded, I may be interested if PC gaming ever has another "90s" but looking back, even then consoles had more games, more innovative games, and more important games. Not necessarily better looking ones, but that is not what I value. The truth in this situation is however, the best looking games require a ton of money, time, and skilled people to produce. PC games are cheap, low budget, don't rely on sales, and target the lowest common denominator machine, which is significantly worse than modern consoles - at least consoles have some form of acceptable graphics hardware as a guarantee.

And thats the filter. What if its a story about a new recruit who goes so scarred by the war that he drugs himself to stop him from suiciding himself, and at the end you must fight your own squad while drugged and embed related plays

That's not a game dude.

Perhaps I can help shed some light on the whole discussion of old games seemingly looking better…

Deferred rendering (new) vs Forward rendering (old)

This is the big reason why you got performance issues and bugs in modern day remakes.

In short (and overly simplified) deferred rendering allows you to very efficiently do lights and shadows. You can literally 10 thousand point lights with shadow casting turned off with little performance impact.

The drawback is that deferred rendering is utter shit at transparent object sorting, so overdraw becomes a performance hog. You can blame that quirk for the fact that most games today have abysmall foliage densities, which is usually very overdraw heavy..

tl;dr deferred rendering offers visual benefits at the cost of quite a bit of performance and some limitations.

to be honest it's a lot better than some of the shit that people praise like alan wake

BF1 has better graphics, everything else about it is shit though.

battlefield 1 doesn't look as good, interestingly. It's comparatively a low spec game when you look at some of the technical feats uncharted 4 pulls off. Especially with real time deformation, kinematics, and lighting.

Uncharted 4 looks nice from your couch and has some nice tech behind it, but on a monitor it's much easier to see the LOD issues and low-resolution textures not to mention that the actual story and gameplay are shit.

Take your cancer back to r/gamedev.

I don't have a couch, and the comparative distance/size from my TV to my bed, or my monitors to my seat evens out to be very similar. You should actually play games before you judge them. You don't seem to have even done basic research like looking up footage.

The game play has also never been better in uncharted, and it's one of the best third person shooters in a long time. If it had gotten a PC release Holla Forums would be talking about it to this day.

BF1 also runs at 60fps vs Uncharted 4's 30, so they aren't really comparable.

Uncharted 4 MP runs at 60, but obviously looks notably worse. There are comparable qualities, Uncharted 4 is better looking in every way.

It varies.

The issue for bethesda is its pretty much the only engine that uses the sort of highly modular setup they want.
Something more conventional would be harder to mod, and if it was harder to mod it would be less popular.

isn't sony going bankrupt? I have a hard time believing they could still be paying you enough for this

why refute my arguments when you can just slide like the jewish pest you are

Here we go again with Idiots who don't know shit about.

If you're a good enough programmer to make a good unity game, you don't need unity

I've watched high-resolution gameplay footage, glazed over research papers/presentations behind Uncharted 4's tech, and played Uncharted 3 with snippets of Uncharted 2 at various times. With this in mind, I am informed enough to state that mechanically the Uncharted games are fairly bland TPSes, propped up by fancy tech and scripted sequences to distract the "muh cinematic gaming" sonynigger from realizing that he's just wasting most of his time on cutscenes and those godawful climbing sequences.
None of Naughty Dog's technical feats are revolutionary in the slightest: all they do is take preexisting techniques and somehow make them run on underpowered gaming consoles with some tweaking.

Unity is a great engine, but it has some really big troubles with performance, that's impossible to deny.
I've seen professional teams making games with horrible performance because of unity.

at least you admit you never played it

But obviously all do tend to get a bit into the tender zone as if they dont have the real strenght unto the completion if certain aspects in making the stuff glide into the tight together and that may be the cause of certain problems like the so named ones in previous adsertions.

I don't need to: I've played previous entries and they were shit, and the extensive gameplay footage I've seen tells me that this is just more of the same with an even weaker storyline to prop it all up.

How surprising.
Pottery.

i fuck your mama littel bitcch, you have the glidig spatty von bagetti you little defacate

interesting, you'd know uncharted 4 has very notable game play changes compared to the earlier installments if you even looked up footage of it in action.

None of them were interesting enough to remember.

so you lie about doing research and talk about games you've never played. At least you're open about how shallow you are.

shutup you too you i throw defacate on your ass i fuck your mom in!

...

like I said, if you did any research you'd know even basic information about the game. The funny thing is, it's still better looking than any other game to date.

LEGEND OF TITAN have gooder stealth your game shit off table look at uprising star in roif here; legend of titan!!!!

Uncharted's gameplay has always been padding between cutscenes: the grappling hook, stealth system, and combat are just more padding and ultimately minor tweaks to the core cutscene-watching and wallclimbing experience.

that's nice

This maymay again.

over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/userfriendly/1

IIRC that's actually what Haze was supposed to be.

Jesus Husein Christ.

You can read it in ~5 minutes.

You're doing that thing were you're being extremely pedantic.

Here's another one, and its practically the predecessor to bf1. I'll be waiting for your biased response.

sweetfx is a color tweaking application. the game doesn't look like that. I really need to stress how important it is to play the games we might talk about.

leave

No you can't, I have never seen a single thing coded in Java not run like shit or take way too much resources for what It's doing, the least terrible example I can think of being Chrome the game not the fucking browser

it's very beneficial, you learn nuances on why games work or don't work, can better articulate your thoughts on these little things and ultimately create more meaningful discourse.

It's just an FPS
It's Battlefield with Star Wars and less maps
What kind of nuances do you need to observe

Also you write like a massive faggot, are you trying to sound smart on a taiwanese imageboard?

Get back to cranking those phone games out of your baby engine pajeet

The graphics still look better.

The biggest cost for deferred comes from the fact that you have to render out to multiple textures in memory containing the different data you need to use.

This includes the flat color, normal maps, depth, and in PBR pipelines, metalness, roughness and ambient occlusion. While there's a bunch of ways to use as few textures as possible by shuffling channels around and lesser precision, the fact is, you're rendering a half-dozen textures at screen resolution, per-frame.

This means that on newer hardware, it's not a big deal, but on older hardware, that's a huge amount of data chewing through your bandwidth to the GPU, every single frame. And this naturally goes up the higher resolutions you go. That's part of why 4k resolution hits so hard, even on brand new hardware. Deferred does NOT scale nicely as resolution goes up.

However, alternate render methods, like forward+ or hybrid approaches like what the nuDoom used(where it renders all opaque surfaces as forward, and then renders a super thin g-buffer with just normals and depth for your standard post-process effects) allows you to get the best of both worlds - the fast straight rendering of forward with the higher light count and post-processing support of deferred.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Then again that's this entire thread in a nutshell.

Deferred rendering also doesn't play nice with MSAA at all, which is why you see so many post-processing AA solutions these days.
Tesseract has a fairly good implementation of deferred rendering and other modern graphical features (notably lacking any sort of baked lighting, linear-space lighting or sRGB textures) which runs on legacy OpenGL 2.1+ contexts in addition to 3, which you can read about at tesseract.gg/renderer.txt

Ah, right, I remember tesseract. Didn't know they avoided srgb and linear workflow though.

I mean, the entire point of linear and PBR workflows is for content produced to be predictable and resuable in different environments. So their justification of "Eh, mappers'll work around it" seems really weak.

And yeah, MSAA CAN be made to work, but it's got an obscene amount of overhead, even in the optimized methods. That said, Wolfgang Engel(the guy that came up with the idea of prepass lighting in the first place) at this year's GDC put out a paper about 'Visibility Buffers' that looks awesome. Drawback is it requires DX12/Vulkan to utilize properly, but it basically lets you handle things with the actual geometry rather than offloading everything to view-based render targets.

So you figure out what geometry is visibile from the camera and all relevent lights and cull absolutely everything else, then do whatever render method you want with it. Since you're gutting out the vast majority of geometry before you do any of the real rendering work, it's way lighter weight and cuts out pretty much all overdraw. If it didn't require the absolute latest API generation I'd be all over that.

Looks like neat shit, although it could be a pain to maintain a visibility buffer-based rendering pipeline for Vulkan and a traditional g-buffer pipeline for OpenGL.

I'd imagine vulkan's probably fine. The big gains come from multi indirect draw. So you can do the handling of the view-based tris at the same time as the lights' view, rather than doing it sequentially, and I'd imagine vulkan's got that covered in some capacity.

But yeah, for DX11/OGL-tier, not having that ability means you'd have to do the culling sequentially. It'd probably perform alright, but the biggest advantage would definitely be lost.

It may well be better off sticking with regular software occlusion to cut down on overdraw when using the older hardware.

>>>/reddit/
>>>/youtube/

Are you even trying OP?

That's exactly why you need to at least pirate the games you're trying to criticize user. Battlefront plays far worse than any battlefield game in existence. It's a completely different experience from any Battlefield game because of how badly they fucked it up.

Too lazy to make my own