Just wondering what you guys thought about the graphics. They seem good. Just not as good as some other games.

They are in fact quite simple. If you look at the hands, they have a fairly low poly-count.


But the overall art-style is very promising. And the details on clothing and weapons are nice, too.

wow so going to get flamed dude -5 internetz


the graphics are insane love the concept behind it there idea color back to game and the style

hey, what da ya mean flamed?

Honestly it could have graphics reminiscant of DOOM and I'd still be interested.

Giant-pixel DOOMguy doing mantles and slides to get at me with a shotgun to the face?

Do want.


Honestly, I like the graphics - It adds much-needed color to the world of FPSes, where they're all "realistic" (Read: varying shades of gray and tan)

I may be the only one here but I think the characters will look awesome when they can make the graphics more life like. I believe the reason they give for doing it the way they are is different then why they can't make the graphics better. These engines they are building games on are outdated and need to be upgraded badly. Since consoles are so old in tech years they see no real need to do this so they must ether compensate on game play or graphics so I think with Brink graphics will be dumb down to compensate for the game play improvements.

The engine has been extensively modified. Don't change what's not broken, but modify what you want changed.

Good enough for me - the characters in particular are awesome looking, and not just because of the art style.

3D nerds like me: Learn from CoD's mistake - the best visuals are achieved through tasteful use of the engine's lighting and effects, not million-poly models with 8192x8192 textures.

The point is: An old engine is an old engine.
It can display graphics to a certain amount of quality with an acceptable amount of hardware consumption. If you try to exceed the limit, however, it becomes a hardware muncher.
See the Source Engine, for example. It really can't do any better than Team Fortress 2 without going rampage on your hardware.

The idTech 4 Engine is about 7 years old now. Call of Duty is a very good example for the limits of that engine, wether it be heavily modified or not. Go any further and it won't work properly anymore.

If you use a recent engine on the other hand - the Cry Engine 3 for example - you can create equal graphics with a lot less hardware strain.

Exactly right.

The director of next cod said they are building the next cod on same engine they have been using in the last 57 cod versions. Hmmm... I wonder what that game will play and look like?

I have a feeling it will look like the 57 other cod games. This game better take a hot steaming poop on the COD series.

This. Period. I'm surprised more people don't notice how much of an effect this has on your computer's performance. Same goes for consoles.

Well, the bst visuals are achieved through a high polycount, proper lighting and good postprocessing effects alltogether. Especially the first is achieved through tessellation with DX11.

And we all do know that consoles are stuck on DX9, which is the main reason for why all CoD games look still the same.

I don't care what it looks like, as long as it plays well, and is fun I'll be happy

Looks fine to me. I just hope it still looks fine my crappy TV.

Please no console vs. PC wars, guys. Pretty please? I will have a sad if you do. :cryvaultboy:

I don't really care as long as it looks decent and plays smoothly. I think that's the key thing: SMOOTHLY.
Anyway, I still play really old games to this day.... and at least the Brink game graphics are better than most of the Wii games I have, hehehe.

I didn't notice the low-res hands, lol.

Polygons are outdated, if you want good/smooth running graphics then a point-cloud system works the best (In theory). Companies tend to stick to what they know though which is why we still model with them. Squares=/=Roundness

That "point-cloud"-technology is still in the middle of development, though. It's not a practicable thing yet.

The engine COD uses is so modified it can hardly be called the idTech 4 Engine.

You should all know that they aren't trying for the best graphics here, they are trying to create a style. Stop comparing graphics and start looking at this 'cartoon-y' look as a style choice.

any type of graphics looks good on a 55" HD-TV am i right, or am i right?

Hate to break it to you dudez, but CoD uses the id Tech 3 (Quake 3) all the way from CoD 1 to CoD 7 (blops?).

Brink uses id Tech 4 (Doom 3).

Not that this is a CoD discussion, but i just needed to point it out.

^^

You can't change the core of an engine without creating a completely new one. And the core is essentially the graphics-framework.


I think you're actually wrong. The bigger your screen, the more likely it is to find flaws in graphics.


The point remains, that it's an outdated engine.

True but the IDtech 5 was around when they started making Brink. The devs have mentioned they would have used and likely will use it for the next game.