Best looking PC game of 2019

[Sashleycat]

The graphics are stunning, but for me, the depth of the story / characters is what makes Metro my favourite game of all time.

 

[cucker tarlson]

The graphics are stunning, but for me, the depth of the story / characters is what makes Metro my favourite game of all six.

 

[moproblems99]

not true at all.

What I am getting at, is if you removing pieces, you are always going to get something lesser. The sum of all parts matters.

 

[Sashleycat]

What you did there. I see it.

(but I only got on the second time I read it. Lol).

 

[cucker tarlson]

What I am getting at, is if you removing pieces, you are always going to get something lesser. The sum of all parts matters.

yes but there's be no equivalency to metro and control if you removed rtx.

 

[moproblems99]

yes but there's be no equivalency to metro and control if you removed rtx.

And that may be true, I haven't played Control. I do agree that facial models were lacking in Metro.

 

[cucker tarlson]

And that may be true, I haven't played Control. I do agree that facial models were lacking in Metro.

and a lot of textures and objects models excluding the amazing guns
ambient occlusion looked pretty dated for today's standards too
and a lot of objects were just not tesselated at all
look at this
apart from ray traced global illumination this looks like the old metro
the radio,,,,god damn it looks bad

believe me,I've got 4gb of screenshots and I barely played 12 hrs

oh,and what the actual f*** is this fire animation,is this 1999 ?

 

[Sashleycat]

And that may be true, I haven't played Control. I do agree that facial models were lacking in Metro.

It's probably the weakest visual point of Metro (human faces/animations), but they still look pretty decent. It's similar to the previous games (and also Stalker) in that facial/human animations need a bit of polish. That said, They didn't detract from the experience for me.

 

[moproblems99]

It's probably the weakest visual point of Metro (human faces/animations), but they still look pretty decent. It's similar to the previous games (and also Stalker) in that facial/human animations need a bit of polish. That said, They didn't detract from the experience for me.

Metro is probably my second favorite of all time, passing Elder scrolls and just behind the Witcher.

 

[rtwjunkie]

12 hrs in Exodus,and here's my honest opinion.
this is nowhere near the best looking game of the year
if it weren't for the weather system,excellent gun models and ray traced global illumination exodus would be no different than previous metro games.and don't get me wrong - last light is a gorgeous game even by today's standards.but this is nowhere near as fresh as control.
better models,better light,better reflections and open world,in what would otherwise look just like its 6 year old predecessor.

It’s interesting how two different people can view things completely differently. I found Control to be a bit washed and less detailed than Exodus. Other than facial models, it was average to me. And I played without RTX capabilities on both.

Metro is probably my second favorite of all time, passing Elder scrolls and just behind the Witcher.

Pretty much it’s up there for me as well, for it’s entirety. The attention to detail in every scene from npc interactions and background noise to little visual detail, sheer beauty, and then number one a compelling bit of storytelling that has encouraged me to play 3 times.

 

[Vayra86]

All the mentions of story in a topic asking for best looking game seem out of place

Sum of parts, sure, but this is about the graphics part

 

[Readlight]

They all look good.

 

[robot zombie]

Sum of parts, sure, but this is about the graphics part

For me the graphics are also a gestalt. And it wasn't just about graphics... the title says "best-looking" not "most graphically advanced" I'm sorry... I can be a bastard for semantics

It's not always about what graphical techniques are used, it is the images coming out. How well does the artistry behind them translate through those means? It's just like any drawing or painting medium. I don't care if you used a #2 pencil on notepaper or had a full set of oils and brushes on canvas. What did you make with it? In what ways did you capitalize on that means to convey a stronger impression? Did you know the limitations well enough to downplay them effectively? You know? That last part can be argued. You could say that if you can see the limitations easily, they didn't do a good job. But I might question if you're seeing them because they truly are obvious, or just because you have more intimate knowledge of them? I fight with myself on that point... when it comes to what is actually good/bad and what is actually just totally on me.

Point is... that all says more about the skill of the artist and what really brings the depth and meaning. You can pretty much take the graphical techniques of any game and boil the whole image down to just those, but to me that's not saying much at all. You could say "That's just __ and __ " for the most graphically advanced thing ever and not be wrong. I think it's just overly reductionist to do so. I notice these things, too. I said that about metro back when it first came out... that for the most part, it actually wasn't all that technically impressive. But I also said that the attention to detail and the way everything was constructed elevated it to a different level.

That's why it has to be metro for me. The imagery in itself did something for me that other games don't. And the techniques used were out-of-the-way enough for me to forget about them. I can just look at that game and have pretty much full suspension of disbelief. For me, it wasn't the story that drew me into the visuals. It was the other way around. Look around and I'm there. And from that point I can look at how different techniques were applied to make it work on my mind in that way. Again... it's not about precisely which ones were used, all of the time... though the GI is definitely flat-out impressive and worth seeing on its own. The weathers are awesome... especially when you get to NG+ holy crap. But yeah, a lot of it is kinda classic rendering techniques. It's almost more impressive to me because I HAVE seen a lot of post-apocalyptic games using those same techniques and somehow metro still looked totally fresh to me.

I think it says something that people by large saw that game and thought it was actually the most graphically revolutionary game to come out in a long time. Because in many ways, it actually wasn't. Yet they somehow managed to get that perception across and stun a whole lot of people with all of these 'dated' means. Very few people who've seen it would say it wasn't visually impressive, even if how graphically impressive it actually is can go up for debate. I suppose it's a matter of how you conceptualize graphics and what counts with them. Room for a whole mixing bowl of subjectivity batter to that.

Control is pretty close for me too, though. It really is on its own technical level. And it has the art to compliment. I loved the choices of color, the brutualist architecture contrasting the mysterious surrealist aspects of the world, and the sprawling, looping labyrinths of government-run bureaucracy hell. The visuals themselves were like a big metaphor for the ideas the game is leading you to as you move through the world and the story. And the platform they built with the engine they used to make it real was really pretty marvelous. I can totally see why it's many people's pick. Just solid as hell. Some state-of-the art stuff with substance to match. I still can't get over how plausible a lot of the materials are. I dunno how to explain it... it's like objects and features have real 'meat' to them... like they're not just empty polygons with spray-foam and paint over top. Funnily enough... the spray foam looks good too The sounds really compliment it well, too. Like when you open one of those big safe room doors and you have that heavy, clunky gear rolling along those deep tracks with it's big blunt teeth. You can feel the weight and it's just like mmmm... CHUNKY. So satisfying. A lot of different things like that in the game.

But the reason I don't choose control is that I sometimes lose the amaazing images to the techniques underneath... they always jump out at me... not in a bad way. More just in a way where what I'm seeing ends up having more to do with the graphics than the images. It dazzles and leaves big impressions all over the place, but I find myself being lost to that in a way I can't place... like somewhere in my head I'm always more aware of the attention-grabbing graphics than the actual images underneath (which are also very good and as I'd argue, more important!)

EDIT: I seem to be not actually typing words I think I'm typing a lot today

 

[Flogger23m]

It's probably the weakest visual point of Metro (human faces/animations), but they still look pretty decent. It's similar to the previous games (and also Stalker) in that facial/human animations need a bit of polish. That said, They didn't detract from the experience for me.

Facial animations looked good, maybe not the greatest. Texture detail was superb on them. Weapon animations in the previous Metro games were terrible and not synced with the sounds, including the Redux versions. In Exodus they looked good.

 

[cucker tarlson]

overall visual design - yes,it was superb.
but if I were to pick exodus for best looking game of 2019 that'd be mostly for my personal preference of the image postapocalyptyc world,not for the the quality of graphics.that'd be control for sure.

For me the graphics are also a gestalt. And it wasn't just about graphics... the title says "best-looking" not "most graphically advanced" I'm sorry... I can be a bastard for semantics

It's not always about what graphical techniques are used, it is the images coming out. How well does the artistry behind them translate through those means? It's just like any drawing or painting medium. I don't care if you used a #2 pencil on notepaper or had a full set of oils and brushes on canvas. What did you make with it? In what ways did you capitalize on that means to convey a stronger impression? Did you know the limitations well enough to downplay them effectively? You know? That last part can be argued. You could say that if you can see the limitations easily, they didn't do a good job. But I might question if you're seeing them because they truly are obvious, or just because you have more intimate knowledge of them? I fight with myself on that point... when it comes to what is actually good/bad and what is actually just totally on me.

Point is... that all says more about the skill of the artist and what really brings the depth and meaning. You can pretty much take the graphical techniques of any game and boil the whole image down to just those, but to me that's not saying much at all. You could say "That's just __ and __ " for the most graphically advanced thing ever and not be wrong. I think it's just overly reductionist to do so. I notice these things, too. I said that about metro back when it first came out... that for the most part, it actually wasn't all that technically impressive. But I also said that the attention to detail and the way everything was constructed elevated it to a different level.

That's why it has to be metro for me. The imagery in itself did something for me that other games don't. And the techniques used were out-of-the-way enough for me to forget about them. I can just look at that game and have pretty much full suspension of disbelief. For me, it wasn't the story that drew me into the visuals. It was the other way around. Look around and I'm there. And from that point I can look at how different techniques were applied to make it work on my mind in that way. Again... it's not about precisely which ones were used, all of the time... though the GI is definitely flat-out impressive and worth seeing on its own. The weathers are awesome... especially when you get to NG+ holy crap. But yeah, a lot of it is kinda classic rendering techniques. It's almost more impressive to me because I HAVE seen a lot of post-apocalyptic games using those same techniques and somehow metro still looked totally fresh to me.

I think it says something that people by large saw that game and thought it was actually the most graphically revolutionary game to come out in a long time. Because in many ways, it actually wasn't. Yet they somehow managed to get that perception across and stun a whole lot of people with all of these 'dated' means. Very few people who've seen it would say it wasn't visually impressive, even if how graphically impressive it actually is can go up for debate. I suppose it's a matter of how you conceptualize graphics and what counts with them. Room for a whole mixing bowl of subjectivity batter to that.

Control is pretty close for me too, though. It really is on its own technical level. And it has the art to compliment. I loved the choices of color, the brutualist architecture contrasting the mysterious surrealist aspects of the world, and the sprawling, looping labyrinths of government-run bureaucracy hell. The visuals themselves were like a big metaphor for the ideas the game is leading you to as you move through the world and the story. And the platform they built with the engine they used to make it real was really pretty marvelous. I can totally see why it's many people's pick. Just solid as hell. Some state-of-the art stuff with substance to match. I still can't get over how plausible a lot of the materials are. I dunno how to explain it... it's like objects and features have real 'meat' to them... like they're not just empty polygons with spray-foam and paint over top. Funnily enough... the spray foam looks good too The sounds really compliment it well, too. Like when you open one of those big safe room doors and you have that heavy, clunky gear rolling along those deep tracks with it's big blunt teeth. You can feel the weight and it's just like mmmm... CHUNKY. So satisfying. A lot of different things like that in the game.

But the reason I don't choose control is that I sometimes lose the amaazing images to the techniques underneath... they always jump out at me... not in a bad way. More just in a way where what I'm seeing ends up having more to do with the graphics than the images. It dazzles and leaves big impressions all over the place, but I find myself being lost to that in a way I can't place... like somewhere in my head I'm always more aware of the attention-grabbing graphics than the actual images underneath (which are also very good and as I'd argue, more important!)

EDIT: I seem to be not actually typing words I think I'm typing a lot today

that is rather long winded,but on point.

Control is the best hands down IMO since it checks all boxes.there's just nothing you can pick on when it comes to the graphical manifestationm of the world that they created.all indivudual components get A+ themselves,and they go on to create an absolutely stunning game when they come together.

 

[Flogger23m]

Control doesn't have as detailed textures, and the people can look plastic like. Some of the surface materials look artificial as well, even if the design of the game is largely a clean office. That is not to say it is bad looking, because it is very good. But IMO I would easily give the lighting, atmospheric effects the nod in Metro. Control looked good but more things would occasionally pop out as looking artificial. People's faces, certain objects and whatnot. The only thing that really stood out in Metro to me was the sea which looked abnormally flat and the upper canyon walls. Given the size of the maps and that there is nothing to look at up there I didn't find it to be much of an issue.

Both are good looking games though.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Control doesn't have as detailed textures, and the people can look plastic like. Some of the surface materials look artificial as well, even if the design of the game is largely a clean office. That is not to say it is bad looking, because it is very good.

Exactly this. Control is too “washed out” for lack of a better term. Anybody wants to see what it really looks like, play with RTX off. It’s a nice looking game, and faces are fantastic, but the rest is just good, not great, IMO.

 

[Flogger23m]

Exactly this. Control is too “washed out” for lack of a better term. Anybody wants to see what it really looks like, play with RTX off. It’s a nice looking game, and faces are fantastic, but the rest is just good, not great, IMO.

I will say, the explosions and mini destruction in the offices is amazing. But yes, it does look washed out even accounting for the setting of a clean office building (in those areas).

 

[Keullo-e]

Whoa, I'm the first who voted RE2..

Just stunning and still not very demanding, can't wait for RE3 remake.

 

[Splinterdog]

Exactly this. Control is too “washed out” for lack of a better term. Anybody wants to see what it really looks like, play with RTX off. It’s a nice looking game, and faces are fantastic, but the rest is just good, not great, IMO.

I've often wondered about this in Control whose graphics remind me of Resident Evil 2 remake, where there's a kind of thin film on the camera. I thought it might have been film-grain (?) effect at first, but it's not an option in either game's graphics menu.

 

[wolf]

My vote is for Control hands down, and honestly any ranking would pretty much have the games with RT at the top, it's that good and adds that much when added well and tastefully. Hec q2RTX essentially just with RT can punch well above where it 'ought' to.

This has gone from a huge gamble on Nvidia's part, with a lot of negativity, to an absolute inevitability. We've had merely a taste of what it can do with various effects, on 1st gen hardware mind you and it has come such a long way in ~18 months. Buy in from both major consoles and AMD in discrete cards seals it without a doubt in my mind.