Are the graphics/lighting that much improved ?

[sva91]

I’ve heard a lot of people say it much improved, while others have said it looks the same. Im on the fence right now, but if graphics look improved I’ll prob buy it.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[Archie56]

Re: Are the graphics/lighting that much improved ?

I’ve heard a lot of people say it much improved, while others have said it looks the same. Im on the fence right now, but if graphics look improved I’ll prob buy it.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

Personally I think they are improved. The new face scans and skin textures look really really good. And the new lighting system looks great to me. Again, people are always going to have different opinions. It's not a HUGE difference, but for me it was enough of a difference for me to say "wow" when I first fired up this year's game. After a week of playing it, I still think it looks fantastic

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[SmashMan]

Re: Are the graphics/lighting that much improved ?

Clear day games look the same to me but I see a lot of improvement in how light shows up when there's some cloud cover. The day to night transitions have also been changed to add more pink, orange, and yellow at various points.

Haven't tried or paid attention in total overcast or rain games yet, so no opinion from me there.

[bilbobeuli]

Re: Are the graphics/lighting that much improved ?

No, this game still looks like a PS3/PS4 hybrid.

[ripwalk]

Re: Are the graphics/lighting that much improved ?

Faces are significantly improved.

Lighting/general graphics … certainly not groundbreaking improvements but the game does look better overall.

[canes21]

Re: Are the graphics/lighting that much improved ?

In the little I've played, the game is not significantly improved much of anywhere outside of faces looking better at times. Day and night games looked very similar, but I had not played an overcast game, so maybe there is some improvement there that is more noticeable. Overall, it's a disappointing game from graphical standpoint.

It's your money, but if the graphics are what are the main thing that could sway you on the fence, I'd say not to spend your money on it. However, the gameplay still is as solid as it always has been, I saw numerous new animations in the bit I played and all looked nice, but the CPU manager is still as dumb as rocks. Overall, it's not a very different game from 23, so if you're not needing the updated rosters and all that, I'd personally recommend you wait for it to go on sale.

[PhlliesPhan6]

Re: Are the graphics/lighting that much improved ?

I’ve heard a lot of people say it much improved, while others have said it looks the same. Im on the fence right now, but if graphics look improved I’ll prob buy it.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

I'd say they're improved but only marginally. The new face scans and hair definitely look better but it can still be hit or miss on how good a certain player looks.

The lighting does seem improved. The uniform textures seem improved too. Something about the way the sun reflects off of the red logo and numbers on the Phillies uniforms just looked really nice on the few games I played.

I've mainly just been playing RTTS though until a good roster update comes out so that's not the best showcase of improved graphics. The few major league games I played looked much better though.

[jcar0725]

Re: Are the graphics/lighting that much improved ?

This is always an annoying, contentious topic on here. Some think the graphics look good, others say they're terrible and antiquated.

I've played this series for a VERY long time and I think the graphics look really nice. It doesn't mean I don't wish for improvements in some areas. There are some WOW moments though, where on my 4K TV, it looks awesome.

Amazing graphics are VERY nice to have, but will always pale in comparison to the quality of on the field gameplay.

[canes21]

Re: Are the graphics/lighting that much improved ?

This is always an annoying, contentious topic on here. Some think the graphics look good, others say they're terrible and antiquated.

I've played this series for a VERY long time and I think the graphics look really nice. It doesn't mean I don't wish for improvements in some areas. There are some WOW moments though, where on my 4K TV, it looks awesome.

Amazing graphics are VERY nice to have, but will always pale in comparison to the quality of on the field gameplay.

It's because graphics are a subjective topic, so to some, the graphics in the game will look more than fine. For others, not so much. It's easily something that can vary person to person.

However, when you approach the topic objectively by looking at what the game does graphically from a technical standpoint, then that's where opinions go out the window.

From a technical standpoint only, the game is a very dated game. It isn't even doing things graphically that became the standard even for indie games 5+ years ago. And, from a technical standpoint, the game is a marginal improvement over last year.

But, as you said, the topic can get annoying because many people tend to approach it subjectively which leads to one person saying the game looks like a PS3 game while the very next person will say they grew up playing older games and The Show looks more than fine to them.

Both are entitled to their opinion, neither are wrong, but I feel like when graphics are discussed, it should be centered more around the objective technical parts and less on the subjective parts of whether someone thinks they look good or not. "Good" doesn't really mean anything when what "good" is varies so much person to person.

On the other hand, when we sit here and talk about the lack of PBR textures across so many areas of the game, the lack of global illumination, no ray tracing of any sorts, a lack of parallax occlusion or anything similar for the grass, texture resolution, anti-aliasing, etc., opinions don't matter. The game either is doing or not doing these things, and if it is doing them, it is either doing them to the modern standard or not. I think the conversation doesn't go down this road often, though, because the vast majority of this board probably does not know or even care to know what half the things I said above even are, so that's why it always goes down the "I think the game looks bad" or "I think the game is gorgeous on my brand new LG 100-inch OLED TV" route.

[jcar0725]

Re: Are the graphics/lighting that much improved ?

It's because graphics are a subjective topic, so to some, the graphics in the game will look more than fine. For others, not so much. It's easily something that can vary person to person.

However, when you approach the topic objectively by looking at what the game does graphically from a technical standpoint, then that's where opinions go out the window.

From a technical standpoint only, the game is a very dated game. It isn't even doing things graphically that became the standard even for indie games 5+ years ago. And, from a technical standpoint, the game is a marginal improvement over last year.

But, as you said, the topic can get annoying because many people tend to approach it subjectively which leads to one person saying the game looks like a PS3 game while the very next person will say they grew up playing older games and The Show looks more than fine to them.

Both are entitled to their opinion, neither are wrong, but I feel like when graphics are discussed, it should be centered more around the objective technical parts and less on the subjective parts of whether someone thinks they look good or not. "Good" doesn't really mean anything when what "good" is varies so much person to person.

On the other hand, when we sit here and talk about the lack of PBR textures across so many areas of the game, the lack of global illumination, no ray tracing of any sorts, a lack of parallax occlusion or anything similar for the grass, texture resolution, anti-aliasing, etc., opinions don't matter. The game either is doing or not doing these things, and if it is doing them, it is either doing them to the modern standard or not. I think the conversation doesn't go down this road often, though, because the vast majority of this board probably does not know or even care to know what half the things I said above even are, so that's why it always goes down the "I think the game looks bad" or "I think the game is gorgeous on my brand new LG 100-inch OLED TV" route.

When someone asks simply "how are the graphics in this years game?", there is no way to know, based on your comments above, how detailed of an answer they want, or where exactly they would fall in the groups that you mentioned above. So the conversation is perpetually annoying, and it really comes down to what looks good to each individual player, or what looks good ENOUGH to each player. So it's an impossible thread to answer for the OP, and people just keep regurgitating the same answers they have already stated on other graphics threads.

Your comments are fine I'm not criticizing them at all. You know where I'm coming from.

[nemss316]

Re: Are the graphics/lighting that much improved ?

It's subtle. If you are expecting a giant leap from last year, prepare to be disappointed. The best improvement I've seen is the transitions on evening games.

[KnightTemplar]

Re: Are the graphics/lighting that much improved ?

When someone asks simply "how are the graphics in this years game?", there is no way to know, based on your comments above, how detailed of an answer they want, or where exactly they would fall in the groups that you mentioned above. So the conversation is perpetually annoying, and it really comes down to what looks good to each individual player, or what looks good ENOUGH to each player. So it's an impossible thread to answer for the OP, and people just keep regurgitating the same answers they have already stated on other graphics threads. .

Let’s just say I was playing a game yesterday where it was very cloudy and the sun kept breaking thru the clouds onto the field. It was a pretty cool effect. But you’re right…..one guy exclaims it’s no better than PS3/4….so what’s the objective sense?

[Valkyr]

Re: Are the graphics/lighting that much improved ?

I swear my imported stadiums look better than before, but my eyes could be playing tricks on me.

[marbury]

Re: Are the graphics/lighting that much improved ?

Simple answer: no
Only the new hair animation (current gen only I guess) stands out.

If you are looking for a fresh breeze of air, save your money for a while and wait for more news from Konami. Take a risk and accept the fact that there are more languages spoken in the world than english and see the beauty of gameplay this other company has perfected over the years.

Language barrier is just a lame excuse to not try out this gem of a series.

Otherwise get The Show on sale.

My 2 cents, and yes I have bought The Show24 super duper deluxe edition and playing since early access.

[canes21]

Re: Are the graphics/lighting that much improved ?

When someone asks simply "how are the graphics in this years game?", there is no way to know, based on your comments above, how detailed of an answer they want, or where exactly they would fall in the groups that you mentioned above. So the conversation is perpetually annoying, and it really comes down to what looks good to each individual player, or what looks good ENOUGH to each player. So it's an impossible thread to answer for the OP, and people just keep regurgitating the same answers they have already stated on other graphics threads.

Your comments are fine I'm not criticizing them at all. You know where I'm coming from.

We're basically saying the same thing. Only way for a graphics discussion to actually get anywhere is for whoever starts the conversation to point out exactly what they want to look at technically speaking, but the odds of that happening are slim to none.

I don't think it is reasonable to expect anyone to come in here and say, "Are the PBR textures improved this year?", thus 99% of all graphics talk here will just be cyclical.