Which are other alternative open world high graphics game like GTA V?
There are absolutely a huge amount of open world alternatives to GTA, I wouldn’t limit yourself to games with high graphics, there are some incredible titles in the middle graphics range with impressive open worlds. Just take a look at Games Finder’s list of 50+ games like Grand Theft Auto which continues to grow with games for all platforms.Focusing on the newer titles though that have high quality graphics and are available on PC to let you put that Nvidia Geforce to the test, I’ve given some of my favourites.Watch Dogs (series): Two games in this series and basically plays like a modern day GTA with the likes of hacking, super governments and corruptions and the likes. Graphically the games are both very strong (two more so than one due to more recent release). The games are open world although are a little more linear in parts I find but still very strong games none the less.Mafia III: Another one of the newer games like GTA that again doesn’t quite reach the level of GTA open world but its definitely graphically strong and lets you play within a great Mafia themed world and story. If you want to be securely fighting on the side of crime than Mafia definitely offers that, the other games are also pretty decent although not as graphically strong.Sleeping Dogs: Before Watch Dogs there was Sleeping Dogs, a visually impressive game for its time that is still on the higher end of graphic quality. Personally you’ll want to play this one simply because it changes up the setting and is something not many other open world games have touched on, still orientated around crime but is more melee and eastern focused.Crysis series: Not usually going to compare this to GTA as the games are rather linear but do feature open worlds that let you walk around at your own pleasure. But since you really want games that push graphics to the limit then you’ll want to look at any of the Crysis games, they are all very graphically impressive.Far Cry 4: Moving away from games based in the cities of the world you have Far Cry 4 which is more jungle than any of the other games here. It’s high action and offers a beautiful island for you to explore at your leisure as you find secrets, fight bad guys and follow along a main quest line as you please.
Why isn't the difference in graphics quality between the PS3 and the PS4 outstanding?
I think you could get the best answer here if the question's title were: Why is the graphics difference between games from around 2010 and games from 2015 not that big?Look at these screenshots. They are from Crysis and Far Cry 2 (Release dates are from 2007 and 2008 respectively).Now take look at these screenshots from Crysis 3 and Far Cry 4 (Release dates are from 2013 and 2014 respectively).These screenshots are from PC where the hardware is not an issue, so why exactly do these titles that are released 6 years after their predecessors not looking a lot better?Well the thing is related to the latest trends. Game graphics have reached a stage where they look really good and are sometimes even indistinguishable from real life if observed by someone who doesn't know that you are playing a game.That's why developers and artists have been focusing mostly on improving post-processing in these games. In newer titles you have a lot of options for different "filters", which can create a more cinematic experience.One big thing you also see in never games is improved physics. You have completely intractable worlds, where you can destroy things around you, you have far more advanced weather systems and particle effects.Developers can now also take advantage of more real light effects and don't have to fake them with tricks any more. A lot of background and surrounding materials are now in higher detail and they create a more immersive experience.Now if I focus back specifically to PS3 vs PS4 question. At the very end of the PS3 era the developers knew the PS3 platform to the bone. They knew how to squeeze every last FPS out of them. They knew where they could save their resources and still make their game look great. They reduced draw distances, used low-poly models for some things you won't interact with, some games like Mass effect showed only the top of the models during dialogues, so that they could render them in higher resolution.PS4 is still relatively new. I strongly believe that if you give it time, the developers will learn how to use it's hardware better and squeeze everything they can out of it. Just look at how amazing Red Dead Redemption looked.
Why is it that PC gamers only care about graphics?
All the PC gamers you know are a bunch of morons if they think graphics is the only thing they have going for them, although most of it is based around graphics and the technology associated with it. They way I see it is console systems are a gimp in gaming expansion. Gaming companies are making games for 7-8 year old technology, and the consoles will constantly see a decrease in frame rates as game companies try to stretch the system’s limited capabilities. In my case a loss to frame rate is a loss of smooth gameplay making the game less desirable to play. PCs are upgradable, they can move with the technology allowing you to constantly get the most out of your games. All systems will generally have the same gameplay value so why would you not have preference for the system that offers a better graphics. Higher graphics can lead to a better gaming experience. Visuals alone have the power to stimulate your other senses. Regardless of the gameplay, if you are looking at an 8-bit representation of a steak it’s not going to have the same mouth watering effect as looking at a 3D rendering of one created with the latest and greatest technology. It’s these types of visuals that can really add so much more to a game than what general gameplay has to offer.
Why do PS3 graphics suddenly look bad?
My $0.02: Depends on the game. You're probably looking at a lot of stuff that went for photorealism. That style will always age more poorly then other artistic directions until we achieve completely real-looking art assets. Even games like the new Star Wars Battlefront will look kinda crappy in 10 years. Once game platforms/PCs can handle Hollywood-level rendering in real time (it's gonna be awhile), we'll see the curve for photorealism in games begin to top out. You'll see art assets and lighting on par with Jungle Book, Avengers, and Rise of the Planet of the Apes, etc.There are games that visually age well, and it's usually because of a very stylistic art direction. I imagine these kinds of games will always appeal, even when real graphics are a thing. Games like Zelda: Wind Waker, Viewtiful Joe, Okami... They are gorgeous. Still. Compared to top-graphics games of their time, like Resident Evil 4, Ninja Gaiden Black, and Halo 2, they fare much better now for visual appeal.The reason AAA studios go for photorealism despite that, is because the financial life of a console game is very short. If it looks super awesome for the time it's released in, it'll make $$$. By the time it's aged, no one is counting on revenue from that product. They can always toss together a remaster/remake if they believe the content itself is worth updating for a new revenue cycle.Ageless games, visually, are more relevant for mobile titles, where their revenue cycle can be years upon years. That's why most of the top games that stay at the top are pretty heavily stylized. Or on the flip side, their stylization helps keep them there, along with updated content. Not many people are still going ham for Infinity Blade. The novelty of high graphics on mobile wore off when more and more developers started doing it. Suddenly, it just wasn't a big deal that there was a photorealistic game on mobile. But games that are stylized and look cool... Still look cool. Or least never look "bad."
Who do people want good graphics these days?
Well, I don't think "bad" graphics make a game more fun. But I also don't particularly care about graphics in general. As long as I can tell what I'm looking at, is pretty much the bottom line. Most mouthbreathers that dislike games with "bad" graphics seem to like "realistic" games. Graphics that are realistic are fine and all, but I personally enjoy games that are presented in style rather than realism. It's the reason why I think TF2 looks way better than Battlefield or Call of Duty. It's why I think Catherine still looks way better than Skyrim does. And it's why I think the upcoming PS3 game "Ni No Kuni" is probably the best looking thing I've ever seen. Style over Realism, in my book. Even then, even if the game doesn't really present itself in a memorable visual style, it doesn't prevent me from enjoying it. I just recently began playing Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines (Christ, what a long title.) on my PC and I'm surprised by how much I'm enjoying it. It's a game from 2004 I think, and it looks very dated by today's standards. But the art direction and character models are pretty decent, and overall the game is very enjoyable. Good graphics are always nice, but not a necessity. Ultrarealism, can sometimes even be boring. It helps when a game has a memorable style, and a colorful palette, which makes it pleasing to look at. I'd much rather watch Shadow of the Colossus being played than GTA4.
Why do I get headaches when I play ps3?
Everytime I play ps3 I always get a horrible headache so I have to stop. Sometimes it's only a mild one so it's not that bad. I don't even play for a long period of time. Usually Ii start getting the headache if it's been 30 minutes. Especially if I play GTA V that's when I get the worst headaches, I have no idea why. I played The Last of Us and got a horrible headache but it was just that one time and usually it's just mild ones. I played Arkham Origins but didn't get a headache. Whhyy??? I want to play GTA V but I always have to stop in like 20-30 minutes because of the headaches.
Why are the Driver games underrated?
Drivers 1 and 2 are said to have bad graphics compared to GTA, but Driver 2 has better graphics than GTA 3, and Vice City. Driv3r is rated 5 out of 10 because of bad aiming and graphics, but GTA 3 has worse aiming and graphics but it gets a 9 out of 10. I don't understand how GTA 3 and even San Andreas can be called "good" when Driv3r is called horrible. GTA is unreallistic too, you can blow up a car by hitting it with a tank, truck, etc... On Driver I only could blow up a car by shooting the engine, and exploding a car with invincibility on, driving it into another car, and having the first car explode under the other car. That might happen because of the gas/engine being hit. I don't understand why GTA IV is called perfect, while all the Driver games are called horrible. I bought Driv3r when I first saw it in wal-mart, I barely looked at it. I bought the GTA trilogy pack because of the reviews, and I was dissapointed in the graphics, buildings, and cars. I can't even drive straight on GTA, while I have trouble breaking the law on Driv3r. Maybe I just haven't beaten the game and unlocked the fancy stuff the reviews and manual promise. I can't even beat the mission with the forklift because Ryder is such an idiot.
If a PC can be more powerful, why do games look better in consoles in terms of graphics and performance?
You’re not outright wrong, but not right either.While some games certainly do have issues, such as a bad port and so on, that’s not what always happens. Let’s talk about what usually happens, and what bad ports look like.What’s usually the case?Games typically have lower settings than what the PC port CAN do, as well as frame-rates (usually 30), but that doesn’t mean that all PCs are equally capable.Usually, the benefit the PC has, is a higher resolution, and framerate. There are some other differences such as: shadows, and (if The Witcher 3) hair.PCs have different capabilities according to price, a 300$ PC won’t be anywhere near as good as a 1500$ PC. Sometimes one 1500$ PC is less capable than another 1500$ PC due to different priorities, such as storage, cooling etc. There’s often a price-premium when it comes to size, and sound.But, sometimes, even with a monster PC, the console port is actually better. What’s going on there?Bad portsEvery now and then, a TERRIBLE port for the PC comes around, such as Batman Arkham knight, which actually had worse textures on the PC version than that of the console version (at launch).This was because WB decided to outsource the PC port to a small company, and… Surprise (?) it didn’t do well.There are less extreme examples, such as Mass Effect 1, Dark souls 1 and so on. These ports didn’t look better or worse than the console port, but did have times where they ran worse.ConclusionYou’re not exactly wrong. There are definitely times where the console gets a much better port.This, however, isn’t usually the case. Games typically favor the PC, with bonuses such as better shadows, frame-rates, and higher resolutions. Most bad ports look almost identical to the console counterpart.Another thing to keep in mind is the PC the games are being tested on. Low-end computers sometimes lack behind the consoles.I hope this was an entertaining answer!Feedback is always nice!