• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

The Lord of the Rings: Return to Moria Revealed

Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
15,366 (6.77/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name My second and third PCs are Intel + Nvidia
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard MSi Pro B650M-A Wifi
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock 4
Memory 2x 24 GB Corsair Vengeance EXPO DDR5-6000 CL36
Video Card(s) PowerColor Reaper Radeon RX 9070 XT
Storage 2 TB Corsair MP600 GS, 4 TB Seagate Barracuda
Display(s) Dell S3422DWG 34" 1440 UW 144 Hz
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z333 2.1 speakers, AKG Y50 headphones
Power Supply 750 W Seasonic Prime GX
Mouse Logitech MX Master 2S
Keyboard Logitech G413 SE
Software Bazzite (Fedora Linux) KDE Plasma
but it's not a AAA title then.

a AAA title uses the latest engine/graphics and have dozen of millions of dollars of development cost and huge dev teams, look at the games being developed with unreal engine 5.
So yes, you can judge a game by it's graphics if it's called "AAA".

this is not AAA, not even near, as everyone said before, graphics look extremely dated the lighting, animations and models are stiff, plasticky and not organic moving, it looks like a 10+ years old "AA" game and even then it's a "maybe", even COD WARZONE has better graphics and animation and it's a F2P MMFPS.
COD Warzone, aka. Generic Shooter 46978469? If that's AAA, then I'll stick to cat. B games, thanks.
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2021
Messages
166 (0.12/day)
System Name Main
Processor 5900X
Motherboard Asrock 570X Taichi
Memory 32GB
Video Card(s) 6800XT
Display(s) Odyssey C49G95T - 5120 x 1440
No, it's an indie game made by a number of people that is presumably less than 87.

Admittedly, I had something of a similar reaction. It's kinda plasticky-looking, and doesn't manage a particularly distinct aesthetic. None of that means it won't be good, though. This ain't an original thought, but we could do with less emphasis on graphics in games. Eye candy's great and all, but if a developer needs to choose whether to de-prioritize graphics, gameplay, design or performance, I know which I'd prefer they pick.
Valheim manages to have a more unique (albeit low poly/graphic) style that doesn't look stiff/plastic, 5 person studio https://www.ign.com/articles/valheim-how-a-5-person-team-created-the-most-popular-game-on-steam
GTFO manages to look great (for what was a 9 person team until recently/ during their EA), can't find source since they've increased massively before release. They are 65 now https://www.apollo.io/companies/10-Chambers/56d964e6f3e5bb262c002109?chart=count
Riftbreaker (Exor Studio) is allegedly 14 people (11-50 person 'size', both according to their linkedIn) https://www.linkedin.com/company/exor-studios?original_referer=https://www.bing.com/
The Forest devs is (I believe) 8 people. https://opengovca.com/vancouver-business/20-118155
It Takes Two (I absolutly love this game. Great visuals and extremely fun gameplay) (Hazelight studio) is 65 people. https://www.hazelight.se/about/
Ultimate Epic Battle Simulator 2 (and 1) from Brilliant Game Studios, while not the most graphical beatuiful, it does run it's pathfinding-AI of the GPU and can have an immense amount of units on the map(I've run a couple of multi-million unit battles in it), this is with a 4 person studio


Of course, the amount of devs and graphics doesn't mean that the game will be bad (or good). It's not really an indictive of very much, except maybe higher release chance than single dev 'studio'....
 
Top