Do we over idealize photo-realistic graphics?

[Type 90]

Let me start off by saying graphics are important. Good graphics can enhance an already great experience, while bad graphics can potentially mar an otherwise well crafted game.

Of course that's why the title says "photo-realistic" and not "good", not that photo-realistic graphics can't be good, by their very definition they should be good. Developers definitely love photo-realism in their graphics, that's pretty well established, very few triple A releases lack them, but it's only one of many established graphical styles.

To clarify when I say "over idealize" I'm thinking about people who hold photo-realistic graphics as the pinnacle of art design and direction in gaming, saying that other styles can be good, just not as good as something that looks like real life.

In my opinion I think a lot of us might be a bit too into that particular style (i don't actually know if we are, that's why I'm asking the question). I love variety in game design and I would hate to see one style held up above the rest. Any graphical style can be used effectively, if the art direction and visual design are done well, so there's no reason to skimp on the variety.

So my question to you is do you think gamers (not developers) over idealize photo-realistic graphics, and what is your personal preference when it comes to graphical styles?

Thanks in advance to any replies.

 

[oplinger]

...Do you mean idolize? Idealize would mean we hold it to be better than reality, which..is weird to me.

In either case, no I don't think we do. Mostly because games are hardly photorealistic. Many textures are photos, sure. They don't make the game photorealistic.

Do we over idolize graphics in general? As a majority, I think we do. However, we seem to like it when the graphics flow together and look good as a whole, rather than care about photorealism.

 

[Vault101]

I think some graphics work better than others

I think Dead Space 2 is an absolute gorgeous game, thats because 1. space sation, flat metal, easy to work with in games

2. light and darkness, I have a bit of a theory that its kind of like oldschool special effects...always looked better in shadows, hence why the light/dark makes the graphics look better

 

[Soviet Heavy]

I think some graphics work better than others

I think Dead Space 2 is an absolute gorgeous game, thats because 1. space sation, flat metal, easy to work with in games

2. light and darkness, I have a bit of a theory that its kind of like oldschool special effects...always looked better in shadows, hence why the light/dark makes the graphics look better

That's why Doom 3 remains a very pretty game to this day. Not a good game, mind you, but a pretty one.

 

[DarkRyter]

Nah. Nearly everyone is into that "Ugh, everything's all gritty and greybrown and lame."

 

[purplecactus]

Sometimes I guess we do. Personally I don't. Don't get me wrong, I love it when photo-realistic graphics are done well and fit into a game, but it all depends on the game. I want the graphics to match the game, the atmosphere and feel of it, not just be photo-realistic for the sake of being photo-realistic.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

If devs wanted their games to be photo realistic, they would have stuck with the old method of using live action actors to do all the cut scenes. It's the turn away from these things that gave games the aesthetic appeal they have today.
We're coming full circle where the characters in games now look something close to real life, but so does the world and everything else around them.

 

[Rack]

No we don't. As a case in point look at this thread, almost everyone has pointed out that art-style trumps graphics. Sometimes I think we under-appreciate realistic art styles.

Shift the "we" to publishers and I think it's possible. There are a lot of stylised games that have sold extremely well, but gritty realism still accounts for 99% of games made, despite the high expense of producing graphics like that.

 

[DEAD34345]

If I wanted photo-realism I'd look at a photo, or maybe even reality. Anyway, I personally wish there was a much lesser focus on graphics in AAA games, "photo-realistic" or otherwise. I can't objectively say that what I want is better than what everyone else wants, however, and clearly people want photo-realistic graphics, so that's what we tend to get. Sad (from my perspective) but that's life. It's not like there's no games whatsoever out there that eschew graphics in favour of gameplay, so I can't complain too much.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

snip

Graphics are good. Good graphics are good. But only if the aesthetic is good.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/graphics-vs.-aesthetics

I would advise watching that 'cos it basically explains the whole 'visuals' side of games and what's important.

I love my good looking games, as long as those games have a nice visual styling. So, Assassin's Creed or Fallout 3 or Bioshock. Those all have what you'd call good graphics, but all of them have very distinctive settings and stylised characters that make the best use of those graphics.

 

[Scrustle]

I don't think there is an idealisation of photo realistic graphics so much any more. It's still definitely a thing, but way less people seem to think it's important than there used to be. Most of the games that have been hailed as having great graphics recently are ones with a very stylised look. I think we're starting to plateau when it comes to photo realistic graphics now. We're starting to get pretty close so advances are slowing down and becoming more minor.

Photo realism is good for some types of games, like simulations, but I always appreciate a game with a distinct visual style and character that compliments the game itself. More and more developers are aiming for that than photo realism as it becomes more advanced. It doesn't really make your game stand out much any more.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

If the world the game is trying to convey is cemented in reality aka "Modern Warfare 3" then yes I want photorealistic graphics. But everything else is fine.

 

[dimensional]

Crysis remains the most beautiful game I've made, even if it's no longer top of the heap.

You made Crysis? respect.

I dont think people `idiolize` graphics as much as they used to but there is still a tendency to look down on games and not bother with them if they dont meet a certain graphical fidelity and of course great graphics are easy to get across in screens and demos which is why I believe publishers are so fond of them its just very easy marketing and no ones going to complain about good graphics anyway.

 

[dementis]

I've been on a PS2 era binge recently so I don't care about graphics as such. I prefer art/ visual style rather than HD graphics. But we do seem to judge games on graphics too much.

 

[Chester Rabbit]

Welll I can't speak for everyone else, but I for one don't
If the game looks like Far Cry 3, great, but I also really love the graphics that come with a Playstation game. It's hard for me to explain but, I guess the vagueness of the models just allows my imagination to do more with them. And honestly I would prefer art style over "WOW they look soooo real!" As long as it?s apparent that effort was put into the visuals I am enjoying it.