Yes, people do seem to judge games on graphics way too much. I mean just the other day I was playing Final Fantasy X and my friend saw about 30 seconds of it and said the game sucked when he had never even heard of the series before and he plain out told me he was basing it on the graphics.
Do we over idealize photo-realistic graphics?
- Thread starter Type 90
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Crysis is actually a great shooter. One of the most underrated games gameplay wise ever, it just seems to be judged on it's graphics but it's actually great. Weapons mods on the fly, the different suit modes, sandbox gameplay, awesome AI and physics - it has it all, but people judge it just as eye candy which makes me sad.TestECull said:
I loved the game because of the amount of replay value it has. Every playthrough I've done is completely different - sometimes I storm in all guns blazing, someonetimes I sneak in. Sometimes I rig a truck with C4, drive it in, speed off and blow it up, and sometimes I pick off the enemies and snipe from a distance. It's great. If anyone can find me a shotter which does a sandbox as well as Crysis, I would like to know.TestECull said:
Curse of Monkey Island looks great to this day. Cartoon graphics age better than 3d realistic graphics. What I want is more realism in characters' faces, animations, lighting, but all those realistic graphics should be in a fantastic set like in Middle Ages or Space...
I like good graphics and I think it's amazing just how far games have come towards realizing the properties of light. Further, I think it's great that devs like Epic are making user-friendly engine technology licensing available to other companies that can then focus more on realizing an aesthetic, than trying to make the technology to support their vision.
I dunno, this discussion seems very 90's - early 00's. I love great visuals. I also love good games, regardless of visuals, especially if it makes up for it with gameplay, kinesthetics and sound.
It's a bright future and a good past, regarding games. Chill.
Well Crysis is a directed sandbox, so you can't just be completely mad and blow up everything. Either way, the buildings will never fall down in Fallout however many nukes you hit them with. You can rocket launcher a village and the buildings and trees will actually fall down so I do actually love that. Plus FO just has that RPG feel to it where you are constrained by the system - sure you can go around and shoot everyone like in GTA, but nothing is as completely advanced and refined and "realistic" as it is in Crysis.TestECull said:
Fallout 3 feels lik you're playing a videogame but I don't think Crysis does - it's the closest to feeling like an actualy supersoldier ever because of the physics and what I can do in the game.
If we is the general market I'd say yes, just look at the people lapping them up. Though I am not a part of it. I like things colourful and clear. If I can tell what something is from a glance it's good, if it's too overdetailed/dark where and I can't it's bad. I'm also the kind of person who puts gameplay above graphics so important items should glow so you know they're important no matter how unrealistic it is.
Well I think there is definately a place for them. I thoroughly enjoy Crytek games, that's their claim to fame. Every company shouldn't pursue them though, it takes too many resources away from other parts of the game.
No.
I think more than any previous generation there is a lower emphasis on getting greater graphical fidelity and I think for one important reason:
We can do graphics of complex facial expressions that allow them to express themselves. What more do you need after that? I think this is what the past 30-40 years of video games have been striving for, to be able to show the emotional range of characters with detailed enough faces and body animations
After that, you are moving into the uncanny valley. Alyx vance can display a wide range of human and relate-able emotions, but distinctly an animated creation. Steps closer would have to vault the uncanny valley in one leap.
On the other hand, modern graphics beyond what modern consoles are capable of can do some amazing things:
I think more than any previous generation there is a lower emphasis on getting greater graphical fidelity and I think for one important reason:
We can do graphics of complex facial expressions that allow them to express themselves. What more do you need after that? I think this is what the past 30-40 years of video games have been striving for, to be able to show the emotional range of characters with detailed enough faces and body animations
After that, you are moving into the uncanny valley. Alyx vance can display a wide range of human and relate-able emotions, but distinctly an animated creation. Steps closer would have to vault the uncanny valley in one leap.
On the other hand, modern graphics beyond what modern consoles are capable of can do some amazing things:
Text adventures and Dwarf Fortress say otherwise.Draech said:
OT: I'm a graphics whore, and ultra-realistic stuff makes me happy. However, poorer graphics will not ruin a game for me... at all. Although if it comes down to it, graphics will be a deciding factor. GTA vs Just Cause... Just Cause wins every time, because of the location and ultra-pretty graphics.
That said, I'm getting more interested in seeing less "photo-realism" and more "OMG SOOO PREETTYYYY" stuff.
In terms of graphics, I'll ask this...
Ever notice that the closer games get to life-like, the shittier they get?
As for evidence, I submit Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy 6, Grandia, LUNAR 1 & 2, Killer Instinct and Megaman Legends. That is all.
Ever notice that the closer games get to life-like, the shittier they get?
As for evidence, I submit Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy 6, Grandia, LUNAR 1 & 2, Killer Instinct and Megaman Legends. That is all.