Well yes, gaming is fine without photorealism... but it would be nice.
Tell me it wouldn't be nice.
TELL ME.
Tell me it wouldn't be nice.
TELL ME.
Videogames Are Just Fine Without Photo Realism.
- Thread starter yeti585
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There are some thing that I would prefer without, stalker and dawn of war require other things than graphics...
What happen to the importance of music and silence?
I have just finished Bastion, good graphics great soundtrack.
What happen to the importance of music and silence?
I have just finished Bastion, good graphics great soundtrack.
I took a short trip to theAerosteam 1908 said:
Uncanny Valley.
once, had a horrible time. The people were really creepy and I would have much rather spent my day playing a the OPs game.
Edit: I said once twice..
Also did anyone else read the reflection of "remember" as "beware" at first?
I loved VVVVVV, doesn't mean that there is nonplace for games like the witcher 2 and battlefield 3. Simple as that really, as long as there are still good examples of both neither will suffer.
I brought this up while playing a game with my friend. why does every shooter/RPG need all these real-ish looking characters why haven't any (recently) gone for like a cell shaded look or a different style.
Brink doesn't count because it still had a sort of real tone to it. Something more like Timesplitters or TF2.
Then again I hear people are confused why people play old titles like Sonic 2 and Mario World, they sure as hell look better than the 3D games that came out in the 90's-early 2000's
Brink doesn't count because it still had a sort of real tone to it. Something more like Timesplitters or TF2.
Then again I hear people are confused why people play old titles like Sonic 2 and Mario World, they sure as hell look better than the 3D games that came out in the 90's-early 2000's
I mostly agree with Jim Stirling's opinion, what that publisher said about needing next gen graphics to make great games and stories is PR BS.
But..
* Graphics do matter, but it's a ballancing act, for example the mo-capped actors in Enslaved really added to the already great storytelling and colourful and interesting world. Plus everybody bought the original Crysis on PC just to experience the great graphics.
*Games that look like CoD or BF arn't realistic unless you wear gray tinted specticles, I wish ppl would stop calling them realistic, as the world is more colourful than that
* The march forward in graphical capabilities is important, graphics in a game can be upgraded without the devs doing any extra work, anyone who is a long time PC gamer will know that just upgrading the hardware, or the graphics engine, even just the drivers can improve a games look, more realistic lighting and emulators of older games are some examples
So been against the march of graphics seems almost Ludditte to me in thinking, not that i'm against ppl who say it (I usually do myself) because hopefully it might send the message to publishers that they can no longer bank on next gen graphics alone to sell their games and hopefully do put some real effort into the AAAs they shit out.
Personally all I want from next gen is a slight leap in graphics with 1080p 60FPS and a better FoV instead of what CoD does in narrowing it to get alittle extra eye candy.
But..
* Graphics do matter, but it's a ballancing act, for example the mo-capped actors in Enslaved really added to the already great storytelling and colourful and interesting world. Plus everybody bought the original Crysis on PC just to experience the great graphics.
*Games that look like CoD or BF arn't realistic unless you wear gray tinted specticles, I wish ppl would stop calling them realistic, as the world is more colourful than that
* The march forward in graphical capabilities is important, graphics in a game can be upgraded without the devs doing any extra work, anyone who is a long time PC gamer will know that just upgrading the hardware, or the graphics engine, even just the drivers can improve a games look, more realistic lighting and emulators of older games are some examples
So been against the march of graphics seems almost Ludditte to me in thinking, not that i'm against ppl who say it (I usually do myself) because hopefully it might send the message to publishers that they can no longer bank on next gen graphics alone to sell their games and hopefully do put some real effort into the AAAs they shit out.
Personally all I want from next gen is a slight leap in graphics with 1080p 60FPS and a better FoV instead of what CoD does in narrowing it to get alittle extra eye candy.
Does a game require photorealistic graphics to be a game?
No. Look a pong, those graphics hardly resemble photo-realism that we can make today but would you claim that pong isn't a game because the pixel count on screen isn't an insane number? I personally think that once people get over the "grafhix r aweshum" phase games will become better. Something doesn't have to be on the bleeding edge of technology for it to be fun. I'm not saying I don't enjoy looking at all the cool effects and detail of games, but it's put on the back seat for me. I'm more interested in the game play and story over how detailed a plant is.
No. Look a pong, those graphics hardly resemble photo-realism that we can make today but would you claim that pong isn't a game because the pixel count on screen isn't an insane number? I personally think that once people get over the "grafhix r aweshum" phase games will become better. Something doesn't have to be on the bleeding edge of technology for it to be fun. I'm not saying I don't enjoy looking at all the cool effects and detail of games, but it's put on the back seat for me. I'm more interested in the game play and story over how detailed a plant is.
Anyone who's ever played games from any generation before the current one that is.Daystar Clarion said: