Photo Realism Sucks

o1s1n

I'll go one further and say games with any kind of realistic representation of characters are an abomination. Nobody uses their imagination anymore.

Nethack is the pinnacle of visuals in game design. Anything more detailed than that is just unnecessary.

Zillah

There's a difference between technical skill and artistry, though. I think he's saying a game can have impressive stats and still look terrible. Lots of games have lavishly powerful graphics engines while still looking like muck. I can't count how many games went for a drab tan/grey colour palette despite the impressive technical specs.

o1s1n

I am a firm advocate of 'bring back blue skies in gaming' but unfortunately (!) there are still people who enjoy drab, brown games.

Thankfully there can be room for both.

richymcdermott

Of course they can , was never mentioned there isnt room for both.

the_syco

Sarky wrote: »

Realistic art is less interesting art. I could probably do up a quick explanatory video with sock puppets dressed as pirates if that'd help any further?

That would both be photo realistic and not, at teh same time. It'd blow their minds, Jim.

Blow. Their. Minds.

Sarky wrote: »

Unless I do CGI socks. With resolution and texture detail so high you can see the individual threads! Yeah! There'll be no range of emotions my virtual socks can't... emote!

So, they'd be non-photo realistic then?

Mr E wrote: »

As long as the game is fun, who gives a flying you-know-what?

Photo realistic diddies on Princess Daisy, you say? Why, that'd be awesome fun :P

o1s1n

o1s1n wrote: »

I'll go one further and say games with any kind of realistic representation of characters are an abomination. Nobody uses their imagination anymore.

Nethack is the pinnacle of visuals in game design. Anything more detailed than that is just unnecessary.

Far too much detail there. What we need is more text-based games.

Asmodean

I hear this graphics argument time and time again. If I'm being completely honest I couldn't care either way. I've had great times with super realistic looking games such as battlefield / crysis / Heavy rain.

Then I've also had some of my best gaming experiences with games that look like they could be nearly 20 years old such as to the moon / minecraft.

To sum it up I have played amazing looking games that have been ****e gameplay wise. I have also played ****e looking games that have been amazing gameplay wise. As others have said, there are a tonne of indie developers out there who are building games based on substance and enjoyability rather than graphics. I just don't see why people can't simply just choose the type of game they'd rather play.

degrassinoel

i still have no idea what the fuq this thread is about

richymcdermott

Asmodean wrote: »

I hear this graphics argument time and time again. If I'm being completely honest I couldn't care either way. I've had great times with super realistic looking games such as battlefield / crysis / Heavy rain.

Then I've also had some of my best gaming experiences with games that look like they could be nearly 20 years old such as to the moon / minecraft.

To sum it up I have played amazing looking games that have been ****e gameplay wise. I have also played ****e looking games that have been amazing gameplay wise. As others have said, there are a tonne of indie developers out there who are building games based on substance and enjoyability rather than graphics. I just don't see why people can't simply just choose the type of game they'd rather play.

this is the internet , there is no room for the neutral :pac:

nesf

Deleted User wrote: »

Far too much detail there. What we need is more text-based games.

There's the some pictures but Depression Quest...




Whether it's a game or not is a different question.

TPD

Non-photo-realistic graphics definitely age better. When they work with the limitations of the graphics engines and create a unique style, that style persists. Examples being Okami and WindWaker, off the top of my head.
Photo-realistic games can look good for a year or two after release, but once the next graphical improvement is widespread they'll look awfully dated by comparison.

Excedion

Photo-realism has its place. When its overused its boring though

Best game I've seen this year was Ni No Kuni. Art style kicked ass and it was a beautiful game. An absolute pleasure to explore

nyarlothothep

It's like imagination is being pushed out by the industry's fixation with technical prowess. It's like that in film and music, everything is so perfect, so streamlined and produced that it's absolutely boring. Videogames are the same. This isn't to say photo realistic art isn't artistic, it's very much so, but it's privileged completely over other types of art. Technique takes over and you just have one type of art mainly that defines the zeitgeist. Just as with music and film; indie, an anti rock genre dominates rock, boring mega budget cg extravaganzas dominate film etc. Just one trend favoured by industry over all others, which doesn't encourage imagination because the plebs arent meant to exercise their imaginations. That's what technical art is all about, a conspiracy to steal your imagination, it does the imagining for you so you dont have to.

Agricola

Graphical improvement is one the main things that keeps me interested in gaming. I can completely understand how gameplay trumps it but Ive personally never been one to play archaic looking games simply because the gameplay is good. Indie stuff, 8/16 bit downloadable games etc do nothing for me. I like immersion and buying into a world, and you need the latest cutting edge engines for that. Just personal taste.

johnny_ultimate

Agricola wrote: »

Graphical improvement is one the main things that keeps me interested in gaming. I can completely understand how gameplay trumps it but Ive personally never been one to play archaic looking games simply because the gameplay is good. Indie stuff, 8/16 bit downloadable games etc do nothing for me. I like immersion and buying into a world, and you need the latest cutting edge engines for that. Just personal taste.

You say 'indie games' as if it's a genre, as opposed to a massively diverse catalogue of games of countless styles, running a whole graphical range from blocky abstraction to feeble-computer destroying realism.

Personal preference and all, but you've pretty much discounted 80-95% of the greatest games ever made for yourself.

ScumLord

nyarlothothep wrote: »

It's like imagination is being pushed out by the industry's fixation with technical prowess. It's like that in film and music, everything is so perfect, so streamlined and produced that it's absolutely boring. Videogames are the same.

Video games have a different agenda to film though. Immersion is a big part of games, it's not necessary for a game to look perfect for it to be immersive but it helps an awful lot.

I think as time passes realism won't be as important, we'll reach a stage where graphics aren't as important because they'll have gotten to a stage were good graphics are commonplace and easy. Then the only focus will be the advertising campaign.

nyarlothothep

ScumLord wrote: »

Video games have a different agenda to film though. Immersion is a big part of games, it's not necessary for a game to look perfect for it to be immersive but it helps an awful lot.

I think as time passes realism won't be as important, we'll reach a stage where graphics aren't as important because they'll have gotten to a stage were good graphics are commonplace and easy. Then the only focus will be the advertising campaign.

Films are totally immersive, that's the whole point of the cinema, it simulates a lucid dream through the omission of all other sense data, except for the film.

nyarlothothep

Books are immersive too, you read them and after a while, it has a hypnotising effect whereby you ignore everything around you as you are in the world of the book. I would say books and films are more immersive than games!

ScumLord

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Books are immersive too, you read them and after a while, it has a hypnotising effect whereby you ignore everything around you as you are in the world of the book. I would say books and films are more immersive than games!

I wouldn't. With games you're in the world created, with books and film you're a spectator.

johnny_ultimate

ScumLord wrote: »

I wouldn't. With games you're in the world created, with books and film you're a spectator.

That's nonsense, absolute nonsense. If more games had worlds as deeply realised and immersive as those of great films and literature, well we'd have a much richer medium.

nyarlothothep

ScumLord wrote: »

I wouldn't. With games you're in the world created, with books and film you're a spectator.

Weirdly enough it's never been that way for me with the exception of a few games. In a book or film you live vicariously through the characters, you identify with them and see things from their perspective. The problem with games is that the characters usually suck and the plots are really boring. Film is like that too but it's easier to digest. In games getting lost or having to complete mundane missions works against immersion because it can mess with the pacing and interest levels. Suddenly the immersion is off.

Angron

Danonino. wrote: »

JAYSON!?! JAYSON?!? JAYSUUUUN?!?


(now with more realistic faces)

SHAAAAAAAAAWN!

nyarlothothep

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

That's nonsense, absolute nonsense. If more games had worlds as deeply realised and immersive as those of great films and literature, well we'd have a much richer medium.

When the technology catches up that may one day be possible. When the cost of production comes down so that authoring a game with good graphics etc becomes akin to writing a novel, incredible games may one day be made again. The commercialisation of games, the dictatorship of commitees and pandering to the widest possible audience, these all work against creativity, everything is standardised, anyone with a unique or quirky idea will invariably be squeezed out by consensus opinion based on profit margins. Most of the greatest novels were written by one person. Likewise the best films are made with a unique vision. Total immersion will require brain implants.

richymcdermott

nyarlothothep wrote: »

When the technology catches up that may one day be possible. When the cost of production comes down so that authoring a game with good graphics etc becomes akin to writing a novel, incredible games may one day be made again. The commercialisation of games, the dictatorship of commitees and pandering to the widest possible audience, these all work against creativity, everything is standardised, anyone with a unique or quirky idea will invariably be squeezed out by consensus opinion based on profit margins. Most of the greatest novels were written by one person. Likewise the best films are made with a unique vision. Total immersion will require brain implants.

there always has been incredible games

o1s1n

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

That's nonsense, absolute nonsense. If more games had worlds as deeply realised and immersive as those of great films and literature, well we'd have a much richer medium.

Panzer Dragoon Saga? Chrono Trigger? Earthbound? Phantasy Star IV? ALTTP?

All of those games have given me as much an immersive experience than any film I've watched or book I've read.

Just wait till you try out my Oculus Rift once it arrives

johnny_ultimate

o1s1n wrote: »

Panzer Dragoon Saga? Chrono Trigger? Earthbound? Phantasy Star IV? ALTTP?

All of those games have given me as much an immersive experience than any film I've watched or book I've read.

Just wait till you try out my Oculus Rift once it arrives

Notice my use of the word 'more'

Not to say there aren't dozens of great games out there that have near completely immersed me. But I personally think there's a much larger amount of great films and books. Which, given gaming's comparative infancy, isn't surprising.

o1s1n

Thousands of years of writing, 100+ years of moving pictures, versus a few decades of games..not really a fair comparison alright!

Games and film seem to be going the same direction with regard to quality. Big, blockbuster ventures with absolutely zero artistic or creative merit and then smaller projects with lower budgets but far more heart.

richymcdermott

I think in terms of story writing for videogames , silent hill 2 gives alot of movies a run for their money

nyarlothothep

richymcdermott wrote: »

there always has been incredible games

Agreed, but incredible games that are as deep, moving and immersive as the greatest works of film and literature? A game to rival Shakespeare, Tolkien, any random book by a depressed Russian writer, Blade Runner or Pulp Fiction just to name a few? Such a game does not yet exist though one day there will be games like this. It took a while for film to develop as an artform too.

corcaigh07

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Agreed, but incredible games that are as deep, moving and immersive as the greatest works of film and literature? A game to rival Shakespeare, Tolkien, any random book by a depressed Russian writer, Blade Runner or Pulp Fiction just to name a few? Such a game does not yet exist though one day there will be games like this. It took a while for film to develop as an artform too.

Ico
Shadow of the Colossus
Shenmue 1+2
The Walking Dead Episodes

I found these games to be more moving and immersive than what you mentioned. But I don't really read books so only comparing to the movies.

I think games have a big advantage over movies too because it has more time to fully engage you (10 hours average) whereas a movie only has 2-3 hours to do the same. It's the reason a movie based on a book is rarely said to be better than the book.

As games get more sophisticated as an artform, this advantage may become more telling as games get more immersive.