I don' care if it's realistic or not as long as it's pretty.
And Arkham Asylum is pretty. It might just be the best looking game out there.
And Arkham Asylum is pretty. It might just be the best looking game out there.
Do we want realistic graphics?
- Thread starter dashiz94
- Start date
No, it doesn't. Realistic means concern for fact or reality and rejection of the impractical and visionary.Pegghead said:
A lot of brown means limited palette knowledge/unlimited laziness/lack of creativity. Take your pick.
Well, unless there's meaningful context behind it. But we're are talking about the majority case here.
Anyway, this dude's post sums it up pretty good:
101194 said:
In the FPS genre, it's a mixed answer cause if it works for the game's setting to look realistic then yes, but it not then no.
Slightly off topic, I like how Yahtzee criticizes FPS games for having brown and black colors when if you've ever been in a war situation or area that's exactly what you see. I myself have never served but I've visited areas where battles happened and have seen enough documentaries about wars to know that it's very, very rare to see a battle take place in a field of brightly colored flowers.
Slightly off topic, I like how Yahtzee criticizes FPS games for having brown and black colors when if you've ever been in a war situation or area that's exactly what you see. I myself have never served but I've visited areas where battles happened and have seen enough documentaries about wars to know that it's very, very rare to see a battle take place in a field of brightly colored flowers.
If they make another GTA look "realistic", Ishall shoot the devs and shoot every disk ever made.
Some games are not meant to look real, like Saints Row II, it's cartoony and AWESOME!
MGS4 should probably look realistic... so Hideo's terrible writing can be covered up by the "ooh's" and "ahs" of shiny graphics.
Some games are not meant to look real, like Saints Row II, it's cartoony and AWESOME!
MGS4 should probably look realistic... so Hideo's terrible writing can be covered up by the "ooh's" and "ahs" of shiny graphics.
It's a matter of style. Some games can't do well without trying to look as realistic as the technology allows; typically the more serious games like Fallout 3. However, there is nothing wrong with a game going for a cartoony look, something a lot of developers don't seem to get (and those that do usually think of it as just a way to use ancient graphics technology to cheapen development).
So what I'm saying is that the graphics should flow naturally from the style of the game, and graphics and gameplay should mesh seamlessly. If the tone is silly or unconventional, then shooting for photo-realistic graphics may not be a good goal.
So what I'm saying is that the graphics should flow naturally from the style of the game, and graphics and gameplay should mesh seamlessly. If the tone is silly or unconventional, then shooting for photo-realistic graphics may not be a good goal.
It all depends on the game, really.
- If the game is grim'n'dark, super serious, or is trying to create a sense of immersion, it really should have realistic graphics.
- If I'm playing on a tropical island or majestic Norwegian fjord, it'd be really nice to have realistic graphics of such a vista.
- If the game isn't meant to be taken too seriously, or if it just doesn't need them, I think development resources are better spent elsewhere. Look at the examples of WoW or TF2 - Just because there are no normal maps, no ultra-sophisticated lighting engine, etc., doesn't mean the graphics are categorically "bad". In fact, they can actually add to a game's appeal.
- If the game is grim'n'dark, super serious, or is trying to create a sense of immersion, it really should have realistic graphics.
- If I'm playing on a tropical island or majestic Norwegian fjord, it'd be really nice to have realistic graphics of such a vista.
- If the game isn't meant to be taken too seriously, or if it just doesn't need them, I think development resources are better spent elsewhere. Look at the examples of WoW or TF2 - Just because there are no normal maps, no ultra-sophisticated lighting engine, etc., doesn't mean the graphics are categorically "bad". In fact, they can actually add to a game's appeal.
Realism isn't always in graphics but also in the notion of control. For instance the combat fight simulator Jane's US Navy Fighters was released in 1996 and although it didn't offer the graphics can can currently be obtained, it came with a 400 page manual and you had complete control over your aircraft.
I think we should stop about where we are right now and just strive for a solid frame rate and greater number of characters on screen.
I cannot believe this is even a question
Obviously realistic-looking graphics are what game developers often strive for. If they want it to look like a cartoon, then it will, but if they want it to look realistic, they'll do their best. There is no reason to tell them "HEY STOP MAKING GRAPHICS BETTER!" We could go back to the age of PS1 and N64 if you'd like.
Obviously realistic-looking graphics are what game developers often strive for. If they want it to look like a cartoon, then it will, but if they want it to look realistic, they'll do their best. There is no reason to tell them "HEY STOP MAKING GRAPHICS BETTER!" We could go back to the age of PS1 and N64 if you'd like.
Yeah I actually want that idea...I am a fan of technology type interfaces and stuff like that (which are actually seen in many FPSs)...But the idea is good FPS=realistic graphicCurtmiester said:
Hey everyone, Uber Newb here *yeah, original, I know.* Long time visitor, first time poster. Be gentle.apsham said:
Regarding photo-realistic games, of course it'll happen. With the advances in GPS/Imaging Technology and Facial Recognition systems, plus with motion capture/sensors already being used and upgraded, it won't be long before there are movie games where you control a real person in a real world setting. It'd be good as a genre for serious games, but shouldn't become the standard for obvious reasons.