Realistic Graphics

[Cyfu]

ok, so everyone wants graphics that are so good that you can't tell the difference between the game and the real world. right?

now i want you to imagine someone being chopped to pieces right in front of you. or some other horrible act. would you want to see that? obviously not.

then why is everyone chasing after more and more realistic graphics? if the game isn't very violent then i guess it's ok. the problem is that many games are very violent and gruesome. i think this is something we need to think hard and long about.

 

[evilneko]

ok, so everyone wants graphics that are so good that you can't tell the difference between the game and the real world. right?

I'm gonna stop you right there.

This statement is false. Your premise is flawed. The rest of your post is thus invalidated.

 

[Cyfu]

ok, so everyone wants graphics that are so good that you can't tell the difference between the game and the real world. right?

I'm gonna stop you right there.

This statement is false. Your premise is flawed. The rest of your post is thus invalidated.

uhm.. ok maybe not everyone wants it, but many companies aim for the most realistic graphics. but my point still stands.

 

[dessertmonkeyjk]

This can be a rather broad topic as it depends on what someone would want from visuals and how they are used. Not much going on with AI, sound simulation, or life sims to be sure.

 

[Kahunaburger]

By "realistic" they mean "photorealistic" not "reality simulation."

But my game-of-the-now is one where you play an @, so what do I know.

 

[Neverhoodian]

Actually, I'm not really interested in photo-realistic graphics. If I want that type of visual fidelity I'll just go interact with the real world. Of course this might also stem from the era of gaming I grew up in. Just about any game with graphical fidelity above the N64/PS1 era still looks damn impressive to me.

I personally tend to gravitate more towards a stylized approach like Team Fortress 2, as I feel it allows for more creativity and variety.

Also, never underestimate humanity's morbid fascination with blood and gore. Lots of people like ultra-violent movies, so it's not much of a stretch to imagine that they would have similar feelings about games.

 

[Cyfu]

By "realistic" they mean "photorealistic" not "reality simulation."

i'm not sure what you mean by this. sorry ^^

 

[Kahunaburger]

By "realistic" they mean "photorealistic" not "reality simulation."

i'm not sure what you mean by this. sorry ^^

Take old WW2 movies - they're realistic in that the people look like real people (since they are played by real people) but the violence/consequences of violence aren't. My guess is that most games would continue to go this route.

 

[Esotera]

ok, so everyone wants graphics that are so good that you can't tell the difference between the game and the real world. right?

Nope, some of the most successful games have very simplistic graphics, or colourful designs. I.e. minecraft, tetris, tf2 (nothing is really that colourful)

now i want you to imagine someone being chopped to pieces right in front of you. or some other horrible act. would you want to see that? obviously not.

Personally I wouldn't mind it. I like being shocked by games, like with No Russian in MW2.

then why is everyone chasing after more and more realistic graphics? if the game isn't very violent then i guess it's ok. the problem is that many games are very violent and gruesome. i think this is something we need to think hard and long about.

Why is it such an issue? I can tell the difference between games and reality, and so can most people. Chasing more realistic graphics is fun...skyrim looks more realistic than morrowind. Chasing better graphics for games also has positive effects on science - the advanced GPUs that are developed prove very useful in determining the structure of proteins, for example. I don't see any good reason to suddenly stop improving graphical quality.

 

[Cyfu]

Actually, I'm not really interested in photo-realistic graphics. If I want that type of visual fidelity I'll just go interact with the real world. Of course this might also stem from the era of gaming I grew up in. Just about any game with graphical fidelity above the N64/PS1 era still looks damn impressive to me.

I personally tend to gravitate more towards a stylized approach like Team Fortress 2, as I feel it allows for more creativity and variety.

Also, never underestimate humanity's morbid fascination with blood and gore. Lots of people like ultra-violent movies, so it's not much of a stretch to imagine that they would have similar feelings about games.

hmm did not think of the movies that are super violent and gory.. i don't watch those myself. don't like it. anyways, If this were to happen i think the "games made me do it" argument is going to be more usual.

 

[MrTub]

Actually, I'm not really interested in photo-realistic graphics. If I want that type of visual fidelity I'll just go interact with the real world. Of course this might also stem from the era of gaming I grew up in. Just about any game with graphical fidelity above the N64/PS1 era still looks damn impressive to me.

I personally tend to gravitate more towards a stylized approach like Team Fortress 2, as I feel it allows for more creativity and variety.

Also, never underestimate humanity's morbid fascination with blood and gore. Lots of people like ultra-violent movies, so it's not much of a stretch to imagine that they would have similar feelings about games.

hmm did not think of the movies that are super violent and gory.. i don't watch those myself. don't like it. anyways, If this were to happen i think the "games made me do it" argument is going to be more usual.

Which will still be full of shit

I want graphics that works with the game, I do not care if it would be photo-realistic graphic if just looks odd.

 

[EscapeGoat_v1legacy]

ok, so everyone wants graphics that are so good that you can't tell the difference between the game and the real world. right?

Well, no, not everyone does, but I get your point about it being rather popular in the majority of mainstream games right now.

now i want you to imagine someone being chopped to pieces right in front of you. or some other horrible act. would you want to see that? obviously not.

Quite correct.

then why is everyone chasing after more and more realistic graphics? if the game isn't very violent then i guess it's ok. the problem is that many games are very violent and gruesome. i think this is something we need to think hard and long about.

Presumably, the chase for realistic graphics came during the call for more realistic gameplay, after the rise of the PlayStation in the late '90s. Similarly, these days, developers presumably use realistic graphics to both claim their game has more "realism", as well as copying the trend set by other developers. Realistic-looking games are popular. Also, they do suit certain games or genres.

However, this doesn't mean they have to be violent or gruesome. Developers and gamers may look for "photorealism" - that is, graphics that look realistic - but they don't necessarily want the actual idea of realism in terms of violence and gore in their games. Blood splatter - that's fine, it's not too grim, but it's a part of the realism thing, and a game without it (for example, an FPS) wouldn't look quite "right", if you see what I mean. On the flip side, that doesn't mean when we fire up our copy of Call of Duty, that we want to see the true horrors of war.

It's a fair point you make that many games are violent, but I maybe wouldn't agree that many are gruesome. It's a far cry from a bit of blood to full-blown realistic deaths. I think developers know just how much gore is acceptable when they make these kind of games, and most don't cross the line from visceral to tasteless or disturbing.

Therefore, when people call for realistic graphics, they're looking for a gaming experience which visually mimics that of real life. They want to (for example, and there's no way to make this sound good, but there you go) shoot a character that looks like they could be real with a gun that looks like it could be real, and for their to be a quick, colourful and visceral burst of gratification as they fall dead with a blood splatter. This is opposed to true "realism" in the sense you describe, which would probably just be quite psychologically disturbing.

 

[Terramax]

now i want you to imagine someone being chopped to pieces right in front of you. or some other horrible act. would you want to see that? obviously not.

Depends one what experience you're looking for. An ultra realistic horror game could do with graphics like that. Or if it was a game trying to make a point.

For me, I'm perfectly happy for amazing graphics in games so long as other aspects are given the same level of care. One game I've played recently that failed was Alice: Madness Returns. So much effort in beautiful scenery, but no effort into making the dialog or story interesting, or gameplay anymore than adequete.

Horses for courses, basically.

 

[shrimpcel]

People watch horror movies, with live action scenes of the kind you describe. I really don't understand your idea.

 

[daveman247]

I dont know, i guess because it would "immerse" them more? To make you believe that you are actually there?

I personally dont care, any graphics are fine as long as they dont effect the gameplay (EG the "fog" in older games, unless its there to increase fear or something )


These days i like the "cel shaded" look and it makes me sad that it is used so rarely. X111 is one of the best examples of this, darkness uses a similar style and of course team foretress was just clever.

Didn't valve make the characters visually in such a way that you could tell exactly what class they were, and through that how to deal with them? Thats awesome!

A bit off topic, but oh well