¿What do you think about realistic graphics?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by chimchargirl (57 posts) -

I dont like when a person say that a realistic graphics videogames are better than others, im like more cell shading, sd or pixel graphics.

i dont like that some people only buy a game because it have realistic graphics and think that games that i play are worse than games that he play..

#2 Posted by ZZoMBiE13 (22911 posts) -

I think art direction is far more important than graphical fidelity. But I don't let it bother me when others value different things than I do. If someone finds photorealism as the measuring stick to what they enjoy, that is their business. So long as they don't try to impede my enjoyment of the games I choose, I say live and let live.

#3 Edited by Zjun (146 posts) -

That's a bad gamer if they choose Killzone: Shadow Fall over Battlefield 4 for graphics.

#4 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

What about James Cameron's Avatar movie ?

The Graphics were used to add detail to unrealistic things. I'm all for better graphics but not for the sake of realism, but for the sake of better detail, uhm...... Lets call it pseudo realism (making unrealistic things so detailed they could be confused with something real).

#5 Edited by c_rakestraw (14599 posts) -

I think art direction is far more important than graphical fidelity. But I don't let it bother me when others value different things than I do. If someone finds photorealism as the measuring stick to what they enjoy, that is their business. So long as they don't try to impede my enjoyment of the games I choose, I say live and let live.

Pretty much this.

@zjun said:

That's a bad gamer if they choose Killzone: Shadow Fall over Battlefield 4 for graphics.

And why's that?

#6 Posted by RimacBugatti (1191 posts) -

I would say Battlefield overall is the best game being that it has the gameplay and the visuals to back it up. graphics just make it easier to get into the game. Otherwise you always are reminded that it is a game.

#7 Posted by chicknfeet (15625 posts) -

Honestly, a game can have pixel graphics for all i care. As long as i can decipher what one object is versus another, that's fine with me. I actually enjoy games that have graphics similar to the old NES or SNES graphics. Usually, when a game has graphics on that level, they tend to come strong with the gameplay and the story...not alway, but it's usually a good chance they will.

#8 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@ RimacBugatti

Immersion is overated.

#9 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

I dont like when a person say that a realistic graphics videogames are better than others, im like more cell shading, sd or pixel graphics.

i dont like that some people only buy a game because it have realistic graphics and think that games that i play are worse than games that he play..

The TC is knocking down a strawman. Very, very few genres boast designers who strive for visual realism (just sports games and racing sims).

Games like say, The Last of Us, Gears of War, Demon's Souls and Skyrim wouldn't be called realistic in any other context. Only in videogames do we have this tiny group of people (usually Nintendo apologists) who think that anything that doesn't look like a Disney cartoon is realistic.

@zjun said:

That's a bad gamer if they choose Killzone: Shadow Fall over Battlefield 4 for graphics.

This highlights the sort of lazy, nonsensical thinking that tends to fill these threads. In what world is Killzone (filled with sci-fi weapons, massive machines and planets utterly unlike Earth) more realistic than Battlefield (set in the modern world and filled with modern real life weapons)? Zjun's world apparently...

What about James Cameron's Avatar movie ?

The Graphics were used to add detail to unrealistic things. I'm all for better graphics but not for the sake of realism, but for the sake of better detail, uhm...... Lets call it pseudo realism (making unrealistic things so detailed they could be confused with something real).

Disneyesque art styles are sometimes nice, but just because one is striving to resemble Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies more than a Pixar movie doesn't meant that one is striving for realism.

#10 Posted by Jackc8 (8500 posts) -

I'm more concerned with the art design than the pixel count. The most lifelike graphics in the world don't impress me at all if they're used to render a dull gray city. Give me a gorgeous, creative environment and I don't care if the graphics are only good but not great.

#11 Posted by Nuck81 (5834 posts) -

This thread is pretty much DOA when A Link Between Worlds was undoubtedly one of the best looking games released last year.

#12 Posted by RicanV (114 posts) -

I think realistic graphics are a great thing and can be a great asset to the gaming industry (once it's more developed). But I would hope it would be an addition to the industry and not a replacement. There is some great art work out there and there are games that work better without realism. Super Mario would be a terrible game with realistic graphics.

#13 Edited by turtlethetaffer (16672 posts) -

A truly great art design can stand the test of time. the Wind Waker (Gamecube version) still looks jaw dropping in places. I play it every once in a while and the game has aged better than just about any game that tried to have realistic graphics.

#14 Posted by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

So lets take a feature list of some game like 7 Days to Die, Wurm, Xyson etc.

Would the game be even more amazing if it had top tier graphics and realism? YES.

If it meant taking those features way to have such graphics it would not however.

The thing is larger companies have the budget to do both. The problem is they are weighed down far to much with approval process, pleasing 3rd party investors etc.

#15 Edited by Grieverr (2626 posts) -

There are games that benefit from looking real, and others that don't. As was stated, Super Mario would look dumb if it resembled our world. That said, I agree that art direction, as well as technical capabilities are important.

Just because Mario is a cartoon doesn't mean that its graphics shouldn't have hi-res textures, use of shaders, and a smooth frame rate. Look how great Mario 3D World looks. It has creative art design and is technically solid.

As far my thoughts on realistic graphics? I think they're great when they fit the theme. BF4 looks great, as does TLOU and Beyond. I wouldn't automatically discount a game based on its realism.

#16 Edited by Zjun (146 posts) -

@zjun said:

That's a bad gamer if they choose Killzone: Shadow Fall over Battlefield 4 for graphics.

And why's that?

Gameplay is the meat.

#17 Posted by chimchargirl (57 posts) -

@chimchargirl said:

I dont like when a person say that a realistic graphics videogames are better than others, im like more cell shading, sd or pixel graphics.

i dont like that some people only buy a game because it have realistic graphics and think that games that i play are worse than games that he play..

The TC is knocking down a strawman. Very, very few genres boast designers who strive for visual realism (just sports games and racing sims).

Games like say, The Last of Us, Gears of War, Demon's Souls and Skyrim wouldn't be called realistic in any other context. Only in videogames do we have this tiny group of people (usually Nintendo apologists) who think that anything that doesn't look like a Disney cartoon is realistic.

@zjun said:

That's a bad gamer if they choose Killzone: Shadow Fall over Battlefield 4 for graphics.

This highlights the sort of lazy, nonsensical thinking that tends to fill these threads. In what world is Killzone (filled with sci-fi weapons, massive machines and planets utterly unlike Earth) more realistic than Battlefield (set in the modern world and filled with modern real life weapons)? Zjun's world apparently...

@Lulu_Lulu said:

What about James Cameron's Avatar movie ?

The Graphics were used to add detail to unrealistic things. I'm all for better graphics but not for the sake of realism, but for the sake of better detail, uhm...... Lets call it pseudo realism (making unrealistic things so detailed they could be confused with something real).

Disneyesque art styles are sometimes nice, but just because one is striving to resemble Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies more than a Pixar movie doesn't meant that one is striving for realism.

One thing is realistic graphics, other thing is a realistic theme or a realistic history.