How (visually) realistic do you want games to get?

The topic basically says it all. Do you want games to continue advancements in graphical technology until they are photorealistic? Do you want to go all the way until virtual reality is so intense you actually feel like you're out on the battlefield/on the spaceship or whatever? Or do you think graphics are as good as they need to be now and we should work on perfecting gameplay and making innovations within games rather than working to improve tech?

If you ask me, I draw the line at Uncharted 2. Pretty much my idea of perfect graphics. Extraordinarily realistic, but still maintaining fantastic stylized art direction. It manages to look realistic without looking like a movie, which is what I think the most we need is. Any more seems like overkill, and I don't think I'd enjoy it as much.

I don't want games looking more realistic than that. If 50 years from now games still look like this, I'll be happier with the progress of the industry than if it had become like a movie.

But this is just my opinion, what do you the people say?

Uncharted? come on now. u need to post Crysis, Project Offset & Shattered Horizon.

I want games to look like games. Even when we get virtual reality i want it to look like a game becuase real life people do not look as super cool as game avatars (you'll never meet someone who looks and acts like Solid Snake or Master Chief). That said, the graphics becoming ultra realistic probably wont make me not play.

I don't really want them to.

All I want is for games to display properly. I don't want to see jaggies (or at least attempted to be covered up), or models clashing, or texture pop-in, or anything, and I want it to run smoothly at 60+ fps

Just display the game properly, and that's fine with me.

Though as preference I would like a more colorful game.

I want them to look as realistic as the development team is going for. Maybe some developers will want their games to look like cartoons, maybe some will want theirs to look fantastical, and maybe some will want theirs to look gritty and realistic. Variety is great and I am able to appreciate many different artistic directions.

I want them to look as realistic as the development team is going for. Maybe some developers will want their games to look like cartoons, maybe some will want theirs to look fantastical, and maybe some will want theirs to look gritty and realistic. Variety is great and I am able to appreciate many different artistic directions.Mash_Affect

For me, what's more important is the art direction in the game. For example,a game like Braid is visually stunning, yet it's nothing resembling reality. The visuals should focus on capturing the spirit of the game, rather than trying to depict real life. For the most part, I think games do this succesfully. I haven't come across a game that made me think along the lines of "Oh, they should've gone for cell shading in this game instead of realism".

However, if a game is going to display things realistically, then EVERYTHING else should proportionally be realistic. The problem with trying to mimic reality is that it opens itself to even closer scrutiny. We all know what reality looks like, and any little or slight detail that deviates from it is going to be noticed.

We all know what reality looks like

gopulpfiction

This is certainly a good point. Sure if you're going for the straight simulation setting, ultra-realistic settings are nessicary, however, one of the best parts about any game is how far the developer can deviate from reality, yet still maintain a believable setting. That said, my position stands on, if I wanted to see absolutely realistic modern buildings, I'd walk outside and look at them. In a game however, its the extraordinary fantasy worlds that really draw me in.

[QUOTE="gopulpfiction"]

We all know what reality looks like

Kahnray

This is certainly a good point. Sure if you're going for the straight simulation setting, ultra-realistic settings are nessicary, however, one of the best parts about any game is how far the developer can deviate from reality, yet still maintain a believable setting. That said, my position stands on, if I wanted to see absolutely realistic modern buildings, I'd walk outside and look at them. In a game however, its the extraordinary fantasy worlds that really draw me in.

Why should I go play Need For Speed when I can hop in my car, head off all the way to L.A., and go street racing? Yeah, that sounds like a good idea.

What amazes me is that someone could play something like Gears Of War or anything else along the lines of 'gore fest', yet in real life they're completely intolerant to blood and guts. So, if graphic capabilities could really go up to the point where it looks just like us (REAL people), then that could spark a whole new lot of issues that the game industry already has. Think about it, parents already complain about their kids being affected by video games, what good would it do if games actually looked real?

What amazes me is that someone could play something like Gears Of War or anything else along the lines of 'gore fest', yet in real life they're completely intolerant to blood and guts. So, if graphic capabilities could really go up to the point where it looks just like us (REAL people), then that could spark a whole new lot of issues that the game industry already has. Think about it, parents already complain about their kids being affected by video games, what good would it do if games actually looked real?

MadVybz

Just give violent games an 18, make kid games less realistic or don't have any blood or guts. Resolved. Also I think gaming's a hell of a lot more acceptable to this generation than the older generation so in the future we'll likely be focusing on issues more important.

I hope they continue to become more realistic to the point where you can't tell between games and reality; I always enjoy games such as Crysis where part of the enjoyment of the game is admiring the fantastic next gen graphics.

[QUOTE="MadVybz"]

What amazes me is that someone could play something like Gears Of War or anything else along the lines of 'gore fest', yet in real life they're completely intolerant to blood and guts. So, if graphic capabilities could really go up to the point where it looks just like us (REAL people), then that could spark a whole new lot of issues that the game industry already has. Think about it, parents already complain about their kids being affected by video games, what good would it do if games actually looked real?

cyborg100000

Just give violent games an 18, make kid games less realistic or don't have any blood or guts. Resolved.

Really? Care to explain the hundreds of thousands of kids playing Halo, Modern Warfare, Gears, Assassin's Creed etc? :|

Holo-deck real.:D

Holo-deck real.:D

MentatAssassin

For me it depends on what type of game it is. If it is something like Modern Warfare 2, I want it to look as realistic as humanly possible. If it is something like World of Warcraft, I love the fact that they have their own cartoon-y art style, it makes the world a lot more rich. That is the problem with most MMO's is they go for too much detail and realism and the worlds become dull and drab.

Uncharted? come on now. u need to post Crysis, Project Offset & Shattered Horizon.

painguy1

And call me insane but the graphics in Shattered Horizon (from what I've seen) aren't that good :?. Project Offset does look like the most realistic game I've ever seen, but as I said, I don't want it photo realistic like that.

[QUOTE="gopulpfiction"]

We all know what reality looks like

Kahnray

This is certainly a good point. Sure if you're going for the straight simulation setting, ultra-realistic settings are nessicary, however, one of the best parts about any game is how far the developer can deviate from reality, yet still maintain a believable setting. That said, my position stands on, if I wanted to see absolutely realistic modern buildings, I'd walk outside and look at them. In a game however, its the extraordinary fantasy worlds that really draw me in.

Couldn't have possibly said it better myself, that's exactly what I want from a game's graphics.

well it really depends on the genre and the atmosphere of the game (a realistic mario game?????.....thats strange), but in general I think art style is much more important the realism, Im fine with 2D games or games that have unrealistic 3D, as long as the art style is good and everything looks as it should (no graphical glitches)

I want them to look as realistic as the development team is going for. Maybe some developers will want their games to look like cartoons, maybe some will want theirs to look fantastical, and maybe some will want theirs to look gritty and realistic. Variety is great and I am able to appreciate many different artistic directions.

Mash_Affect

Well said. That's exactly how I feel.

Of course I'd like games to keep on looking better. Particularly if the game is based in a setting that's supposed to resemble reality, then realistic graphics help to immerse you into the game's world.

But to be honest, I think that getting more realistic is less of a concern now than ever before. For me, games have advanced to the point where they look realistic enough. I actually think that this happened back in the PS2/Xbox generation. Sure, the PS3 and the 360 can do more realistic graphics, but the difference is sort of superficial. I'd rather more developers focus on real gameplay innovation, rather than spending increasingly huge amounts of money to wrap the same stuff in a prettier package.

Of course I'd like games to keep on looking better. Particularly if the game is based in a setting that's supposed to resemble reality, then realistic graphics help to immerse you into the game's world.

But to be honest, I think that getting more realistic is less of a concern now than ever before. For me, games have advanced to the point where they look realistic enough. I actually think that this happened back in the PS2/Xbox generation. Sure, the PS3 and the 360 can do more realistic graphics, but the difference is sort of superficial. I'd rather more developers focus on real gameplay innovation, rather than spending increasingly huge amounts of money to wrap the same stuff in a prettier package.

MrGeezer

Really? I think the difference is massive. Just take a look Modern Warfare 2 and compare that game to any war-themed shooter on the PS2/Xbox.

Really? I think the difference is massive. Just take a look Modern Warfare 2 and compare that game to any war-themed shooter on the PS2/Xbox.

BladesOfAthena

PS2 games looked great. They still look great. Even launch games like Tekken Tag Tournament looked great. Gran Turismo 3 looked great.

Sure, games in the next generation looked more realistic, but we're only talking about polishing up what's already there. Metal Gear Solid 4 looked a hell of a lotlike Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3.

We're already to the point where nearly all stuff in games looks like what it's supposed to represent. We're already to the point where subsequent consoles aren't providing a giant leap in terms of visual realism, but are instead merely adding a layer of polish to the kinds of graphics that were already previously being done. I think that games are sort of hitting a wall in terms of realism.

TRUE "photorealistic" graphics are probably a lot farther off than a lot of people think. I wouldn't be surprised if they never become a reality. And as it starts to become POSSIBLE to make games truly photorealistic, it's gonna take developers more time and money to actually MAKE games look like that. It'll start getting harder and harder to get a look that really only provided a small difference to the gamer's experience.

[QUOTE="BladesOfAthena"]

Really? I think the difference is massive. Just take a look Modern Warfare 2 and compare that game to any war-themed shooter on the PS2/Xbox.

MrGeezer

PS2 games looked great. They still look great. Even launch games like Tekken Tag Tournament looked great. Gran Turismo 3 looked great.

Sure, games in the next generation looked more realistic, but we're only talking about polishing up what's already there. Metal Gear Solid 4 looked a hell of a lotlike Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3.

We're already to the point where nearly all stuff in games looks like what it's supposed to represent. We're already to the point where subsequent consoles aren't providing a giant leap in terms of visual realism, but are instead merely adding a layer of polish to the kinds of graphics that were already previously being done. I think that games are sort of hitting a wall in terms of realism.

I think the dichotomy between last generation and what we are seeing now is huge in terms of graphic fidelity. Even the best-looking FPS on the PS2 and XB1are a mere shadow of something like Killzone 2or Modern Warfare 2. Yes, many of the games from last generation looked great and still do, but that doesn't change the fact that what has been delivered to us this generation in terms of graphical poweris a leap almost as significant as the leap from the PS1 to the PS2. It's also important to remember that along with improved graphics and resolution, we are also seeing engines like Euphoria, which provide insanely realistic physical simulations of characters and object.

Also, as good as MGS3 looked on the PS2, it cannot even begin to graphically approach MGS4 on the PS3. Play them side by side and you'll see the difference is night and day.

PS2 games looked great. They still look great. Even launch games like Tekken Tag Tournament looked great. Gran Turismo 3 looked great.MrGeezer

Of course PS2 games still look great, I'm not denying that. Same thing with a scant number of PSOne and SNES/Gen games. Its just a matter of what artstyle appeals to you. But to say that there is a minimal difference in graphical performance between last gen and the current gen is just flatout wrong. Also, you have to keep in mind that there's still plenty of untapped power left in need of further exploitation so things can only continue further and improve.

Sure, games in the next generation looked more realistic, but we're only talking about polishing up what's already there. Metal Gear Solid 4 looked a hell of a lotlike Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3.MrGeezer

Really? I strongly doubt anyone would confuse this for something that's out of MGS2 or 3. MGS3 even had a somewhat similar chase scene but it certainly wasn't anywhere near as impressive or dynamic as MGS4's.

Even then, its not as though MGS4 was making efficient use of the PS3 hardware anyways. Even Kojima voiced his dissatisfaction with not meeting the artistic vision he had sought for.

We're already to the point where nearly all stuff in games looks like what it's supposed to represent. We're already to the point where subsequent consoles aren't providing a giant leap in terms of visual realism, but are instead merely adding a layer of polish to the kinds of graphics that were already previously being done. I think that games are sort of hitting a wall in terms of realism.MrGeezer

I don't think it has much to do with the look itself as it is with the lighting, size of the environments, number of characters, effects, physics, complex AI, dynamic animation, and the staggering level of detail all occurring at once. That's what makes this gen so impressive. You'd be hardpressed to find a single game from the last gen where virtually all of these things are being implemented.

We're also at the point where we're starting to compare to in-game graphics to the CG used in movies. I don't think that's ever happened in the last gen.

Last gen is what I miss too, it wasn't trying to look realistic, so games had neat artistic styles to them. Running around in a game like psychonauts or Jak was just fun with the styles they have.Jordo321

Actually back in the PS2/Xbox/GC days, games like Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, Medal Of Honor, and a crapload of sports games were all striving for realism.

Graphics aren't that important to me. For heaven's sake, my first video game was Pong! I am perfectly happy with how realistic games are looking now.

I have a preference for stylized graphics because it fits my immersion into fantasy worlds. As people stated, if I wanted realistic graphics there's real life. There is a place for some realism because it helps to have an atmosphere of familiarity to draw you in. Then there's the uncanny valley effect of developers trying to make humans look too real, which I don't think we have quite been able to surpass yet even in the movie industry.

I prefer games to have some type of art direction; to me, photorealism is the total LACK of an art direction. I mean even gears of war has an art direction, as the characters look like beefy action figures, and then a game like Borderlands has a unique gritty-cel art style that I absolutely love. A game like Uncharted or Crysis has no art direction to speak of.UT_Wrestler

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

PS2 games looked great. They still look great. Even launch games like Tekken Tag Tournament looked great. Gran Turismo 3 looked great.BladesOfAthena

Of course PS2 games still look great, I'm not denying that. Same thing with a scant number of PSOne and SNES/Gen games. Its just a matter of what artstyle appeals to you. But to say that there is a minimal difference in graphical performance between last gen and the current gen is just flatout wrong. Also, you have to keep in mind that there's still plenty of untapped power left in need of further exploitation so things can only continue further and improve.

Sure, games in the next generation looked more realistic, but we're only talking about polishing up what's already there. Metal Gear Solid 4 looked a hell of a lotlike Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3.MrGeezer

Really? I strongly doubt anyone would confuse this for something that's out of MGS2 or 3. MGS3 even had a somewhat similar chase scene but it certainly wasn't anywhere near as impressive or dynamic as MGS4's.

Even then, its not as though MGS4 was making efficient use of the PS3 hardware anyways. Even Kojima voiced his dissatisfaction with not meeting the artistic vision he had sought for.

We're already to the point where nearly all stuff in games looks like what it's supposed to represent. We're already to the point where subsequent consoles aren't providing a giant leap in terms of visual realism, but are instead merely adding a layer of polish to the kinds of graphics that were already previously being done. I think that games are sort of hitting a wall in terms of realism.MrGeezer

I don't think it has much to do with the look itself as it is with the lighting, size of the environments, number of characters, effects, physics, complex AI, dynamic animation, and the staggering level of detail all occurring at once. That's what makes this gen so impressive. You'd be hardpressed to find a single game from the last gen where virtually all of these things are being implemented.

We're also at the point where we're starting to compare to in-game graphics to the CG used in movies. I don't think that's ever happened in the last gen.

Point taken.

Still, the funny thing is, when I played all the way through Metal Gear Solid 4, I simply wasn't impressed. Not sure why. It just didn't seem all that different, certainly not the next big leap, or anything like that. Sure, the seemless transitions between cutscenes and gameplay were sort of cool, sure it looked a lot slicker. But somehow, it just seemed like the same old stuff.

When I was playing through that scene that you linked to, I didn'y even NOTICE any realism. And I think that's an important phenomenon to take note of. If a game is compelling enough to immerse you emotionally and psychologically, at least I'M going to be less inclined to even really NOTICE its level of "realism". I'm not looking at how realistic it looks, because I'm playing the game. Alternatively, whenever I stop to take notice of how marvelous a game looks, that typically doesn't happen unless I'm not having any FUN actually PLAYING the damn thing.

Maybe it's more fair to say that I'VE hit a wall, as far as CARING about how realistic games look. "REalism" is sort of a misnomer, since MGS4 still looks WAY more like a freaking game than like anything resembling reality. And I'd wager that the graphical difference between PS3 games and PS2 games IS less than the graphical difference between PS2 games and Original Playstation games. I still think that at least as far as realistic looks, the difference between subsequent generations IS shrinking. Maybe if I played more games I'd notice the marvels of the current generation of games more, but I DON'T play more games. I'm more of a "casual" gamer, and maybe I don't know enough about games to appreciate what's there. Same that someone who knows nothing about photography won't realize that (or why) their automatic exposure flash snapshots look like crap.

Anyway, as far as realism, you're right that LOOKS aren't all there is to it. I've rarely ever complained about any game because it "looked bad", unless it simply looked WAY worse than it had any business looking. I've come to accept "looks" at least as far back as the original Playstation, and I think that the PS2 and Original Xbox can make ANY game LOOK fine. What annoys me MOST about realism is stuff like having to backtrack through a level because I don't have the ability to jump over a two foot high obstacle. Or having to spend an hour looking for a key to unlock a door when I'm carrying a goddamn rocket launcher in my backpack.

If PS4 games looked EXACTLY like PS3 games, but simply chose to devote ALL of that processing power to making the game world BEHAVE more realistically, you would get absolutely no complaint from me. Limited last-gen graphics don't bother me any more than the current-gen graphics will bother me after the PS4 and Xbox 720 hit the market. They'll STILL look like goddamn games, I'll STILL not appreciate how amazing they supposedly look. So stop focusing on looks, unless the looks are uniquely critical to the experience. Start with gameplay, because standard "unrealistic" and persistent gameplay cliches bother me a hell of a lot more than outdated graphics ever will. Even with MGS 4, I could be running down a street full of buildings, and the doors are all just as useless as the background doors in the NES version of Robocop. When I'm running down a street getting shot at, maybe I'd like to break a random dude's door down in order to take cover. Maybe instead of looking for a key to a door, I could just throw a brick through the window and skip the annoying fetch-quest. People should start with that, because as far as I'm concerned, games LOOK absolutely freaking fine, and have looked fine for probably at least the last 5 years.

I prefer games to have some type of art direction; to me, photorealism is the total LACK of an art direction. I mean even gears of war has an art direction, as the characters look like beefy action figures, and then a game like Borderlands has a unique gritty-cel art style that I absolutely love. A game like Uncharted or Crysis has no art direction to speak of.UT_Wrestler

Uncharted 2 definitely has art direction. It's aiming to look realistic, but not in the same way as Crysis or such. It's almost a cartoony look, though you can't quite call it that.

That's the first one; If you will, it takes realism then makes it less boring.

THAT has no art direction. It's just like boring real life. Not to say it's bad, it's exactly what it goes for and it achieves it beautifully, it just doesn't do things the same way as Uncharted.

For he record I don't yet have a PS3 and I have nothing against PC gaming (in fact I currently play on Steam while I'm still waiting to get a PS3), I'm just using Uncharted and Uncharted 2 as examples since they seem to be considered the best graphics on consoles, and Crysis is obviously the best on PC.

I have a preference for stylized graphics because it fits my immersion into fantasy worlds. As people stated, if I wanted realistic graphics there's real life. There is a place for some realism because it helps to have an atmosphere of familiarity to draw you in. Then there's the uncanny valley effect of developers trying to make humans look too real, which I don't think we have quite been able to surpass yet even in the movie industry.

Boomarley

However like I said, getting too realistic can leave it drab and boring.

THAT has no art direction. It's just like boring real life. Not to say it's bad, it's exactly what it goes for and it achieves it beautifully, it just doesn't do things the same way as Uncharted.

DeeDeeDee-er

I don't think that's a fair thing to say at all.

Firstly, it doesn't look real. It looks CLOSER to being real, yes. But it still looks like a game.

Secondly, what does "reality" actually LOOK LIKE? This may seem like a dumbass question. But think a bit further. Take a screenshot that is "photorealistic". That implies that it is as real as a photo. Even if we accept that those screenshots ARE visually as real as a photo, then what is a photo, and how well does it represent reality? What IS reality, and does it have an objective and unique look?

In that case, I would take SERIOUS issue with the claim that something that is "photorealistic" inevitably has "no art direction".

ANY photograph is, by definition, photorealistic. It HAS to be photorealistic, becaue it's a damn photograph. And yet, a very real and intentional "art direction" is a very real component of any "art photography" that isn't utter crap. Even things like NATURE photography and street photography and wildlife photography have SOME sense of artistic direction if the photograph is to have any merit. Go outside and take a picture of a random bug. There is a 99% chance that someone has taken a BETTER picture of that same kind of bug. And there's a 99% chance that your picture of the same bug will be total crap if you think that "reality" is some kind of objective thing that doesn't require any kind of artistic direction. Sure, reality IS objective, but no one has access to the REAL reality, all we ever see is bits and pieces, and we often see MORE than what's there, when the person DISPLAYING that "reality" to us uses an artistic sense of direction to guide our emotions.

But still, photorealism does NOT invalidate the presence of any kind of artistic direction. Take a single lens reflex camera with a zoom lens attached. Take one picture picture of a flower at f/2.8. Then, take a second picture of the flower at f/22 and compare the result. Do they look the same? No. Not at all. And they're both EQUALLY as "real". Photorealistic graphics do NOT eliminate the presence of a very real and delibarate sense of artistic direction, not in the slightest. If that were the case, then all photographs of the same subject would be equal. Since they'd both be equally aas "real" due to the fact that it's at its core just photons striking either a light-sensitive emulsion or a ligh-sensitive electronis sensor.

Even if videogames were able to be so visually realistic that they were literally indistinguishable from an actual photograph, that STILL wouldn't eliminate the importance of art dirtection. At most, it'd just make developers have to try harder to be real artists (not that I'm saying that they aren't real artists already).

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]I prefer games to have some type of art direction; to me, photorealism is the total LACK of an art direction. I mean even gears of war has an art direction, as the characters look like beefy action figures, and then a game like Borderlands has a unique gritty-cel art style that I absolutely love. A game like Uncharted or Crysis has no art direction to speak of.DeeDeeDee-er

Uncharted 2 definitely has art direction. It's aiming to look realistic, but not in the same way as Crysis or such. It's almost a cartoony look, though you can't quite call it that.

That's the first one; If you will, it takes realism then makes it less boring.

THAT has no art direction. It's just like boring real life. Not to say it's bad, it's exactly what it goes for and it achieves it beautifully, it just doesn't do things the same way as Uncharted.

For he record I don't yet have a PS3 and I have nothing against PC gaming (in fact I currently play on Steam while I'm still waiting to get a PS3), I'm just using Uncharted and Uncharted 2 as examples since they seem to be considered the best graphics on consoles, and Crysis is obviously the best on PC.

I don't care much about graphics as on the HD systems they're almost exclusively reserved for gritty games that don't benefit much from being supar real graphix looking, because gun metal gray isn't a very appealing color in any form of graphics. I like games that have graphics like sonic and the secret rings, mario galaxy, flower, etc. Very colorful. Why bother with great graphics if you're just going to waste it on ugly scenery?

I think Photo-realistic graphics are only a few years away now and by then we will be looking back at Uncharted 2 and questioning why we thought it looked so realistic. I remember playing Resident Evil 2 on the Playstation and at the time I just thought that visuals couldn't get any better, but technology proved me wrong and it will continue too for the rest of my life.

Going back to my original point - Don't get me wrong Uncharted 2 is a beautiful game and it is the best effort to date on all platforms to produce near life like graphics but I think in only a few years we will struggle to differentiate from the virtual world to the real world.

I will be uber impressed when this time comes and based on Gears 2, Uncharted etc I can't imagine we are far away.

Developers should continue to push the graphical limits of the current gen and next gen systems. If we think games today look realistic just imagine how amazing they will be when the next Xbox and Playstation his our shores.

Uncharted 1 whut?

You mean Uncharted 2, because uncharted 1 is outdated looking.

IMO, Uncharted 2 should be the peak of realistic graphics. I want games to look like a game, not real.

[QUOTE="DeeDeeDee-er"]

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]I prefer games to have some type of art direction; to me, photorealism is the total LACK of an art direction. I mean even gears of war has an art direction, as the characters look like beefy action figures, and then a game like Borderlands has a unique gritty-cel art style that I absolutely love. A game like Uncharted or Crysis has no art direction to speak of.Mash_Affect

Uncharted 2 definitely has art direction. It's aiming to look realistic, but not in the same way as Crysis or such. It's almost a cartoony look, though you can't quite call it that.

That's the first one; If you will, it takes realism then makes it less boring.

THAT has no art direction. It's just like boring real life. Not to say it's bad, it's exactly what it goes for and it achieves it beautifully, it just doesn't do things the same way as Uncharted.

For he record I don't yet have a PS3 and I have nothing against PC gaming (in fact I currently play on Steam while I'm still waiting to get a PS3), I'm just using Uncharted and Uncharted 2 as examples since they seem to be considered the best graphics on consoles, and Crysis is obviously the best on PC.

My bad, I'll switch to using a different game. I only mentioned it so many times because I said it had my favorite graphics, then someone said it had no art direction, and I was trying to compare it to something completely photorealistic. Anyone else wanna use pics for input? I'll compare two other PS3 games.

Obviously both have fantastic graphics, but I'd argue that Demon's souls has more of an art direction than Metal Gear Solid 4, simply because it's more fantasy based and everything is created as a sort of alter reality, not designed to copy reality but transform it.That's kinda what I've been trying to say. When graphics try TOO hard to be realistic like MGS4 (not to say it's bad or has bad graphics), it can end up a bit boring and monotonous, but when games aim to make some things realistic and make somethings extremely fantastic (as in fantasy, not like it's really good), it achieves what I personally think is best.

I don't have a PS3 yet, but when I get one, the lack of an art direction in MGS4 is what will turn me away from it for now, and turn me onto games like Uncharted, Demon's Souls, Ratchet and Clank, and Little Big Planet.

Uncharted, Yes, killzone 2 , Yes, Far cry 2 ,Yes but not crysis because thats not graphics anymore, it a resemblence of reality. I want the graphics in a game to be "graphics" and not trying to be real, but try to be shinny. As for cellshaded art crap? Well those are not graphics, they are cheap and simple. Not quite what i would call next gen.dakan45

Uncharted 1 whut?

You mean Uncharted 2, because uncharted 1 is outdated looking.

WiiMan21

IMO, Uncharted 2 should be the peak of realistic graphics. I want games to look like a game, not real.

skp_16

I still do not, for the life of me, understand the notion that realism equals "no art direction". For any object, there are near-infinite ways to render it "realistically". Is "There Will Be Blood" devoid of art direction? Is "The Assassination Of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford" devoid of art direction? If you think that realism is antithetical to artistic direction, then Edward Weston and Gordon Parks and Ansel Adams would like to have a word with you.

But hell, I'll point out some clear examples. For starters, lighting. Notice the particular lighting in that screenshot of Metal Gear Solid 4? Did you wonder why they chose THAT particular lighting, out of the many possible ones that they could have chosen? That ties into art direction.

Or simply WHAT is being rendered. Ever wonder why Snake's costume looks like that? Ever wondered about why the city is laid out like that, or what decisions went into deciding which background details would be present? That ties into art direction.

Games create a world from scratch, regardless of if its graphics are "realistic" or "fantastic". As far as what developers want that world to consist of, they can start with a blank canvas. The "art direction" is NOT merely a game's visual style, it is a necessary consequence of the act of CREATION. Again, compare this to something like photography. If photographers are pretty much just dealing with reflected light, and yet STILL manage to include a very real and apparent artistic direction in their works, then how can you NOT say the same about a "realistic looking" videogame that creates its entire world from scratch?