Photorealism: Yay or Nay?

[NigelMills]

There seems to be a growing debate over the fact that games are beginning to look suprisingly photorealistic. Some say they wouldn't prefer it, while others definitely want it. While Crysis doesn't look that photorealistic, you can definitely tell where people get it from. Some of the recent racing games make people go . What's your opinion?

 

[Zoring]

I'm all for Photorealism, however Gameplay = King, eventually i want Graphics to get so good that they are photorealistic and we can stop fapping over the latest effects and get back to making good games like back in the late 90's.

 

[Quietus]

I'm all for Photorealism, however Gameplay = King, eventually i want Graphics to get so good that they are photorealistic and we can stop fapping over the latest effects and get back to making good games like back in the late 90's.

That's the problem. The more effort they put into OMFG I KANN DEE! The less they seem to put into actual gameplay. I'll take a game with graphics from 1999 if it's gameplay stomps some other "tech demo disguised as a game".

 

[Reddog]

Same.

But at the same time I want games to progress to the 'matrix' stage where we have a jack in our heads....

 

[SiC-Disaster]

yay at photo realism, when its achieved i want the first games to come out to be Postal 3 and Soldier of Fortune 3
AND another RO, ofcourse

EDIT: while still maintaining good gameplay ofcourse

 

[Oldih]

I don't care how bad it looks as long as the game itself works or is great.

High visual quality is more like a good addition.

 

[[FERGIE]]

I myself am a bit of a graphics whore, but thats not to say i take looks completely over gameplay. I would love photo-realistic graphics, but only as long as the gameplay side of the game doesn't suffer as a result.

RO with photo-realistic graphics...

[drool]

 

[Pagan]

As long as its females with pendulous breasts and skimpy outfits I`m all for photorealism.

 

[entertainer]

Graphics doesn't matter in games, gameplay does.

 

[DingBat]

Graphics doesn't matter in games, gameplay does.

And if graphics enhances gameplay?

Let's not get too carried away here, guys. I distinctly remember criticisms about some maps not having enough enterable rooms, or enough realistic damage. And from the arguments over model fidelity that I've seen, I definitely believe there are more than a few here that wouldn't mind 20,000 poly vehicle models.

All of that comes with advances in the graphics engines.

 

[SheepDip]

Nothing wrong with having great looking games. We all know what really makes a game, and if it looks stunning at the same time who's to complain?

Downside is that good graphics normally make the less mentally gifted forget about other problems games may present because they're so dazzled by the shiney.

So there are negative points.

 

[Quietus]

Nothing wrong with having great looking games. We all know what really makes a game, and if it looks stunning at the same time who's to complain?

Downside is that good graphics normally make the less mentally gifted forget about other problems games may present because they're so dazzled by the shiney.

So there are negative points.

Exactly. I agree with what others have said too. Yes graphics are important but gameplay is even more so. My priority tree is #1 good gameplay #2 good graphics. If a game has good gameplay but not the best graphics I will love it. If a game just has good graphics and that's about it then I will say "bye bye nice try". Like a movie with a lame plot and stunning effects, disposable. But let me just say I recently turned up the texture resolution in RO and DAMN do the tanks look awesome! The vehicle/tank texture work is the best I've ever seen. I'd been playing with textures on low for a long time so I never realized how quality they were. I feel like I'm standing in front on real tanks, excellent job. Thankfully RO has the gameplay to back the graphics up. RO's gameplay isn't as good as it could be but it's damn good. I hope TW don't get seduced by Unreal 3.0 graphics and remember that gameplay comes first. To borrow a line from someone else I saw somewhere:

"Graphics are just the hook that initially draws you in but it's the gameplay that makes you stay".

 

[Bobdog]

Graphics are nice, and photorealism (or near-photorealism, as *real* gory shooters might be to much for people) would be cool, but don't throw away the rest of a game sinking all your cash into the graphics.

 

[Musketeer]

Same.

But at the same time I want games to progress to the 'matrix' stage where we have a jack in our heads....

I agree. Jack me in baby!!!

 

[Xendance]

Photorealism would be.... boring :|

 

[Nimsky]

Good topic.

If a game has great graphics it has a positive effect on me. It definitely increases immersion for me. It also increases realism. So photorealistic graphics: yay!

However, gameplay will always be more important. Games that have great graphics are impressive for a year or so, but the games with great gameplay are the ones that will be always be remembered. A game should be FUN, after all!

I'm all for photorealism in games, but when the developers achieve that... then what?

Developers have to learn how to fantasize again, be creative and innovative again. As much as I love realism in games, I also like to lose myself in a fantastic, unique universe that allows me to go on exciting adventures. Developers hardly ever try to create something unique and truly original.

And no, I'm not talking about the 82947th game that features Orcs and Dragons and Pixies 'n ****.

There is a stagnation in creative thinking in the videogames "industry", but the great games are there, you just have to look for them. Nintendo is one of the few innovators currently around.

Games like ICO and God Of War look great to me but I don't have a PlayStation.

 

[SgtH3nry3]

Graphics are nice, gameplay is nicer.

But the best is if both are nice and complete eachother.


Sure, Red Orchestra has great gameplay, but if it had Quake 2 graphics, the size of the community would be much smaller.
Even between the most gamers with the hardcore realism-only religion could reject due to bad graphics.


I think that if TWI keeps the same graphicstyle (especially the brilliantly detailed but neat textures) when TWI is building the UE3.0-powered Red Orchestra-game, it might be so much more popular compared to the current RO.

Why?
Graphics attract people, once they see good screenshots they might think it might be interesting to keep on reading this article about this game.

Unreal Engine 2.5, although it still is a much used engine doesn't have the same WOW!-factor as Call of Duty 3 or whatever.
The newer engine will make RO shine, and will show that perfectly balanced (good graphics + good gameplay) games still exist.


Actually, personally I think the next Red Orchestra title might almost be as popular Call of Duty (2) was/is.
Mainly because Call of Duty-gamers like the WW2-setting and slick graphics.
However since Call of Duty 4 will be a modern warfare game, they'll get disappointed and will search for an alternative.

The very same happend with Battlefield 2, but because Battlefield 2 offered so much more in terms of gameplay and modification compared to Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield Vietnam and since Forgotten Hope 2 is coming, the majority of the BF1942/BFV-ers went to BF2.

 

[BuddyLee]

If I cared that much about graphics, I would play Halo instead of RO. But RO is teh game-play King.

I do want photo realism, as well as crying wounded, PITA Civilians, damage to your weapons from enemy fire making them not function, and the ability to change the time of day we fight battles... so light levels and Sun position vary. I know I am forgetting something.

 

[Murphy]

My opinion on graphics:
The audiovisual presentation of a game has to be exactly as good as it needs to be to immerse you!

If its worse, the game fails, if its better it doesn't help because you are immersed already anyway, but its nice to have a little treshold, you know.



For example:

Doom 3 is a bland game and the fights are horrible, but not in the sense of "horrible" Doom would want them to be...
Since fighting is all you do in Doom 3, besides scanning boring but occasionally funny PDA messages for security codes, this would mean that the game is boring and it would feel like "going through the motions".
So it needs amazingly good graphics to make it worth playing.

Drastically put:
Game's "natural immersion" (by gameplay, storytelling, texts, etc.): 0/10
Audiovisual immersion: 10/10
=> Immersion 10/10

Operation Flashpoint however is an extremely thrilling game. Escaping through woods with intelligent (as long as you don't get close) enemies trying to hunt you down is just plain scary, even if the game looks crappy.

Drastically put:
Game's "natural immersion" (by gameplay, storytelling, texts, etc.): 10/10
Audiovisual immersion: 0/10
=> Immersion 10/10

Both games achieve what they want to although they do so on different ways.




There are also games that don't even need immersion and therefore no good graphics. This is particulary true for fun games like "Blobby Volley" or "Bomberman". I don't need to "feel like being Bomberman" to enjoy the game so I couldn't care less about its graphics as long as it runs smooth and its colorfull.


Photorealistic: Yay or Nay?
This is still music from the future. Just because a photo of a shack looks astonishingly similar to a screenshot of a supposedly ingame shack doesn't mean it looks as nice when running through it!
Just look around in your room and try to imagine the kind of work that would be needed to remodel it 100% photorealistically! Its not only a matter of processing power but also a matter of work (and then you would only have one room, now imagine the amount of work needed to recreate your house and how fun a shooter would be that only takes place in your house! Add your garden, add your neighbourhood and still keep in mind how many different models, textures and sounds would be needed).
So I'm not worried that photorealistic shooters might pop up in the near future.

 

[SiC-Disaster]

Graphics are nice, and photorealism (or near-photorealism, as *real* gory shooters might be to much for people) would be cool, but don't throw away the rest of a game sinking all your cash into the graphics.

Gory glory!
Or, no guts no glory!
yay at entrails