Photorealism: Yay or Nay?

[SiC-Disaster]

Unfortunately there are very few games that actually accomplish that, its always leaning to one side or the other. Except with low-budget games that is, in which both the graphics and gameplay are horrible.

Not necesarily for the budget games thing i mean.
A lot of the old classics with great gameplay now lay to rot in the budget bin.
Take a Deus Ex for 2,50 euros. Sure its graphics look really really bad, but the gameplay is much better then most games of today.
Even RO could be considered a budget bin game, for only 20 euros lol

 

[Fu. Svedberg]

Nay it would ruin creativity

Photorealism works in some types of games like simulators or racing games but in general I think that having more cartoonish graphics are going to build more interesting concepts.
I don't mind raising poly counts having smoother models etc but I think it will take away from creativity to try and make games photorealistic instead of developing interesting enviroments, characters and opponents.

But as people have said gameplay > graphics

 

[Murphy]

You can have creative visuals with near photorealism too. Just watch the movie "Blade Runner", "Alien", "Aliens", "Star Wars I - VI", "Die another day" (the ice fortress) or, to name a non sci-fi movie, "Hero". Those movies are definately photorealistic, or at least they come pretty close, but they still look very creative.

Having photorealistic graphics doesn't mean the game can only contain what can be photographed.

 

[Nimsky]

the group being targeted it's "new to them" so to speak and they love it. Game makers don't seem to be progressing, just adding a thicker layer of frosting to the "cake" each year. I know there are probably exceptions ( I can't really think of any right now though) but not enough IMO.

One word: Fahrenheit.

Or, as it was called in the US and A, Indigo Prophecy.

You have to play it. It's got both great graphics (not necesarily photorealistic, but the humans are modelled and animated extremely realistic) and great gameplay. The story is simply superb. It doesn't involve killing in any way.* It didn't really become a hit, but it's a very special and unique game.


* Quite bizarre that it's almost impossible to find a good game that doesn't involve killing! Learn to imagine, game devs!

 

[Fu. Svedberg]

To take an example of one of my favourite FPS games (visually) the last years was XIII the entire comicbook feel has almost never been done and it fits a FPS IMO. But it's faaaaaaar from photorealistic.
I just don't think photorealism will help the estethics of games. Atleast for me games are like reading a comic book.

 

[NigelMills]

Not necesarily for the budget games thing i mean.
A lot of the old classics with great gameplay now lay to rot in the budget bin.
Take a Deus Ex for 2,50 euros. Sure its graphics look really really bad, but the gameplay is much better then most games of today.
Even RO could be considered a budget bin game, for only 20 euros lol

I'm not talking about budget bin games, Im talking about games that were developed with a low budget, games like Terrorist Takedown and RC Helicopter

 

[Quietus]

One word: Fahrenheit.

Or, as it was called in the US and A, Indigo Prophecy.

You have to play it. It's got both great graphics (not necesarily photorealistic, but the humans are modelled and animated extremely realistic) and great gameplay. The story is simply superb. It doesn't involve killing in any way.* It didn't really become a hit, but it's a very special and unique game.


* Quite bizarre that it's almost impossible to find a good game that doesn't involve killing! Learn to imagine, game devs!

Yeah I tried the demo for it a long time ago and it did seem like a very good and groundbreaking game. For various reasons I never got it though. Mainly I didn't have the time to sink into a huge adventure game where you have to remember the status of millions of things (where've you been, where do you need to go, what have you already found, keys trinkets etc etc.) Also I tend to like my adventure games of the survival horror variety like Silent Hill or Rustin Parr. I think another problem was the demo was way too short for my taste and I didn't get a good feel for how the game would be based on such a short demo.

 

[Kurtz]

It doesn't involve killing in any way.*

But... don't you open the game by inexplicably murdering some poor guy in the bathroom of some New York diner?

 

[SheepDip]

Yeah but YOU don't do it

 

[Nimsky]

Yeah I tried the demo for it a long time ago and it did seem like a very good and groundbreaking game. For various reasons I never got it though. Mainly I didn't have the time to sink into a huge adventure game where you have to remember the status of millions of things (where've you been, where do you need to go, what have you already found, keys trinkets etc etc.) Also I tend to like my adventure games of the survival horror variety like Silent Hill or Rustin Parr. I think another problem was the demo was way too short for my taste and I didn't get a good feel for how the game would be based on such a short demo.

It's not a very long game, which I liked (I don't have a lot of free time either). I finished it in about 12 hours, took me about a week. But I enjoyed every minute of it. The game doesn't involve collecting a big inventory at all, it's all about the personal decisions you make in certain situations and how they affect the story, very much like real life.

I still recommend it, and hey - it's cheap. You can't go wrong.

 

[Heinz]

gameplay. just look at the success of CMBB/CMAK. despite the aged graphics, the gameplay keeps people playing even years later.

 

[Cuddles]

Who brought zombies to the party?

Gameplay>graphics


More blood, more guts = better game.