Photo Realism Sucks

richymcdermott

Going from this:



to this:



Is a disgrace to the men and women behind these studios skills as Artist to have to belittle to such abominations just to cater to a certain bunch of demographics that need a much more surreal tone just to feel part of a universe.

Applause for the people from ubisoft, nintendo and from software who allow there creative talents to show true genius and art that felt natural like the air we breath to this atrocity.

If i wanted to admire an old man in awe David Cage i go outside.

YouSavedMyLife

Excellent post

10/10

Falthyron

Is that Jimmy Savile?

degrassinoel

i'm lost, what's this about?

Danonino.

JAYSON!?! JAYSON?!? JAYSUUUUN?!?


(now with more realistic faces)

congress3

English please?

Sarky

congress3 wrote: »

English please?

Realistic art is less interesting art. I could probably do up a quick explanatory video with sock puppets dressed as pirates if that'd help any further?

nesf

Sarky wrote: »

I could probably do up a quick explanatory video with sock puppets dressed as pirates if that'd help any further?

Please.

Goodshape

Yeah, I'm still little unclear too. I think sock puppets would be best alright.

Good man, Sarky.

Sarky

Arse. You'll have to wait until the weekend so I'll have some clean socks to film then. Unless I do CGI socks. With resolution and texture detail so high you can see the individual threads! Yeah! There'll be no range of emotions my virtual socks can't... emote!

corcaigh07

I liked Heavy rain and Fahrenheit but I also like art style like on Yoshi's island.

There is a place for both.

Take LA Noire. Not the perfect game by any means, hell it's not even a good game really but Photo realism can definitely enhance gameplay and immersiveness.

cherryghost

8 bit sock sprites plz.

Ceiteach

Quite a pretentious post. Plenty of room for both. Lots of indie devs in particular have found recent success going down a more traditionally animated route too.

Fnz

ANTI-richymcdermott wrote: »

Championing this:



instead of this:



Is a disgrace to the men and women behind these studios skills as Artist to have to belittle to such abominations just to cater to a certain bunch of demographics.

Applause for the people from ubisoft, Crytek and Epic who allow there creative talents to show true genius and art that felt natural like the air we breath to this atrocity.

If i wanted no advancement in graphics technology, Nintendo, I'd go play my Atari 2600.

Oh ANTI-richymcdermott, why must you tear others down so? Not everyone shares your uncompromising views for photo-realism!

Kiith

Is a disgrace to the men and women behind these studios skills as Artist to have to belittle to such abominations just to cater to a certain bunch of demographics that need a much more surreal tone just to feel part of a universe.

How it is a disgrace or an atrocity? There's plenty of room for both realistic and artistic art in games. And just because you have a realistic character model, doesn't mean that a game can't be artistically brilliant.

johnny_ultimate

I'd choose more vivid, fantastical art styles a majority of the time, but there's plenty of room for both. Something like LA Noire also teases the potential of the kind of thing that might be done with credibly emotive character models in future - as flawed as that game was, the tech was surprisingly rich for a rough draft.

And having spent a few hours with Ni No Kuni last night, I don't think I'd herald the death of the unique, colourful artstyle just yet. Bioshock Infinite, Proteus and plenty of other releases (Nintendo's entire output, really) so far this year very distinctly steer well away from photorealism.

KilOit

Loved the style borderlands went with, it just doesn't age as fast.
Wouldn't fear developers going doing the realistic route just yet, still lots of arty games coming out

humanji

Right it's early and I've about 5 coffees to go before I fully wake up, so I'm having difficulty in working out if this is a joke thread or if someone actually believes that we can only have one of two graphic styles.

richymcdermott

humanji wrote: »

Right it's early and I've about 5 coffees to go before I fully wake up, so I'm having difficulty in working out if this is a joke thread or if someone actually believes that we can only have one of two graphic styles.

you need to irish up that coffee more...;)

Dravokivich

richymcdermott wrote: »

you need to irish up that coffee more...;)

And rasher up that irish!

humanji

I'll use the rasher like a flake in an icecream.

This thread has now made me hungry.

Big Knox

Deleted User wrote: »

This thread has now made me hungry.

For icecream, flakes and rashers? :pac:

Big Knox

Big Knox wrote: »

For icecream, flakes and rashers? :pac:

All of them. At the same time. Its gonna be the oddest breakfast I've ever had.

ShadowHearth

I guess gamers will bitch about everything these days. As far as I see there are both styles in the market to please both sides. Why just have one or another...

richymcdermott

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I guess gamers will bitch about everything these days. As far as I see there are both styles in the market to please both sides. Why just have one or another...

Gamers, book worms, movie watchers, politicians..


humans in general.

Skerries

can we name games with food in them or change titles to sound foody like

Metal Beer Solid

Call of Fruity

Meat Fighter II

Command and Conquer: Bread Alert

Cod of War

imitation

So what your saying is that instead of having many different art styles we should just stick to blocky sprites from 1992 ?

Your also forgetting photorealism allows for cool stuff like this



oops its in more than 32 colors though, guess I'd better not fight that dragon

I like both styles myself, but on the whole, i am most immersed in realistic worlds rather than cute sprites, its easier to relate to.

Mr E

As long as the game is fun, who gives a flying you-know-what?

Zillah

I'd love to see games with their own distinct, fantastical style more -- as long as it suits the game. Battlefield 3 needs to look the way it does and it works for it. FTL also looks perfect for what it is.

ScumLord

You seem to be under the impression that making something look realistic is easy, it's not. It probably takes more work and artistry crossing more fields than simple drawing. It's like saying the people that made Egyptian hieroglyphs were better artists than those in the renaissance because the renaissance artists paintings were much more realistic.

o1s1n

I'll go one further and say games with any kind of realistic representation of characters are an abomination. Nobody uses their imagination anymore.

Nethack is the pinnacle of visuals in game design. Anything more detailed than that is just unnecessary.

Zillah

There's a difference between technical skill and artistry, though. I think he's saying a game can have impressive stats and still look terrible. Lots of games have lavishly powerful graphics engines while still looking like muck. I can't count how many games went for a drab tan/grey colour palette despite the impressive technical specs.

o1s1n

I am a firm advocate of 'bring back blue skies in gaming' but unfortunately (!) there are still people who enjoy drab, brown games.

Thankfully there can be room for both.

richymcdermott

Of course they can , was never mentioned there isnt room for both.

the_syco

Sarky wrote: »

Realistic art is less interesting art. I could probably do up a quick explanatory video with sock puppets dressed as pirates if that'd help any further?

That would both be photo realistic and not, at teh same time. It'd blow their minds, Jim.

Blow. Their. Minds.

Sarky wrote: »

Unless I do CGI socks. With resolution and texture detail so high you can see the individual threads! Yeah! There'll be no range of emotions my virtual socks can't... emote!

So, they'd be non-photo realistic then?

Mr E wrote: »

As long as the game is fun, who gives a flying you-know-what?

Photo realistic diddies on Princess Daisy, you say? Why, that'd be awesome fun :P

o1s1n

o1s1n wrote: »

I'll go one further and say games with any kind of realistic representation of characters are an abomination. Nobody uses their imagination anymore.

Nethack is the pinnacle of visuals in game design. Anything more detailed than that is just unnecessary.

Far too much detail there. What we need is more text-based games.

Asmodean

I hear this graphics argument time and time again. If I'm being completely honest I couldn't care either way. I've had great times with super realistic looking games such as battlefield / crysis / Heavy rain.

Then I've also had some of my best gaming experiences with games that look like they could be nearly 20 years old such as to the moon / minecraft.

To sum it up I have played amazing looking games that have been ****e gameplay wise. I have also played ****e looking games that have been amazing gameplay wise. As others have said, there are a tonne of indie developers out there who are building games based on substance and enjoyability rather than graphics. I just don't see why people can't simply just choose the type of game they'd rather play.

degrassinoel

i still have no idea what the fuq this thread is about

richymcdermott

Asmodean wrote: »

I hear this graphics argument time and time again. If I'm being completely honest I couldn't care either way. I've had great times with super realistic looking games such as battlefield / crysis / Heavy rain.

Then I've also had some of my best gaming experiences with games that look like they could be nearly 20 years old such as to the moon / minecraft.

To sum it up I have played amazing looking games that have been ****e gameplay wise. I have also played ****e looking games that have been amazing gameplay wise. As others have said, there are a tonne of indie developers out there who are building games based on substance and enjoyability rather than graphics. I just don't see why people can't simply just choose the type of game they'd rather play.

this is the internet , there is no room for the neutral :pac:

nesf

Deleted User wrote: »

Far too much detail there. What we need is more text-based games.

There's the some pictures but Depression Quest...




Whether it's a game or not is a different question.

TPD

Non-photo-realistic graphics definitely age better. When they work with the limitations of the graphics engines and create a unique style, that style persists. Examples being Okami and WindWaker, off the top of my head.
Photo-realistic games can look good for a year or two after release, but once the next graphical improvement is widespread they'll look awfully dated by comparison.

Excedion

Photo-realism has its place. When its overused its boring though

Best game I've seen this year was Ni No Kuni. Art style kicked ass and it was a beautiful game. An absolute pleasure to explore

nyarlothothep

It's like imagination is being pushed out by the industry's fixation with technical prowess. It's like that in film and music, everything is so perfect, so streamlined and produced that it's absolutely boring. Videogames are the same. This isn't to say photo realistic art isn't artistic, it's very much so, but it's privileged completely over other types of art. Technique takes over and you just have one type of art mainly that defines the zeitgeist. Just as with music and film; indie, an anti rock genre dominates rock, boring mega budget cg extravaganzas dominate film etc. Just one trend favoured by industry over all others, which doesn't encourage imagination because the plebs arent meant to exercise their imaginations. That's what technical art is all about, a conspiracy to steal your imagination, it does the imagining for you so you dont have to.

Agricola

Graphical improvement is one the main things that keeps me interested in gaming. I can completely understand how gameplay trumps it but Ive personally never been one to play archaic looking games simply because the gameplay is good. Indie stuff, 8/16 bit downloadable games etc do nothing for me. I like immersion and buying into a world, and you need the latest cutting edge engines for that. Just personal taste.

johnny_ultimate

Agricola wrote: »

Graphical improvement is one the main things that keeps me interested in gaming. I can completely understand how gameplay trumps it but Ive personally never been one to play archaic looking games simply because the gameplay is good. Indie stuff, 8/16 bit downloadable games etc do nothing for me. I like immersion and buying into a world, and you need the latest cutting edge engines for that. Just personal taste.

You say 'indie games' as if it's a genre, as opposed to a massively diverse catalogue of games of countless styles, running a whole graphical range from blocky abstraction to feeble-computer destroying realism.

Personal preference and all, but you've pretty much discounted 80-95% of the greatest games ever made for yourself.

ScumLord

nyarlothothep wrote: »

It's like imagination is being pushed out by the industry's fixation with technical prowess. It's like that in film and music, everything is so perfect, so streamlined and produced that it's absolutely boring. Videogames are the same.

Video games have a different agenda to film though. Immersion is a big part of games, it's not necessary for a game to look perfect for it to be immersive but it helps an awful lot.

I think as time passes realism won't be as important, we'll reach a stage where graphics aren't as important because they'll have gotten to a stage were good graphics are commonplace and easy. Then the only focus will be the advertising campaign.

nyarlothothep

ScumLord wrote: »

Video games have a different agenda to film though. Immersion is a big part of games, it's not necessary for a game to look perfect for it to be immersive but it helps an awful lot.

I think as time passes realism won't be as important, we'll reach a stage where graphics aren't as important because they'll have gotten to a stage were good graphics are commonplace and easy. Then the only focus will be the advertising campaign.

Films are totally immersive, that's the whole point of the cinema, it simulates a lucid dream through the omission of all other sense data, except for the film.

nyarlothothep

Books are immersive too, you read them and after a while, it has a hypnotising effect whereby you ignore everything around you as you are in the world of the book. I would say books and films are more immersive than games!

ScumLord

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Books are immersive too, you read them and after a while, it has a hypnotising effect whereby you ignore everything around you as you are in the world of the book. I would say books and films are more immersive than games!

I wouldn't. With games you're in the world created, with books and film you're a spectator.

johnny_ultimate

ScumLord wrote: »

I wouldn't. With games you're in the world created, with books and film you're a spectator.

That's nonsense, absolute nonsense. If more games had worlds as deeply realised and immersive as those of great films and literature, well we'd have a much richer medium.