aight this scene takes place in Mexico so lemme color grade it very Mexican, but also it's a flashback to the 50's so I'm gonna dial down the color saturation and digitally add some film grain
Yup. Take that one body cam game. Making an object look realistic is a matter of slapping a high resolution texture on it. Making a game look realistic involves a lot of prop work and stage setting. Making a game look realistic and still be playable is insanely difficult. Pay attention to the size of the doors in the next "photorealistic" game you play, and laugh at the fools who say photorealism doesn't require art direction
Art direction isn't purely aesthetics either. There's so many things that go into makeing art, be it a game or something else.
Art should help us feel what the artist intended or sometimes something more personal to ourselves. Many aspects will facilitate or detract from that.
You can have stylized photorealism the same as other styles of art. You mght see pixel art of a realistic scene. Or you can have extremely detailed animation.
I think the better question is does the community allow for and reward that expression? Are there trends we don't find too appealing universally? Are there styles of art that maybe seem overused?
OK we're definitely talking about different things when we say photorealism. I see stylized and photorealistic almost as on a linear spectrum. I realise there are more dimensionz to it than that, but that's the usage I think the meme is critiquing. That's how I took it, anyway.
What they're talking about is what I call "The Wind Waker Effect." When the GameCube was first announced, they showed off a trailer that included a realistic looking Link fighting Ganondorf to show off the power of the system. When the Wind Waker was announced and shown to the public, fans were furious. They didn't want some cartoony Zelda game, they wanted that photo-realistic Zelda game that they had been teased with years before! When Wind Waker came out, it was universally criticized for its graphics. Today, it's considered one of the best looking Zelda games of all time and was the main inspiration for the art direction of almost every Zelda game after it - including Breath of the Wild.
If Nintendo had made that "photo-realistic" Zelda game, it would look nowhere near as good nor be as fondly remembered today, because "photo-realistic" in terms of video game graphics is an obsession with graphical fidelity, not artistic quality. That's why photo-realistic games from the same era are remembered as the "real = brown" era of games. It's a technical or hardware question of "how many polygons can we fit in this character's facial pores", not taking something fake and making it seem real through art direction.
The Neverhood literally consists of photographs, it is as photorealistic as it is possible to be, and yet it has a very strong art direction. More modern titles like The Midnight Walk, Keeper, and Felt That Boxing are similar, though they are actually rendered rather than consisting of photographs and video. On the other side of the coin there are some visual effects that are quite abstracted from real life, but are also very GPU intensive, showing that just because an image doesn't look like a photo doesn't mean that its necessarily easy to render (note, that video is a human authored algorithm, not AI, though they do compare it to AI video generation).
I used to have the same opinion that you express, but I think this was only ever really true in practice during the brown era, and not before or after. In fact some games like Thief 1&2, Half Life 1&2, and the Chronicles of Riddick were trying to be as photorealistic as possible at the time of their release, but are now pretty commonly praised for their "stylization" today. For example, the deep blacks and stark contrast of stencil shadows vs what you get with more modern lighting. I am reminded of a Brian Eno quote:
Whatever you now find weird, ugly, uncomfortable and nasty about a new medium will surely become its signature. CD distortion, the jitteriness of digital video, the crap sound of 8-bit - all of these will be cherished and emulated as soon as they can be avoided.
We are even seeing some nostalgia now for the pissfilter era, though that's not an enthusiasm that I share. I suspect that we will eventually see TAA ghosting and ray tracing artifacts, that are currently much hated, be recreated in a controlled way as a stylistic choice. In particular I think that Control will eventually be praised for the way that it basically incorporated ray tracing artifacts into its art style, by using sparkly mineral walls and a dreamlike atmosphere.
What I was trying to say was that they were making two completely different points. When companies talk about "realistic" graphics in games, it's always about the graphical fidelity, not about art style, direction, or aesthetic, and that steers the entire narrative of the conversation around "photo-realistic" games.
What memes like this are trying to say is that having a good style and strong art direction trumps pure graphical fidelity every time. Whether your game looks like Crysis or Super Metroid doesn't matter as much as having clear design direction, and conversely, slapping 4k textures on everything won't matter if your game has no design direction.
There are several games who we're just "this looks like reality" when they released who have aged well too. Half-life 2 (even without the updates) being the first one I think of, but I also think the first Far Cry and Crysis look amazing even now. Good design will age well no matter, the only thing that goes away is the immediate excitement of how impressively real it looks for the ones that went for that, but they still stir something inside people who experience them for the first time decades later.
When reflections became a thing in graphics, they were the new hotness. But unfortunately they're overused because people seem to think that reflections are the best indicator of graphical realism. They're a factor for sure, but overly reflective isn't the same as realistic reflections
Like 3d tv, this is just a fad. Most people I know turn off raytracing in a few min (even though they spent $1000s on hardware to do raytracing). The generated frames and full ray and pathtracing have such low payout vs the cost. Unless something changes this is all pointless waste.
Best example I can think of is the rtx portal looking and running like ass compared to the now very old original.
Also ray tracing is the future for realistic looking games because it's easier than all those shader hacks. Just needs to get a lot cheaper in terms of fps lost
This works for a tech demo if you want to show off a new rendering engine or a new GPU. But yeah, if you base the whole game around that, it's like those movies with more CGI than plot.
I mean, effects like these have their time and place as well. Looking for a sci-fi setting in a distant future where these robots coming fresh out the factory like that? Cool.
But I get your sentiment, if everything just looks like this because it just can and no conceptual thought goes into it, it’s crap.
Oh yeah, for sure there is a place for it. But a big part of the whole selling point for raytracing is it will just do its thing and look good. However it looks like this.
Hah. Remember in the Xbox 360 era when everything looked like it was wrapped in saran wrap? I hated that so much. It's like - some if not most objects are not that reflective. Yes light bounces off of things, but it's such an "all or none" solution. Things in real life are so much more diffused.
Its odd that things become shiny and greasy everytime the industry pushes graphics. I want to play a game that is by it's very nature not the real world. If you want to do a photo realistic game then bring back FMV.
LOOK AT IT. A good chunk of the art you see on every playthrough isn't even animated.
I'm probably going to clear 300+ hours on this thing before I put it down, and I'll likely tell everyone to buy it because it's that good. Photorealism is the last thing I care about.
Similarly Schedule I. Tyler optimized TF out of the very unrealistic graphics in that game, and is only hiring an artist so that the expansion looks pretty.
I watched my friend play Mall Simulator, and in spite of it not being graphically intensive, the game breaks down when there are too many assets in the world. Absolute respect to the people that optimize games.
Plague tale (requiem in particular) is also ridiculously beautiful on mid range GPUs. I couldn't believe my graphic card was able to do that. It's a shame games reviews and screenshots don't account for average setups because that's what most of us have and some developers deserve praise to make it work for us.
The trouble with photorealism is that you very easily stumble into the uncanny valley. In addition, something that often looks "photorealistic" today will look really dated in a few years.
If you go with artfully styled games, it can actually be much harder. You need to adopt a consistent artistic style and have that style be used by many different artists. Unlike with photorealism, there isn't always going to be a reference available. You have to watch that over time, and as the scope of the game grows, the style remains consistent. But, when it's done well, it can be amazing.
One of my favourites in terms of artful styling is the game Interstate '76. It came out at a time when full motion video cutscenes were the style of the day. You'd have low resolution graphics, and then come in with a VHS-quality cutscene with real actors and real sets. Then back into low resolution graphics. Interstate '76 chose an amazing artistic style, then did in-engine cutscenes, which kept the style consistent.
The other master of this, IMO, is World of Warcraft. It must be a gargantuan undertaking to have a game with that many different models and to have a consistent style for all of them, but they mostly do. They often do out-of-engine cutscenes, but their style is so consistent that their cutscenes just look like even more detailed shots from that same world.
something that often looks "photorealistic" today will look really dated in a few years.
I'm fairly certain that with AI framegen and he hyperfocus on raytracing this paradigm is broken. Were going from consecutive titles looking better to stagnation while only projects with some breathing room in production will advance visually. (E.g. new witcher).
Wow had been interesting lately. The last expansion I played, there were legitimately zones that I thought “I can’t believe this is wow” compared to the vanilla zones. You can still tell after a moment, but it is just a lot more detailed. I do love the point you make here. It reminded me of my first experience with uncanny valley in a game. I prefer not to have that experience tbh.
Were you thinking "I can't believe this is WoW" or "I can't believe how good this looks?"
Because, I haven't experienced the first one. To me, once I'm in the game, there really seems to be an amazing consistency in how things look. After a while things look "realistic" but in a "realistic for WoW" way. Like, obviously Orcs and Demons are not realistic, but the consistency is so strong that how things look, and move, and behave is so strong and predictable.
The initial impression of the new Arathi zone, before really getting close enough to see details was a “I can’t believe this is wow” moment on first impression. There are a couple areas like that where it really throws me. But in a way, yes, it looked so surprisingly good and a tad different.
Meh, I like high fidelity graphics. Most "artfully stylised" games are not to my taste either - pixel graphics do nothing for me and nor do a lot of flat 2D graphics. Stuff like GRIS is beautiful, but it seems to be an outlier. So for visually engaging stuff I find it's AAA mostly realistic graphics - if not "photorealistic" - for me.
A person with different tastes than me, grrrr. It's diametrically opposite for me. All AAA, no matter what studio, not ID, not Lorien, their graphics just never look as vibrant as lo-fi graphics of a game made by, at most, 5 people. They do have some impressive aspects but, overall, because they try to look more """real""" they end up looking more mundane and boring to me. Nothing will ever compete with artistic abstraction of lo-fi games 🥀
GPU consumption is more reliable to know how old a game is than its graphics.
When Minecraft was released, I thought it was an accident. That no other game could be popular and run with with an inappropriate language such as Java.
No, I was referencing to Javascript or game release too soon that turn computers into toasters. Last I played was RVchere yet; less polygons than Half Life Source, constantly crash because we got not enough ressources.
I know; Java was a big optimization issue in Minecraft back in the days. I was thinking about the addition of javascript in AAA game engine (I.E for menu) or for phone game
Agreed, it really depends on the game. Battlefield with Art Stylized graphics would look terrible, just like how if Final Fantasy was done with Realistic graphics would be weird.
Would you honestly prefer artistic over photorealistic in games like GTA, Arma, 7 days to die, every driving or racing sim, escape from tarkov/stalker, and majority of other popular titles? Yeah, no.
I loved the goofy over the top graphics of older GTA games like Vice City, San Andreas etc. I played GTA 5 for a bit and then dropped it cause I feel the game lost some of its charm with the more realistic graphics
86 Comments
saigot@lemmy.ca · 72 pts · 276d
These aren't mutually exclusive
mad_lentil@lemmy.ca · 50 pts · 276d
High-fidelity and artfully stylized aren't, but photorealism is like... a photo.
CubitOom@infosec.pub · 45 pts · 276d
Photo realism still requires art direction.
Think of a movie.
exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 19 pts · 276d
aight this scene takes place in Mexico so lemme color grade it very Mexican, but also it's a flashback to the 50's so I'm gonna dial down the color saturation and digitally add some film grain
CubitOom@infosec.pub · 13 pts · 276d
What if it was neo mexico city? Need some cyberpunk chihuahuas
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 276d
I was in a bluegrass band called Cyberpunk Chihuahuas. We offended many cultural sensibilities.
WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 276d
Albuquerque?
starman2112@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 275d
Yup. Take that one body cam game. Making an object look realistic is a matter of slapping a high resolution texture on it. Making a game look realistic involves a lot of prop work and stage setting. Making a game look realistic and still be playable is insanely difficult. Pay attention to the size of the doors in the next "photorealistic" game you play, and laugh at the fools who say photorealism doesn't require art direction
mad_lentil@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 276d
I think we're talking about different things, but I see your point.
By stylized "graphics" I took it to mean like the actual resolution, polygons, draw distance, etc, and then aesthetics goes on top of that.
CubitOom@infosec.pub · 11 pts · 276d
Art direction isn't purely aesthetics either. There's so many things that go into makeing art, be it a game or something else.
Art should help us feel what the artist intended or sometimes something more personal to ourselves. Many aspects will facilitate or detract from that.
You can have stylized photorealism the same as other styles of art. You mght see pixel art of a realistic scene. Or you can have extremely detailed animation.
I think the better question is does the community allow for and reward that expression? Are there trends we don't find too appealing universally? Are there styles of art that maybe seem overused?
mad_lentil@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 276d
OK we're definitely talking about different things when we say photorealism. I see stylized and photorealistic almost as on a linear spectrum. I realise there are more dimensionz to it than that, but that's the usage I think the meme is critiquing. That's how I took it, anyway.
EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 276d
What they're talking about is what I call "The Wind Waker Effect." When the GameCube was first announced, they showed off a trailer that included a realistic looking Link fighting Ganondorf to show off the power of the system. When the Wind Waker was announced and shown to the public, fans were furious. They didn't want some cartoony Zelda game, they wanted that photo-realistic Zelda game that they had been teased with years before! When Wind Waker came out, it was universally criticized for its graphics. Today, it's considered one of the best looking Zelda games of all time and was the main inspiration for the art direction of almost every Zelda game after it - including Breath of the Wild.
If Nintendo had made that "photo-realistic" Zelda game, it would look nowhere near as good nor be as fondly remembered today, because "photo-realistic" in terms of video game graphics is an obsession with graphical fidelity, not artistic quality. That's why photo-realistic games from the same era are remembered as the "real = brown" era of games. It's a technical or hardware question of "how many polygons can we fit in this character's facial pores", not taking something fake and making it seem real through art direction.
drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 275d
The Neverhood literally consists of photographs, it is as photorealistic as it is possible to be, and yet it has a very strong art direction. More modern titles like The Midnight Walk, Keeper, and Felt That Boxing are similar, though they are actually rendered rather than consisting of photographs and video. On the other side of the coin there are some visual effects that are quite abstracted from real life, but are also very GPU intensive, showing that just because an image doesn't look like a photo doesn't mean that its necessarily easy to render (note, that video is a human authored algorithm, not AI, though they do compare it to AI video generation).
I used to have the same opinion that you express, but I think this was only ever really true in practice during the brown era, and not before or after. In fact some games like Thief 1&2, Half Life 1&2, and the Chronicles of Riddick were trying to be as photorealistic as possible at the time of their release, but are now pretty commonly praised for their "stylization" today. For example, the deep blacks and stark contrast of stencil shadows vs what you get with more modern lighting. I am reminded of a Brian Eno quote:
We are even seeing some nostalgia now for the pissfilter era, though that's not an enthusiasm that I share. I suspect that we will eventually see TAA ghosting and ray tracing artifacts, that are currently much hated, be recreated in a controlled way as a stylistic choice. In particular I think that Control will eventually be praised for the way that it basically incorporated ray tracing artifacts into its art style, by using sparkly mineral walls and a dreamlike atmosphere.
EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 275d
What I was trying to say was that they were making two completely different points. When companies talk about "realistic" graphics in games, it's always about the graphical fidelity, not about art style, direction, or aesthetic, and that steers the entire narrative of the conversation around "photo-realistic" games.
What memes like this are trying to say is that having a good style and strong art direction trumps pure graphical fidelity every time. Whether your game looks like Crysis or Super Metroid doesn't matter as much as having clear design direction, and conversely, slapping 4k textures on everything won't matter if your game has no design direction.
lobut@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 276d
PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 276d
I think they mean that you can like both, you don't have to choose only one to like
mad_lentil@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 276d
Oh well then there is no conflict at all, yeah
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 276d
Don't make me point at the TitanFall 2 and MGSV sign again.
Its just that that's hard for developers to develop, for management to allow, so, instead, use horrifically unoptimized UE5!
big_slap@lemmy.world · 50 pts · 276d
artfully stylized graphics will always be better because they will look timeless
M137@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 276d
There are several games who we're just "this looks like reality" when they released who have aged well too. Half-life 2 (even without the updates) being the first one I think of, but I also think the first Far Cry and Crysis look amazing even now. Good design will age well no matter, the only thing that goes away is the immediate excitement of how impressively real it looks for the ones that went for that, but they still stir something inside people who experience them for the first time decades later.
YourMomsTrashman@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 273d
Psychonauts!!
M0oP0o@mander.xyz · 27 pts · 276d
I would be happy if they stopped making everything look somehow both covered in vaseline while also being more reflective then a fucking mirror.
Just look at this shit in the demo:
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 16 pts · 276d
When reflections became a thing in graphics, they were the new hotness. But unfortunately they're overused because people seem to think that reflections are the best indicator of graphical realism. They're a factor for sure, but overly reflective isn't the same as realistic reflections
M0oP0o@mander.xyz · 6 pts · 276d
Like 3d tv, this is just a fad. Most people I know turn off raytracing in a few min (even though they spent $1000s on hardware to do raytracing). The generated frames and full ray and pathtracing have such low payout vs the cost. Unless something changes this is all pointless waste.
Best example I can think of is the rtx portal looking and running like ass compared to the now very old original.
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 275d
This has been going on since before ray tracing.
Also ray tracing is the future for realistic looking games because it's easier than all those shader hacks. Just needs to get a lot cheaper in terms of fps lost
M0oP0o@mander.xyz · 2 pts · 275d
Sure its the future, from years ago. One day for sure....
kamen@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 275d
This works for a tech demo if you want to show off a new rendering engine or a new GPU. But yeah, if you base the whole game around that, it's like those movies with more CGI than plot.
muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 276d
In this world, there is no dust or dirt and everything looks like an early 2000’s Apple product.
M0oP0o@mander.xyz · 4 pts · 276d
And if there is dirt, its glossy and reflective. I swear they are trying to give uncanny valley vibes on everything now.
Bababasti@feddit.org · 5 pts · 275d
I mean, effects like these have their time and place as well. Looking for a sci-fi setting in a distant future where these robots coming fresh out the factory like that? Cool. But I get your sentiment, if everything just looks like this because it just can and no conceptual thought goes into it, it’s crap.
M0oP0o@mander.xyz · 1 pts · 275d
Oh yeah, for sure there is a place for it. But a big part of the whole selling point for raytracing is it will just do its thing and look good. However it looks like this.
MIDItheKID@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 275d
Hah. Remember in the Xbox 360 era when everything looked like it was wrapped in saran wrap? I hated that so much. It's like - some if not most objects are not that reflective. Yes light bounces off of things, but it's such an "all or none" solution. Things in real life are so much more diffused.
M0oP0o@mander.xyz · 1 pts · 275d
Its odd that things become shiny and greasy everytime the industry pushes graphics. I want to play a game that is by it's very nature not the real world. If you want to do a photo realistic game then bring back FMV.
rustyricotta@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 23 pts · 276d
Mirror's Edge is still beautiful to this day, despite being 17 years old
dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 276d
Dear AAA game studios: Just look at Hades II.
LOOK AT IT. A good chunk of the art you see on every playthrough isn't even animated.
I'm probably going to clear 300+ hours on this thing before I put it down, and I'll likely tell everyone to buy it because it's that good. Photorealism is the last thing I care about.
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 276d
Similarly Schedule I. Tyler optimized TF out of the very unrealistic graphics in that game, and is only hiring an artist so that the expansion looks pretty.
muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 276d
So I remember playing xenosaga 3 on the PS2. The visual effects on some of the mech attacks were absolutely stunning. It was sooooo pretty.
PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca · 18 pts · 276d
I like both, they each have their place
Xotic56@lemmy.sdf.org · 17 pts · 275d
I wish they'd make more games like Disco Elysium where the whole thing looks like a painting.
Zapados@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 275d
I wish they'd make more games that have unique art styles.
ieGod@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 275d
The indie scene is where you'll find the most creative takes. There are some truly stunning styles that mainstream games would probably never try.
Zapados@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 275d
Totally agree, indie devs need more artistic freedom to flourish.
mika_mika@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 275d
It's like you've never even played Persona 5.
ieGod@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 275d
Persona has a unique look for sure. Some AAAs do look neat, but it is very, very, rare. On the whole they don't come close to the indie scene.
Raglesnarf@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 276d
you know what, I'll just keep playing the same old decade old games I've been playing
spykee@lemmings.world · 15 pts · 275d
No matter who denies it, this is peak artfully stylised graphics for any game ever made.
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 276d
AgentOrangesicle@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 276d
But Clair Obscur, tho.
Like, damn.
starman2112@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 275d
Anyone who says photorealism and stylized art are mutually exclusive needs to play Clair Obscur, then delete their comment
AgentOrangesicle@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 275d
I watched my friend play Mall Simulator, and in spite of it not being graphically intensive, the game breaks down when there are too many assets in the world. Absolute respect to the people that optimize games.
RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 275d
Well... Ontologically speaking...
nlgranger@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 275d
Plague tale (requiem in particular) is also ridiculously beautiful on mid range GPUs. I couldn't believe my graphic card was able to do that. It's a shame games reviews and screenshots don't account for average setups because that's what most of us have and some developers deserve praise to make it work for us.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 9 pts · 276d
Hand draw each frame. Now do it 60 or more times per second.
Hjalamanger@feddit.nu · 6 pts · 276d
Yes, you only have to replace your GPU with about 800 000 artists (assuming the take four hours to draw a frame)
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 5 pts · 276d
And since they have to do it 4 hours in advance, it's technically using FrameGeneration predicting what the next frame will be in advance. 😏
ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 276d
There's a guy in my computer doing that for me
merc@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 275d
The trouble with photorealism is that you very easily stumble into the uncanny valley. In addition, something that often looks "photorealistic" today will look really dated in a few years.
If you go with artfully styled games, it can actually be much harder. You need to adopt a consistent artistic style and have that style be used by many different artists. Unlike with photorealism, there isn't always going to be a reference available. You have to watch that over time, and as the scope of the game grows, the style remains consistent. But, when it's done well, it can be amazing.
One of my favourites in terms of artful styling is the game Interstate '76. It came out at a time when full motion video cutscenes were the style of the day. You'd have low resolution graphics, and then come in with a VHS-quality cutscene with real actors and real sets. Then back into low resolution graphics. Interstate '76 chose an amazing artistic style, then did in-engine cutscenes, which kept the style consistent.
The other master of this, IMO, is World of Warcraft. It must be a gargantuan undertaking to have a game with that many different models and to have a consistent style for all of them, but they mostly do. They often do out-of-engine cutscenes, but their style is so consistent that their cutscenes just look like even more detailed shots from that same world.
yermaw@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 275d
Check the overall vibe of game cube games VS ps2/xbox. N64 VS PS1. Colourful pretty games stand the test of time way better than realism.
RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 275d
Rule #1: Never get out of the car
merc@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 275d
What was that?!
Flying saucer.
Oh.
untorquer@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 275d
I'm fairly certain that with AI framegen and he hyperfocus on raytracing this paradigm is broken. Were going from consecutive titles looking better to stagnation while only projects with some breathing room in production will advance visually. (E.g. new witcher).
Beebabe@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 275d
Wow had been interesting lately. The last expansion I played, there were legitimately zones that I thought “I can’t believe this is wow” compared to the vanilla zones. You can still tell after a moment, but it is just a lot more detailed. I do love the point you make here. It reminded me of my first experience with uncanny valley in a game. I prefer not to have that experience tbh.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 275d
Were you thinking "I can't believe this is WoW" or "I can't believe how good this looks?"
Because, I haven't experienced the first one. To me, once I'm in the game, there really seems to be an amazing consistency in how things look. After a while things look "realistic" but in a "realistic for WoW" way. Like, obviously Orcs and Demons are not realistic, but the consistency is so strong that how things look, and move, and behave is so strong and predictable.
Beebabe@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 275d
The initial impression of the new Arathi zone, before really getting close enough to see details was a “I can’t believe this is wow” moment on first impression. There are a couple areas like that where it really throws me. But in a way, yes, it looked so surprisingly good and a tad different.
EldenLord@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 275d
Depends. Some horror games really sell the value of photorealism well
FishFace@piefed.social · 5 pts · 276d
Meh, I like high fidelity graphics. Most "artfully stylised" games are not to my taste either - pixel graphics do nothing for me and nor do a lot of flat 2D graphics. Stuff like GRIS is beautiful, but it seems to be an outlier. So for visually engaging stuff I find it's AAA mostly realistic graphics - if not "photorealistic" - for me.
Yuyarl@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 276d
A person with different tastes than me, grrrr. It's diametrically opposite for me. All AAA, no matter what studio, not ID, not Lorien, their graphics just never look as vibrant as lo-fi graphics of a game made by, at most, 5 people. They do have some impressive aspects but, overall, because they try to look more """real""" they end up looking more mundane and boring to me. Nothing will ever compete with artistic abstraction of lo-fi games 🥀
db2@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 276d
Why do that when I can just ask Sora to make it for me? Then I don't have to engage my brain at all!
menas@lemmy.wtf · 5 pts · 276d
GPU consumption is more reliable to know how old a game is than its graphics.
When Minecraft was released, I thought it was an accident. That no other game could be popular and run with with an inappropriate language such as Java.
I was so wrong.
brucethemoose@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 276d
I mean, there aren't a lot of Java games, and C# (especially with newer runtimes) isn't that bad if that's what you're referencing.
The old Civ games were a lot of Python, which is perhaps the most atrocious of all, performance wise. But they worked okay.
menas@lemmy.wtf · 1 pts · 275d
No, I was referencing to Javascript or game release too soon that turn computers into toasters. Last I played was RVchere yet; less polygons than Half Life Source, constantly crash because we got not enough ressources.
MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 275d
Minecraft doesn't use JavaScript, it's just Java but the way.
menas@lemmy.wtf · 1 pts · 275d
I know; Java was a big optimization issue in Minecraft back in the days. I was thinking about the addition of javascript in AAA game engine (I.E for menu) or for phone game
AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 276d
I loved Firewatch's art style. And story. It was a masterpiece.
Schmuppes@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 275d
It's a shame that "In The Valley Of Gods" is unlikely to happen anymore.
Gonzako@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 275d
I'll be honest, I like both.
InputZero@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 275d
Agreed, it really depends on the game. Battlefield with Art Stylized graphics would look terrible, just like how if Final Fantasy was done with Realistic graphics would be weird.
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 275d
The last several final fantasy games have been done with realistic graphics though lol
Grostleton@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 276d
Darktide: Porque no los dos?
RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 275d
Art directors are expensive. A guy that can "google it" is much more cost effective.
YourMomsTrashman@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 273d
orioler25@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 276d
Jesus god and more pre-rendered graphics.
Glide@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 276d
Monster Hunter Rise was more visually satisfying that Wilds. Prove me wrong (you can't).
LynxIsInvicible@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 276d
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 276d
Genuine question:
Kenshi.
Does that count as ah, heh, a lo-fi take on photorealism, or... stylized?
Many people run mods that add a bit of tasteful cel-shading type borders, but you can also go the other way and crank up texture resolution levels.
But on another note, potentially a hot take.
'Anime Waifu' does not count as 'artfully stylized'.
Its ... everywhere, its boring as fuck.
Maybe if you go an actually distinct take on an anime type art style, then sure, that counts.
But your bog standard VROID type stuff?
Nah.
Windwaker. That's an actual style.
Viewtiful Joe.
Cassette Beasts.
Oh also please stop with the Fortnite character proportions, everywhere, for everything.
It's worse than Blizzard turning all their previously distinct art styles into WoW proportions.
mika_mika@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 275d
I like anime waifu and I think it's timeless. The problem is, because it's everywhere, there are a lot of not great to offensive games that use it
REDACTED@infosec.pub · -4 pts · 276d
Would you honestly prefer artistic over photorealistic in games like GTA, Arma, 7 days to die, every driving or racing sim, escape from tarkov/stalker, and majority of other popular titles? Yeah, no.
Drusas@fedia.io · 9 pts · 276d
I must have missed the part where OP said, "There shouldn't be any photorealistic games."
REDACTED@infosec.pub · 0 pts · 276d
Neither OP said "some", your argument is non-existent, I was simply giving examples about games where photorealistic graphics aren't a bad thing
BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 276d
I loved the goofy over the top graphics of older GTA games like Vice City, San Andreas etc. I played GTA 5 for a bit and then dropped it cause I feel the game lost some of its charm with the more realistic graphics