FoggyFishburne said:
Is photo-realism really what we're after? If yes, then why?
I don't understand some people who say that they play games for the graphical fidelity. Why buy the game then?
Anyway, being stuck in this prehistoric mindset of wanting more polygons on screen and extravagant lighting effects is ubiquitous, all games will eventually have these features and today we can pretty much just create illusions or mask inferior engines with clever level design.
Let's drop the attitude of sticking to extremes- it's very easy to find arguments against the extremes, but it's ultimately a fruitless effort since no one is taking an extreme stance here.
For emphasis, I am going to use capital letters (don't be shocked, now- I am not "yelling"):
NO ONE IS SAYING ALL GAMES SHOULD HAVE PHOTOREALISTIC GRAPHICS,
NO ONE IS SAYING GRAPHICAL FIDELITY IS THE BE-ALL AND END-ALL OF GAMES,
PEOPLE WHO LIKE DIFFERENT KINDS OF GAMES THAN YOU ARE NOT INFERIOR IN INTELLIGENCE OR OTHER TRAITS THAN YOU.
There. Now I hope no else makes your points again because the thread up to this point was not about them.
Now let's get some stuff straight.
Photorealism is a style in which the environment is visually indistinguishable from reality, but a lot games with cell-shading, or non-photorealistic rendering, can have visuals which are close-to-real-life pictures.
Such games include Bioshock games, Dishonored, TW games and so on. Artists would describe the style of such games as photorealistic, but their parameters are different from graphic designers.
Games which are photorealistic by graphic designer standards include Call of Duty, Battlefield, Resident Evil 5 or 6 and...um, I don't think there are many which can go into this category. The new Tomb Raider? Maybe.
And we should note that photorealism is unrelated to a game having high graphical fidelity.
Really, it's relatively harder to have photorealistic graphics than it is to have cell-shaded artwork- with the artwork you can expect the player to suspend disbelief longer, and be more lenient with visuals which seem off.
We actually haven't even gotten to that point where we have truly photorealistic graphics, and people are sounding the alarm against graphics before there needs to be one.
But here's an important point: the visuals of a game are not just there for show.
A game's visuals define it atmosphere, and are related to its themes, or at least that's how they should be used. That's why having photorealistic visuals is just as valid as not having them.
We shouldn't impose our own standards on developers, who have their own vision and should be allowed to show it to us. If that vision includes photorealism or high graphical fidelity, then more power to them.
I also hate the attitude that players believe graphics are just there for superficial reasons. I jokingly think whoever started this was probably a bitter developer who couldn't make a game with improved graphical fidelity for whatever reason.
It's inaccurate to believe that games with high graphical fidelity are inherently poorer in gameplay than their less-improved competitors. For example, the high-scoring (96-85) games on Metacritic are composed of both games with high graphical fidelity and those with relatively less.
And here's my earnest request to anyone reading this:
Stop measuring games by how much you personally enjoy them. It makes sense to complain about them from that perspective, but it does not reflect on the inherent playability or entertainment value of a game if you (the special snowflake) didn't enjoy it.
I think everyone enjoys games with high graphical fidelity, but I agree that many such games could do better.
There was a trend in which gameplay was minimized for graphics, and the most prominent example I can think of in RPGs is the Final Fantasy games, X and onwards (but I don't know if this is a good example).
I honestly believe that the industry is on the right track now- every game I've played till now has had enjoyable gameplay, and looks beautiful. But you tell me.
If you look for faults in anything, you'll find them. And plenty of people found faults in the old school games when they were first released. So yeah, people are always going to bitch.
Oh, and one more thing:
I don't understand the argument that anyone who likes high graphical fidelity is stupid. Is this really a valid argument here? It must be because I keep seeing it over and over, and I don't know whether to ignore or pity the person who says it.
This argument is as absurd as saying that people who prefer Broadway over the opera are stupid.
Basically this argument gives off an air of an ignorant, shallow stance, which is being made to prove one's own self-affirmed superiority.
We all enjoy different things, and if I got around to judging people on all the things they don't enjoy, and which I do because of my "discriminating taste", I will think everyone is inferior to me. But I would be a loser if I did that.
But on topic:
My desire is that developers should make games however it makes sense for their game, including making the game artsy or photorealistic if needed.
Personally, I would like to play a seriously photorealistic game that's not a shooter. A photorealistic RPG, perhaps.
Well, that's it. Have a great weekend, everyone.