Photo-realism or not?

Gremorgan

Cadet
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Something that has intrigued me of late has been the movement of video-gaming towards photo-realistic graphics. From a gaming experience point of view what do gamers actually prefer? Is it an environment as real as the outside world, or an environment that exhibits high levels of detail but is still recognizable as something synthesized. For myself, I prefer the latter but I would be interested to find out what other members of the forum think about this.

Regards
Wayne Densley
The Graveyard Shift
 

Kevin

Code Monkey
Staff member
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Location
Pennsylvania
I think the answer might depend on the level of the gamer. For example, I'm a very casual gamer and would be just as happy playing the 1980-something version of Pitfall! on my X-Box versus my brother who spends thousands of dollars every couple of years to replace his home gaming PC "rig" system. For me photo-realistic graphics in a game will evoke a "Woah!" response when playing but it certainly isn't needed while for my brother the more FPS he can squeeze out of a game like Halo, the better.
 

sci-fi-dude

1963, 1899 called they want every thing back....
Joined
Jul 20, 2017
Location
DFW
Ah activision, pitfall was a classic, big pixels seems more and more welcome to moi!
 

Wolf0

Ensign
Joined
Dec 31, 2018
I see games as art and I rather play something that displays an unique style and work, rather than scans, I know scanning humans and environments is today thing, but... For me... Hand made art...
 

Tiran

Ensign
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
I haven't seen any computer created environment in video games or film that I would call "photo realistic". Especially since the movement physics is so obviously wrong.
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
Don't ask me, I only play halflife2, unreal awakening and Doom3.

Recently I found out they were making a Doom 2 movie.
So, I had to dust off Doom (the rock) and load up Doom 3 on the pc.
LOL
 
Top Bottom