As those games were before my time, I keep thinking did people genuinely think those graphics looked realistic? Because for me even growing up with the PS3 and PS2 I didn't think they looked particularly that good
Nobody thought it looked "realistic". But it was insane how fast the technology was improving. They weren't comparing it to reality, they were comparing it to games of just a year before.
Honestly, even back in the day I hated the low-poly character model look of early 3D games in the late 1990s and thought it looked worse than the sprites we had before that.
Honestly, why do you need graphics to create that level of detail? In regular gameplay, you aren't getting closeups of your characters face. It's just a waste of energy on the part of the animators.
I grew up with the N64 and I never needed realistic pores and eyelashes to get immersed in a game. All I needed was a world and characters I liked. I can't imagine someone picking up a classic and being like "WTF, where's the individually rendered nostril hair? I can't get invested in this!" That just feels silly to me.
You're sounding very old and out of touch right now tbh. And that's coming from someone who grew up with the original NES and the Commodore 64 😄
Just because high accuracy facial features isn't crucial to a platformer or whatever doesn't mean that it isn't beneficial to an RPG like Horizon or any other game where life-like characters is part of what makes the game great.
That’s kind of like walking into a museum, going to an exhibit on realism, and shitting on that art because the time and craft needed to make something look real is a “waste of energy.”
Just like with painting, realism in gaming is just an art style. Just because other art styles exist, that doesn’t mean realism is an invalid one to pursue.
A lot of talented creators and artists spent a lot of time trying to meticulously replicate people and nature as best as they could, and they did a really impressive job. These artists deserve props for their skill and passion.
Honestly, I pity artists working on AAA games these days. Imagine working on something for months, it hitting shelves and people enjoying it, only for it to be delisted in a few years because some suit doesn't want it associated with their brand anymore. That's not what's suppose happen with "Art", but god help you if you want to try American McGee's Alice or the single player Unreal games through official means.
Don't forget that these devs also get screamed at by fashy incels online for when those fashy incels realize realistic graphics mean more realistic women in games.
? No they aren't. Not outside twitter at least. Those incels are only relevant because people are outraged at them. It feeds the Engagement Algorithm. They don't have nearly the effect that their opponents give them credit for.
Also, the white knights were using the exact same arguments that the incels were using to criticize Stellar Blade. It's actually amazing how little self awareness "both sides" have. It's almost like the leaders of both sides don't really care about their "issues" and are only Algomaxxing.
No, executive suits delisting game titles and shutting down game servers isn't anything like twitter whine. Think of all the modern games built on the original Doom engine and how none of that would have happened without ID Software releasing their engine's source code. Never made them any money, but it secured Doom's legacy as art. Hell, we can only play Bungie's Marathon game because they did the same before getting bought by Microsoft. Gaming went "Mainstream" and something was lost because of that. At least some indie devs still get it.
Personally, I would change the law to only grant Copyright protections to game titles that had Public Domain plan. Game studios should have to submit source code and assets to their respective government and it be placed in lock down for when the rights expire. I would change copyright length back to 14 + 14 years.
Pushing the limits of technology also hasn't been a healthy thing to do all the time. If the cost of these big, expansive, detailed games is swaths of mandatory overtime for the developers only to be laid off when the project is done, it is not worth it.
I'm having way more fun with the solo and microteam indie titles. Cultic is immersive not because of the graphic fidelity, but because of the fluid gameplay. Turbo Overkill's story is carried by the voice acting, not because I can see the pores on the characters faces, and Dusk is the first game in years that immersed me so much, I was leaning in the chair to dodge enemy shoots.
As with anything pushing technical limits, there's always risk. But what you're describing isnt purely an issue of pushing realism in gaming, it's an issue of pushing for profits above all else. These exact practices happen in less realistic game development as well.
Anyway, as stated, I don't think all games should try to push the graphical envelope. Most games I play don't attempt this. But I'm glad games like TLOU2 exist and appreciate the devs behind it.
its for cutscenes. because without it, you get situations that happen a lot on underpowered devices (e.g the switch) where when you DO hit a cutscene, something looks very low res and low detailed because it was designed to be looked from afar with low performamce impact. It draws away from the immersion factor.
a common situation are games on mobile that are also playable on console/pc (e.g some gacha rpgs). Some character models use texture normal maps and not physical 3d models, so when you look at them zoomed up, it looks really off.
Immersion aside, I appreciate the craft that goes into realistic in-engine cutscenes. Making something look good, without pre-rendering, is a particularly challenging constraint.
