3 ms·

"I just don’t understand the game industry (and game culture)’s fanatical obsession with realistic graphics. They make games worse." I just don't understand ta

"I just don’t understand the game industry (and game culture)’s fanatical obsession with realistic graphics. They make games worse." I just don't understand talkies. They make movies worse. I just don't understand TV. It's worse than radio shows. I just don't understand 60fps filming. It just makes the props look fake. Every entertainment form has its visionaries, master craftsmen, and then the other 95% made up of crap (not to mention the industry learning curve as people discover what works and what doesn't). This has nothing to do with graphical fidelity. There were shit games on the Atari 2600, and there are shit games on the PS4. Good entertainment immerses you in the environment, such that you don't even think to question how things work. If it fails in that, the designers are doing something wrong.

Tiksi 10y ago
While I more or less agree with you, and there's nothing wrong with graphical fidelity in itself, I think the argument is more one of priorities. If you have 6 months to build a game, do you spend 3 on graphics and 3 on gameplay or do you spend 5 on graphics and 1 on gameplay. Personally, I have no insight into the game industry, so it's very possible that it's not a zero sum tradeoff, and crappy games would just be crappy games with crappy graphics if they focused on graphics less, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if gameplay was at least somewhat scarified for graphics.
- mohaine 10y ago
  The argument is NOT one of priorities. It is that if you go for too much realism, then you have have to start making things real instead of fun. Example from the article: Run speed in Doom is stupid high which is fun and seems normal, but would look silly and off-putting in a photorealist game.
saidajigumi 10y ago
I can't help but feel you didn't read past the headline. You've just about entirely missed eevee's point as elaborated in that essay: that earlier generations of games with a lot less graphical and detail oomph achieved your stated goal better: Good entertainment immerses you in the environment [...] Most of the article is spent in trying to explain this observation and get underneath it in a nuanced way. There's a lot of good observations in there. It's worth noting that major figures in the gaming world are making big stakes on this very premise[1]: "The biggest reason why we haven’t done a remake until now is because it’s a massive undertaking to reconstruct Final Fantasy 7 from the ground up with the current technology," Kitase wrote. "Producing a proper HD remake of Final Fantasy 7 that maintains the same feeling of density of the original would result in a volume of content that couldn’t possibly fit into one installment." That's exactly what Square Enix is doing with the forthcoming FF7 remake, installments. A big part of eevee's criticism might be summed as "graphical density is a poor substitute for environmental, interactive density". I've played too many recent-era games whose gameplay felt straightjacketed and linear, their gorgeous eye-candy environments managing to be disappointingly boring. In the worst cases, the gameplay worked hard against ever looking at and appreciating the highly detailed environment. What an enormous waste! [1] http://www.gamesradar.com/final-fantasy-7-remake-too-big-one-game/ http://www.gamesradar.com/final-fantasy-7-remake-too-big-one...

Tiksi 10y ago

While I more or less agree with you, and there's nothing wrong with graphical fidelity in itself, I think the argument is more one of priorities. If you have 6 months to build a game, do you spend 3 on graphics and 3 on gameplay or do you spend 5 on graphics and 1 on gameplay. Personally, I have no insight into the game industry, so it's very possible that it's not a zero sum tradeoff, and crappy games would just be crappy games with crappy graphics if they focused on graphics less, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if gameplay was at least somewhat scarified for graphics.

mohaine 10y ago
The argument is NOT one of priorities. It is that if you go for too much realism, then you have have to start making things real instead of fun. Example from the article: Run speed in Doom is stupid high which is fun and seems normal, but would look silly and off-putting in a photorealist game.

saidajigumi 10y ago

I can't help but feel you didn't read past the headline. You've just about entirely missed eevee's point as elaborated in that essay: that earlier generations of games with a lot less graphical and detail oomph achieved your stated goal better: Good entertainment immerses you in the environment [...] Most of the article is spent in trying to explain this observation and get underneath it in a nuanced way. There's a lot of good observations in there. It's worth noting that major figures in the gaming world are making big stakes on this very premise[1]: "The biggest reason why we haven’t done a remake until now is because it’s a massive undertaking to reconstruct Final Fantasy 7 from the ground up with the current technology," Kitase wrote. "Producing a proper HD remake of Final Fantasy 7 that maintains the same feeling of density of the original would result in a volume of content that couldn’t possibly fit into one installment." That's exactly what Square Enix is doing with the forthcoming FF7 remake, installments. A big part of eevee's criticism might be summed as "graphical density is a poor substitute for environmental, interactive density". I've played too many recent-era games whose gameplay felt straightjacketed and linear, their gorgeous eye-candy environments managing to be disappointingly boring. In the worst cases, the gameplay worked hard against ever looking at and appreciating the highly detailed environment. What an enormous waste! [1] http://www.gamesradar.com/final-fantasy-7-remake-too-big-one-game/ http://www.gamesradar.com/final-fantasy-7-remake-too-big-one...