Visual fidelity isn’t the same as realism. RDR2 is trying to replicate a real experience, so I mostly agree with you. However, it does step away from realism sometimes to create something more.
Take a look at impressionist art, for example. It starts at realism, but it isn’t realistic. It has more style to it that enhances what the artist saw (or wanted to highlight).
A game should focus on the experience it’s tying to create, and it’s art style should enhance that experience. It shouldn’t just be realistic because that’s the “premium” style.
For an example, Mirror’s Edge has a high amount of fidelity (for its time), but it’s highly stylized in order to create the experience they wanted out of it. The game would be far worse if they tried to make the graphics realistic. This is true for most games, though some do try to simulate being a part of this world, and it’s fine for them to try to replicate it because it suits what their game is.
Couldn’t disagree more. Immersion comes from the details, not the fidelity. I was told to expect this incredibly immersive experience form RDR2 and then I got:
carving up animals is frequently wonky
gun cleaning is just autopilot wiping the exterior of a gun
shaving might as well be done off-screen
you transport things on your horse without tying them down
I had way more fun in GTA 3 than GTA 5. RDR2 isn’t a success because the horse has realistic balls.
To put another nail in the coffin, ARMA’s latest incarnation isn’t the most realistic shooter ever made. No amount of wavy grass and moon phases can beat realistic weapon handling in the fps sim space. (And no ARMA’s weapon handling is not realistic, it’s what a bunch of keyboard warriors decided was realistic because it made them feel superior.) Hilariously the most realistic shooter was a recruiting game made by the US Army with half the graphics.
I see, and yeah graphics can help a lot. But how much do we actually need? At what point is the gain not enough to justify forcing everyone to buy another generation of GPUs?
i think as it advances the old ones will inevitably look dated, dont think there will be a limit short of photorealism, its just slowed down a bunch now. imagine if we had a game like rdr but actually photorealistic. shit with vr you imagine any photorealistic and immersive world, that would be so cool.
sadly, the profit motive makes it difficult for a given studio to want to optimize their games making them heavier and heavier, and gpus turned out to be super profitable for AI making them more and more expensive. i think things will definetly stagnate for a bit but not before they find a way to put that ray tracing hardware we have now to good use, so well see about that.
not really. plenty of great games have visual fidelity as a big help in making it good.
i dont think rdr2 would be such a beautiful immersive experience if it had crappy graphics.
Visual fidelity isn’t the same as realism. RDR2 is trying to replicate a real experience, so I mostly agree with you. However, it does step away from realism sometimes to create something more.
Take a look at impressionist art, for example. It starts at realism, but it isn’t realistic. It has more style to it that enhances what the artist saw (or wanted to highlight).
A game should focus on the experience it’s tying to create, and it’s art style should enhance that experience. It shouldn’t just be realistic because that’s the “premium” style.
For an example, Mirror’s Edge has a high amount of fidelity (for its time), but it’s highly stylized in order to create the experience they wanted out of it. The game would be far worse if they tried to make the graphics realistic. This is true for most games, though some do try to simulate being a part of this world, and it’s fine for them to try to replicate it because it suits what their game is.
Couldn’t disagree more. Immersion comes from the details, not the fidelity. I was told to expect this incredibly immersive experience form RDR2 and then I got:
Yeah that didn’t do it for me.
realism and visual fidelity are two slightly overlapping but different things.
a game can have great graphics but its npcs be unrealistic bullet sponges. cp2077 comes to mind, not that this makes it a bad game necessarily.
i dont actually want to go to the bathroom in-game but i love me some well written story, graphics can help immensely with that. among other things.
come to think of it 100% realist games would probably be boring
I had way more fun in GTA 3 than GTA 5. RDR2 isn’t a success because the horse has realistic balls.
To put another nail in the coffin, ARMA’s latest incarnation isn’t the most realistic shooter ever made. No amount of wavy grass and moon phases can beat realistic weapon handling in the fps sim space. (And no ARMA’s weapon handling is not realistic, it’s what a bunch of keyboard warriors decided was realistic because it made them feel superior.) Hilariously the most realistic shooter was a recruiting game made by the US Army with half the graphics.
realism and visual fidelity are not the same thing.
BUT, visual fidelity adds a LOT to the great writing in rdr2.
Yeah but you said it was a pre-requisite and that’s just false.
you are right i didnt notice i had worded it that way and its not what i meant
I see, and yeah graphics can help a lot. But how much do we actually need? At what point is the gain not enough to justify forcing everyone to buy another generation of GPUs?
i think as it advances the old ones will inevitably look dated, dont think there will be a limit short of photorealism, its just slowed down a bunch now. imagine if we had a game like rdr but actually photorealistic. shit with vr you imagine any photorealistic and immersive world, that would be so cool.
sadly, the profit motive makes it difficult for a given studio to want to optimize their games making them heavier and heavier, and gpus turned out to be super profitable for AI making them more and more expensive. i think things will definetly stagnate for a bit but not before they find a way to put that ray tracing hardware we have now to good use, so well see about that.