Do you like the 3D / Triple AAA Realistic games?

[rpgfan_2007]

I have a PS3, and have several games but Im so bored by them. I like old fashioned 2D games like the ones on SNES. Zelda. Mana. Those were really darn good games. The PS2 had some really good games too but I find that Graphics Technology that create these ultra-realistic environments are boring. Now, obviously, Graphics have to be good, but to what point does the graphics get soo realistic that it crosses the line between Videogames and Reality, and is that a line that positively impacts the Gaming Experience or seriously negates it?

I think to me, these games that feature ultra-realistic Virtual Realities are boring because if I wanted Reality, I can step outside my front door. I like games that LOOK like videogames, even if they are 2D Pixelly Sprites. As long as the Graphics are GOOD but not too good where it becomes photorealistic, then it's fun.

How do others feel about this?

I have a PS3 and most of the games suck. Same goes for XBox360. They suck because it feels more like a simulation than a Game. now, I understand some people like more realistic games, but I don't have the same warm, fuzzy feelings that I have with an outdated looking PS2 or SNES game.

 

[Cruelty]

the only case i can think of with this is the twilight princess. they kinda screwed up by trying to make it look realistic, because it doesn't feel like zelda any more. :\

 

[arcthemonkey]

I think this is an oversimplification, and I think you're confusing nostalgia with actual preference. I mean, you may well actually prefer 2D games, but I don't think that games as a whole have "lost" anything critical when transitioning from 2D to 3D.

Sure, there are games that were ruined by 3D. One that comes to mind is the Alundra series. The first Alundra was dark as hell, and badass. The second Alundra didn't even have Alundra in it, and was like a comedy. Sure, Alundra 2 didn't 'suck' per se, but it was no Alundra 1. I heard rumors that the reason it went light hearted was because the developers couldn't get the funny-looking 3D models to feel right in the "OMG everybody is being murdered" setting of the first.

But there are other games that are absolutely fantastic in 3D, and suck in 2D. Hell, just consider any modern game that ends up with a port on the GBA. Call of Duty 4 is one such game. They put that on gameboy? Seriously? The whole appeal of that game is the visceral, realistic presentation.

Unfortunately, in terms of video games, your "stepping outside for reality" comment makes little sense. Could you go outside and battle goblins ala Oblivion? Run cops and hookers over with little fear of reprisal like in Grand Theft Auto? Save the galaxy from the robotic aliens in Mass Effect? Squeeze magical Adam juice from little girls like in Bioshock?

No. No you couldn't.

 

[rpgfan_2007]

I was talking about Photo-realistic Graphics. Do you really want to see realistic looking people in games? Game play is gameplay. Graphics is Graphics. Totally separate.

Grand Theft Auto was 3d, but the graphics were not realistic. You could tell you were playing a videogame.

Something like Call of Duty 4 or Resistence for PS3 is almost too realistic. Then it feels like a simulation rather than a videogame.

 

[Cruelty]

lol. you've seriously got to be the only person in the free world who's bitching about how current gen graphics are looking too nice. how the hell can you be complaining that the people are looking too much like people. what the hell do you want them to look like, the easter bunny?

I suppose you're against HD TVs as well?

 

[rpgfan_2007]

This is just my theory but based on the latest generation console sales, I think people dont' care too much about realistic graphics in games. The focus on the current generation console is better and more realistic graphics. More and more power to deliver photorealistic images. Is that what we want? Nintendo Wii has it right. The Wii doesn't care about graphics as the GameCube was good enough. I think that's why you see so many people buying Nintendo Wiis.

Unless you are hardcore gamer, extreme cutting edge graphics is not important. What matters more is Story, GamePlay, rather than totally immersive environments.

I want more games like GodofWar1/2, FinalFantasy, ResidentEvil, ShadowOfColossus..games that were visually impressive but not photo-realistic yet had great gameplay / story. There's a fine line between visually appealing and impressive Graphics, and PhotoRealistic yet unappealing Graphics.

I dont' want any more COD4 / Resistence games where it feels like a Realisty Simulator. If I want reality, I'll go outside for a walk.

 

[rexxzecutioner]

You're speaking to the art direction of the games. It is a case by case basis. Photo-realism in certain games are necessary, and in others it is not. Neither are bad on principle.

 

[GhastlyMasquerade]

Shadow of the colossus was mostly photo realistic...Only problem was the fact the game was released for ps2 when it was originally intended for the ps3.
Most of the textures in God of War are done the same way as in other photo realistic games.
Call of Duty 4 is an amazing game, the game play was extremely well done, same for Crysis, Oblivion, etc.
Let's not forget games like Deus Ex, Thief, Half Life 1/2, System Shock, Bioshock, etc.
Great games...

I'm a big fan of old games as well... in fact, I've been playing video games since Amiga, Commodore 64, Atari 2600/800XL, etc.
Final Fantasy has been repeating the same stuff others games did, and you mention it as a game having great game play, don't mix good game play and characters that attract the teenagers so they keep on buying more. Big difference. Between Gears of War and Final Fantasy, I would rather have fun with Gears of War.

Peace

 

[holloway]

when it was originally intended for the ps3.

They started work on it in 2001- how was it intended for PS3?

 

[Marcus]

I was talking about Photo-realistic Graphics. Do you really want to see realistic looking people in games? Game play is gameplay. Graphics is Graphics. Totally separate.

Then why the fuck are you equating boring with photo-realistic graphics when here you are specifically stating that they're two different things??

First off, I'm tired of these "lol 16-bit is kewl" gamers who try to call people who like fancy graphics as "whores" who wouldn't know good gameplay if it bit them.  Graphics don't just mean pixels, they determine the game's atmosphere.  Since you mentioned a couple of my favorite games, let's talk about them, shall we?

I want more games like GodofWar1/2, FinalFantasy, ResidentEvil, ShadowOfColossus.

First off, all of these games were pioneers in the graphics department when they came out.  They weren't photo realistic because none of them were released on next-gen consoles.  Resident Evil 4 was hailed as the best looking current-gen console game in 2005 and yet here you are complaining about photo realistic graphics?

Anyways, back to atmosphere, imagine playing Shadow of the Colossus on the SNES.  I doubt it would be the same.  The game capitalized on the fact that it took place in a bleak, surreal landscape and the look and design of the Colossi couldn't have been captured on an inferior console like the N64.

Now let's take games that base themselves around certain elements like lighting or massive battles.  Dynasty Warriors would never exist in the size and scale on the PS1 just like how the first Silent Hill's lighting and fog engine look primitive.  You can't achieve this without newer consoles.

As far as I can tell, you don't hate graphics as much as you hate realistic art style which is perfectly fine.  But saying that good graphics directly ties into how good (or bad) the game is is plain ridiculous.  Just like you said, they're too different subjects and they each have their role in how a game is enjoyed.

 

[rpgfan_2007]

Because that is where Games are headed. Each generation produces more and more powerful GPUs and CPUs and therefore, the graphics are getting progressively more and more realistic looking. Eventually, it's going to be Photorealistic.

I didn't say I hate state of the Art Graphics. When the PS2 was released, and games like SOTC were released, that was state of the art for consoles. But clearly, the graphics are not photorealistic because the technology was not there yet. But now, we are crossing over into new territory with games like COD4, and PS3/360. I don't want to see photorealistic graphics because then it will look like reality. And reality is not the point of videogames. That is simulation territory. Have you ever seen those Aircraft simulators for Advanced Military Jets? Not fun. Boring. That's where we're headed.

I'd say Ps2/Wii level of Graphics is good enough but not so good that it becomes photo-realistic.


And you're wrong when you say that Art Style and Graphics are different. Before, the Realistic art Style like SOTC/GOW still didn't produce photo-realistic graphics because the machines couldn't. Now, they can. So the line between the two is blurred.

 

[Marcus]

Have you ever seen those Aircraft simulators for Advanced Military Jets? Not fun. Boring. That's where we're headed.

And once again you're telling us that realistic graphics equate gameplay.  A simulation game is designed to be modeled after real life.  COD 4 is nothing like real life.  If COD4 was like real life then instead of using a six-axis controller you'd be staring down the scope of a realistically modeled M16A1 and every time you took a hit, you'd either fall into a catatonic shock or die instantly as the bullet shattered within your flesh. 

That's realistic.

Having a health bar or regenerative fortitude isn't realistic.  Picking up ammo by walking over it and looking down and not seeing your legs isn't realistic.  Firing accurately from the hip and running without tiring isn't realistic.  Reloading a gun at lightning speeds without it ever jamming isn't realistic.  Am I getting through to you?  Realistic graphics don't make a realistic game. 

As I said before, realism is an art style as well as a style of gameplay.  COD4 might have realistic graphics, but the fact that it plays like a fucking arcade game means that it isn't a simulation game.  If you could sprain your ankle every time you jumped out of a helicopter or get blood in your face and become blinded after shooting a guy at point blank range THEN the game would be a simulation.

Had Shadow of the Colossus been made today, I could 100% guarantee you that the character models and textures would look ultra realistic.  Same goes for Metal Gear Solid 4 and other games based on, you know, real life.

 

[Shadow_Strike]

What does looking photo-realistic have to do with having fun?

Graphics get more realistic for REALISTIC LOOKING games. Other wise they'd look fun and cartoony, like WIND WAKER and MARIO. Remember, you can always take a step BACK. GG.

Look to valve, they have your answers to everything. Team Fortress done in their trade mark style? Fun. Half Life 2 and Portal done in a realistic style? Fun. Pokemon? Fun, I don't see your point that graphics some how ruin a game.

 

[Mundane]

I don't think graphics should be considered over gameplay. They can make them as amazing as they can, but if the gameplay blows, whats the point? Make a movie if you care so much about visuals. We want addictive gameplay. There should be NO argument over graphics. It shouldn't be a big deal. But nowadays, thats what games are sold on most of the times. Like uhhhh, Gears of War, short slightly cinematic campaign, fun multiplayer that lasts two weeks - but hey! It's hella pretty right? Fuck that. If a game is realistic looking, great. It better play damn realistically to make it a good game.

 

[Tohsaka]

No. No photo-realism please. It would be fun for a little while, but if I want to kill people with that much realism, I'm probably sick and twisted and would go outside and kill people anyway.

 

[Ellie]

Realism of graphics != boringness, they are completely different.

You could have a 2D game that is crap, and a 3D game that is a masterpiece. Or, similarly, a 2D game that is awesome, but a 3D game that sucks.

 

[GhastlyMasquerade]

Would you enjoy making a rpg game in rpg maker xp if the graphics would be like the old computer games from the years 80-84?