Kem0sabe
Arcane
As long as he keeps delivering mod tools to add gameplay to those graphics, i´m fine with it.
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Interview Todd Howard Claims Graphics Are Important
- Thread starter Crooked Bee
- Start date
I'll buy the next TES game of course. I'll buy it for its graphics and for its LARPing facility. That's it. I don't really care about the world of Tamriel anymore, and that's sad.
I'll buy Project: Eternity and Wasteland 2 as well. I'll buy them for their deep backstories and, at least in the case of W2, for its great tactical combat facility. I hope their graphics are good, but I don't care too much about that in their cases.
It's a lot like judging women, actually. You just have to accept the fact that it's not reasonable to expect a high-profile game title to have depth along with beauty; generally you're going to have to choose one or the other. Not like I'd know a whole lot about the subject of women, though.
I'll buy Project: Eternity and Wasteland 2 as well. I'll buy them for their deep backstories and, at least in the case of W2, for its great tactical combat facility. I hope their graphics are good, but I don't care too much about that in their cases.
It's a lot like judging women, actually. You just have to accept the fact that it's not reasonable to expect a high-profile game title to have depth along with beauty; generally you're going to have to choose one or the other. Not like I'd know a whole lot about the subject of women, though.
With women, as with games, there are also rare gems that possess both depth and beauty. 
Oh, who am I kidding.
Oh, who am I kidding.
With women, as with games, there are also rare gems that possess both depth and beauty.
Oh, who am I kidding.
Well, there are.
Too bad they're usually bugged as fuck.
SkepticsClaw
Potential Fire Hazard
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2010
- Messages
- 169
Yeah graphics are pretty much case by case. When the focus is on real, meaty gameplay or narrative sophistication, it could be stick men and I wouldn't give a fuck. If it's one of those 'cinematic experience' games then the only real pleasure is in the aesthetic experience of consuming the product, in which case it's largely all about the graphics (and sound).
I'll always prefer the former, but AAA mass-consumption games are pretty much always the latter. And that's fine when you want to switch your brain off and go ON AN ADVENTURE! I agree with the sentiment that it would be nice to have them combined for once.
I'll always prefer the former, but AAA mass-consumption games are pretty much always the latter. And that's fine when you want to switch your brain off and go ON AN ADVENTURE! I agree with the sentiment that it would be nice to have them combined for once.
But, the very act of sitting in front a screen to play or watch something clearly shows the will of try to suspend disbelief, why the osession with photorealistic graphic?
And even then. My brother works for a company that sells VIP pictures to magazines, what passes for real is usually heavily post-produced and altered as fuck.
Not only picture mind you, but also footage goes through some rendering, shading or however you call that stuff.
So when they say photorealistic they really mean the Enhanced Version of Reality™ that we are experincing in front of a screen, not the actual reality.
And even then. My brother works for a company that sells VIP pictures to magazines, what passes for real is usually heavily post-produced and altered as fuck.
Not only picture mind you, but also footage goes through some rendering, shading or however you call that stuff.
So when they say photorealistic they really mean the Enhanced Version of Reality™ that we are experincing in front of a screen, not the actual reality.
And they're not even cheap!
They build games within the limitations of 512 RAM and a single DVD (no installation) worth of data. With those limitations, they do a decent job to be honest.
Technically it is a limitation, artistically it is not. For instance, trees in Skyrim are incredibly ugly thou they have n-times more faces and more detailed textures than, lets say, Gothic 2. Same for Morrowind's bodies and practically any other game of the time (gothic 1 again).
Technical limits only force you to some level of approximation (to ideal state). But they do ugly things despite having relatively rich resources.
They also have to think of things such as loading times. You could walk from one end of the map to the other and really not encounter and loading screens if you didn't enter any cities or dungeons, and for those seemless transitions you have to watch your polygon budget from my limited understanding, and that may mean sacrificing detail on trees.
Loading screens kill immershun in hiking simulators much more than ugly trees.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.