Mr Khan said:
Kane1389 said:
Mr Khan said:
Kane1389 said:
Mr Khan said:
In terms of what, pray tell? Where is the proof that realism is technically more demanding than cartoon graphics, except that realism might demand more complex textures?
|
...
...
seriously now?
|
Cartoony games tend to have lower production values not because of their choice of art style, but because of a factor related to the dreaded "Animation Age Ghetto". There's nothing to suggest that such games are categorically inferior, just that they tend to be lower-budget on the balance.
|
To achive proper realism, you need better AA, more complex geometry and character models, superior lightning and physics, waay more detailed (and thus bigger) textures, more realistic (and thus more demanding) animations, motion capture and much more polygons. There is also stuff like particle effects and clothing animation. Did I really have to explain this?
|
Except for textures and a certain extent of character models, all of that could be done in a cartoony game. You're talking about effort put into the game period, which, as i said, is a factor that cartoony games tend to be lower-budget on the whole. They do not have to be.
Which was more impressive? Super Mario Galaxy 2 or No More Heroes 2?
|
Of course it can be done on a cartoony game, but all of them are waay more harder amd demanding on a realistic game than a cartoony game, which was the point of my post and what you asked.
Aso, I heard a statement from some tech industry big shot that somewhere around 5 TFlops are required for a photorealistc game, which again proves that better than realism = more demanding power
