vlad321 on 22 December 2008
SnowWhitesDrug said:
vlad321 said:
SnowWhitesDrug said:
vlad321 said:
SnowWhitesDrug said:
I skimmed over some replys so I'll probably repeat stuff but I want to argue against the "photo realism in gaming is boring" due to "real life being boring".
Persoanly I find real life amazing to look at! why? because I see how detailed and truely amazing its creation actually is. Yes you can see textures, but do you really see them? you can see colours but are you really looking at the colours? Your post only shows how shalow your perception is of the world around you.
Real life is crazely detailed to the utmost limit! and man kind strives to reflect its creativity through his/her own creativity. As real life is the limit to which any creative work can be judged artists strive to reach this limit of photo realism. Its like winning first place, theres nothing higher then first place. As theres nothing higher then complete realism.
So yes you can join the army to experience a real life army experience lol, but you cant then just turn off that experience, get up off your couch and go and eat pizza. The endeavour of bringing real life to your finger tips while being in the comfort of your home is a huge goal in the gaming industry.
I really enjoy medieval themed games and racing games, but I have no means of going back in time to relive a knights life, and nore do I have the money to buy a ferrari and race around some of the world best race tracks. But realistic graphics can turn thoes desires into some what of a reality.
Mankind just seems to want to replicate the things around him in any way he can, artifical intelegence, robots simulating real life creatures, virtual worlds, paintings of perfect scenes. |
I'm gonna guess you aren't a fan of surrealism and all those paintings then? Those don't try to imitate reality at all, it goes even into architecture and other areas of art. The whole realistic imitation occured way back when during the renaissance, in the modern day it's moved past that. Does that not show that reality is so boring that even artists abandon it and jsut move more towards just representing their points in alternate, non-realistic ways? In games the point of the piece would be equivalent to the gameplay then.
|
you make good points for the value of surrealism and its need but the fact that some artists choose to paint or draw in that style by no means indicates that reality is boring. What it does show, and this is fact, is that artists throughout history have rebelled against the popular styles of the time. Not against a concept of needing to brighten or fancy up reality. thoes styles simplify the real world into ideas or concepts or issues, youve missed the point of thoes art styles all together.
|
That's exactly the point. The surrealists can paint withuot bringing reality into any of their paintings yet the meanings of their works can be deep and profound, just look at Dali's works. That's the whole point, you don't need a fancy, realistic neoclassical paintings to get your points across. Ultimately what will happen is that the viewer's eye will be drawn to the center of the action and small details on the outside will be often left unnoticed by the general public. With surrealism the viewer however, ends up scanning and absorbing the whole piece, since each part is important to the overall meaning.
|
And yet none of this proves that reality is boring. You've remembered alot more about art then I have in my UNI studies so I give you credit for that. but you still cant prove that reality is boring by talking about art movements
|
Anyhting outside of the focus is useless and an extra, the simple fact that so many people ignore it shows that it's boring enough that time should not be spent on it over the substance. Meanwhile the fact that the onlookers absorb the entire surrealistic painting shows that they have a specific interest in every detail, for whatever reason.
