| John2290 said: This isn't the notion that we have reached the best we'll ever get, I know things can get more detailed...more realistic, I've seen the unreal tech demo's running on a five grand PC, I'm just saying everything is perfect with it from a visual stand point, why bother getting more realistic and not put the effort into porformance and artistic direction and styling... No aliasing that is noticable without getting very close (I've yet to see jaggies, you?). The character animations can get more detailed but I would reckon there would be great trouble with hitting uncanny valley level weirdness. Tip of the spear already. The lighting reflects the colours perfectly which are toned fucking superbly I might add. (It can get better obviously, Fox engine) What I'm getting at is what the fuck is the point of things getting more realistic than this? Its a waste of time, money and resources that could be put into inovation or more realism in the detail, scope, performance and polish. As consumers I think we have the right to bew heard on this and devs and publishers are largely ignoring us to just put out unoptimized games with patch after patch on top of already Data heavy installs. . |
We don't NEED to get better, but we can, so why not? And even when/if every game looks photorealistic, they won't all look the same. Do you get annoyed how all movies look the same? No. And with video games you can still do things that should exist in real life, and still have photo realism.
Also, look at this screen shot, you really can't tell the difference between antialiasing on and off?
http://i.imgur.com/bEQWRxN.jpg
