HoloDust said:
I don't find photorealism to be inherently boring in games, I just personally tend to find it boring, especially if it's just photorealism that is without any artistic augmentation. Tree with photogrammetry 8K texture does nothing for me, but there are people impressed with such things, and that's ok. Yes, there are probably infinite amount of places in the world that look stunningly beautiful - yet I personally find best cinematography is usually one that is made in a way that clearly stands beyond that reality. |
That's fair. Personally I am often struck by the beauty of nature, or even how good live action film can look with the light composition, colours, lighting, etc.
The world we live in can be a magical place, and photorealism can capture that magic and use it to bring fictional scenarios to life in a believable way.
Pemalite said: I don't mind photo-realism, I actually look forward to it to see how far things have been pushed... And in the hand of a competent developer it can augment gameplay. (I.E. Realistic lighting/shadows for stealth or realistic foliage in a jungle that obscures the enemy.) |
Yeah, while graphics have come a long way since the days of the PS3 and Xbox 360, I feel like interactivity has not kept pace.
Games like Crysis and Far Cry 2 are more dynamic than the vast majority of modern games even 16-17 years after their release. One of the most impressive games in the last decade for me is BOTW, simply because of how many interactive systems it manages to weave together into an organic whole.
Modern games look beautiful, but the beauty is often only skin deep, as they remain for the most part static sets made for looking rather than touching.