By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Why is realistic graphics so important?

vSo I see you didn't mean the original PoP, but Sands of Time


Yes sorry, I thought I was the only one still remembering that there were PoP before that. I played the original on school computers.

The actual original PoP, with it's horribily pixelated graphics and whatnot, is still a better game today than about 98% of the games that come out,


No it isn't! I loved the original game but its simply old. From both a graphic and gameplay perspective. From a historical perspective its amazing but the gameplay is just not very fun anymore. The delayed controls were pretty annoying even if they were meant to be realistic, even Command Keen has aged better because the basic controls were impeccable. On the other hand I would love to have a good 2D Jump&Run again.



Around the Network

"but the gameplay is just not very fun anymore"

Keep in mind that's your opinion, and others likely won't share it.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

I'm with Vlad, PoP has best graphics this yr & 2nd place goes to World of Goo.

I don't know how ppl could consider him trolling for saying that?



arsenal009 said:
I'm with Vlad, PoP has best graphics this yr & 2nd place goes to World of Goo.

I don't know how ppl could consider him trolling for saying that?

 

Kyros tries to discredit opinions he doesn't like by accusing those users of trolling or fanboyism.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Take a moment and look at the movies, where CGI is pushed to its limit.

Compare a typical Pixar film with one of Zemeckis' motion-captured flicks like Beowulf or Polar Express. Forget the films themselves, and focus on the actual graphics.

Which have been more effective? Most people, without question, would peg Pixar's. Why? They don't go for true photorealism the way Beowulf did, but it does tend to be more convincing. Photorealism is not simply a meaure of horsepower, but an aesthetic choice. Pixar could do photoreal - and they hit it too when it comes to backgrounds or artificial objects. But making a photoreal animal, let alone a human, its never as effective - they still haven't crossed that uncanny valley.