Graphics Wh*res - VOTE OR DIE!

Am I the only one who is a straight-up, unabashed Graphics Whore?

Now, I won't play a game if it doesn't also have fun gameplay and/or a great storyline, but I refuse to play games that are ugly.

Sort of like with other forms of entertainment: I don't like ugly characters on my TV shows or in the movies I watch. I want my female (and male) actresses to be hot! Sure, this makes the shows unrealistic, but if I want to get a dose of real-world ugly, I'll just head to my local Walmart. You don't see my ugly mug on TV - why should I have to see yours?

So I say:

Shallow gamers of the world, Unite!

ALL HAIL KILLER GRAPHICS!!!

Love,
Jack

(A True Graphics Whore)

We're all graphics whores. People who say gameplay is everything and graphics, just haven't come out of the closet yet.

If graphics didn't matter, they wouldn't be getting better at such a fast pace.

X-Com UFO Defense/Enemy Unknown is STILL the best game ever made..... Nuff said. SuperBeast

No doubt there are classics that have bad graphics (e.g. Deus Ex 1), but for new games, graphics are super DUPER important.

Plus, many old games don't hold up now that their graphics have failed.  I've tried playing some "classics" and I get bored.

But as I said, I'm a Graphics Whore, and proud of it.

*waves graphics whores flag* (which is a super high res pick of master chief being obliterated by Jack Carver) 

Of course graphics matter, but not over gameplay. But i wouldn't care if a new game today was realeased with 2004 graphics, aka doom3, far cry, etc. Those graphics will properly always look good, because they have a lot of detail and realisc lightning.mimic-Denmark

I bet you will want to re-edit this post five years from now. Maybe sooner. I think you're in the closet, graphics whore.

[QUOTE="SuperBeast"]X-Com UFO Defense/Enemy Unknown is STILL the best game ever made..... Nuff said. Jack_Summersby

No doubt there are classics that have bad graphics (e.g. Deus Ex 1), but for new games, graphics are super DUPER important.

Plus, many old games don't hold up now that their graphics have failed. I've tried playing some "classics" and I get bored.

But as I said, I'm a Graphics Whore, and proud of it.

*waves graphics whores flag* (which is a super high res pick of master chief being obliterated by Jack Carver)

 Meh.....UFO: Extraterrestrials just came out about a week ago and retails for $40....  The graphics look like they're from 1998 at best.    It's still one of the greatest games released in years IMO, of course I suppose I'm a bit bias from X-Com.   

Graphics are important and anyone that says otherwise is lying to themselves. Of course gameplay is much more important than graphics, but graphics really help present your game to its target audience and can really help set things such as atmosphere and tone, which really ties into a games gameplay anyway. Animations and physics would also fall under the graphics category, which can once again really add to a games gameplay if made right. onemic

I look at it like this:

Great graphics are necessary but not sufficient to make a great new game.

lol idc if the game runs at 10 fps, aslong as it looks beutifullMrNib

lol 

I guess I would count as a graphics wh*re, I like my games to be pretty just for the sake of it, 'course I won't play the game long if it sucked though...

Albeit, on the same subject, I more-so prefer games that look great for it's time, and still look great when I come back to it years laters.

(which is why I can't play through Deus Ex as mentioned above, looked awesome {imo} for it's time, but dear god has it not aged well..., it'll be one piece of nostalgia I don't want ruined) 

Older post in another thread: 

I do have to agree here.. I bought Jagged Alliance 2 over Steam a few months ago and just couldn't get into it. I'm sure it was great back in the day.. but I'm more apt to like a game upon release than years later. Like you, I still play old school games. Heck I even went on a bing a few years back and loaded up an Apple IIc emulator just so I could play my old Apple games..lol Does that mean those games are fit for the modern gamer who has never been exposed to old classics? Maybe and maybe not.. it totally depends on the person. I am one who cannot play old retro games that I'm not at least passively familiar with. I'm guessing this holds true to most of us... but then again I may be out of my gord.

So to answer your topic Jack.. I am a graphics wh*re :)

[QUOTE="mimic-Denmark"]Of course graphics matter, but not over gameplay. But i wouldn't care if a new game today was realeased with 2004 graphics, aka doom3, far cry, etc. Those graphics will properly always look good, because they have a lot of detail and realisc lightning.Jack_Summersby

I bet you will want to re-edit this post five years from now. Maybe sooner. I think you're in the closet, graphics whore.

The only thing i have in the closet is people that insults me 8)

JUST KIDDING...

I woundt count on it though. Even though games in 5 years is properly a lot more advanced in graphics, then a hell knight coming at you with slime out of its mouth in doom 3 just cant look bad, because its not blurry or a bounch of squared graphics, it looks real.

We're all graphics whores. People who say gameplay is everything and graphics, just haven't come out of the closet yet.

If graphics didn't matter, they wouldn't be getting better at such a fast pace.

F1_2004

lol I like...."just havent come out of the closet yet."

Personally, no I am not really a graphics whore.  Why?  Because I dont really notice nice graphics.  Ok, that was a lie but after the initial Wow! factor, I dont really care.  I do, however, have a minimum standard: you wont catch me saying "who cares if its built of the Wolfenstein 3D engine....its a good game!" to a game released nowadays.

Doom 3: I was having too much fun with the game and was to busy trying to beat the game so I could stop those damn things from jumping at me to notice the graphics after a while.

FEAR: honestly, the graphics got old in that game and everything started to either look like concrete, drywall, or carpet.  But the gameplay sure kept me going.

Halflife 2: the texture work and character detail was amazing, but again the gameplay really overrided the graphics.

Gears of War: I was way to busy playing this game sitting next to my friend trying to beat it to really notice the amazing graphics.  It was nice during the cutscenes, but once the action started the game coulda been in black and white for all I care, so long as I could see the enemy clear enough.

So in the end, I feel I am more of a graphics slut than a ful-blown graphics whore.

Older post in another thread:

I do have to agree here.. I bought Jagged Alliance 2 over Steam a few months ago and just couldn't get into it. I'm sure it was great back in the day.. but I'm more apt to like a game upon release than years later. Like you, I still play old school games. Heck I even went on a bing a few years back and loaded up an Apple IIc emulator just so I could play my old Apple games..lol Does that mean those games are fit for the modern gamer who has never been exposed to old classics? Maybe and maybe not.. it totally depends on the person. I am one who cannot play old retro games that I'm not at least passively familiar with. I'm guessing this holds true to most of us... but then again I may be out of my gord.

So to answer your topic Jack.. I am a graphics wh*re :)

Alkpaz

Like I said before alkpaz there's a mod that allows the game to jump from its low res of 640x480 to 1024x768. It really makes the graphics look a lot better. I guess you haven't played fallout 2 then, because the graphics on that game have aged a whole lot worse.  

i myself am i firm believer in gameplay over graphics and always will be. to this day i still play battlefield 1942w/dessert combat mod because of the gameplay. games like max payne, starcraft, and diablo2 are still played to this day because of the excellent gameplay aspect despite the fact they are older games. I've been playing Infernal and its got good graphics, but the gameplay sucks! i cant stand to play a game that doesnt play well. graphics can only take a game so far. After that it comes down to how well the game plays...

    That's my 2 cents :P 

[QUOTE="Alkpaz"]

Older post in another thread:

I do have to agree here.. I bought Jagged Alliance 2 over Steam a few months ago and just couldn't get into it. I'm sure it was great back in the day.. but I'm more apt to like a game upon release than years later. Like you, I still play old school games. Heck I even went on a bing a few years back and loaded up an Apple IIc emulator just so I could play my old Apple games..lol Does that mean those games are fit for the modern gamer who has never been exposed to old classics? Maybe and maybe not.. it totally depends on the person. I am one who cannot play old retro games that I'm not at least passively familiar with. I'm guessing this holds true to most of us... but then again I may be out of my gord.

So to answer your topic Jack.. I am a graphics wh*re :)

onemic

Like I said before alkpaz there's a mod that allows the game to jump from its low res of 640x480 to 1024x768. It really makes the graphics look a lot better. I guess you haven't played fallout 2 then, because the graphics on that game have aged a whole lot worse.

lol I read that before :) I'll check it out .. sorry I didn't respond on the other thread tellin ya about that.. just kinda involved right now with other games.. but I WILL keep that in mind.. don't like wastin money :)

I played Fallout 1 not 2. But I would probably like 2 because of what I said above.. if I have passive familiarity with the game I will be more apt to enjoy it.

[QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="Alkpaz"]

Older post in another thread:

I do have to agree here.. I bought Jagged Alliance 2 over Steam a few months ago and just couldn't get into it. I'm sure it was great back in the day.. but I'm more apt to like a game upon release than years later. Like you, I still play old school games. Heck I even went on a bing a few years back and loaded up an Apple IIc emulator just so I could play my old Apple games..lol Does that mean those games are fit for the modern gamer who has never been exposed to old classics? Maybe and maybe not.. it totally depends on the person. I am one who cannot play old retro games that I'm not at least passively familiar with. I'm guessing this holds true to most of us... but then again I may be out of my gord.

So to answer your topic Jack.. I am a graphics wh*re :)

Alkpaz

Like I said before alkpaz there's a mod that allows the game to jump from its low res of 640x480 to 1024x768. It really makes the graphics look a lot better. I guess you haven't played fallout 2 then, because the graphics on that game have aged a whole lot worse.

lol I read that before :) I'll check it out .. sorry I didn't respond on the other thread tellin ya about that.. just kinda involved right now with other games.. but I WILL keep that in mind.. don't like wastin money :)

I played Fallout 1 not 2. But I would probably like 2 because of what I said above.. if I have passive familiarity with the game I will be more apt to enjoy it.

It actually took me a really long time to get into fallout 2 because of the graphics and the bad temple level at the beginning of the game. It took me a few off and on playing to actually become used to the graphics and I'm very glad I did that. I'm still playing through the game and right after I'm done, I'm gonna jump onto fallout 1 as I haven't played that game before.  

I should confess that I've tried to play HL:2 again because the graphics are so awesome, but I just get bored and pissed about the lack of AI. I've reinstalled that game at least four times with the intent of enjoying the graphical goodness one more time, but I never seem to last more than a few hours before Gabe lets me down and I uninstall Steam.

Just further proof that, while great graphics are absolutely essential for premium enjoyment, gameplay is crucial, as well.

Meh, I have an integrated x200 so I can't even play simple games. I can play the BF2 demo at med. settings. I can't wait for my 8800 gts.el_carl

FINALLY!  I was waiting for someone to vote for that option :-)

Just keep reminding yourself how much sweeter that 8800 will be after abysmal IG. 

I should confess that I've tried to play HL:2 again because the graphics are so awesome, but I just get bored and pissed about the lack of AI. I've reinstalled that game at least four times with the intent of enjoying the graphical goodness one more time, but I never seem to last more than a few hours before Gabe lets me down and I uninstall Steam.

Just further proof that, while great graphics are absolutely essential for premium enjoyment, gameplay is crucial, as well.

Jack_Summersby

agreed. one of the reasons i dont play BF2 offline is casuse my teamates like to kill me and say "sorry chief". F that... 

I should confess that I've tried to play HL:2 again because the graphics are so awesome, but I just get bored and pissed about the lack of AI. I've reinstalled that game at least four times with the intent of enjoying the graphical goodness one more time, but I never seem to last more than a few hours before Gabe lets me down and I uninstall Steam.

Just further proof that, while great graphics are absolutely essential for premium enjoyment, gameplay is crucial, as well.

Jack_Summersby

I found EP1 a lot more enjoyable than the original HL2 .. even though its short. I guess most FPS games try to ring in newbies to the FPS genre which in the end make for a "longer than necessary game" with long sequences of "pretty water and toxic textures". This has a negative effect on some already "experienced" FPS players. True HL2 is great but it could have been less "training" and more "lets get you into the action". 

I'm kinda wondering how much further it can really go, though.. Before there were noticable flaws in the way things and people looked in games, but now.. Changing Oblivion from medium to max settings with mods did help initially, but after while you get used to it and it's the same experience. Graphics are so amazingly close to real life that I believe we're getting dangerously close to your mind automatically and easily (enough) recognizing these objects and people and 'things' automatically, thus making much more increases in graphics- at least as far as the good lookingness goes- won't do a lot for the overall experience once you get 'into' the game. Save perhaps just stopping to look at the gorgeous landscapes. But for the most part, I think the only things now that can really affect the realism your mind sees in games, not necessarily graphically, is the smooth movement, and especially realistic movement and interaction of ingame objects, beings and landscapes..

Graphically, Crysis seems a decent amount more graphics power than Oblivion, and if you really pay attention, or just 'look' at them comparably you can tell it, but I have a feeling if you were actually playing the game, even your graphical experience will be pretty similar.. They both look what one would consider 'extremely realistic'. The physics, realistic character and object movement.. smooth movement could make all the difference, though.

I'm kinda wondering how much further it can really go, though.. Before there were noticable flaws in the way things and people looked in games, but now.. Changing Oblivion from medium to max settings with mods did help initially, but after while you get used to it and it's the same experience. Graphics are so amazingly close to real life that I believe we're getting dangerously close to your mind automatically and easily (enough) recognizing these objects and people and 'things' automatically, thus making much more increases in graphics- at least as far as the good lookingness goes- won't do a lot for the overall experience once you get 'into' the game. Save perhaps just stopping to look at the gorgeous landscapes. But for the most part, I think the only things now that can really affect the realism your mind sees in games, not necessarily graphically, is the smooth movement, and especially realistic movement and interaction of ingame objects, beings and landscapes..

Graphically, Crysis seems a decent amount more graphics power than Oblivion, and if you really pay attention, or just 'look' at them comparably you can tell it, but I have a feeling if you were actually playing the game, even your graphical experience will be pretty similar.. They both look what one would consider 'extremely realistic'. The physics, realistic character and object movement.. smooth movement could make all the difference, though.

Dracunos

Dracunos, you speak of the day I dream of!

Yes - one day in the not too distant future, graphics will become photorealistic.  When we've reached that point, three things will happen:

1.  Artistic quality and design will become more important \

2.  Gameplay and theme will be the two most important components to a game

3.  The programmers will drastically improve interactability and physics sims.

I can't wait!

[QUOTE="el_carl"]Meh, I have an integrated x200 so I can't even play simple games. I can play the BF2 demo at med. settings. I can't wait for my 8800 gts.Jack_Summersby

FINALLY! I was waiting for someone to vote for that option :-)

Just keep reminding yourself how much sweeter that 8800 will be after abysmal IG.

[QUOTE="Dracunos"]

I'm kinda wondering how much further it can really go, though.. Before there were noticable flaws in the way things and people looked in games, but now.. Changing Oblivion from medium to max settings with mods did help initially, but after while you get used to it and it's the same experience. Graphics are so amazingly close to real life that I believe we're getting dangerously close to your mind automatically and easily (enough) recognizing these objects and people and 'things' automatically, thus making much more increases in graphics- at least as far as the good lookingness goes- won't do a lot for the overall experience once you get 'into' the game. Save perhaps just stopping to look at the gorgeous landscapes. But for the most part, I think the only things now that can really affect the realism your mind sees in games, not necessarily graphically, is the smooth movement, and especially realistic movement and interaction of ingame objects, beings and landscapes..

Graphically, Crysis seems a decent amount more graphics power than Oblivion, and if you really pay attention, or just 'look' at them comparably you can tell it, but I have a feeling if you were actually playing the game, even your graphical experience will be pretty similar.. They both look what one would consider 'extremely realistic'. The physics, realistic character and object movement.. smooth movement could make all the difference, though.

Jack_Summersby

Dracunos, you speak of the day I dream of!

Yes - one day in the not too distant future, graphics will become photorealistic. When we've reached that point, three things will happen:

1. Artistic quality and design will become more important \

2. Gameplay and theme will be the two most important components to a game

3. The programmers will drastically improve interactability and physics sims.

I can't wait!

I've been hoping and praying for developers to finaly.. FINALY get bored of doing the same stupid fantasy themes and start doing more sci-fi.. There's so, sooooo much more you can do with sci-fi themes, not necessarily because that's a basic fact of fantasy genre being limiting (I'm sure you can think of tons of different things that are completely and utterly different from magic and goblins thati s fantasy), but simply because all of fantasy is constantly copies of other old fantasy stuff, while for the most part, sci-fi constantly delves into very unique and brilliant and utterly unique concepts.

Muchlike they seemed to finaly slow down on making all those world war 2 games.. sort of..

But still.. After ALLLLLL these years.. Fantasy games still pop up, and the few sci-fi games that pop up, they are almost always full of time travel and repetitive stuff- starting to make sci-fi a limited genre like fantasy is! Ugh, there's so much more that can be done.. Even in fantasy, but I don't have a whole lot of hope for developers to do something unique with fantasy.

What I'm saying it.. Don't get your hopes up. Developers love to make the exact same game that was made in terms of storyline/plot/setting that has been made thousands of times before, and improve it just enough to still sell. Physics and stuff seems to be the only thing getting better. I guess visual type stuff is easier, because they have a template for that (real life), and unique ideas and stories and especially settings/themes are kinda.. not even mentally fabricated yet. Although I'm sure we can all think of some really cool unique book we'd love to see a game made up based on : p

See, theres a difference between ugly graphics and old graphics. Old graphical games can still look amazing..age of empires, half life, etc. Ugly games are ugly no matter whatDarKre

No way.  HL:1 was amazing, and compared to games of its time, it still looks amazing, but compared to today's elevated standards, HL:1 looks about as pretty as Lyle Lovit.  

What's the first thing I look for when a new game is announced?...screenshots.  Then I read on to see what the game is about. Crysis.....Bioshock....the Darkness....Timeshift....Saboteur...Assassin's Creed...    the gameplay may rock, or not, don't know, but they sure look nice, so I'm very interested. Always a little more disappointed when reviews suck for games that look sweet!

[QUOTE="DarKre"]See, theres a difference between ugly graphics and old graphics. Old graphical games can still look amazing..age of empires, half life, etc. Ugly games are ugly no matter whatJack_Summersby

No way. HL:1 was amazing, and compared to games of its time, it still looks amazing, but compared to today's elevated standards, HL:1 looks about as pretty as Lyle Lovit.

Nah, Lyle Lovit?! Make that Ron Jeremy

[QUOTE="Dracunos"]

I'm kinda wondering how much further it can really go, though.. Before there were noticable flaws in the way things and people looked in games, but now.. Changing Oblivion from medium to max settings with mods did help initially, but after while you get used to it and it's the same experience. Graphics are so amazingly close to real life that I believe we're getting dangerously close to your mind automatically and easily (enough) recognizing these objects and people and 'things' automatically, thus making much more increases in graphics- at least as far as the good lookingness goes- won't do a lot for the overall experience once you get 'into' the game. Save perhaps just stopping to look at the gorgeous landscapes. But for the most part, I think the only things now that can really affect the realism your mind sees in games, not necessarily graphically, is the smooth movement, and especially realistic movement and interaction of ingame objects, beings and landscapes..

Graphically, Crysis seems a decent amount more graphics power than Oblivion, and if you really pay attention, or just 'look' at them comparably you can tell it, but I have a feeling if you were actually playing the game, even your graphical experience will be pretty similar.. They both look what one would consider 'extremely realistic'. The physics, realistic character and object movement.. smooth movement could make all the difference, though.

Jack_Summersby

Dracunos, you speak of the day I dream of!

Yes - one day in the not too distant future, graphics will become photorealistic. When we've reached that point, three things will happen:

1. Artistic quality and design will become more important \

2. Gameplay and theme will be the two most important components to a game

3. The programmers will drastically improve interactability and physics sims.

I can't wait!

photorealism is a long ways off, and I mean a long ways off. Every time a new graphical standard is set everyone is up in arms about the next generation having photorealism. I remember when people said that when the PS2, xbox, and gamecube came out, I bet they probably said that when 3D games started to come up for the first time as well, with the PS1 and N64. Photorealism is so far away it's not funny. I can assure you that the next generation of graphics still won't reach anywhere near photorealism and probably the one after that. In 3 generations? Maybe.

Physics, animations, and interactivity are things developers should be focusing on now, not later. These three things are by far one of the most under-developed features of games.  

[QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"][QUOTE="Dracunos"]

I'm kinda wondering how much further it can really go, though.. Before there were noticable flaws in the way things and people looked in games, but now.. Changing Oblivion from medium to max settings with mods did help initially, but after while you get used to it and it's the same experience. Graphics are so amazingly close to real life that I believe we're getting dangerously close to your mind automatically and easily (enough) recognizing these objects and people and 'things' automatically, thus making much more increases in graphics- at least as far as the good lookingness goes- won't do a lot for the overall experience once you get 'into' the game. Save perhaps just stopping to look at the gorgeous landscapes. But for the most part, I think the only things now that can really affect the realism your mind sees in games, not necessarily graphically, is the smooth movement, and especially realistic movement and interaction of ingame objects, beings and landscapes..

Graphically, Crysis seems a decent amount more graphics power than Oblivion, and if you really pay attention, or just 'look' at them comparably you can tell it, but I have a feeling if you were actually playing the game, even your graphical experience will be pretty similar.. They both look what one would consider 'extremely realistic'. The physics, realistic character and object movement.. smooth movement could make all the difference, though.

onemic

Dracunos, you speak of the day I dream of!

Yes - one day in the not too distant future, graphics will become photorealistic. When we've reached that point, three things will happen:

1. Artistic quality and design will become more important \

2. Gameplay and theme will be the two most important components to a game

3. The programmers will drastically improve interactability and physics sims.

I can't wait!

photorealism is a long ways off, and I mean a long ways off. Every time a new graphical standard is set everyone is up in arms about the next generation having photorealism. I remember when people said that when the PS2, xbox, and gamecube came out, I bet they probably said that when 3D games started to come up for the first time as well, with the PS1 and N64. Photorealism is so far away it's not funny. I can assure you that the next generation of graphics still won't reach anywhere near photorealism and probably the one after that. In 3 generations? Maybe.

Physics, animations, and interactivity are things developers should be focusing on now, not later. These three things are by far one of the most under-developed features of games.  

I agree, if anything graphics are becoming versions of exagerated reality.  They add real stuff like lighting, but they make it way over the top.  Just look at Oblivion; you turn on HDR and the cobblestones glow!  I have been to Europe and seen my share of cobblestone streets, and they do not glow!  And look at Crysis; I dont care if you can run 40 miles per hour, your vision isnt going to get blurred.

Its OK with me, though, since I play games as an escape from everyday life.  The last thing I want in my games are visuals that are photorealistic.

[QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="Jack_Summersby"][QUOTE="Dracunos"]

I'm kinda wondering how much further it can really go, though.. Before there were noticable flaws in the way things and people looked in games, but now.. Changing Oblivion from medium to max settings with mods did help initially, but after while you get used to it and it's the same experience. Graphics are so amazingly close to real life that I believe we're getting dangerously close to your mind automatically and easily (enough) recognizing these objects and people and 'things' automatically, thus making much more increases in graphics- at least as far as the good lookingness goes- won't do a lot for the overall experience once you get 'into' the game. Save perhaps just stopping to look at the gorgeous landscapes. But for the most part, I think the only things now that can really affect the realism your mind sees in games, not necessarily graphically, is the smooth movement, and especially realistic movement and interaction of ingame objects, beings and landscapes..

Graphically, Crysis seems a decent amount more graphics power than Oblivion, and if you really pay attention, or just 'look' at them comparably you can tell it, but I have a feeling if you were actually playing the game, even your graphical experience will be pretty similar.. They both look what one would consider 'extremely realistic'. The physics, realistic character and object movement.. smooth movement could make all the difference, though.

mrbojangles25

Dracunos, you speak of the day I dream of!

Yes - one day in the not too distant future, graphics will become photorealistic. When we've reached that point, three things will happen:

1. Artistic quality and design will become more important \

2. Gameplay and theme will be the two most important components to a game

3. The programmers will drastically improve interactability and physics sims.

I can't wait!

photorealism is a long ways off, and I mean a long ways off. Every time a new graphical standard is set everyone is up in arms about the next generation having photorealism. I remember when people said that when the PS2, xbox, and gamecube came out, I bet they probably said that when 3D games started to come up for the first time as well, with the PS1 and N64. Photorealism is so far away it's not funny. I can assure you that the next generation of graphics still won't reach anywhere near photorealism and probably the one after that. In 3 generations? Maybe.

Physics, animations, and interactivity are things developers should be focusing on now, not later. These three things are by far one of the most under-developed features of games.

I agree, if anything graphics are becoming versions of exagerated reality. They add real stuff like lighting, but they make it way over the top. Just look at Oblivion; you turn on HDR and the cobblestones glow! I have been to Europe and seen my share of cobblestone streets, and they do not glow! And look at Crysis; I dont care if you can run 40 miles per hour, your vision isnt going to get blurred.

Its OK with me, though, since I play games as an escape from everyday life. The last thing I want in my games are visuals that are photorealistic.

At least they are getting to a point where there's not a whole lot more they can do, and I think it's sooner than you think.. For the most part, there's an extremely subtle different between pictures of stuff, and CG animations done really, really well. I think most of what makes it look 'animated' rather than looking 'real' is a lot in the way things move, and of course colors. You'd probably need ten times as many colors as the maximum number of colors you can possibly have on your PC for your eyes and brain to not be able to notice that everything's sorta.. brighter in games.. Or darker... All in all, it's still an art form, and when they want to instill emotion in you they will exaggerate the realism subtley.

I just think that it's like a curve.. The last many years, it's gone from maybe 40% realistic to 80% realistic in not THAT long.. Then it's gone recently from 80% to 90% is a little bit less time than it took from 40-80..  I have a feeling going from 90 to 97% photorealistic will take as long as it took to get from 40% to 90%.. And that last 97 to 99 would take much longer, but I don't think they're going to put enough money into it- it'd probably just increase slowly as we increase computer power in general. Obviously what percent we're at right now is all opinion, but 100% wouldn't be completely realistic.. I'm going to assume that the number of frequencies of light is infinite, as in you can have one at 50hz, one at 50.00001hz, and one color at 50.0002347 hz, and so on.. But our eyes can only pick up so much. I'm sure it's a lot, though : p

I really think at this point, realistic movement, motion, interactivity is going to do way more than less jagged lines, even more colors, etc.. And consider how people are creating these images.. There's no telling what kind of program will be invented in the future to aid graphics artists in making realistic looking images, but I could see that being limited eventually, even if computers have X more number of colors and whatnot. Considering my experience with games, and how graphics have been increasing, it's definitely a curve, and I think we're at a point in that curve where it's taking way too much to increase graphics very, very little. And I personally think it looks very realistic! But I guess I wear contacts, so nyah : p

I prefer "Graphics Gigolo." (Nice alliteration there.)

HL2 FAKEFACTORY CINEMATIC MOD VERSION 4.0 FTW!!