Is making futuristic/space games cheating??? (unbiased)

I just saw some gameplay footage on Mass Effect.  And though I am a cow, I have to admit it looks amazing.  It has to be one of the best looking games I've seen (in QT over the internet, not in person).  Haze has great promise from what we've seen so far.  Gears of War and Resistance also did a fantastic job on the graphics.  And, of course, Halo has always been top-teer in this genre.

Granted, Mass Effect does an absolutely mind-blowing job of human facial animations and textures.  But look at all of the games made in this genre over the past couple years.  They're all dark, full of rock and cement, and hardly show anything remotely real.  I'm not saying all games need to be grounded in the past or present.  A ton of people love Sci-fi.  Thats what is great about games, they take you places you never could go.

But is it easier to develope these games than to do something like a Socom or a Ghost Recon and have them look real?  Isn;t it harder to fool us on things we see every day?  Isn't that what makes Crysis look so amazing, the screenshots of crysis show trees and foliage and real-world surroundings in completely real form.  (I'm just talking about certain screens of Crysis, I know its a space-age FPS)   Isn;t that more mind-blowing than these futuristic/space FPS's?

What's your opinion??

               I would'nt call M.E. a FPS at all - I's a space rpg adventure game and for me; i'ts just what the doctor ordered.SecretPolice

Thanks for adding absolutely zero to this discussion.

Not really.

What's easier, being creative or just copying down to the greatest detail? I'd say being creative and making your own world is much more difficult.

Just look at the influx of WWII shooters that came out, they are easy to make and generate a nice profit. No, being creative is much more difficult...games would be extremely boring if they just simulated real life, what would be the point of playing games then? 

I just saw some gameplay footage on Mass Effect.  And though I am a cow, I have to admit it looks amazing.  It has to be one of the best looking games I've seen (in QT over the internet, not in person).  Haze has great promise from what we've seen so far.  Gears of War and Resistance also did a fantastic job on the graphics.  And, of course, Halo has always been top-teer in this genre.

Granted, Mass Effect does an absolutely mind-blowing job of human facial animations and textures.  But look at all of the games made in this genre over the past couple years.  They're all dark, full of rock and cement, and hardly show anything remotely real.  I'm not saying all games need to be grounded in the past or present.  A ton of people love Sci-fi.  Thats what is great about games, they take you places you never could go.

But is it easier to develope these games than to do something like a Socom or a Ghost Recon and have them look real?  Isn;t it harder to fool us on things we see every day?  Isn't that what makes Crysis look so amazing, the screenshots of crysis show trees and foliage and real-world surroundings in completely real form.  (I'm just talking about certain screens of Crysis, I know its a space-age FPS)   Isn;t that more mind-blowing than these futuristic/space FPS's?

What's your opinion??

dubvisions

were u hacked? why are you acting so nice ?lol:lol:

 edit: yeah i would like a really realistic game I.E. Crysis

were u hacked? why are you acting so nice ?lol:lol:Goldensun48

I always though dubvisions was a pretty decent poster.  

Not really.

What's easier, being creative or just copying down to the greatest detail? I'd say being creative and making your own world is much more difficult.

Just look at the influx of WWII shooters that came out, they are easy to make and generate a nice profit. No, being creative is much more difficult...games would be extremely boring if they just simulated real life, what would be the point of playing games then? 

Raidea

I'm not saying games should "simulate" life in every aspect.  I'm just saying that it has to be harder to pull off graphics based on real things rather than pulling them off on something totally made up.

And I'm not talking about which one is more creative.  I'm talking about which one looks better.  About how all of these space age FPS's look the same because; 1, they copy each other and aren;t that creative, 2., Devs would rather make these dark concrete worlds so they can work on other aspecs.

You can say the same thing for the WWII FPS's.  I think their even worse sometimes.

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"]               I would'nt call M.E. a FPS at all - I's a space rpg adventure game and for me; i'ts just what the doctor ordered.dubvisions

Thanks for adding absolutely zero to this discussion.

PS - My post correted you're false premise so... it added what was needed - you know IMHO !

[QUOTE="Goldensun48"]were u hacked? why are you acting so nice ?lol:lol:Raidea

I always though dubvisions was a pretty decent poster.  

 o well once  i saw his sig....

What?

Uh, yeah. 3D graphics that don't attempt realism as a stye have an aesthetic advantage because they don't get compared to reality as closely as those that do.  I'd hardly call it cheating, though.

[QUOTE="dubvisions"]

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"]               I would'nt call M.E. a FPS at all - I's a space rpg adventure game and for me; i'ts just what the doctor ordered.SecretPolice

Thanks for adding absolutely zero to this discussion.

PS - My post correted you're false premise so... it added what was needed - you know IMHO !

You didn;t coreect a thing.  You try to claim that Mass Effect isn;t a FPS.  If it isn;t than neither is Gears, Resistance, Halo, or any of the others.  They all have combines aspecs from other genres.  But the base of the game is off of FPS.  So, you fell short, little one.

And though it may be "just what the doctor ordered" for you, you statement didn;t asnwer the question of whether devs are taking the easy route by creating things we cannot relate to.

So, correct yourself.

What?

Uh, yeah. 3D graphics that don't attempt realism as a stye have an aesthetic advantage because they don't get compared to reality as closely as those that do.  I'd hardly call it cheating, though.

Iyethar

I just wonder if devs take the unreal route for ease.  Not that it kills a game because of it.  It probably allows them to focus on other parts of the game, like gameplay.

[QUOTE="Raidea"]

Not really.

What's easier, being creative or just copying down to the greatest detail? I'd say being creative and making your own world is much more difficult.

Just look at the influx of WWII shooters that came out, they are easy to make and generate a nice profit. No, being creative is much more difficult...games would be extremely boring if they just simulated real life, what would be the point of playing games then?

dubvisions

I'm not saying games should "simulate" life in every aspect. I'm just saying that it has to be harder to pull off graphics based on real things rather than pulling them off on something totally made up.

And I'm not talking about which one is more creative. I'm talking about which one looks better. About how all of these space age FPS's look the same because; 1, they copy each other and aren;t that creative, 2., Devs would rather make these dark concrete worlds so they can work on other aspecs.

You can say the same thing for the WWII FPS's. I think their even worse sometimes.

What games do you mean though?

Games like Mass Effect and Gears of War, even though heavily rooted in Sci-Fi aspects do have a lot of human elements in their characters. Even the alien characters in both Gears and ME animate like humans, have the same bone structure and movement aspects.

Facially, I'm not sure. It's one thing simulating a real life character, especially with the technology out there right now. But I could argue that it's even more difficult to create an 'alien' character and make that believable. We have nothing to base an alien character off, but surely that could also be argued as a hinderance to a developer rather than a help. Where we have nothing to base the character off, the animators and modellers also have to make that character believable, so you are actually able to interact with it socially.

With a human character, you know what its supposed to look like and so do the animators, so they have an easier time making a believable model. With an alien character they have nothing, so you could say its harder to make that character believeable. 

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"][QUOTE="dubvisions"]

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"]               I would'nt call M.E. a FPS at all - I's a space rpg adventure game and for me; i'ts just what the doctor ordered.dubvisions

Thanks for adding absolutely zero to this discussion.

PS - My post correted you're false premise so... it added what was needed - you know IMHO !

You didn;t coreect a thing.  You try to claim that Mass Effect isn;t a FPS.  If it isn;t than neither is Gears, Resistance, Halo, or any of the others.  They all have combines aspecs from other genres.  But the base of the game is off of FPS.  So, you fell short, little one.

And though it may be "just what the doctor ordered" for you, you statement didn;t asnwer the question of whether devs are taking the easy route by creating things we cannot relate to.

So, correct yourself.

    I do believe most here will not call M.E. a FPS - in fact I'm sure of it - lol

[QUOTE="Iyethar"]

What?

Uh, yeah. 3D graphics that don't attempt realism as a stye have an aesthetic advantage because they don't get compared to reality as closely as those that do. I'd hardly call it cheating, though.

dubvisions

I just wonder if devs take the unreal route for ease. Not that it kills a game because of it. It probably allows them to focus on other parts of the game, like gameplay.

I think it's more a matter of what visuals a developer wants to achieve.  There are trade-offs - you don't have to worry as much about making the final result match reality, but you also don't get to draw from reality for use as source material as much.  Designing compelling and interesting looking alien architecture from scratch is harder than recreating real-world architecture from photographs, creating interesting alien races and future technology is more work than modelling from real-world military uniforms and weapons.

[QUOTE="Iyethar"]

What?

Uh, yeah. 3D graphics that don't attempt realism as a stye have an aesthetic advantage because they don't get compared to reality as closely as those that do. I'd hardly call it cheating, though.

dubvisions

I just wonder if devs take the unreal route for ease. Not that it kills a game because of it. It probably allows them to focus on other parts of the game, like gameplay.

i think ease has little to do with it. i think it's mostly depends on the story and artistic style they are going for. 

getting textures from real life doesn't seem and harder than imagining up weird stuff. 

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"][QUOTE="dubvisions"]

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"]               I would'nt call M.E. a FPS at all - I's a space rpg adventure game and for me; i'ts just what the doctor ordered.dubvisions

Thanks for adding absolutely zero to this discussion.

PS - My post correted you're false premise so... it added what was needed - you know IMHO !

You didn;t coreect a thing.  You try to claim that Mass Effect isn;t a FPS.  If it isn;t than neither is Gears, Resistance, Halo, or any of the others.  They all have combines aspecs from other genres.  But the base of the game is off of FPS.  So, you fell short, little one.

And though it may be "just what the doctor ordered" for you, you statement didn;t asnwer the question of whether devs are taking the easy route by creating things we cannot relate to.

So, correct yourself.

            
X06: Mass Effect Impressions Genre: Action Role-Playing | Posted Sep 28, 2006

We sit in on an all-new demonstration of BioWare's upcoming RPG.

getting textures from real life doesn't seem and harder than imagining up weird stuff.

Ontain

No, in fact it's much easier, as I said.  But it's hard to make the ultimate game output look convincingly realistic, a requirement that you can avoid by choosing a more impressionistic or abstract visual style. 

[QUOTE="dubvisions"][QUOTE="SecretPolice"][QUOTE="dubvisions"]

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"]               I would'nt call M.E. a FPS at all - I's a space rpg adventure game and for me; i'ts just what the doctor ordered.SecretPolice

Thanks for adding absolutely zero to this discussion.

PS - My post correted you're false premise so... it added what was needed - you know IMHO !

You didn;t coreect a thing.  You try to claim that Mass Effect isn;t a FPS.  If it isn;t than neither is Gears, Resistance, Halo, or any of the others.  They all have combines aspecs from other genres.  But the base of the game is off of FPS.  So, you fell short, little one.

And though it may be "just what the doctor ordered" for you, you statement didn;t asnwer the question of whether devs are taking the easy route by creating things we cannot relate to.

So, correct yourself.

            
X06: Mass Effect Impressions Genre: Action Role-Playing | Posted Sep 28, 2006

We sit in on an all-new demonstration of BioWare's upcoming RPG.

I could care less about GS and what they say about scores or anything.  I use this site for the forums.

Tell me where Mass Effect varies so much from the other games I named to where its totally a RPG and not a FPS.  As I stated before, they all take aspecs from different genres.  But they all have the same basic set up.

gears of war is TPS rather than fps.

mass effect is tps/rpg. 

[QUOTE="Ontain"]

getting textures from real life doesn't seem and harder than imagining up weird stuff.

Iyethar

No, in fact it's much easier, as I said.  But it's hard to make the ultimate game output look convincingly realistic, a requirement that you can avoid by choosing a more impressionistic or abstract visual style. 

Guys I'm not even talking about the dreaming up of this stuff.  Yes, it is much harder to pull a new idea out of your head than to look outside and pick something.  Buuuuut, I think its harder to use you current technology and its limits to create "real-life" grpahics.  I would think it would be harder to animate and tecture a human face than an alien.  Well, put it this way.  It would be harder to do that with a human face as compared to the alien stuf we've seen thus far in games.

Try this.  Show me the most realistic human face put on a video game and then show me the most "realistic" alien face ever in a video game.  I bet the human's has way more detail and was way harder to produce.

Look at human hair.  It is one of the hardest things to create.  How many aliens with hair do you see?

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"][QUOTE="dubvisions"][QUOTE="SecretPolice"][QUOTE="dubvisions"]

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"]               I would'nt call M.E. a FPS at all - I's a space rpg adventure game and for me; i'ts just what the doctor ordered.dubvisions

Thanks for adding absolutely zero to this discussion.

PS - My post correted you're false premise so... it added what was needed - you know IMHO !

You didn;t coreect a thing.  You try to claim that Mass Effect isn;t a FPS.  If it isn;t than neither is Gears, Resistance, Halo, or any of the others.  They all have combines aspecs from other genres.  But the base of the game is off of FPS.  So, you fell short, little one.

And though it may be "just what the doctor ordered" for you, you statement didn;t asnwer the question of whether devs are taking the easy route by creating things we cannot relate to.

So, correct yourself.

            
X06: Mass Effect Impressions Genre: Action Role-Playing | Posted Sep 28, 2006

We sit in on an all-new demonstration of BioWare's upcoming RPG.

I could care less about GS and what they say about scores or anything.  I use this site for the forums.

Tell me where Mass Effect varies so much from the other games I named to where its totally a RPG and not a FPS.  As I stated before, they all take aspecs from different genres.  But they all have the same basic set up.

                I would say that a game like M.E. is harder to create graphics for since in most cases there are no real life models to go by and the environments, costumes, weapons, vehicles  ect. all must be done to give the impression they are real life things. IMHO

[QUOTE="Ontain"]

getting textures from real life doesn't seem and harder than imagining up weird stuff.

Iyethar

No, in fact it's much easier, as I said. But it's hard to make the ultimate game output look convincingly realistic, a requirement that you can avoid by choosing a more impressionistic or abstract visual style.

[QUOTE="dubvisions"][QUOTE="Iyethar"]

What?

Uh, yeah. 3D graphics that don't attempt realism as a stye have an aesthetic advantage because they don't get compared to reality as closely as those that do. I'd hardly call it cheating, though.

Iyethar

I just wonder if devs take the unreal route for ease. Not that it kills a game because of it. It probably allows them to focus on other parts of the game, like gameplay.

I think it's more a matter of what visuals a developer wants to achieve. There are trade-offs - you don't have to worry as much about making the final result match reality, but you also don't get to draw from reality for use as source material as much. Designing compelling and interesting looking alien architecture from scratch is harder than recreating real-world architecture from photographs, creating interesting alien races and future technology is more work than modelling from real-world military uniforms and weapons.

But the developer trying to make a more beleivable game has to make it extremely realistic or the player notices how the game defies real life and its at that exact second, the game fails at what it was designed to do. The user realising that the game is nothing like real life (unless its intentional) ruins the atmosphere, the same way bad acting ruins films.

This is exactly why GRAW is a joke to me (animation problems and random deaths anyone? )and wont be buying the second. Rainbow Six does much better, but some things stand out, like the third person glitch that was never fixed. 

But the developer trying to make a more beleivable game has to make it extremely realistic or the player notices how the game defies real life and its at that exact second, the game fails at what it was designed to do. The user realising that the game is nothing like real life (unless its intentional) ruins the atmosphere, the same way bad acting ruins films.

leejohnson7

Thank you.  Thats exactly what I'm saying.

But the developer trying to make a more beleivable game has to make it extremely realistic or the player notices how the game defies real life and its at that exact second, the game fails at what it was designed to do. The user realising that the game is nothing like real life (unless its intentional) ruins the atmosphere, the same way bad acting ruins films.

This is exactly why GRAW is a joke to me (animation problems and random deaths anyone? )and wont be buying the second. Rainbow Six does much better, but some things stand out, like the third person glitch that was never fixed.

leejohnson7

what do u mean random deaths? i have graw 2 and i barely played graw at my friends. 

Guys I'm not even talking about the dreaming up of this stuff. Yes, it is much harder to pull a new idea out of your head than to look outside and pick something. Buuuuut, I think its harder to use you current technology and its limits to create "real-life" grpahics. I would think it would be harder to animate and tecture a human face than an alien. Well, put it this way. It would be harder to do that with a human face as compared to the alien stuf we've seen thus far in games.

Try this. Show me the most realistic human face put on a video game and then show me the most "realistic" alien face ever in a video game. I bet the human's has way more detail and was way harder to produce.

Look at human hair. It is one of the hardest things to create. How many aliens with hair do you see?

dubvisions

That's the point, though.  No-one is arguing that there isn't an additional level of challenge and work associated with achieving realism, but the style has its own short-cuts in that many assets can be created directly from real-world objects using modern imaging technologies.  Every aesthetic choice carries with it a unique set of strengths and limitations, you can't say that one is universally better or more difficult than another.  You can definitely have your own preferences with regards to style, however.   If you mean to say that you are more impressed by successful attempts at realism then more power to you.

On the other hand, asking if it's "cheating" is a little like asking Impressionist painters if they're cheating by not attempting visual realism. 

[QUOTE="leejohnson7"]

But the developer trying to make a more beleivable game has to make it extremely realistic or the player notices how the game defies real life and its at that exact second, the game fails at what it was designed to do. The user realising that the game is nothing like real life (unless its intentional) ruins the atmosphere, the same way bad acting ruins films.

dubvisions

Thank you. Thats exactly what I'm saying.

strange. I don't think i'd ever played a game that i thought was actually like real life. when i play games there's a certain degree of suspension of disbelief that i have to apply. because i would also have to accept that i(the character) would be in that situation which is seldom believable too. 

On the other hand, asking if it's "cheating" is a little like asking Impressionist painters if they're cheating by not attempting visual realism.

Iyethar

I think you just won the thread here. great point 

[On the other hand, asking if it's "cheating" is a little like asking Impressionist painters if they're cheating by not attempting visual realism. Iyethar

This is a great point.  But artists who paint don;t have technical limitations that are like game devs.  They don't have to worry about painting the picture and then figure out how to people will view the picture, hang the picture, frame the picture, etc.

But a great point nonetheless.  Thank you for adding so much to this discussion.

I like sci-fi..and nothing can change that, so mr.cow just becos u have few sci-fis dont spoil the 360's party plzmouldy133

this has nothing to do with just 360 or PS3.  At no pint have I acted like a fanboy in this thread.  i thought I kept it pretty unbiased.

Looks like someone feels a little on the defense.  Slow down, sunshine.

[QUOTE="leejohnson7"]

But the developer trying to make a more beleivable game has to make it extremely realistic or the player notices how the game defies real life and its at that exact second, the game fails at what it was designed to do. The user realising that the game is nothing like real life (unless its intentional) ruins the atmosphere, the same way bad acting ruins films.

This is exactly why GRAW is a joke to me (animation problems and random deaths anyone? )and wont be buying the second. Rainbow Six does much better, but some things stand out, like the third person glitch that was never fixed.

istreakforfood

what do u mean random deaths? i have graw 2 and i barely played graw at my friends.

Well Ive no idea whether they improved the second, but in the first (single player) bullets would stay in streams and get fired randomly near you, leaving these hundreds of unrealistic traces of bullets, never leaving the path they would follow.

In other words, a bunch of bullets following each other in a perfect line, perfectly visable, and going nowhere near your body, but ocassionally, you take a hit anyway, almost as if there is a chance factor rather than a skill factor. Now picture you're playing on ultra-realistic. A stream of bullets going near you, but not near enouph to kill you but you die from what apears to be a headshot, or a bullet wound in general.

Then there are life bars above all enemies when you shoot them, I mean I know you have this "cross-com" futuristic thing, but being instantly able to detect somebodys general life status that fast from a distance,is totally far fetched.

The random death thing comes more into play when you ride shotgun on the side of a chopper. When a certain amount of bullets come your way, or a certain enemy hasnt been killed yet, bam, you die and sometimes look like you havent died thanks to the animations.

Animation problems like when taking cover, shooting at the floor but bullets contine to shoot out of cover, getting stuck behind cover, and your arms flailing around and being distorted and stretched around with your gun, and there are more, but the last i'll mention is when you die, your gun sometimes gets stuck on your shoulder and then your head bops about as random shots hit it. 

Ohh and not to mention on ultra realistic you are the only person in the game who dies in one shot. These things affected GRAW 2 because you say? Because now I cant be arsed playing it after the first was so bad IMO.

i dont get the whole point of this thread and how you just target "shooter" games. istreakforfood

I targeted shooters because they are the most guilty of redoing the same look over and over and over.  Every new FPS has some human dressed in metal and fighting aliens.

[QUOTE="Iyethar"][On the other hand, asking if it's "cheating" is a little like asking Impressionist painters if they're cheating by not attempting visual realism. dubvisions

This is a great point. But artists who paint don;t have technical limitations that are like game devs.

The technical limitations are different in painting than they are in gaming, but they definitely exist. Do you have any idea how much training and skill it takes to make an oil painting look like a photograph?

FWIW, the Impressionist movement was criticised for "laziness" by its detractors, so this argument isn't exactly new :) 

[QUOTE="dubvisions"]

[QUOTE="Iyethar"][On the other hand, asking if it's "cheating" is a little like asking Impressionist painters if they're cheating by not attempting visual realism. Iyethar

This is a great point. But artists who paint don;t have technical limitations that are like game devs.

The technical limitations are different in painting than they are in gaming, but they definitely exist.  Do you have any idea how much training and skill it takes to make an oil painting look like a photograph? 

You may have just proved my point.  Maybe.

Isn;t it so hard to make an oil painting look like aphoto because the photo is real???  Doesn;t it show that, yes, stroke-wise, paint-wise making an oil painting in abstract form would be easier?

[QUOTE="istreakforfood"]i dont get the whole point of this thread and how you just target "shooter" games. dubvisions

I targeted shooters because they are the most guilty of redoing the same look over and over and over. Every new FPS has some human dressed in metal and fighting aliens.

Look at blacksite area 51, looks a bit worse than gears, and then some, besides having yet another aliens vs humans theme, its already obvious to anybody that it is using the same engine as gears.

I just saw some gameplay footage on Mass Effect. And though I am a cow, I have to admit it looks amazing. It has to be one of the best looking games I've seen (in QT over the internet, not in person). Haze has great promise from what we've seen so far. Gears of War and Resistance also did a fantastic job on the graphics. And, of course, Halo has always been top-teer in this genre.

Granted, Mass Effect does an absolutely mind-blowing job of human facial animations and textures. But look at all of the games made in this genre over the past couple years. They're all dark, full of rock and cement, and hardly show anything remotely real. I'm not saying all games need to be grounded in the past or present. A ton of people love Sci-fi. Thats what is great about games, they take you places you never could go.

But is it easier to develope these games than to do something like a Socom or a Ghost Recon and have them look real? Isn;t it harder to fool us on things we see every day? Isn't that what makes Crysis look so amazing, the screenshots of crysis show trees and foliage and real-world surroundings in completely real form. (I'm just talking about certain screens of Crysis, I know its a space-age FPS) Isn;t that more mind-blowing than these futuristic/space FPS's?

What's your opinion??

dubvisions

Mass Effect is not a FPS. Its a tactical squad based combat RPG. And I dont thing you are ever in First person in the game.

And how is useing Scifi cheating? Hello DOOM.  

Sorry if I was rude on that last one. But the whole reason Behind scifi and fantasy is to get away from real life. And you have to believe its alot harder to come up with something completely different from real life. I dont know you may have noticed but alot of people dont want to be reminded about whats happening in the real world in our games all the time. We watch the news and we have people on all kinds telling us what our opinions should be on about a issue. We just need a break from that world every now and again.

But no, I dont think it is any easier or harder to do Ghost Recon vs SciFi. It all depends on what they focus alot on. Bioware are just know getting around to worrying about high graphics. To Bioware it has always been about story line. Now they are trying to do both. And they have to be careful with the shooting elements in the game so as not to anger their current and "Very fraking Loyal" fanbase.

Here is one. Devs for Gears of war spent so much time worrying about graphics, They left out big holes in the story line. Dont get me wrong it is a AAA game. But it lacked in outher areas.

But im of a type that will be in favor of a less realistic game play. 

[QUOTE="istreakforfood"]i dont get the whole point of this thread and how you just target "shooter" games. dubvisions

I targeted shooters because they are the most guilty of redoing the same look over and over and over. Every new FPS has some human dressed in metal and fighting aliens.

Can you show me where Mass Effect is a FIRST PERSON SHOOTER? Last time I checked it was in Third Person. What isnt redone? like seriously, shooters arent the only genre suffering from deja-vu.

Look at blacksite area 51, looks a bit worse than gears, and then some, besides having yet another aliens vs humans theme, its already obvious to anybody that it is using the same engine as gears. leejohnson7

Mass Effect is not a FPS. Its a tactical squad based combat RPG. And I dont thing you are ever in First person in the game.

And how is useing Scifi cheating? Hello DOOM.  

Sorry if I was rude on that last one. But the whole reason Behind scifi and fantasy is to get away from real life. And you have to believe its alot harder to come up with something completely different from real life. I dont know you may have noticed but alot of people dont want to be reminded about whats happening in the real world in our games all the time. We watch the news and we have people on all kinds telling us what our opinions should be on about a issue. We just need a break from that world every now and again.

But no, I dont think it is any easier or harder to do Ghost Recon vs SciFi. It all depends on what they focus alot on. Bioware are just know getting around to worrying about high graphics. To Bioware it has always been about story line. Now they are trying to do both. And they have to be careful with the shooting elements in the game so as not to anger their current and "Very fraking Loyal" fanbase.

Here is one. Devs for Gears of war spent so much time worrying about graphics, They left out big holes in the story line. Dont get me wrong it is a AAA game. But it lacked in outher areas.

But im of a type that will be in favor of a less realistic game play. 

GabeBlack

Guys.....take it easy.  Quit with the fanboyisms.

[QUOTE="dubvisions"]

[QUOTE="istreakforfood"]i dont get the whole point of this thread and how you just target "shooter" games. MrGrimFandango

I targeted shooters because they are the most guilty of redoing the same look over and over and over. Every new FPS has some human dressed in metal and fighting aliens.

Can you show me where Mass Effect is a FIRST PERSON SHOOTER? Last time I checked it was in Third Person. What isnt redone? like seriously, shooters arent the only genre suffering from deja-vu.

You like a few others, totally miss the point of this thread.

FPS OR NOT, Mass Effect still fits in the subject of this thread.

[QUOTE="Iyethar"][QUOTE="dubvisions"]

[QUOTE="Iyethar"][On the other hand, asking if it's "cheating" is a little like asking Impressionist painters if they're cheating by not attempting visual realism. dubvisions

This is a great point. But artists who paint don;t have technical limitations that are like game devs.

The technical limitations are different in painting than they are in gaming, but they definitely exist. Do you have any idea how much training and skill it takes to make an oil painting look like a photograph?

You may have just proved my point. Maybe.

Isn;t it so hard to make an oil painting look like aphoto because the photo is real??? Doesn;t it show that, yes, stroke-wise, paint-wise making an oil painting in abstract form would be easier?

Ah, but it also takes a huge amount of training and skill to make a visually compelling Impressionist painting rather than a boring blurry mess. What's more, the skills required aren't the same skills (although there is plenty of overlap).

This analogy carries straight back to games - different visual styles present different challenges. Technical limitations still exist - the impact they have will have will vary depending on what the designer is attempting to accomplish, but every style runs up against them.

I've got to come back to my point about preference - it's completely valid to be more impressed by skillful adherence to realism, in paintings or games - especially if the other artistic fundamentals (composition!) are also in good form. But dismissing non-realistic styles as "cheating" or "laziness" rather than artistic choice does a disservice to many great works.

P.S. You might just want to edit FPS out of the topic title.  You really are mostly talking about game graphics in general, right?