Should graphics be more life-like?

Im just saying, with all the games that are coming out that are just plain beautiful, do we really need to make it any better that it is now, or is it the best?

We even have systems and controllers that go on our movements. For example, lets say there was an "xbox 720" or "Playstation 4" how would they improve Graphic-wise?

Technology should always improve. I see no benefit to staying where we are currently.

Graphics do not necessarily need to become more life-like, but it can advance so that more is possible, such as better physics, ability to render much larger levels etc, etc.

Well next gen will proably have 3d as a must if it works. The Ds and Ps3 already have 3d as far as i know

Well next gen will proably have 3d as a must if it works. The Ds and Ps3 already have 3d as far as i know

shadow13702

Tech should always improve, but graphics don't need to be life like in everything.

Graphics are fine where they are, in my opinion.

I'm not sure i want to be shooting people with life-like graphics.

I'm not sure i want to be shooting people with life-like graphics.

Snagal123

Many developers specifically make their game look hyper realistic because it broadens visual appeal. Arma 2 is probably THE most life-like game visually to-date but it doesn't catch eyes of gamers as opposed to Bad Company 2.

I'm not sure i want to be shooting people with life-like graphics.

Snagal123

I'm not sure i want to be shooting people with life-like graphics.

Snagal123

I wouldn't mind larger scale games while keeping the same graphics, so they can feature more advanced AI, more explorable places (i.e. buildings in GTA), more animations, bigger view distances, etc.

[QUOTE="Snagal123"]

I'm not sure i want to be shooting people with life-like graphics.

Birdy09

Doubtful. I'm not saying i don't like shooting people in games, but i'm not sure i want to be able to shoot peoples testicles off and see the pained expression on the guys face as he holds the fleshy bit of skin where his balls use to be.

Then again maybe it be good for the lolz.

Well next gen will proably have 3d as a must if it works. The Ds and Ps3 already have 3d as far as i know

shadow13702

3DS has 3D, not the DS.

There is no gain in 3D gaming. Is it a better experience? No. All it does is make the picture look as though it is closer to your face. In my opinion.Bewareoffalling

3D can make things look closer or farther away. It quite simply adds a sense of depth to the picture.

this thread is actually so idiotic.

Im just saying, with all the games that are coming out that are just plain beautiful, do we really need to make it any better that it is now, or is it the best?

We even have systems and controllers that go on our movements. For example, lets say there was an "xbox 720" or "Playstation 4" how would they improve Graphic-wise?

Bewareoffalling

i think one more generation of console and graphics will be "good enough" for me.

[QUOTE="Bewareoffalling"]

Im just saying, with all the games that are coming out that are just plain beautiful, do we really need to make it any better that it is now, or is it the best?

We even have systems and controllers that go on our movements. For example, lets say there was an "xbox 720" or "Playstation 4" how would they improve Graphic-wise?

windsquid9000

there arent really any games out there that can stress a top of the line PC as far as i know....

We have reached a point technology-wise where there is little practical benefit in further improving graphical detail very far above the best games of today. What we'll see instead is a push for different kinds of differentiators, such as 3D or higher resolutions (difficult on consoles) down the road.

The one thing that I hope for is that this will mean an increased emphasis on artistry in games to give them a unique feel. We could go the other way too though and I certainly don't hope for that, Hollywood already suffers horribly from its overemphasis on digital filters and the colors orange and teal.

We need more power so devs can do whatever they wanna do and do it better, be it life-like or cartoonish or abstract or whatever.

I wouldn't mind playing a game that looks like this, but there needs to be variation between the games, of course. If gmes became lifelike, you lose the mysterious, colorful and adventurous appeal.

Very good question. Personally I think games will be just fine if console makers simply concentrate on ways to improve extra details like clothing, animation and textures. Crysis is a good benchmark to measure the next gen consoles. It's incredibly detailed and runs very smooth (on good hardware). And, by the time the 720 releases, it'll be 4-5 yrs old. That's good enough IMHO. I don't need photo realistic graphics to enjoy a good game.

Yes. I like to be immersed in the games that I play. If a game has a cartoonish art style or something like that, then it can be hard to become immersed. This mostly only applies to 1st person shooters though (because it is 1st person...). This to me doesn't just include the graphical textures/lighting/etc but also the animations, sound design and physics.

Basically, when Crysis came out, it to me was one of if not the most immersive games ever. The physics and graphics just added so much to the gameplay.

Another noteable game is BFBC2. The sound design of that game is just so good, not to mention when you have war tapes turned on.

Real life graphics are overrated IMO :P

I guess games are not to be life-like, for this is what makes them fun. For example, just think if we never had any glitches, can you imagine GTA 4 without the swingset glitch?

No, put effort elsewhere. By next gen hopefully everything will just look like Crysis (that is if said game is going for a realistic look) and we can forget about graphics. Improve other things such as physics.

Although if anything I think games need to turn away from reality. The closer games get to reality the more boring they become. Yeah they may be more immersive but it sacrifices a major part of the fun factor. Maybe I wan my cartoony villain to jump off a skyscraper head first and survive.

[QUOTE="Snagal123"]

I'm not sure i want to be shooting people with life-like graphics.

ferret-gamer

fantastic

Wouldn't hurt to have it.

Look at CG movies. Yes, they could make movies that are very life like, but they have found that they are not visually interesting.

In games, some people might want simulators for battlefields, flying, driving, or sports, but I would rather platform with Mario, Ratchet or Sackboy than some realistic character.

I appreciate game designers who make games more artistically appealing more than those who simply tweak their game engines to render more realistically.

It'd personally be weird playing something really violent that looked life like.

ofcourse, but most games LOOK beautifull, but we are soooo far away from realism in games its not even funny. We dont have pixel perfect destruction, or a ground that consists out of billions of real sand particles, buildings that chip slowly away from bullet fire(bad company 2's destruction is very simple really, the house collapsing is a pure standard animation, but its fun tough). We have definitely gotten very far concercning games, but its going to take atleast another 20 years to achieve life like physics and graphics at the same time. We are at a generation where so many visual tricks are used to fake realism, like high resolution bitmap backgrounds or depth of field.

PS3 has some pretty close to life-like games....

Honostly, if the "PS4" or "Xbox3" came out with only slightly better hardware (1.2-1.3x better), I'd be perfectly okay. If all multiplats could look like Killzone 2, while still having more open spaces, I couldn't imagine how an exclusive that pushes the hardware could look.

I'd just wish Sony or MS would allow KB&M function for all games. That way, you have a choice on how you wish to play the game.

PS3 has some pretty close to life-like games....

Afrikanxl

The Show is nowhere near real life.

I'm not sure EVERY game made needs to look life like. What would be the point of that?

so we have endless possibilities, and yet people want to limit them self to "life-like"