The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Has the age of photorealism died? There was a day when games developers instilled the utmost of their time and energy to producing games which coerced the concept of photorealism. However, in the modern era, have developers turned their heads in a different direction, and are now concentrating on simple 'realism'? The distinction between photorealism and realism is a slight one, but one that should perhaps be defined and reiterated.
Photorealism is perhaps best defined as making a game look like an equivalent photo. In a photorealistic game you can expect to find photographic quality backdrops, and photographic quality characters. Photorealism to me, is a wholly two dimensional affair.
Realism on the other hand can be defined as making a game look like reality. It does not involve photographic quality visuals, simply realness. Realism certainly is a three-dimensional concept, as it revolves around the world we live in. The world we live in is a three-dimensional entity, and this is what 'realism' is to game developers.
So, why should it be that game developers are now concentrating on realism, as a propose to photorealism. The answer is quite obvious, three dimensional games are now the in thing, and to revert to two dimensional photorealistic graphics would undoubtedly be a step back in terms of progression. This would be the pragmatic view of why photorealism is not the trend, because it is two-dimensional.
However, would it not be possible to integrate photorealism into in-game textures? The answer has to be yes, but perhaps not now, with the current technological status quo. It is paradoxical that photorealism never really got the chance to reach it's potential, as three-dimensional gaming came along a little too quickly. In a retrospective view, the quality of the early textures surely were bland in comparison with the two-dimensional backdrops of late two dimensional games.
Take for example, early three dimensional games such as 4-D sports boxing (note the contradiction in the title!). 4-D sports boxing admittedly was one of the first three dimensional games, but the quality of the textures on the polygons was unfeasibly low. They were simply polygons filled with a single colour, in fact shading was not even heard of when this hit the shelves. Now compare this to some of the two-dimensional graphics of the same era, games such as Monkey Island, which displayed beautiful, almost photoreal backdrops. However, as mentioned, three-dimensions took the world by storm, and perhaps surpassed the perfection of photorealism.
Imagine today, if a game company decided to use the technology available to create the finest looking two-dimensional game. It would undoubtedly be, by the definition, photoreal. However, if you offered the challenge again, but this time to use the graphics in the two-dimensional game as the basis for the textures in a three-dimensional game, the machine would be unable to handle it. This is perhaps why photorealism has made way to realism in the games of today.
Gaming realism though, is the act of making games look like reality. So surely, the perfection would arise from using photorealistic textures in a three-dimensional world? In my opinion this would not be realism, it still embraces a two-dimensional concept in order to make a game look real. Photographs simply are not three-dimensional, and to try to integrate them into 2-D games is a bad move. As the progression of time continues, games will endeavour to reach the target which is realism. However, is this an unattainable goal?
The literal answer is yes. For the simple reason, the TV on which we play our games conveys a two-dimensional image. This surely negates any possibility of games attaining the goal of realism. On the other hand, technology will undoubtedly make way for games to look visually more real. Leading all the way back to the start, surely this two-dimensional portrayal of a three-dimensional world is photorealism? The complexities of the argument can perhaps not be revealed so soon. In my opinion, the world HAS surpassed photorealism, and HAS NOT attained realism, but HAS struck a convenient balance between the two. This is also, arguably, where games SHOULD exist. Games, after all, are not meant to be real, they are meant to be fun.
Photorealism is perhaps best defined as making a game look like an equivalent photo. In a photorealistic game you can expect to find photographic quality backdrops, and photographic quality characters. Photorealism to me, is a wholly two dimensional affair.
Realism on the other hand can be defined as making a game look like reality. It does not involve photographic quality visuals, simply realness. Realism certainly is a three-dimensional concept, as it revolves around the world we live in. The world we live in is a three-dimensional entity, and this is what 'realism' is to game developers.
So, why should it be that game developers are now concentrating on realism, as a propose to photorealism. The answer is quite obvious, three dimensional games are now the in thing, and to revert to two dimensional photorealistic graphics would undoubtedly be a step back in terms of progression. This would be the pragmatic view of why photorealism is not the trend, because it is two-dimensional.
However, would it not be possible to integrate photorealism into in-game textures? The answer has to be yes, but perhaps not now, with the current technological status quo. It is paradoxical that photorealism never really got the chance to reach it's potential, as three-dimensional gaming came along a little too quickly. In a retrospective view, the quality of the early textures surely were bland in comparison with the two-dimensional backdrops of late two dimensional games.
Take for example, early three dimensional games such as 4-D sports boxing (note the contradiction in the title!). 4-D sports boxing admittedly was one of the first three dimensional games, but the quality of the textures on the polygons was unfeasibly low. They were simply polygons filled with a single colour, in fact shading was not even heard of when this hit the shelves. Now compare this to some of the two-dimensional graphics of the same era, games such as Monkey Island, which displayed beautiful, almost photoreal backdrops. However, as mentioned, three-dimensions took the world by storm, and perhaps surpassed the perfection of photorealism.
Imagine today, if a game company decided to use the technology available to create the finest looking two-dimensional game. It would undoubtedly be, by the definition, photoreal. However, if you offered the challenge again, but this time to use the graphics in the two-dimensional game as the basis for the textures in a three-dimensional game, the machine would be unable to handle it. This is perhaps why photorealism has made way to realism in the games of today.
Gaming realism though, is the act of making games look like reality. So surely, the perfection would arise from using photorealistic textures in a three-dimensional world? In my opinion this would not be realism, it still embraces a two-dimensional concept in order to make a game look real. Photographs simply are not three-dimensional, and to try to integrate them into 2-D games is a bad move. As the progression of time continues, games will endeavour to reach the target which is realism. However, is this an unattainable goal?
The literal answer is yes. For the simple reason, the TV on which we play our games conveys a two-dimensional image. This surely negates any possibility of games attaining the goal of realism. On the other hand, technology will undoubtedly make way for games to look visually more real. Leading all the way back to the start, surely this two-dimensional portrayal of a three-dimensional world is photorealism? The complexities of the argument can perhaps not be revealed so soon. In my opinion, the world HAS surpassed photorealism, and HAS NOT attained realism, but HAS struck a convenient balance between the two. This is also, arguably, where games SHOULD exist. Games, after all, are not meant to be real, they are meant to be fun.
Thanks for all the good feedback people. Doublezero, I agree that some games do require graphical realism in order to be fun, GT3 is a great example. Also, the story of my name?????
I signed up under my mum's name (Fran) and whacked in a made up nickname that had absolutely no relevance. However, instead of changing the name as I intended, it stuck!
I signed up under my mum's name (Fran) and whacked in a made up nickname that had absolutely no relevance. However, instead of changing the name as I intended, it stuck!
good topic :D
BTW, Franny, How did you come up with your name?
BTW, Franny, How did you come up with your name?
Franny wrote:
> Games, after all, are not meant to be real, they
> are meant to be fun.
Great post Franny. You're back to your old cracking form i see. With summer coming up soon i trust you'll soon be burning the midnight oil and churning out your usual high-standard 3-4am posts!
One point worth mentioning is that with some games, the realism IS required in order for the game to be fun. Take GTA3 for example... I know a crime spree with bazookas and uzis isn't realistic, but if the game had laser guns and aliens it would be cr*p.
Other elements of realism are often essential such as gravity, etc...
Keep up the good work Franny. By the way, are you a boy or a girl?
> Games, after all, are not meant to be real, they
> are meant to be fun.
Great post Franny. You're back to your old cracking form i see. With summer coming up soon i trust you'll soon be burning the midnight oil and churning out your usual high-standard 3-4am posts!
One point worth mentioning is that with some games, the realism IS required in order for the game to be fun. Take GTA3 for example... I know a crime spree with bazookas and uzis isn't realistic, but if the game had laser guns and aliens it would be cr*p.
Other elements of realism are often essential such as gravity, etc...
Keep up the good work Franny. By the way, are you a boy or a girl?
Very well written and intelligent post there...
I think the pursuit of photorealistic graphics is a needless one, and one that I think has been abandoned. The growth of 'radical' new graphical techniques like cel shading have shown a shift in developers thinking from trying to achieve photorealistic games to producing a original, vivid graphic, exactly as Miyamotot has done with Zelda.
I think the pursuit of photorealistic graphics is a needless one, and one that I think has been abandoned. The growth of 'radical' new graphical techniques like cel shading have shown a shift in developers thinking from trying to achieve photorealistic games to producing a original, vivid graphic, exactly as Miyamotot has done with Zelda.
Has the age of photorealism died? There was a day when games developers instilled the utmost of their time and energy to producing games which coerced the concept of photorealism. However, in the modern era, have developers turned their heads in a different direction, and are now concentrating on simple 'realism'? The distinction between photorealism and realism is a slight one, but one that should perhaps be defined and reiterated.
Photorealism is perhaps best defined as making a game look like an equivalent photo. In a photorealistic game you can expect to find photographic quality backdrops, and photographic quality characters. Photorealism to me, is a wholly two dimensional affair.
Realism on the other hand can be defined as making a game look like reality. It does not involve photographic quality visuals, simply realness. Realism certainly is a three-dimensional concept, as it revolves around the world we live in. The world we live in is a three-dimensional entity, and this is what 'realism' is to game developers.
So, why should it be that game developers are now concentrating on realism, as a propose to photorealism. The answer is quite obvious, three dimensional games are now the in thing, and to revert to two dimensional photorealistic graphics would undoubtedly be a step back in terms of progression. This would be the pragmatic view of why photorealism is not the trend, because it is two-dimensional.
However, would it not be possible to integrate photorealism into in-game textures? The answer has to be yes, but perhaps not now, with the current technological status quo. It is paradoxical that photorealism never really got the chance to reach it's potential, as three-dimensional gaming came along a little too quickly. In a retrospective view, the quality of the early textures surely were bland in comparison with the two-dimensional backdrops of late two dimensional games.
Take for example, early three dimensional games such as 4-D sports boxing (note the contradiction in the title!). 4-D sports boxing admittedly was one of the first three dimensional games, but the quality of the textures on the polygons was unfeasibly low. They were simply polygons filled with a single colour, in fact shading was not even heard of when this hit the shelves. Now compare this to some of the two-dimensional graphics of the same era, games such as Monkey Island, which displayed beautiful, almost photoreal backdrops. However, as mentioned, three-dimensions took the world by storm, and perhaps surpassed the perfection of photorealism.
Imagine today, if a game company decided to use the technology available to create the finest looking two-dimensional game. It would undoubtedly be, by the definition, photoreal. However, if you offered the challenge again, but this time to use the graphics in the two-dimensional game as the basis for the textures in a three-dimensional game, the machine would be unable to handle it. This is perhaps why photorealism has made way to realism in the games of today.
Gaming realism though, is the act of making games look like reality. So surely, the perfection would arise from using photorealistic textures in a three-dimensional world? In my opinion this would not be realism, it still embraces a two-dimensional concept in order to make a game look real. Photographs simply are not three-dimensional, and to try to integrate them into 2-D games is a bad move. As the progression of time continues, games will endeavour to reach the target which is realism. However, is this an unattainable goal?
The literal answer is yes. For the simple reason, the TV on which we play our games conveys a two-dimensional image. This surely negates any possibility of games attaining the goal of realism. On the other hand, technology will undoubtedly make way for games to look visually more real. Leading all the way back to the start, surely this two-dimensional portrayal of a three-dimensional world is photorealism? The complexities of the argument can perhaps not be revealed so soon. In my opinion, the world HAS surpassed photorealism, and HAS NOT attained realism, but HAS struck a convenient balance between the two. This is also, arguably, where games SHOULD exist. Games, after all, are not meant to be real, they are meant to be fun.
Photorealism is perhaps best defined as making a game look like an equivalent photo. In a photorealistic game you can expect to find photographic quality backdrops, and photographic quality characters. Photorealism to me, is a wholly two dimensional affair.
Realism on the other hand can be defined as making a game look like reality. It does not involve photographic quality visuals, simply realness. Realism certainly is a three-dimensional concept, as it revolves around the world we live in. The world we live in is a three-dimensional entity, and this is what 'realism' is to game developers.
So, why should it be that game developers are now concentrating on realism, as a propose to photorealism. The answer is quite obvious, three dimensional games are now the in thing, and to revert to two dimensional photorealistic graphics would undoubtedly be a step back in terms of progression. This would be the pragmatic view of why photorealism is not the trend, because it is two-dimensional.
However, would it not be possible to integrate photorealism into in-game textures? The answer has to be yes, but perhaps not now, with the current technological status quo. It is paradoxical that photorealism never really got the chance to reach it's potential, as three-dimensional gaming came along a little too quickly. In a retrospective view, the quality of the early textures surely were bland in comparison with the two-dimensional backdrops of late two dimensional games.
Take for example, early three dimensional games such as 4-D sports boxing (note the contradiction in the title!). 4-D sports boxing admittedly was one of the first three dimensional games, but the quality of the textures on the polygons was unfeasibly low. They were simply polygons filled with a single colour, in fact shading was not even heard of when this hit the shelves. Now compare this to some of the two-dimensional graphics of the same era, games such as Monkey Island, which displayed beautiful, almost photoreal backdrops. However, as mentioned, three-dimensions took the world by storm, and perhaps surpassed the perfection of photorealism.
Imagine today, if a game company decided to use the technology available to create the finest looking two-dimensional game. It would undoubtedly be, by the definition, photoreal. However, if you offered the challenge again, but this time to use the graphics in the two-dimensional game as the basis for the textures in a three-dimensional game, the machine would be unable to handle it. This is perhaps why photorealism has made way to realism in the games of today.
Gaming realism though, is the act of making games look like reality. So surely, the perfection would arise from using photorealistic textures in a three-dimensional world? In my opinion this would not be realism, it still embraces a two-dimensional concept in order to make a game look real. Photographs simply are not three-dimensional, and to try to integrate them into 2-D games is a bad move. As the progression of time continues, games will endeavour to reach the target which is realism. However, is this an unattainable goal?
The literal answer is yes. For the simple reason, the TV on which we play our games conveys a two-dimensional image. This surely negates any possibility of games attaining the goal of realism. On the other hand, technology will undoubtedly make way for games to look visually more real. Leading all the way back to the start, surely this two-dimensional portrayal of a three-dimensional world is photorealism? The complexities of the argument can perhaps not be revealed so soon. In my opinion, the world HAS surpassed photorealism, and HAS NOT attained realism, but HAS struck a convenient balance between the two. This is also, arguably, where games SHOULD exist. Games, after all, are not meant to be real, they are meant to be fun.