Visual fidelity isn’t the same as realism. RDR2 is trying to replicate a real experience, so I mostly agree with you. However, it does step away from realism sometimes to create something more.
Take a look at impressionist art, for example. It starts at realism, but it isn’t realistic. It has more style to it that enhances what the artist saw (or wanted to highlight).
A game should focus on the experience it’s tying to create, and it’s art style should enhance that experience. It shouldn’t just be realistic because that’s the “premium” style.
For an example, Mirror’s Edge has a high amount of fidelity (for its time), but it’s highly stylized in order to create the experience they wanted out of it. The game would be far worse if they tried to make the graphics realistic. This is true for most games, though some do try to simulate being a part of this world, and it’s fine for them to try to replicate it because it suits what their game is.
Couldn’t disagree more. Immersion comes from the details, not the fidelity. I was told to expect this incredibly immersive experience form RDR2 and then I got:
carving up animals is frequently wonky
gun cleaning is just autopilot wiping the exterior of a gun
shaving might as well be done off-screen
you transport things on your horse without tying them down
I had way more fun in GTA 3 than GTA 5. RDR2 isn’t a success because the horse has realistic balls.
To put another nail in the coffin, ARMA’s latest incarnation isn’t the most realistic shooter ever made. No amount of wavy grass and moon phases can beat realistic weapon handling in the fps sim space. (And no ARMA’s weapon handling is not realistic, it’s what a bunch of keyboard warriors decided was realistic because it made them feel superior.) Hilariously the most realistic shooter was a recruiting game made by the US Army with half the graphics.
I see, and yeah graphics can help a lot. But how much do we actually need? At what point is the gain not enough to justify forcing everyone to buy another generation of GPUs?
.
Visual fidelity isn’t the same as realism. RDR2 is trying to replicate a real experience, so I mostly agree with you. However, it does step away from realism sometimes to create something more.
Take a look at impressionist art, for example. It starts at realism, but it isn’t realistic. It has more style to it that enhances what the artist saw (or wanted to highlight).
A game should focus on the experience it’s tying to create, and it’s art style should enhance that experience. It shouldn’t just be realistic because that’s the “premium” style.
For an example, Mirror’s Edge has a high amount of fidelity (for its time), but it’s highly stylized in order to create the experience they wanted out of it. The game would be far worse if they tried to make the graphics realistic. This is true for most games, though some do try to simulate being a part of this world, and it’s fine for them to try to replicate it because it suits what their game is.
Couldn’t disagree more. Immersion comes from the details, not the fidelity. I was told to expect this incredibly immersive experience form RDR2 and then I got:
Yeah that didn’t do it for me.
.
I had way more fun in GTA 3 than GTA 5. RDR2 isn’t a success because the horse has realistic balls.
To put another nail in the coffin, ARMA’s latest incarnation isn’t the most realistic shooter ever made. No amount of wavy grass and moon phases can beat realistic weapon handling in the fps sim space. (And no ARMA’s weapon handling is not realistic, it’s what a bunch of keyboard warriors decided was realistic because it made them feel superior.) Hilariously the most realistic shooter was a recruiting game made by the US Army with half the graphics.
.
Yeah but you said it was a pre-requisite and that’s just false.
.
I see, and yeah graphics can help a lot. But how much do we actually need? At what point is the gain not enough to justify forcing everyone to buy another generation of GPUs?
.