AAA Companies Insisting on Realism

[Marmarmar34]

AAA companies seem to thing gamers only care about realistic visuals, while then releasing flop after flop. While pretty, these games usually lack any form of engaging gameplay or meaningful story. They blow hundreds of millions of dollars on a +200gb blob of mediocrity.

On the flipside, indie devs rely on simplistic visuals as they tend focus more on the gameplay. That's not to say these visuals are ugly. Talented artists know how to make a masterpiece with a limited toolset. This leads to far better experiences at a lower hardware/space requirement.

Imagine if AAA companies dumped their funding on crafting an amazing gameplay experience over graphical fidelity!

[salamander]

just play indie games, they caught up with and surpassed "AAA" quite some time ago.

[Fuki]

I think hyper-realism would be really cool, but for only one thing, and that's a gmod-style sandbox with gorey ♥♥♥♥, i've been trying to make one in gmod for such a long time, still nothing!

[Original Cast Recording]

I mean, pretty graphics are pretty. But I still don't like the "realistic" movement animations a lot of games have, like where your character leans into the run and stutters around whenever you change direction. I get what they're going for, I just don't think it actually looks or plays better.

[AustrAlien2010]

Try creating a game that is not inspired by reality.

Art is based on reality, and inspired by it. Not the other way around.
Just try to create an image, sound, game, story, statue or other artwork that is not inspired by anything on or above the earth or heavens. It's practically impossible.
You need a supernatural ability, or else you cannot create anything original. You can only combine existing ideas and concepts.
People will see something you made, and they will think: "Oh, I know that from reality," and that's why they recognize it, and it means something in their perception.
Without that factor of recognition based on reality, you would simply not understand what you are looking at, or are listening to, or are feeling.

It's not that you should insist on realism, it's simply the only way to create anything.
You cannot create something from nothing. It has to be inspired by something.

[Marmarmar34]

Originally posted by Original Cast Recording:

I mean, pretty graphics are pretty. But I still don't like the "realistic" movement animations a lot of games have, like where your character leans into the run and stutters around whenever you change direction. I get what they're going for, I just don't think it actually looks or plays better.

This and drawn out animations for doing simple stuff. Kingdom Come Deliverance has that with picking flowers for some reason, while skinning animals is just a menu.

[Marmarmar34]

Originally posted by AustrAlien2010:

Try creating a game that is not inspired by reality.

Whoosh

[Haiku's Knife]

Graphics seem to be disproportionately important to dumb people.

[TGC> The Games Collector]

But would you prefer realistic grapfix, or realistic gameplay mechanics?

[vkobe]

Originally posted by Marmarmar34:

AAA companies seem to thing gamers only care about realistic visuals, while then releasing flop after flop. While pretty, these games usually lack any form of engaging gameplay or meaningful story. They blow hundreds of millions of dollars on a +200gb blob of mediocrity.

On the flipside, indie devs rely on simplistic visuals as they tend focus more on the gameplay. That's not to say these visuals are ugly. Talented artists know how to make a masterpiece with a limited toolset. This leads to far better experiences at a lower hardware/space requirement.

Imagine if AAA companies dumped their funding on crafting an amazing gameplay experience over graphical fidelity!

if only they could just made nice story, good character and fun gameplay

cloudpunk graphic suck so badly, but damn one of best game with amiance, story and character creation

another is kiseki, one of worst graphic game on steam, but very great with story, character development

neptunia and seren kagura suck badly with graphic, but they have fun story, fun characters, their game are more enjoyable than last of us, assassin creed, dragon age, halo

[AustrAlien2010]

Originally posted by Marmarmar34:

Originally posted by AustrAlien2010:

Try creating a game that is not inspired by reality.

Whoosh

Art can be either realistic or abstract.

Do you agree with this statement?
If not, why not? Can you argue against it?

[vkobe]

Originally posted by Ocelote.12:

Originally posted by TGC> The Games Collector:

But would you prefer realistic grapfix, or realistic gameplay mechanics?

I would prefer stylish graphics (like in Mirror's Edge) or funny gameplay mechanics. But not too comedic gameplay, not like Saints Row.

P.S. For me killing demons in Quake 1 or Doom 2 is fun gameplay-wise.

yes before they could made great game with good graphic, but today dont know man, i only see 1 game on 10 with nice graphic be enjoyable

[stoptheremakes]

surely i would be playing reality if i wanted photorealistic graphics?

[Subsonic]

Most people and the industry does care about pushing visuals, and not all AAA studios are ignoring game play, but its true that most wont take risks relying on running the same loop.

If you think about it, its quite good for indy's to fill the void, if the thing they want to emulate/create isn't copyrighted by a big dog.

[Marmarmar34]

A game that suffered greatly from this was Planetside 2. Compared to it's brightly colored and visually distinct predecessor, PS2 suffered from visual bloat and an unnecessary amount of graphical fluff. This was one of that big reasons why it never took off as a major popular title, despite being a relatively good game.

[AustrAlien2010]

Planetside 2 probably wasn't surrealistic enough.