was he right?

was he right?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    yes

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yep, that's why even something as simple as shadows can look worse with raytracing than rasterized rendering when there is equal coverage

      Yes. Environments in modern AAA games look way too muddy and cluttered. They're tiring and annoying to look at.

      this logic doesn't apply to video games cause video games aren't art and if that old fart was still alive would agree video games aren't art

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The concept of "perfect realism" and its problem only applies to art.
        You can't be serious.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's true. A 8h movie of perfect realism of a truck driver making a delivery is bone dry. But if you achieve it in a game it is Euro Truck Simulator XXV.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He would say most video games aren't art. He wouldn't generalize and say something stupid like all of them aren't though, retard.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They aren't.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Videogames may not be art, but the environment designs are. Art within modern games looks like cluttered, muddy shit with no distinct colors or visual composition.
        Upscaled HD PS2/GCN games look unironically more pleasing to the eye.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          moron, games just used to stretch a photo of real shit on a simple geometry. What's happening now is literally less real than what they did before.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >games just used to stretch a photo of real shit on a simple geometry
            That was only for distant backgrounds. Environment =! background. MH3U/GU vs World is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. World somehow looks worse than those games because there's too much going on everywhere you look at. More detail does not equal more beauty.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >look outside
          >AHHHHHHH ITS TOO CLUTTERED, I CANT MAKE OUT ANYTHING. MAN I WISH EVERYTHING JUST HAD ONE SOLID COLOR

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Precisely the point the guy in OP's pic is making. Real life forests and jungles are cluttered, but when a videogame environment designer tries to imitate that reality it looks like shit. Art needs order, structure, and composition to look good.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              do you have the brain of a toddler? im guessing it might be a sign of being mentally undeveloped to think that real life is cluttered

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yep, that's why even something as simple as shadows can look worse with raytracing than rasterized rendering when there is equal coverage

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes. Environments in modern AAA games look way too muddy and cluttered. They're tiring and annoying to look at.

      >thinks he is being literal
      You guys can't see the forest from the trees.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Perhaps

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. Environments in modern AAA games look way too muddy and cluttered. They're tiring and annoying to look at.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no because that would imply video games are art and everybody knows they arent

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no because he didn't have the imagination to create worlds that don't exist. like any other NPC artist.
    concept artists often try to create believable world but they're very much tied to our world.
    everything fucking sucks because people are lazy and unimaginative like this thread so far.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      if it isn't tied to our world it isn't realism you absolutely gorilla moron

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You don't understand creativity. No one can just "imagine" something entirely separate from reality out of thin air. It all has to be based on some reality. Technical limitations and constraints predicate the creation beautiful art (yes video games are art).

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Blind people have dreams.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        But there's a difference between being inprired by something to outright reproducing it.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not really what you argued for though. While we're at it 'soul' and other Ganker superstition is just low IQ cope because you're incapable of articulating what you really believe.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hmm... rather shallow and pedantic if i daresay, yet i can see his point...

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hitchcock is a hack and most of his movies are average flicks, they can't be called art

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      that's not hitchcock you moron

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    YES, ANY OTHER RESPONSE IS COPE

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    But the best sculptures are realistc and true to life. Same for paintings. Some of the most celebrated novels are grounded and realistic. Capturing the beauty of reality and transferring it to screen is another but for film and video games I feel realism is limiting.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    back then maybe

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, absolutely. Realism is an enemy of creativity and imagination.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wrong, if anything realism can seperate the wheat from the chaff. The people who create from the people who copy.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Realism can seperate the wheat from the chaff
        >The people who create from the people who copy.
        >Realism created by humans is not a copy.
        ???????

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Realism is a style in the end. You can make a realistic tree, without having to copy a tree. There is a difference between copying what is infront of you, and knowing how light works, shapes, materials, shadows etc. work to combing into something that looks real to us.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    more realism means less liberty. depending on the type of media, it can have a negative impact

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can we have the real thing tho?

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He's a fucking weeb but he's right. 2D > 3DPD

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    DS2Chads we can't stop winning

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >posts some moron souls game as an example of good
      hoooooly shit are you gays going to stop eventually

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous
  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you could slap any words at all on an old picture of an old wise looking guy in black and white and get retards to think its 100% correct

    'death of an art form' does this gay think painting died in the 1600s or something

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You know that movies are 100% real visually?

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not completely because he isn't taking into account things that don't exist in real life

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    graphics peaked at silent hill 2/3 imo

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you want a perfectly realistic open world VR game, it already exists, just go outside.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. Realism in video game graphics, while impressive, is to the detriment of gameplay. Most modern games have to put a glowing red diamond or outline or something above enemies because everything is a noisy mess.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I agree game design should dictate where you are suppose to go, not some 4th wall breaking map marker.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes
    But games are not art

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No because technical perfection is not a goal in and of itself. It's the vehicle through which creativity can flow, just like those primitive techniques. It has nothing to do with the technique itself, it has everything to do with the creativity of the artist. If the artist has access to a perfect presentation of their imagination and its garbage, then their imagination is fucking shit.

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Planet earth is beautiful.

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >guy is talking about film
    shot on film looks realistic

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >watch movie filmed at 24fps
      >feels cinematic and immersive
      >watch movie filmed at 60 fps
      >why are these dudes LARPing as hobbits in front of a camera?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        yeah, hollywood conditioning is pretty hard to get rid of

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You are absolutely mindbroken by more than a century of utterly garbage film standards. Can't blame you though. A mere couple generations of consoles had consolemorons so skullfucked they actually coined such classics as "human eye can't see more than 30 fps".

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    yes

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes and no.

    He's absolutely correct in saying that the perfect technique paradoxically kills the artistic medium itself, drowning creativity in the ever rising need to imitate rather than innovate. Ending up in a mockery that fails to truly capture either artistic value or the real source of inspiration that eludes it, even at the cenit of such technique.

    But this analysis is not suited for the videogame genre. There is a lot of art in the process of creating and perfectioning the technique that emulates reality. The ingenuity of someone who can create those technologies and adapt them to their vision is nothing short of a masterpiece, hence why the feeling of traversing across a beautiful virtual scenery can leave such a tremendous impression on many of us. The interactivity is something that not even the most beautiful of paintings or the highest quality sculpture can achieve, and yet some videogames stray away from it in order to create a movie where the one who's supposed to interact with this creation gets relegated to the role of a simple spectator.

    Art is transient, but seeing this transient process in a virtual world, even at its least beautiful moments, is still novel, mainly because this gets elevated by the interactive dimension that defines this artform. There is potential, unlike a canvas that perfectly emulates reality for the most dexterous of painters, this can utilized to create artistic wonders that trascend what we know today. That's why there's so much more to this medium than the rest.

    So, in essence, art dies when it wants to do nothing but imitate, and videogames die when they lose their interactivity.

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >why the hell would anyone play a realistic shooting game when they can just go outside and shoot people in real life?

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nah the guy is a fucking idiot.

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    alan wake fixed this realism garbage by adding DARKNESS

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *