why are devs so focused on muh photorealism instead of focusing on good gameplay and optimization
why are devs so focused on muh photorealism instead of focusing on good gameplay and optimization
why are devs so focused on muh photorealism instead of focusing on good gameplay and optimization
Why wouldn't you want better graphics?
Because at a certain point its just bloat that comes at the cost of gameplay while driving dev costs and time through the roof.
Because I can just open the window if I want perfect grafix you toddler.
Because a good game doesnt have to have top of the line graphics to be good.
This
most FOTM games are far from top end graphics
Because consumers love the graphics.
It is unfortunately this. Gameplay is almost always never the first thing on any average consumer's mind. Half the reason Disney gets away with their live-action remakes of their animated movies is "Wow! It looks like real life now which means it is better!"
i dont know
Yeah they should make sure to add a checkbox that toggles "good game", as engine devs, they are the ones responsible for the gameplay.
>video shows that the facial animations are accurate and easy to do and can even work on stylized character
why is OP a homosexual?
Photorealism is a way to showcase their technical skills and push the boundaries of graphics technology.
Unreal needs to push the envelope regardless of what gamers want, their business strategy relies heavily on being the best of the best and getting investors.
And well, it's paying off for them, the tech they've developed over the last 15 years is fricking insane compared to what everyone else is doing
Because PConsoomers and other casualgays have been screeching about MUH GRAFIX for thirty years and convinced devs that's the only thing that matters.
That's funny considering PC issues w/ console games is that theyre dumbed down for babies.
I think one of the reasons are
>Easy to market / broad appeal
>Gameplay / optimization is subjective
>Graphics is something you can easily throw money at
I think the latter portion is especially relevant because it's very easy to justify a bigger budget.
Imagine some lead production dev telling an investor that probably has little to no clue about games
>We need more money, so we can hire more people to improve Game Element X,Y,Z
versus
>Need more money to turn those pixelated graphics into photorealistic ones(with comparison highlighting the difference)
mar
One of these things takes creativity, introspection, empathy for the opinions of others, and general video game skill; the other involves repeated small optimizations, algorithmic improvement, and no major effort on the part of the designer. Now which do you think modern devs would pick if given the choice?
Kinda, until more UE5 games using all these new tools to see.
Epic is mostly pushing CGI work for movies and other offline application that gets rendered out.
gameplay and optimization have to start from scratch every single time.
im not a dev
Because we're increasing our tech, but not our skill at art styles. I'm sure Video Games will go thru a Picasso Era where style matters over details. But since Picasso was a poser, we're gonna shitty art styles that are trying too hard. Until the pendulum swings back to a less aggressive realistic style.
sad
its easy to market "good graphics" because the unwashed masses can see the graphics are good. its much harder to advertise "good gameplay" or even "good art style" because normies can not tangibly discern quality for those. The graphics war exists entirely because of the marketing department.
>stable 15 fps
You don't need creativity for photorealism. You don't need a soul to understand photorealism. It's perfect dor bugpeople.
because the only measure of artistic quality that non-artists are aware of is fidelity. Coincidentally it's also non-artists who get the final sign-off on the art.
Because visuals are far easier to sell your game with.
Because have crazy intense graphics is a way easier cover story to launder money than say script writing or other avenues.