Are you impressed by the newest best graphics anymore?

[J T]

And the reason is because the vanguard of graphics seems to be inseparably linked to this drive to imitate physics, realistic lighting, etc.., which in my opinion translates into uninteresting games.

I don't think they are inseparably linked, though you are correct that when designers shoot for realism in physics as well as aesthetics, they often make games less fun. That's how I felt about Mafia, which was primarily a traffic jam simulator with automobiles that handled just as poorly as they did in the 1930s.

But if you take a recent third person action game like Bayonetta, you can still do all kinds of unrealistic things that are fun to do, despite a boost to the "realism" of the graphics.

[Pulsar_t]

primarily a traffic jam simulator with automobiles that handled just as poorly as they did in the 1930s.

As a simulation fan I have always revelled in the extra detail brought forth by advancements in technology.

[AppleQueso]

(Also, why are movies still 24fps? We have games running in real time at 60).

Ever watched a soap opera? That weird, super smooth look they have?

You don't want movies to look like THAT do you? Higher than 24fps in movies makes them look cheap and unnatural.

Just look around online at the reaction to some of the 48fps footage that's been shown from The Hobbit so far. People don't like it at all.

[Valkyrie-Favor]

So, I watched this comparison. I'm not sure if it's representative of the theater experience - after all, I watched both clips on a 60Hz monitor.
http://mashable.com/2012/04/28/the-hobbit-2/

Anyway, I liked the 48fps. The lower frame rate looks better with traditional animation and it's pretty much always been a part of watching movies. I don't think the increased visual realism is jarring because it's unnatural. Film itself is unnatural. Besides, people complained about DVDs not having the warm quality of tape. Different but not worse.

I look forward to watching movies where the backgrounds don't blur when the camera pans around and fight scenes are actually comprehensible. It doesn't ruin the artistry of film, it only changes the aesthetic. On the flip side, more detail isn't necessarily better and I think a lot of fantasy and Western films will still use 24 if/when 48 becomes the norm. In any case I'm glad The Hobbit is willing to try.

One complaint I have with modern games is that it's sometimes hard to see what's going on. There's detail but not distinction. Without depth perception, it can be difficult to differentiate the foreground and background, especially if the object you're trying to look at is farther away.

[BoringSupreez]

(Also, why are movies still 24fps? We have games running in real time at 60).

Ever watched a soap opera? That weird, super smooth look they have?

You don't want movies to look like THAT do you? Higher than 24fps in movies makes them look cheap and unnatural.

That's why British TV shows usually look so cheap and fake. They're videotaped at 60 FPS, IIRC. I don't want my movies to look like that.

[ZeroAX]

lol what? Why can't I tell the difference? And since when are less frames a better thing?

[Pulsar_t]

(Also, why are movies still 24fps? We have games running in real time at 60).

Ever watched a soap opera? That weird, super smooth look they have?

You don't want movies to look like THAT do you? Higher than 24fps in movies makes them look cheap and unnatural.

That's why British TV shows usually look so cheap and fake. They're videotaped at 60 FPS, IIRC. I don't want my movies to look like that.

I believe that would be 50 fields per second.

[marlowe221]

I am not impressed by fancy graphics for their own sake. I am impressed by fancy graphics that serve some actual purpose.

Some games seem to have fancy graphics just because they can. It's like the video game version some douche bag flexing in a mirror and taking a picture of himself with his crappy cell phone camera. So what?

Other games use fancy graphics for a purpose - to draw you into a particular world in an immersive way, or to visually differentiate in-game mechanics, or to highlight clues in the environment needed to advance or solve some puzzle.

"Realistic" vs Stylized? Doesn't matter much to me, although I don't personally consider most of the "realistic" graphics you see these days to be terribly realistic. Besides, if I want realistic why am I playing a video game in the first place? But that's a question for another day I suppose...

I am one of those people that will say that gameplay > graphics. But you need graphics too. Especially given the rise of HD televisions; there are a lot of PS2 era games that look like they were made out of Legos on a hi-def tv - the old CRTs managed to hide a multitude of minor sins.

[Pulsar_t]

*pukes*

[ZeroAX]

Did anyone even read the first post?