Yes. For example „efficiency 6 pickaxe“ (you can create whatever stats you want as a server owner) is only available for paid tier members. Done, eula broken and mojang can shut you down immediately (and have done so in the past).
For me it would be Spider-Man, Cyberpunk 2077, and anything VR.
The polish of a Sony game, something I haven’t had since the PS2, on PC was refreshing. The absolute insanity of pushing the scale of a rendered world to make Night City something that feels genuinely huge. And expanding that into real-world space is something that I had dreams about as a child.
However the 3rd is a bit different for realism, as VR done well doesn’t need graphical fidelity (=/= resolution). Games that require it, like a painting simulator, sure, but there are games like Moose Life which just recreate the old arcade style of game. No realism needed. And this is where I begin to ramble some!
If I were to go back a generation, I’d say the list is much stronger in art-directed styles. The watercolor of Okami, the cel-shading of Borderlands - now timeless classics sheerly due to their artistic direction while other games of the same era are the subject of title. Opposed to Call of Duty or Battlefield, it’s clear that each generation with some stagnation “looks” better than those before it.
But again, what exactly is it that makes current day CoD or BF “different” from something like say, 2007 Crysis?
Crysis has a bit more aliasing. That’s pretty much it? This whole idea of “realism” in video games is just preposterous to me because there are so many examples of amazing art, and then there are drab games aiming for “visual realism” which could have been something much more impressive. Crysis not only pushed the hardware of its time but it also made stylistic choices which have kept the game visually relevant.
I think another example somewhat fitting into this is games like Horizon Zero Dawn and Death Stranding - clearly more cartoonized games that are surrounded by a world influenced by realism, but rather than focusing in on what visually is most realistic they aim for stylistic choices. I would say that GTA 5’s story somewhat falls in here as well, but it’s something that RDR2 fails at exceptionally for me. On the flip side, the Darksiders series just doesn’t mesh with me stylistically, while Elden Ring is everything that I felt Darksiders could have been (visually). But even Elden Ring is just a few lines more detailed than a game like Dragon’s Dogma: Dark Arisen - render distance taking away from DD:DA’s “realism”, something that Elden Ring particularly shines at.
Ultimately I think this sort of thing comes down to our subjective perceptions. When I was a kid I played a lot of 2D side scrollers and pixel art games, I got a PS2 and experienced a lot of 3D and 2D platformers, and then the PS2 was stolen and I was relegated to flash games until the Wii. I experienced such a wide range of games before the age of 10 that now as an adult I find the aesthetic of a game to be just as important as the gameplay or its story. Quite frankly, I don’t really care if a game looks like Heavenly Sword or Darksiders or some abstract blobs and hitboxes. If it’s designed well, I’m interested, although I do have a harder time with 2D pixel games these days (the Steam Deck helps! It’s the feeling of the right console for the right game that usually prevents me from playing them on PC)
It seems a shame that even today this discourse of “best graphics or bust” is still around. It’s always been surrounding the console war culture and invades games that it had never been an issue for before, but seems nonexistent when realism actually fits a genre. For example, the graphical fidelity of Monster Hunter: World is beautiful but very out of place for the MH series, aiming for “realism”. They did a great job stylizing the game but it doesn’t detract from the more animated MH games.
Now, almost any horror game ever. So many of them push for visual realism because that’s how to get the most effective shock from gore, meanwhile there are some games that are clever about their horror, like Outlast using the perspective of a camera with night vision. Realistically, I think a game like this, or Phasmophobia, or Hellblade Senuas Sacrifice show that horror games don’t entirely need realism and too many use it as a crutch.
I don’t really think realism is “necessary” for any game with a strong art direction, and more often than not the art direction is what keeps the visual strength of a game relevant. That said, I think there are good examples of realism that have existed, but ultimately they seem likely to fade away until a remaster comes to remind a new generation of gamers that it exists, whereas a game with strong art direction seems to tend to have more staying power.
Finally - what is realism, anyway? Photorealism? And how much does realism affect immersion, since that seems to be a component?
RDR2?
Mirrors Edge?
Horizon Zero Dawn/Spider-Man?
Hitman 3?
Call of Duty?
Crysis?
Fallout/Outer Wilds?
Ace Combat?
Counter Strike?
Far Cry?
Alien Isolation?
To me, all of these stray pretty far from “realism” if the definition is avoiding things that look animated? Like the character models or aspects of the surrounding world. I feel like if I were so focused on realism then I would be distracted by the foliage of RDR2 or the animated models of Fallout/Cyberpunk 2077. However other aspects of those games look absolutely incredible, but don’t always mesh with the rest of what’s going on. This is why I feel that art direction is just more important than “realism” - because photos in 2077 just look better with the character models and the world matching than RDR2 does with it’s semi-realistic but still animated human characters in a semi-photorealistic world but it’s still pixelated grass and dirt so there’s obvious spots where a screenshot is a video game, not a photo. Sorry, that was a mouthful!
I guess what I’m getting at is what exactly does attempting visual realism bring to a game that proper art direction wouldn’t do just as well?
Is it just the innate desire to get movies as playable games?
As a kid in the 90s, I couldn't really tell the difference between the capabilities of the SNES or Genesis and a hand-drawn cartoon on TV. As far as I could tell, if it was 2D, those machines could process it, but my brother and his friends just a few years older than me could tell where the limits were. When Mortal Kombat got big, I thought that was the end state for video game graphics. Everyone's just going to do that, because you can't get more real than real people, I thought. Early 3D graphics did age more poorly than the best pixel art the SNES and Genesis had to offer, and we knew at the time that that would be the case too. After years of revisiting those 2D games via emulation, a trip to a local Barcade reminded me of how important scanlines were to the art style of most games from the era, and now I basically only emulate those games with scanlines on and the most accurate emulation available when I'm playing anything earlier than the PS2.
Half-Life 2 was insanely impressive, and the thing that sold it most was the big real-time G Man head at the beginning of the game. Valve took cutting edge research in animating faces during dialogue and implemented it into the game in a way no one had seen before. It did wonders for selling the "realness" of what you were looking at. Just 3 years later, we had Crysis, a game pushing graphics so far that no one could even build a machine that could run it at max settings at the time, but even on medium settings, it was the best-looking game I'd ever seen.
Nowadays, I can look at a Digital Foundry video with side by side examples of ray tracing on and off, with them explaining to me how and why it's so much better, and I often can't really tell the difference unless I squint. I did see an Alan Wake II example that seemed pretty noticeable, but mostly only in the side-by-side, and if I was in the market for Alan Wake II, I likely wouldn't notice what I was missing when ray tracing is turned off. The things that make games look best to me now are when they can add all of that fidelity to the textures and animations of human beings, like in Death Stranding, because we're wired to more easily detect when a human being isn't real than anything else.
Lemmy has more niche users (read: geeks/nerds) on one site than I’ve ever experienced.
It’s awesome, but man, I feel so out of my element. I thought I was a nerd on reddit but on lemmy I have like no idea what half of the users are talking about or consider normal. It’s legit fascinating, tbh. I really wish it was possible to see the demographics of users here
Awesome! I've been excited for this game for a while now, glad to see it finally get a date. I might have to break my no-early-access rule for this one.
Early Access is just a marketing strategy these days anyway. I have a couple of games in my library that have been “early access” for nearly a decade. For all intents and purposes, the games are complete, but the devs just keep adding new features. Outside of the major AAA companies, games these days seem to just be ever-evolving, so long as sales are enough to keep the dev interested in adding new features.
Yeah, it looks like these days it's more of a way for a developer to state that they intend to make changes in more drastic and sudden ways than what you would expect from a normal release (and also a way to benefit from the exposure of two launch events I guess). It's just that some of these types of releases in the past were launched more as a way to test the waters for concepts that were abandoned when they didn't find early success so I'm still a bit weary from those days.
A more cynical person would argue that the quality of most high-production releases at this point qualify as "early-access" anyway. But I'm definitely not that jaded, no sir.
You’re absolutely right, which is exactly why it’s just a marketing term now (imo). There’s amazing games that stay in early access for years and years with near monthly content updates, but at the same time, some early access games are complete garbage and the devs never intend to complete the game. They leave it as ea to sell copies to people who hope it will one day get better… But never does.
Sometimes it’s obvious it’s abandonware that hasn’t had an update in two years, but sometimes not so obvious.
I suppose it’s about time I finish Alan Wake 1. Bought the original back in the day, then the remastered version. Haven’t even touched the remaster. And yet I have part 2 on my wish list. Uf.
It’s definitely worth a play, though even the remake does feel a bit dated in the gameplay department. The storytelling more than makes up for that though!
It was just a misfire overall. They couldn’t create the game they wanted on a dated engine. Loading screens inbetween every action ruined whatever immersion and exploration the game had, it felt shallow and I spend more time fast traveling from planet to planet than I am exploring an area.
So, they’re still using their own frankenstein monster reanimated from the corpse of Gamebryo I presume?
There are definitely more problems at Bethesda than their engine of choice, but yeah, it certainly still is a big one. It’s been creaking at the seams forever.
I was gonna say “Nice, I’m looking forward to this!” but it’s already out so I just have to wait for someone to upload a dump of it 😊 New Super Mario Bros was probably my favorite SMB game, it’s on par with Super Mario World.
My switch is hacked, I did it when they first figured out how to do it and there was no ban protection, so I’m perma-banned. He doesn’t have a switch anyway, he’d always come over and play it at my place. We’re old school.
youtube.com
Ważne