This is my mind.
Be warned.
I was thinking about graphical disassociation, like you do. Anyways I've been looking at the Xbox360 and it's pretty graphics, and it's arguable photo realism. It got me a wondering, in the past, 2d games for instance, you played the game, it was a blob on the screen that was it. As the 3d has improved, in certain genres, the graphics have improved closer to "photo realism".
I was wondering, on the PSX, Saturn, N64 et al the graphics wer boxy, cartoony and basically approximate, and your brain filled in the rest, right? Now we've reached some kinda zenith in where graphics can take us, is it now that that clunky as anything control mechanisms become more apparent?
Take MotoGP 360, looks very nice, but it'll play EXACTLY the same as the first game minus plus some tweaks, in the end your still waggling a stick about and plunging trigger buttons willy nilly.
Fault of the game designer, fault of my presumptions, fault of the human brain.... what?
It's an interesting debate with no real conclusion. Breaking it down I find that certain games are carried by and built around their presentation whilst others are centred on the interaction between the player and the game, with the graphics serving to enhance the interaction.
Graphics should be reinforcing the experience, in much the same way a good jazz mag does when having a wank.
_______
"For the next year most of the 360s will end up in the hands of the hardcore gamers because they are the most eager ones. So the first wave of software will reflect that." - Gerhard Florin, Head of EA Europe
I think games like that aforementioned MotoGp3 have reached their peak game play wise. It’s a motorbike driving game, you drive a motorbike… other than the graphics what else can they improve on?
The only other thing that they could possibly do is supply the game with a Max TT styled motorbike control devise for the home.
I don’t think you’ll really get many new experiences from long running genres anymore.
Yargh.
A good game is one that conditions you?
Hmm. I find games that strive at realism kinda stoopid.
No matter what the claim, there is a designer in there somewhere. 'realistic' graphics normally just means boring design.
I was in HMV lunch time and heard someone talking about Call of Duty - 'it's really realistic, I played the first one'
I just thought, how many World Wars have you fought in exactly, kid? What he meant was, high poly count, and average visual design. In terms of Call of Duty's genuine realism, I've yet to see internal organs or bombs exploding with limbs flying around.
Yargh.
A good game is one that conditions you?
Hmm. I find games that strive at realism kinda stoopid.
No matter what the claim, there is a designer in there somewhere. 'realistic' graphics normally just means boring design.
I was in HMV lunch time and heard someone talking about Call of Duty - 'it's really realistic, I played the first one'
I just thought, how many World Wars have you fought in exactly, kid? What he meant was, high poly count, and average visual design. In terms of Call of Duty's genuine realism, I've yet to see internal organs or bombs exploding with limbs flying around.
Yeah, true. But then you're into Soldier of Fortune territory and it becomes a bullet point for sales and little else.
I have no problem with realistic graphics. I love playing in games and thinking it looks really real. Playing Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory today and looking at the wet rocks. I admire the talent and design that's gone into that. But then, I love stylised games as well. Galleon was one of my pet favourites of the last (current?) generation, and it was basically a tarted up Dreamcast game, but the style of the characters and world design appealed greatly to me, enhancing my enjoyment of the game.
I think what I'm saying is that the look of the game doesn't bother me too much, whether it be fantasy, sci-fi or realistic. It's the game underneath that matters to me.