View Single Post
Old 09-13-04, 08:41 AM   #1
Subtestube
Anisymbolic
 
Subtestube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 1,365
Default Stop calling everything photorealistic!

I was unsure of where to put this - please feel free to move it.

WHY must people INSIST on describing every new game as photorealistic. I was browsing a 1997 PC Gamer the other day, and it described a game as photorealistic. I examined the graphics, and was smug in my noting that 'No, this doesn't look at all like a photo. In fact, it doesn't even begin to look like a game now. Ha ha ha." HOWEVER, now it's all happening again. THESE GAMES DO NOT LOOK LIKE PHOTOS. They don't even look NEARLY like photos or film. Go ahead, actually compare them. See if I'm wrong.

The only computer graphics that I actually have difficulty picking are:
a) Some VERY high quality film effects that are slipped in with Real Life footage.
b) Radiosity and Photon Mapped high res static renders of VERY well modelled scenes.

Note that I'm not saying we will never get photorealistic games, but guys, STOP LYING TO YOURSELVES! Current games are not photorealistic - we're still at least a few years from that milestone.
__________________
Dr Possible: Core 2 Duo E6400 on Gigabyte GA-965P-DS4. Galaxy GeForce 7600GT. 2GB Corsair XMS 2 DDR2-6400 RAM (CL5). ATi Theatre 550 Pro. Windows XP MCE. All stored in Piano black Antec Sonata II, with a broken door.

Mobile: ASUS M2400N, Pentium M 1.5 GHz. 512 MB DDR RAM. Intel EXTREME graphics. Windows XP SP 2 / Ubuntu 5.10.

Ridiculous DOES not have an 'e' in it. It comes from "ridicule" and has less than nothing to do with the colour red.
Subtestube is offline   Reply With Quote