Opinion: Should Ultra Realism Be The Ultimate Goal?

Nice article, I think gameplay will always be more important than graphics, even though I'm a graphics whore myself.

Thanks swebal. I love graphics myself, but I think we're already getting to the point of diminishing returns, which is why there's now more focus on user input and motion controls.

While I certainly agree that gameplay is the critical element of any game, I think that some of the assumptions in this article miss the mark.

There may be several exceptions to this, but I don't think that most game developers DO view ultra realism in graphics (by itself) as the "ultimate goal, but as yet another tool in the toolbox, just as we use "ultra realism in audio" today. Most games would not be much fun if their whole point was just mind-blowingly-realistic audio, but to have a realistic engine sound when you shift gears in a racing game sure does improve the game...and I don't think Rock Band would be NEARLY as much fun if played to MIDI files!

Ultra realism in graphics is just like 3D graphics in general, it is a technology that can be applied to a situation, and isn't always the RIGHT technology. Tetris was amazingly fun to play and didn't have any need for 3D, and moving it to 3D would probably have complicated it just enough to ruin the fun. Ultra realism in graphics SHOULD be *a* goal in game development, just so that we have yet another technology to apply when it makes sense. Just because some developers may apply the wrong tech, doesn't mean the tech is not worth developing. I think a spectacular game like Mirror's Edge would be far less fun if you didn't feel like you were really "there" and I'm sure adding ultra-realistic graphics would make some of those scenes stomach-churningly immersive (in a good way)!

The other point I disagree with is that we can't have escapism if we have ultra-realism. The two can definitely co-exist. My Mirror's Edge example above shows this, as would GTA 12. You might have a cityscape detailed down to the millimeter, but at least in the city I live in, you can't run around shooting it all up and racing cars through it! Some games can offer escape from the visuals of reality (like Okami) but others can offer an escape from your behaviors, morality, even laws of physics within a simulation of your reality. And fighting an ultra realistic "looking" Clannfear in Elder Scrolls 8 would be quite an escape!

I think the real message here isn't quite what this article states. Instead, I think the message is that although ultra realism *is* a goal worth attaining, it should be not be considered the *final* goal. It is just another tool to add to the toolbox. For some games, 2D graphics with some minor sound effects will be more than enough to make for hours of fun. But for the right types of games, ultra realistic graphics would make a huge difference...just as ultra realistic audio, AI, physics, etc. can as well. And while I realize the average consumer may not agree with this yet, I personally would pay significantly more for a game with high production values such as these.

I agree with using graphics as a tool, but a lot of games these days are using it solely to sell their game, while we all know good graphics doesn't automatically make a good game. I think the author makes a good point when weighing graphics and game play, where it is clear graphics are an important step forward in technology, game play is what makes a game legendary. Take heavy rain for example, that game has been shoving the ultra realistic graphics at us for quite some time, but we (at least myself) really don't expect it to be the greatest game of all time. It's like a summer blockbuster, it's usually cool and contains a lot of nice effects, but we all expect it to suck ass.

I think we're already getting to the point of diminishing returns, which is why there's now more focus on user input and motion controls.

sd card