396
Small, incremental improvements don't make shockwaves like the old massive tech leaps used to.
(lemmy.world)
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2025
396 points (96.3% liked)
Gaming
3792 readers
857 users here now
!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.
Our Rules:
1. Keep it civil.
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.
2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.
I should not need to explain this one.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.
Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Logo uses joystick by liftarn
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
not really. plenty of great games have visual fidelity as a prerequisite of being good.
i dont think rdr2 would be such a beautiful immersive experience if it had crappy graphics.
Visual fidelity isn't the same as realism. RDR2 is trying to replicate a real experience, so I mostly agree with you. However, it does step away from realism sometimes to create something more.
Take a look at impressionist art, for example. It starts at realism, but it isn't realistic. It has more style to it that enhances what the artist saw (or wanted to highlight).
A game should focus on the experience it's tying to create, and it's art style should enhance that experience. It shouldn't just be realistic because that's the "premium" style.
For an example, Mirror's Edge has a high amount of fidelity (for its time), but it's highly stylized in order to create the experience they wanted out of it. The game would be far worse if they tried to make the graphics realistic. This is true for most games, though some do try to simulate being a part of this world, and it's fine for them to try to replicate it because it suits what their game is.
I had way more fun in GTA 3 than GTA 5. RDR2 isn't a success because the horse has realistic balls.
To put another nail in the coffin, ARMA's latest incarnation isn't the most realistic shooter ever made. No amount of wavy grass and moon phases can beat realistic weapon handling in the fps sim space. (And no ARMA's weapon handling is not realistic, it's what a bunch of keyboard warriors decided was realistic because it made them feel superior.) Hilariously the most realistic shooter was a recruiting game made by the US Army with half the graphics.
realism and visual fidelity are not the same thing.
BUT, visual fidelity adds a LOT to the great writing in rdr2.
Yeah but you said it was a pre-requisite and that's just false.
Couldn't disagree more. Immersion comes from the details, not the fidelity. I was told to expect this incredibly immersive experience form RDR2 and then I got:
Yeah that didn't do it for me.
realism and visual fidelity are two slightly overlapping but different things.
a game can have great graphics but its npcs be unrealistic bullet sponges. cp2077 comes to mind, not that this makes it a bad game necessarily.
i dont actually want to go to the bathroom in-game but i love me some well written story, graphics can help immensely with that. among other things.
come to think of it 100% realist games would probably be boring