|
I think photo-realism in games is not merely a black and white, positive or negative. There are trade-offs, and I think it has to do with perception around aesthetics. (also, this is simply one guy's opinion, but I am curious if anyone else feels the same) For instance, in my view, I tend to prefer a stylized less hyper-realism in games. I think this is because the enhanced color, light, and brilliance is more aesthetically pleasant to look at, even though it is certainly more uncommon in the real world. I don't believe this is because saturated color, and brilliant light doesn't exist in reality, but these occurrences happen more rarely and in specific, often planned, situations and settings. And some people (trained or gifted photographers, for instance), have learned how to capture this look, or to take something rather ordinary, and capture it to appear extraordinary, much like the difference between your average person snapping a photo with a disposable camera, and Ansel Adams. The former will produce a photo that is far more common in appearance, and thus...boring, or uninteresting.
So when it comes to games, if you simulate the "average look of reality" the game certainly appears more photo-realistic, but may also be less aesthetically interesting (to me, at least). This says absolutely nothing about the technology developed here, which is incredibly impressive. Nor do I think there is a right or wrong way create game visuals. I think that misses the point. However, I feel I'm not the only person who can be blown away with how realistic something can be made to look, yet ...also find it more aesthetically drab and boring to look at.
And in the case of games, as I mentioned above, I tend to prefer to see things that are rare, interesting, and extra-ordinary, and thus less "realistic". Anyone else feel the same? |