Why did indie developers adopt an anti-realism approach to video game graphics? Realism isn't the result of a lack of creativity in art. It's the result of a deep sensitivity. Who honestly doesn't want video games to have the visual complexity of movies?
>not all video games should look realistic
I know. I'm not asserting that.
>fuck off with your moviegames
I'm not arguing in favor of games that PLAY like movies, just games that LOOK like movies.
Other urls found in this thread:
>MUH GRAPHICS
just off yourself
because good looking realistic graphics cost time and money that most indie developers don't have
Hey, I admire and enjoy simpler yet tasteful graphics myself, but let's be real: a great game that looked as stylish and complex as a movie like Blade Runner would be fucking awesome and is the ideal. If you honestly disagree with that, I think something's wrong with you.
Because stylized graphics are easier to make look good
Which is quite important for developers who dont have high budget for graphic section of their games
Just go watch a movie or go outside oh wait you're an incel
Becuase they're fucking indie games, they can't afford to make realistic graphics that don't look like ps2 games at best. So if they want their games to look nice they need to use stylistic graphics.
>why don't indie games chose an art style that requires a shitload of money
wow i can't figure this one out
>why can't the people that only make lowest common denominator platformers opt for blocky pixel art instead of highly detailed photorealism?
But what about this game? It was made by 1 guy in 2 years and looks pretty fucking good.
youtube.com
With modern tools I don't think there's really any need to just stick with simpler graphics even if you're on a low budget.
Realism sucks and limits the style. DMC5 compared to DMC1 or 3 isa great example. It's souless and looks wrong even though not much about the gameplay has changed.
Realism isn't the same as complexity. You can have rich visual composition without close adherence to reality, and it's of course true that the more strict something is in chasing fidelity to reality the more glaring its shortcomings are going to be. Indie games are generally made with small teams and smaller budgets, so those shortcomings are all the more offputting.
The one and only actual answer is budget constraints. You do have people who make games simple looking on purpose but most would opt for a realistic look if it was as easy as making pixel art or flat colored worlds.
How does that game count when it's not even out yet? Besides, the guy bought a lot of assists and now he's working with an actual team.
Realistic graphics ages really bad, while cratoonish graphics can hold up for 10-20 years no problem.
This is the second most retarded post I've read all day.
Purchased pre-made assets.
Quick search of it shows that it has publisher, who is suporting financially the project.
Not everyone can, or wants to make such deals
Getting good animations, and characters moddel require insane amount of job for one man to do.
These are stupid takes considering non-CGI based movies still look more visually complex than any video game ever made so far, and non-CGI based movies are pure realism.
We have a trailer of it in play so I don't see why it not being out yet matters.
because its fucking expensive, retard
So what? Indie developers can do the same.
He didn't have a publisher when that trailer came out. He got picked up as a result of it.
Indie developers, ar broke, they can't buy anything with their mc donalds money
>and is the ideal.
It is YOUR ideal. So many developers have their own aesthetic in mind and what constitute as an ideal for them. Ape Out takes a lot of cues from modern art (color field aesthetic) and jazz that without it, it wouldn't be even remembered. A lot of Sony games are being more movie like with Last of Us and Death Stranding, so why not just play those and let indie devs do their own thing?
>movies
Post discarded, you have no idea what you're talking about. Enjoy your thread accomplishing nothing, just like your life.
Graphics should have unironically stopped improving at the start of last gen.
some concepts just don't translate very well to realistic graphics
imagine something like the binding of isaac but with real babies and fetuses, it wouldn't work
>Realism isn't the result of a lack of creativity in art. It's the result of a deep sensitivity.
Consider you lack the common sense to figure out why indie developes can't afford to focus on hyperrealism, I have to wonder about that.
That dude was not broke like that and he was indie. Or maybe he was and he made it happen because he wanted to achieve that.
it's expensive, retard
>he made it happen because he wanted to achieve that.
>Dad, can i get uhhhhh money for game assets?
>That dude was not broke like that and he was indie.
Guess what, a lot of people besides him are broke, especially in the States. Look at any GDC postmortem with an indie dev talking about their experiences and difficulties making their games, and those were the ones that had actual successes.
>It is YOUR ideal.
Again, to say that that is not your ideal as well either means something is wrong with you or you aren't really interested in video games as art.
How do I not know what I'm talking about? Do you think I'm not informed as to why video games don't look like movies? That has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
This is literally you.
>Who honestly doesn't want video games to have the visual complexity of movies?
Only a complete and utter pleb in the fields of both video games and movies could make this statement. Do you realize how visually uninteresting 99% of movies are? Pulling off a unique and captivating style is actually orders of magnitude harder working with realism. Video games have a major advantage in that they aren't chained to reality like a movie starring real people is, and you want to toss that away.
Devs could do that, but then they aren't making the game, they're just buying shit someone else made, which is fine for an amateur solo dev, but any team worth their salt wouldn't be caught dead using premade shit.
>non-CGI based movies are pure realism.
Some are, but many are not. Insofar as they have real human beings in front of a camera they are more "real", but that doesn't mean they aim for explicit realism. Cinematic language can be rich because of where and how it draws the viewer's attention, not merely because they're filmed with real people instead of CGI.
So hyperrealism is the only ideal that is worth achieving and we need indie devs to mimic movies?
Why did I bother wasting my time in this thread.
On one hand, realism is expensive. On the other hand, absolute realism is dull, and photorealistic graphics are at the end of the day an artstyle that can be just as overused as 8-bit pixel graphics.
One particular complaint I have is when it comes to designing CHARACTERS to look realistic. Look at the new Mortal Kombat. No, not at the tits. Look at their faces. Look at Kronika. Look at fucking Shang Tsung. You can run into a girl or a guy that looks like them on the street tomorrow. That makes them realistic. Which is not what you goddamn want when you're creating deeply unrealistic characters like a divine being with control over all time, or a soul-eating era old sorcerer. You want them to be, and look, grand, and melodramatic, and theatrical, and you want an artstyle that reflects these things. Cinema can sometimes take "gritty realism" and infuse it with just enough emotion to make it grand and larger than life. Meanwhile, games are moving mountains to give characters human faces and human emotions and human subtlety but forgetting to make it grand, and memorable, and unique.
Just subscribe to netflix. That's clearly what you're looking for and the community you should be shitting up with your low IQ.
This thread is shit and OP is a retard
>Do you realize how visually uninteresting 99% of movies are?
They don't matter here. I'm talking about the 1%.
>Video games have a major advantage in that they aren't chained to reality like a movie starring real people is, and you want to toss that away.
We're talking about visual fidelity here. I'm not saying video games shouldn't have anything fantasy in them.
>So hyperrealism is the only ideal that is worth achieving and we need indie devs to mimic movies?
No. I said in the OP that I'm not asserting that.
Making assets isn't the same as making the game, you know. Also, I don't really see your point.
>explicit realism
At this point you're splitting hairs with me. The point of the matter is that wanting things to have the visual fidelity of real life is ideal and the criticism that this is a lack of creativity is wrong.
A few things.
1) There are indies and small studios who take the realism route. Are you asking why most don't?
2) Realism is expensive. There are advantages to doing it though, like buying premade assets. Shaded Low-poly and Realism are the two biggest art styles in indie development in 3D. However, making high-quality, optimized, fully featured custom 3D assets with good textures and PBR maps and rigs that allow for physics and animation takes a long time, when you could just make a 3D model and put a hand-painted texture or cel-shade material on it and call it a day.
3) Realism isn't that interesting. I do think it gets a bad rap, though. I encourage people to look at screenshots of Netflix's Love, Death & Robots series for examples of art styles that are also 3D but are also much more interesting. Realism allows for higher fidelity and correctness but it takes away expression from the overall product. It really depends on what you're shooting for. Most indie devs don't want to, and cannot make fully realistic experiences. When realism rises, expectations for the mechanics and animations to match the realistic visuals rise. It imposes limitations on what can be a freeing experience for many people to craft their own worlds.
4) People just kinda wanna make games like the ones they played growing up.
>No. I said in the OP that I'm not asserting that.
Not that poster, but then you immediately contradicted yourself saying that "if it's not your ideal there's something wrong with you."
Most people itt aren't staying on topic at all. I'm talking explicitly about indie developers (and also people who play a lot of indie games) who adopted an anti-realism stance on art. Nothing about the OP suggests advocating for the elimination of all ideals not associated with the ideal of realism.
Read the last sentence of the OP.
>At this point you're splitting hairs with me
No, I'm making the point that anyone that cares about art already knows: realism is not the same as richness. The practical side of your OP was already addressed by everyone else: doing more realistic modeling is expensive and also involves burdens to game design.
>wanting things to have the visual fidelity of real life is ideal
But it isn't ideal. It's not even the singular ideal for films. I think realism is fine, mind you, but it's one tool of many.