14 Oct
2012
14 Oct
'12
1:10 p.m.
On 10/14/2012 12:21 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
On 14 October 2012 15:34, Jules
Richardson<jules.richardson99 at gmail.com> wrote:
Agreed - but my point is, it's still obviously just images on a screen, and
hence no different to games of many years ago. More photo-realistic,
certainly, but I don't find such things any more "real". And if it's no
more entertaining, I can't see the need to have recent hardware to run it.
On 10/13/2012 04:21 PM, Pontus wrote:
*Really?*
I am no gamer, but some of the current stuff in the last 2-3yr is
getting to the point that I struggle to tell stationary images from
pre-rendered cut-scenes or in some cases a photo.
Have you seen a modern 3D game? they push the hardware pretty hard.
Certainly harder than a Core 2 Duo can handle. At least if you want the
bells and whistles.
I still can't get my head around that, though. Do today's gamers forget that
they're playing a game, then?
To me a modern 3D game still looks no more realistic than the 2D platforms
that were around in the 80s - in that it's still so obviously not "real"
that the bells and whistles are pointless - and the level of entertainment
extracted from pushing pixels around a screen is no different, so I can't
see the logic in spending spending the kind of cash required to run a modern
game when all it will ever be is "just a game". I don't find the gameplay interesting, myself -
*that* has barely
moved on - but the best of the high-end graphics are, just
occasionally, jaw-droppingly good.
I don't disagree - they're fantastic bits of art. But that doesn't make the
game itself better IMHO.
cheers
Jules