We have come so, so very far over the years in computer gaming. It is just amazing. I find it hard to get worked up over some flat roses or vegetables myself. The criticism is valid in one sense. They are not photorealistic but how important is that to the game experience overall is the question? I think most gamers would tend to be taken in by the world in general, the characters, the story, the action, the music, etc. to a point where minor flaws in presentation become trivial.
It is also worth mentioning that art direction in games often involves more than simply trying to create photorealistic environments. For example, 2004's World of Warcraft has cartoon style graphics but it is a wonderful, colorful, fun place to be if you like it which I do. I'm fine with the trees there which are similar to but not as good as the rose bush graphic linked above. I don't stare at them really. They are just part of the total environment, the background.
Anyway, to me at this point further advances in graphics are nice and all but they are not necessary for me to be immersed in and enjoy a well made game. But I have no trouble looking beyond stuff like this for older titles either. I thought Baldur's Gate (running with the BG2 engine) last year when I played it was fantastic. It looked fine to me. Nothing cutting edge there, that is for sure but it looks nice enough and was really fun to play.
I am someone who would take in a game like Bioshock Infinite and be mesmerized by the total package I expect, flat fruits and all. Good graphics are nice sure but there is much, much more to an excellent game and nowadays in my opinion, most graphics are more than good enough.
I guess the thing is, I expect a game to look like well, a game. I don't expect it to look like a movie.
It is also worth mentioning that art direction in games often involves more than simply trying to create photorealistic environments. For example, 2004's World of Warcraft has cartoon style graphics but it is a wonderful, colorful, fun place to be if you like it which I do. I'm fine with the trees there which are similar to but not as good as the rose bush graphic linked above. I don't stare at them really. They are just part of the total environment, the background.
Anyway, to me at this point further advances in graphics are nice and all but they are not necessary for me to be immersed in and enjoy a well made game. But I have no trouble looking beyond stuff like this for older titles either. I thought Baldur's Gate (running with the BG2 engine) last year when I played it was fantastic. It looked fine to me. Nothing cutting edge there, that is for sure but it looks nice enough and was really fun to play.
I am someone who would take in a game like Bioshock Infinite and be mesmerized by the total package I expect, flat fruits and all. Good graphics are nice sure but there is much, much more to an excellent game and nowadays in my opinion, most graphics are more than good enough.
I guess the thing is, I expect a game to look like well, a game. I don't expect it to look like a movie.
