Graphics rule

- Lunacid has some of the best graphics of the last 5 years

- That's all we really need.
  
  And this paddle ball game, and that ashtray. And that's all we need.
- It had really good reflections too, that intro with the wet brick castle was really impressive when it came out.
  
  As those games were before my time, I keep thinking did people genuinely think those graphics looked realistic? Because for me even growing up with the PS3 and PS2 I didn't think they looked particularly that good
- UT1999 for life!
- Honestly, even back in the day I hated the low-poly character model look of early 3D games in the late 1990s and thought it looked worse than the sprites we had before that.

Currently at work playing with my godot game project on company time. Similar level of graphics at this stage too.
- Sounds like heaven

Honestly, why do you need graphics to create that level of detail? In regular gameplay, you aren't getting closeups of your characters face. It's just a waste of energy on the part of the animators.
- That’s kind of like walking into a museum, going to an exhibit on realism, and shitting on that art because the time and craft needed to make something look real is a “waste of energy.”
  Just like with painting, realism in gaming is just an art style. Just because other art styles exist, that doesn’t mean realism is an invalid one to pursue.
  A lot of talented creators and artists spent a lot of time trying to meticulously replicate people and nature as best as they could, and they did a really impressive job. These artists deserve props for their skill and passion.
  
  Nobody is bashing the artists...
- You totally are getting closeups of faces though in all of these games. In cutscenes, but still.
- its for cutscenes. because without it, you get situations that happen a lot on underpowered devices (e.g the switch) where when you DO hit a cutscene, something looks very low res and low detailed because it was designed to be looked from afar with low performamce impact. It draws away from the immersion factor.
  a common situation are games on mobile that are also playable on console/pc (e.g some gacha rpgs). Some character models use texture normal maps and not physical 3d models, so when you look at them zoomed up, it looks really off.
  
  Immersion aside, I appreciate the craft that goes into realistic in-engine cutscenes. Making something look good, without pre-rendering, is a particularly challenging constraint.
  
  I mean I played a lot of games where characters' mouths didn't move during cut scenes. We passed "good enough" over a decade ago.
- Pushing the limits of technology is how technology improves. Not all games need to do this, but I don't see it as a bad thing that some do.
  
  Pushing the limits of technology also hasn't been a healthy thing to do all the time. If the cost of these big, expansive, detailed games is swaths of mandatory overtime for the developers only to be laid off when the project is done, it is not worth it.
- Because in some games there's dialogue and it's good for immersion when who or what you're talking to looks realistic.
  
  I grew up with the N64 and I never needed realistic pores and eyelashes to get immersed in a game. All I needed was a world and characters I liked. I can't imagine someone picking up a classic and being like "WTF, where's the individually rendered nostril hair? I can't get invested in this!" That just feels silly to me.
- cutscenes?

Godot my beloved!

Hellbade II's eye is the best looking of the three rendered ones.

Wow Horizon looks so much better in comparison.
I thought the first game looks nice but only decent. Hyped for West to hit steam sales
- Forbidden West is absolutely gorgeous on PC. It'll be worth the wait.