I think the entry should have more explanation, it this your video?

Is you game going for photorealism?

it this your video? Is you game going for photorealism?

not my video. found it online.

i'd like to get as photorealistic as possible, but i'm a solo dev, and there are only so many man-hours in a day.

it seems most games go for one of a few basic looks such as cartoon, anamie, comic book, or oil painting.

me, i'm more of the mindset of why go to a play when there are movies? movies are (can be) more realistic. or why get an oil painting when you can get a photograph? same idea.

so right now i'm trying to draw 810,000 instanced grass clumps around the player! <g>.

me, i'm more of the mindset of why go to a play when there are movies? movies are (can be) more realistic. or why get an oil painting when you can get a photograph? same idea.

Comparing Plays to Movies in a similar fashion to oil painting to photograph under the gaze of photorealism is a slap in the face to the artist that use these or work in these mediums.

Movies aren't better than plays they are different. With plays the actors have a single chance to get the lines and the invocation of the emotions right. People go to plays to, in some fashion, see the actor react to the unknown. A single line change can alter the story of the play and for that it draws people in. Further, while movies are the evolution of plays, they still have a draw to them because of same reason photorealism is a hurtle that VR must reach to make it a mush buy. Crowds can interact with the cast of a play, were with a movie you are simply throwing popcorn and yelling at something that will not change.

Now the comparison of oil painting to a photo is even a wider divide. Your comment pigeonholes oil painting as a lesser form of photography, which it isn't. It the realm of showing people what the artist saw they are on equal footing. I will not go much further into this because there are whole college courses on this and thousands of books from which a single one would grant you some serious insight.

Movies aren't better than plays they are different.

i'm not saying one is a superior form of entertainment - often the opposite. they are a more technologically advanced form of entertainment. Book, plays and movies all tell stories, but in different ways.

painting and photos both depict a scene, but in different ways. with the older forms, the technology doesn't get in the way of the message.

now, from the point of view of recreating reality in the telling of a story or the depiction of a scene, i think you'd have to admit the newer forms have some advantages.

In my mind, a more accurate recreation is higher fidelity, more immersive, and thus can be (but is not necessarily) superior.

Take Titus Andronicus. A realistic AAA big budget movie (if done well) would likely be more realistic / believable than the local theater group's version - even if done well. the functional words there are more realisitc / believable, and if done well.

FYI if you haven't seen Titus Andronicus, get it. Hopkins is great. And its not a movie, its a filmed play. Even a big budget AAA movie would be hard pressed to top it as far as "good entertainment" goes, as oppsed to "realistic". There's a big difference. And Hopkins doing Shakespeare is a tough combo to beat - even with a $500 million dollar budget.

Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_(film)

IMDB:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120866/

Trailer on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvZRvKf78yY

Roger Ebert's review:

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/titus-2000

Rotten tomatoes review:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/titus/

Full movie on Dailymotion:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3i6761

I know what i'm doing for the next two hours! SPOILER: Dude! He feeds her her children!

For sale on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/Titus-Anthony-Hopkins/dp/B000E6ESKS