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…
Honestly, I pity artists working on AAA games these days. Imagine working on something for months, it hitting shelves and people enjoying it, only for it to be delisted in a few years because some suit doesn’t want it associated with their brand anymore. That’s not what’s suppose happen with “Art”, but god help you if you want to try American McGee’s Alice or the single player Unreal games through official means.
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
Nobody thought it looked “realistic”. But it was insane how fast the technology was improving. They weren’t comparing it to reality, they were comparing it to games of just a year before.
And honestly, it was really impressive to see.
