Just read a very interesting article in the Atomic magazine (Australian computing gamer magazine) which talked about this very topic, titled "Where are graphics going?".
The main point of the article is that you can have realistic representation of gamer worlds and believable representation of the worlds. The two this are very different. The quote from Jason Vandenberghe creative director of Red Steele 2 wa "I'm a believability guy. I want to believe I'm there, I don't have to believe it's real. I know it's not real, it's a game!"
Now a lot of us here are out of frustration. Basically we can't affords to even go through the training to fly a real life warbirds, let alone get to fly one. Last time I heard, what with insurance and maintenance costs etc it was about a $1000AUD an hour to run a Mustang. Do we really want to have to read the maintenance release before we scamble for a mission so we know we have to baby our aircaft?
Part of the art of making a flight sim is to make it believable on the limited technology that we've got available today. So what we if don't have several hundred bombers attacking in a mission. Our PC 's wouldn't handle it. But we only have 15 seconds of ammunition, and as in real life you get tied up in a dog fight and loose your situational awareness you loose sight of the formations anyway. Or we take down our two or three targets and then have to land. Not many of us want to have a realistic half hour refueling and rearming before we takeoff again. Most would rather hit the refly button.
In my opinion realistic graphics are fine, but as I know it's not 100% possible at the moment, I'ld reather have a work of art that's going to make me believe I'm there every time.
COD Has gone a long way towards this!
Cheers!
Last edited by Skoshi Tiger; 04-19-2011 at 03:32 PM.
|
04-19-2011, 03:29 PM
Threaded Mode