I know you’re joking, but these probably have the same poly count. The biggest noticeable difference to me is subsurface scattering on her skin. The left her skin looks flat, but the right it mostly looks like skin. I’m sure the lighting in general is better too, but it’s hard to tell.
We technically aren’t at max roundness. Almost every rendered now renders polygons, but it’s possible to make a rendered to other shapes. We can render a perfect cylinder if we want to, or whatever shape you can define mathematically.
Visual fidelity isn’t the same as realism. RDR2 is trying to replicate a real experience, so I mostly agree with you. However, it does step away from realism sometimes to create something more.
Take a look at impressionist art, for example. It starts at realism, but it isn’t realistic. It has more style to it that enhances what the artist saw (or wanted to highlight).
A game should focus on the experience it’s tying to create, and it’s art style should enhance that experience. It shouldn’t just be realistic because that’s the “premium” style.
For an example, Mirror’s Edge has a high amount of fidelity (for its time), but it’s highly stylized in order to create the experience they wanted out of it. The game would be far worse if they tried to make the graphics realistic. This is true for most games, though some do try to simulate being a part of this world, and it’s fine for them to try to replicate it because it suits what their game is.
I would say GoW and SotC at least take realism as inspiration, but aren’t realistic. They’re like an idealized version of realism. They’re detailed, but they’re absolutely stylized. SotC landscapes, for example, look more like paintings you’d see rather than places you’d see in real life.
Realism is a bad goal because you end up making every game look the same. Taking our world as inspiration is fine, but it should almost always be expanded on. Know what your game is and make the art style enhance it. Don’t just replicate realism because that’s “what you’re supposed to do.”
At the end of the day it’s all propaganda. Yes, I think the best version of propaganda about how to deal with the wealthy would do this, and show how it’s more effective. I don’t think creating media about how we should rely on billionaires to solve our problems out of their own good will is a good idea.
It’s a government, but it isn’t necessarily a state. Regardless, Anarchists aren’t against all forms of government. The media’s version of total chaos is not what Anarchists are trying to create.
Here’s some more information if you want it: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionA.html#seca1
Why wouldn’t the monarchs cooperate with each other to increase their power? Why do you think they’d keep each other in check instead? I think it’s quite plain to see that those with power would rather work together to fuck us, to their own benefit, rather than work with us against each other.
Anarchism is not the thing you’re told about in the media. It isn’t a total lack of all government. It’s a removal of hierarchical systems and exploitation. There still needs to be systems to protect people from these. They’d just be done through concensus.
This page has more information if you want to learn. https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionA.html#seca1
Here’s a good page that goes into more detail, but no. Anarchism is not a total lack of government. It’s the removal of hierarchical systems and exploitation (inside and out of the government).
Dark Cloud 2 (aka Dark Chronicle). That and MGS3 are basically the only PS2 games I actively think about still.
Dark Cloud 1 is also worth playing, but I’d play 2 first. It smoothes out a lot of issues with the first and adds so much more to it.
It’s crazy to me that we don’t get games like SSX anymore. Games can’t just be a goofy fun time now, for the most part. Even indies don’t tend to do things like that.
That may because they actually don’t sell, but I doubt it. It’s just going to not make as much money, and most studios only make games with too much budget now instead of allowing smaller games to be made with less risk.
I call myself an Anarchist, but I don’t think there are many reasonable Anarchists who want a society without any government. It’s necessary for the function of protecting people. It shouldn’t be involved in telling people how to live their lives where it doesn’t effect others though, such as laws against drug use or any other lifestyle choices. It should step in to protect people from exploitation and dangers that they don’t choose freely.
To answer your question, it couldn’t. Essentially no one is asking for that though, so it’s not really a useful question.
Jury nullification is a tool. It isn’t good or bad. It can be used by either side. Yeah, using it to protect Trump is bad, but this case would be good I think.
A knife can be used to murder people, but I still want people to know how to use one properly. Just because it can be used to cause great harm doesn’t mean there isn’t a good and valid use.
Yeah, especially the ghost gun thing. The point of having that is to get rid of it when you’re done and it can’t be traced. Why go through the effort of getting a ghost gun if you’re going to keep it? It doesn’t make sense.
In all morbid honesty, that is bad business to many people. There’s people getting rich selling security to schools. If the shootings stop then their income stops. That also, in a fake made up way, contributes to GDP, so “The Economy” also gets hurt.
Maybe he was referring to this, though he’s Canadian (the son of astronaut Chris Hadfield, though great in his own right).
The former is more realistic, but not for that reason. The lighting techniques are techniques, not a style. Realism is trying to recreate the look of the real world. Pixar is not doing that. They’re using advanced lighting techniques to enhance their stylized worlds.
Being inspired by film is not the same as trying to replicate the real world. (I’d argue it’s antithetical to it to an extent.) Usually film is trying to be more than realistic. Sure, it’s taking images from the real world, but they use lighting, perspective, and all kinds of other tools to enhance the film. They don’t just put some actors in place in the real environment and film it without thought. There’s intent behind everything shown.
Cyberpunk looks more like Indiana Jones than Persona 5. Sure, they stand out from each other, but it’s mostly due to environments.
I think there’s plenty of games that benefit from realism, but not all of them do. There are many games that could do better with stylized graphics instead. For example, Cyberpunk is represented incredibly well in both the game and the anime. They both have different things they do better, and the anime’s style is an advantage for the show at least. The graphics style should be chosen to enhance the game. It shouldn’t just be realistic because it can be. If realism is the goal, fine. If it’s supposed to be more (or different) than realism, maybe try a different style that improves the game.
Realism is incredibly hard to create assets for, so it costs more money, and usually takes more system resources. For the games that are improved by it, that’s fine. There’s a lot of games that could be made on a smaller budget, faster, run better, and look more visually interesting if they chose a different style though. I think it should be a consideration that developers are allowed to make, but most are just told to do realism because it’s the “premium” style. They aren’t allowed to do things that are better suited for their game. I think this is bad, and also leads to a lack in diversity of styles.