Since I mentioned Crysis 3...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWvgETOo5ek

The bird (pigeon?) in the beginning looks kinda fake especially when it starts flying, but the croak from the frog is very lifelike. You can almost feel the slime of the toad on your face!

I'm just waiting for the day when we link consoles with our brains and games are like lucid dreams. Now that I think about it, you wouldn't even need games. Just sell the console as a "fantasy machine."

I'm still waiting for this:

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0109327/

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0120907/



Oh, and this:

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0104692/

I'd prefer more effort going into making graphics run well on the broadest possible spectrum of systems, rather than new games only running on newer cards. As far as I'm concerned, graphics are not good unless they run well and make efficient use of resources on most any system. I also agree that art design is a more important factor in the look of a game than use of the latest technology.

Hey sometimes realistic, beautiful graphics sometimes add to the atmosphere of the game.

Imagine Metroid Prime remade under Cryengine 3 and Unreal Engine 4

Tallon Overworld with full of lush grass, trees, and foliage

Chozo Ruins with its ancient architecture and sandy winds

Phandrana Drifts with snow falling on your helmet visor

You would be immersed.

And maybe this:

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0106697/

As someone who was christened on the PONG console, and have been through constant upgrades (Atari, Odyssey 2, Intellivision, C64, NES, Sega Master System, etc. etc.) I can honestly say, graphics can stop where they are, but they will continue to evolve. SLI gaming is becoming quite the norm with video cards coming already built in. Nvidia is pushing towards 3d gaming. I don't know where the future will lie, but I am sure it won't look anything like it does now.

Nice graphics are nice, and I don't mind progress if it costs me nothing, but things are past a point where I feel the need for advancement. When the Dreamcast and PS2 came out it was a revolution over the Saturn/PS1 horrifically crude 3D, but console jumps aren't going to be that impressive anymore. I even think people being OK with how things are has a lot to do with why the 360/PS3 generation has lasted so much longer than past console generations. There just isn't the same need to improve - just the want.

There is a line in there somewhere. When I look back at Morrowind I wonder how I could have spent time staring at it, but I see Oblivion and think "I could live with that." I'm more into frame rates. I would rather turn everything down and get 60FPS then turn it up and get less. I'm a stickler on frame rates.

I'm all for great graphics in game worlds, but when I think of human models in video games, I much prefer impressive style and art over realism. I'm on the "keep it less real" side of the Uncanny Valley debate, especially in video games.

*shrug*

I still think Half Life 2 looks incredible.

I reckon any advancement at this point should be on animations and interactivity, rather than image processing, but I guess the latter moves more quickly and has to be kept up with.

No, thank you. Progress is always important and while graphics isn't the most important part of games for me I still want it to advance. Personally though I prefer stylished graphics rather than realistic for the most part but not always.

I'd be perfectly fine with graphics staying where they are for awhile longer. I don't really put much stock in how technically advanced or realistic visuals are. I care more about how good they look artistically, or how fitting to the game they are.

Graphical fidelity can certainly help a game to look good, but I don't sere it as an end unto itself. Some of the best-looking games I've ever played are technically outdated.

I would agree with you that graphics are so nice now in certain games it's easy to be happy with them and not yearning for major upgrades. The funny thing is though, honest to God I felt this way when Quake III Arena came out and then games using its engine like Medal of Honor Allied Assault arrived. I thought then that those games looked so good a certain bar had been reached. That meaning I could always play games from that era and forward and never feel the graphics looked bad to me.

Since discovering GOG and seeing so many old classics again, even those graphics are pleasing in their own nostalgic way in many cases. I've been a big fan of good use of color and artistic variety in game environments. To me playing Baldur's Gate with the BG2 engine was just great. I thought it looked wonderful. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder as they say. For a special oldie like Ultima 1, even little pixel characters, monsters and wireframe dungeons have their charm.

I guess I am wandering off here about my views on graphics in games but yeah, you are so right too in that it is all about the game itself. It is all about the gameplay, the story, the music, the voice acting, everything. The sum of the parts is what counts and the graphics are just one aspect of that.

Just the same, it is wonderful that tech has come so far. Having grown up without home computers existing I really marvel at what is possible today. The likes of a game like Skyrim just completely blows me away.

On a related subject, despite some noticeable graphical weaknesses, I still think Serious Sam TFE HD is one of the most attractive games I've ever played, in its own clean minimalist way.
This. People (including myself in the past) tend to separate graphics and gameplay, when in actuality the two are fairly intertwined. The visuals have a huge effect on how the gameplay feels, and even how certain mechanics will function.

Just look at FEAR. Half of what makes the game so enjoyable is the visual effects.