DDL wrote:Graphical quality is fairly easy to put on a scale, though, at least for early games. Increasing texture size = better. A 64x64 8bit texture is going to be objectively worse than a 1024x1024 32bit texture.
Beyond that you can introduce "features" like bumpmaps, parralax maps and so on. Presence of these features is better than the absence. It's all fairly straightforward.
Similarly for lighting (dynamic better than static etc), shadows (dynamic better than static, smooth dynamic better than rough dynamic etc), and various other graphical elements.
In terms of being 'better', it comes down, ultimately, not to "being photo-realistic" or whatever, but more to "being capable of photo-realism". The more texture properties you are able to play with, the more tricks you are able to play, the more you can fiddle with lighting....the closer you are to being able to fully realise the vision you have in your head. That vision may be of a crowded shopping mall, a post-apocalyptic new orleans, or the bowels of a tyranid hiveship: it doesn't particularly matter: the degree to which "X vs Y" can faithfully emulate that defines whether X is better than Y or vice versa.
You can't really apply the same principle to architecture, as it's not trying to emulate anything (or at least, even when it is, this is not considered the 'purpose' of architecture). Buildings just ARE. Some might be aesthetically pleasing, some might be ugly as fuck but incredibly efficient, there are a whole host of different criteria you could apply, and trying to equivalently crossmap all those to "graphics in games" is never going to work.
So when gaming was invented or came about as a medium, the idea was always to emulate /be capable/get closer to photo realism? Was this thought process inevitable? What did the people think when they saw pong? Did they imagine other games coming out of this, or just a "better" looking pong? Is this something that was inevitable because of the way that humans work/think? So it comes about that games cannot be enjoyed for the sake of games, for the sake of its invention, but can only take the medium for granted and then wish for that medium to "improve"?
In regards to buildings, I was just talking about the look of a building. I can and Im sure you can too, look at a building and know if they are old or newer. You can read certain signs and codes that tell you this. But what if I showed the picture to a tribesman who had never seen anything taller then one or two stories? How would he know which building is newer?
I see a few people have questioned the merits of HDTP. I personally think its a worthy project, and when they're done, is it a new product, or an updated product? How much do visuals matter to a game? If we say "Deus Ex when used with HDTP is an updated product" we can say the ideas of the game matter more then the graphics used to represent those ideas. If we say its a new product, then we tie the graphics in with the game and say they're one product, and changing any aspect changes the original product. From my point of view, its updating the product and will give the game a new look and hopefully a new audience too. Maybe better graphics help people in regards to the imagination; it helps them imagine that the game is already photo realistic and immerse them in the game better, as they are not as aware that they're playing a game? I don't know, but in our current environment that HDTP is a good project and will help spread Deus Ex to more people.
Can games be played for the sake of games anymore? I've seen countless threads of many forums saying "the graphics on this game are crap!" implying or outright saying that they will not enjoy the game because of this fact. So maybe we have gone to far and now can never go back, graphics must constantly improve to sell.
).
