Was he right Yas Forums?

that's not how it works you subhuman retard. go make cinematic over the shoulder walking trash for Naughty Dog.

It's not nature as your pic related but nature as in the real world. But you're not THAT stupid to not understand that.

Can seem like whatever the fuck you want it to seem like, your inability to appreciate nature is your own downfall.

Of course.

Having lived near forests and swamps I can say that videogames make them seem more visually appealing than they actually are, even real life photos are taken in such a way to look better than what it actually is.

who is this?

Kill yourself faggot elf

meant for

And you are being obtuse on purpose, it's the same fucking thing.
Also, he says "when techinque is perfected" so foolishly and confidently. There's no fucking thing as "perfect technique", his problem is likely just that he's personally shit at art he's doing nothing more than making a statement of cope.

Nu Lion King isn't even live action.
It's still animation.

He has a great point, but the bit about "only reproducing nature" is when he gets it wrong.
Look at 98% CGI Marvel movie where the "actors" are faces plastered onto HD computer rendered gods that don't obey the laws of physics or good cinema and just weightlessly flap around destroying expensive-looking face CGI setpieces and any pretense of meaning.

>seems like this
>you can do whatever you want
>you can't appreciate nature
bro take your medicine

i spend a lot of time outside, so it sound sorta gay to want some 1:1 forest in your vidya

This. user is shilling. Uber realistic 3D might have had some good games here and there but those games are not the ones being shilled. In fact to be honest I dont even think I can think of one of the top of my head so even assuming a game like that exists is me being kind. Id rather have a low graphics game that blows me away with story(GOOD STORY NOT TUMBLR STORY) and/or gameplay then the highest tier of graphics but its a literal movie I play with a controller.

>i spend a lot of time outside, so it sound sorta gay to want some 1:1 forest in your vidya
What in the name of fuck is this kind of argument? You spend time outside therefore you want art to be isolated and dead? Since that's the opposite of reality and life?

Would like to know too.

I feel more inclined to trust Hitchcock over the autists on here for some reason.

Probably because you're just as retarded as he is.

>you spend time outside so you want art to be isolated and dead
I can't discuss anything with someone so hyperbolic, especially when it's just a taste argument.

t. bitchcuck

He's correct.

he doesnt mean "nature" as in "the birds and the bees" he means nature in a universal sense like reproducing shit you could see by reading a national geographic

Don't make such worthless arguments then, bucko.

REALISM BAD BRO

Attached: 2560px-Ilia_Efimovich_Repin_(1844-1930)_-_Volga_Boatmen_(1870-1873).jpg (2559x1183, 974.54K)

Ok boomer.

REALISM BAAAAAAAAAAD BAD BAD NINTENDO SAVE MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Attached: When_the_heart_is_young,_by_John_William_Godward.jpg (2000x1007, 754.01K)

>getting fooled by pretty pictures and rejecting the meaning behind composition, scenes, camerawork or gameplay
This isn't Hitchcock

Realistic graphics vastly limit the scope of gameplay.

When graphics were more simple games were a lot more varied and ambitious.

You wouldn't be able to make a game like Daggerfall with realistic graphics today because no one has enough hard drive space for a landmass that big.

Well he's right in this respect. Slow down the Sims to real time and see how fucking boring it is. Oh wait.
Super-mega-god action game sounds more fun than "you've been shot now you need immediate medical attention, now rehabilitate your shoulder for four months."

Ahh, so """perfect""" technique leads to reproducing "nature" as in behaviour.
Can you not even think 1 step ahead for the sake of your own argument? That makes 0 fucking sense.

REALISM BAD BAD BAD

Attached: L'Assassinat_de_Marat.jpg (2953x2209, 3.64M)

Jean Renoir

Hard disagree, you like childish games is all your post boils down to.
t. simulator autist

>picture prettt woah
Imagine dismissing composition, camerawork or gameplay to get fooled by the representation alone. Photography freed painting by giving realismfag what they wanted and even then photographers had the spirit to work on ways to make images.

Attached: Lebreton_engraving-07.jpg (2560x1315, 829.72K)

Oh yeah, someone's taste indicates that they want art to be... "isolated and dead", because "that's the opposite of reality and life". That's a real substantial argument.

What about deserts you fucking idiot?

Absolute brainlet take.
You realise this works both ways, right? hardware improved over years. Wordls have been expanded. I know you're a retarded boomer who's probably stuck in 2009, but there are games that completely trump Daggerfall's world in size and landmass.

Imagine being so boring that you prefer Truck Simulator over something that actually uses the medium to it's potential and do something creative that you can't have in real life.

>What about deserts you fucking idiot?
Oh okay you want to readdress your post and say "deserts" instead?
>"i live in a desert and sped a lot of time outside so it sound sorta gay to want some 1:1 desert in your vidya"
Just as fucking braindead as your lost post.

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Simulation is great for all the scenarios and possibilities that can't be achieved by all practicality. City building simulators or RTS, isn't something easily mocked up by actors for a real life flesh and blood experience.
I just want to defend Hitchcock. He's seen genius with hard limitation and knows that if you allowed people infinite tools you would get the shit you have today on screen, decadence. Worth adding that vidya is far behind movies, for sure.

Video games literally aim to simulate worlds and place the player in the story, some stories take place in the real world and so the closer reality can be simulated, the more effective the story can be.

It's absolutely not necessary for every game and games that create and simulate imaginative worlds are great, many games use lower detail in order to allow your mind to fill in the details, some games have no need for immersion and are designed solely to provide gameplay feedback.

Basically what I'm saying is, creativity is boundless, saying that one type of vision is wrong is a very limiting view. Realism is a tool.

The worst part is you're not even a part of the conversation you're convinced you're winning.

So up your own ass trying to play some faggot reddit game of "win the argument" that you can't even see that you're trying to beat an argument that YOU MADE FOR ME.

Take your medicine, based schizo user.

Imagine being so boring and dead inside that you prefer FLASHY LIGHTS BIG COLORS over something that actually uses the medium to its potential and do something meaningful and furthers your own knowledge of the world you live in.

no, he wasn't.

Minecraft and No Man's Sky

Is this bait? I can't tell if this is ironic.

Is someone really tripping out this bad about people not preferring realism?

Show me one game that has a bigger landmass than Daggerfall with Skyrim graphics that doesn't use random generation.
And before you start typing; random is not procedual.

Yea, he was.

>reddit spacing
>"ur not even part of the conversation, i win i win i win "
>take your medicine schizo
Absolutely pathetic. Cope.

...

I'm not "tripping out" at the existance of children, you're failing to read between the lines.

Some other people have talked about this "perfection" and realism idea.
If shit looks like a 2000s games with cartoon action figure character graphics and they do cartoon action things, it all looks and feels normal. If there's a photorealistic person and they do one unrealistic thing or act in one unrealistic way, then this strange disconnect is felt. This may be a reason why the voice acting lines for ordinary people in games is getting longer and longer, and "full voice acting" is the hot thing, because having HD sweat and grime particles with a text box floating in front of them breaks it.
If PS1 Laura Croft jumps 15 feet in the air and lands easily, it registers on the brain kind of fine. PS4 Laura Croft with grime and sweat particles and flappy hair can't jump 15 feet because that's just fucking apeshit.

These threads are a shining example of how people are so desperate to be different they will become contrarian and desperately argue for points that genuinely cannot be correct just to seem like they aren't a part of the crowd.

Na, it was post modernism.

Oh I get it, it's either ironic shitposting or we're dealing with one of those megalomaniac turbo autists.

Good examples of why realism is bad. Just go take a picture you creativitylet.

Yes and no. Realism can be used within a unrealistic framework to enhance an experience, for games it can add dynamism, and allow the player to utilize intuitive, real world logic. A lot of supposedly realistic games that get harped on only have a thin veneer of realism that limits instead of actually adding anything.

Both of those games are very abstract and limited and by no stretch of the imagination can they be called realistic.

>he's personally shit at art he's doing nothing more than making a statement of cope.
Renoir was one of the most successful film directors of his time.

The problem with this reasoning is that it equates realism of visuals with realism of events that are depicted. You can create highly fantastical things and have them look real (as much as fantastical things can look real, at least.)

Attached: horse.jpg (500x375, 33.02K)

This is a good post.

A lot of times "realism" gets translated into tedium, as in breaking tasks that should be taken as implied into smaller tasks. Especially games with crafting touted as realism.

And then cameras came along and made replicating realism via painting not worth continued pursuit.

The enemy of art is the absence of limitations

kind of, look at how more visually interesting early films were vs now

Attached: Screen-Shot-2017-04-24-at-10.09.01-AM-e1493053815703.jpg (1024x567, 64.5K)

Does this mean that man creates its best work via improvisation?

Or perhaps that conflict/opposition breeds subject matter?

>be actress
>get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to pose by myself in an empty airport

>Renoir was one of the most successful film directors of his time.
OPs image is Alfred Hitchcock

Limitations just mean that you have to think out of the box in order to circumvent them.

Orson Welles revolutionized movies by doing things everyone else considered impossible.

We haven't even come close to replicating nature yet
Most open world games take place on the West Coast USA because rendering a forest thick with trees is just too hard. We can do a green field with a tree every 10m. I also have yet to see a game with a decent sized city. Our jaws drop when we hear about 300km^2 open worlds but making virtual cities is so time consuming and computationally difficult most of them only amount to being slightly larger than small towns.

>pose by myself in an empty airport
you mean green screen studio
>hundreds of thousands of dollars
multiple millions

>sales = quality
Plato was also one of the most famous philosophers in history even though he's a literal brainlet. Bandwagonning is a real thing.

It's Jean Renoir, you clown.

This is absolutely a rubbish take.

While a lot of early film were serious films shot in realistic or classic styles, it was absolutely a breeding ground for formalism.

90% of all early science fiction was complete grind film trash, most early film were basically comedy pieces.

Even then, using the Avengers to say "today's movies look bad" is cherry picking and so fucking dishonest.

Look at Kojima, one of the most famous game devs in history, absolute hack.

Old Jean Renoir and Alfred Hitchcock look identical
duckduckgo.com/?q=jean renoir&iax=images&ia=images
duckduckgo.com/?q=alfred hitchcock&t=h_&ia=images&iax=images

>rendering a forest thick with trees is just too hard
Have you ever played Kingdom Come Deliverance?
Best game forests hands down.

People do go to movies, they have been going in droves for decades, so definitely no

and nobody would describe western society as decadent

Quite predictable, I could have prepared my next post and replied the second after you did.
Your statement is quite literally "making a statement of cope.". Why does one of the most successful filmmakers have to cope because their art is supposedly "shit"? Is he wallowing in self-pity?
Ad hominem won't get you anywhere, keep to arguments with actual substance before you make foolish remarks.

He's not using movies as a negative example, you brainlet.
He's talking about movies in general.

>Is he wallowing in self-pity?
He's trying to lower the bar to raise himself higher, how are you so fucking stupid?

That's quite a jump from "statement of cope", yet I still don't see any argument, just another bitter remark, presumably filled with jealousy and irrational anger.
Try again.