Movies are better than video games

Who is Arthur?

Attached: 2018 vs 2022.jpg (5110x1440, 959.48K)

Some praise the art style but I think any honest person will assume that the graphics fail to elevate that style to something really remarkable basically 90% of the time.
It doesn't help that the entire game has all the colors washed out for some mysterious reason. I've seen people trying to explain that it's the volumetric lighting used in the game that makes everything white, others say it's intentional (but there's that musou that does have an art style and doesn't have all the colors washed out).
The fact that the game was released without anyone noticing the shitty gray colors is quite bizarre, actually.

A game where you can't see nothin'
vs.
A game where is this nothin'

Bbhh

But stormveil is still my favorite castle, havent been to Lyndell yet

based and true

Why is grass so difficult to make look good?

Hjjnn

Hhvvvgh

Yes they are, even the shittiest movie made for laughs is better than any videogame, videogame are constantly cringe inducing and too easy or too autistic to the point they are never fun past a certain point, never getting it right

movies are memorable and they don't waste your time, you get all the memo and the ideas in 2 hours with a specific message and conclusion, in videogames you need to pretend you are interested on them before they catch you, and they create a fake comfort zone in which you think you are becoming a god while getting a lot of hours doing nothing other than creating a self made story

moves also are universally understood, so you can always give ideas based on them, while videogames are usually extremely restricted and very difficult to explain in gameplay terms, in fact if you tell someone a game feels good on the buttons and the fingers he will look like as if you were retarded even though you are right, this is the reason most games end up as very shitty movies because at least they can market them well, very few buy a game because it plays well because you need to play it in the first place to realize it

for the same reason hair is - it's too dense to render realistically in real time with the current hardware. there's supposed to be approx. 61,000 blades of grass in a square yard with each blade reacting to light and wind individually. by contrast, you can literally count the blades of grass in both OP pictures and they both add up to less than 1,000 and don't have individual physics/lighting.
tl;dr - technology isn't there yet and won't be for some time; maybe not ever because if you had a hypothetical PC that could render that 1-to-1 in real time, it would cost more in electricity than the rest of your house.

Attached: 1641573406486.jpg (1280x720, 116K)

>you need quadrillions gpu working in unison to make grass look good in an open world game

its just jap devs being shit at anything thats not gameplay

Attached: arma 3 tanoa.jpg (1280x720, 172.31K)

I get it, but why bother trying to make grass realistic then?

idk, the same reason they try to make realistic anything in games: mostly to push sales and/or produce a certain aesthetic. the trick with most of these types of things is to use workarounds to produce an illusion of realism, which games have been (slowly) getting better at over time.

Attached: emQsUWU.jpg (550x400, 49.99K)

Ferns and shit are not grass and there's no depth to this, it looks like that character was pasted onto a flat image.