I've seen this quoted a few times throughout the thread and it makes me more and more certain that this argument makes no sense at all. Take a real photo with a real camera, in real life. Is that realistic? Or has that all of a sudden become photo-realistic?
Taking a real picture in real life would just be that, a photo of real life. Why would you call it realistic? Its when you use something that is not of real life to try to replicate these circumstances, that you'd be able to judge it as such. When you get something to function like it does in real life, that's what you can describe as realistic. When you get something to look like its from real life, that would be photorealistic.
In photomode of all these games we are not deliberately trying to recreate "real life" photos with our own in game photos.
That depends on the photographer really. Some aim for it to look as realistic as they possibly can, others can care less. I used to use very vibrant colors, which probably wouldn't fool anyone in thinking it was a picture from a game.
In the context of the game, the game itself is "real life" and the photos are literal photos of that reality. As such they should be judged in terms of how realistic they are, not how "photo-realistic" they are, because that is how we would also judge the game itself - how realistic is it compared to real life. I mean, sure if someone took a photo in-game and then attempted to recreate that image beyond the original photo, then I would say that would be judged on a scale of photo-realism.
This part is really odd. The game will never be real life, but yes the photos would be based of that games reality. I'm honestly a bit confused at the statement though, and I just feel like you're getting to deep into that. I think any visual information you
see(in short, the graphics) would be off of photorealism, while all things technical(physics for example) can be based from realism.
Is it a a photo of an egg? If it is, is that a photo of real life (and intrinsically realistic)?
Is it in fact not a photo of an egg? Therefore it would be photo-realistic.
It depends, if its just actually a picture of an egg, then that's all it should be, shouldn't it?
If we could get a real photo of a car, and a photo from in game where it were impossible to say which was the game and which real life, that means that the game's reality looks close enough to reality. Therefore a photo of that reality is realistic not photo-realistic. The photo below of the Audi could be told apart by probably most of us here but that is because we are enthusiasts and we know what tell-tales to look for, so the game perhaps is not quite close enough to reality. However if I showed this to my mum without telling her that either was a game, she would not know either were not real life photos. So to the average eye, the game has succeeded in replicating the look of reality, as such a photo of that game is realistic.
That's the thing, you present something to someone that doesn't know either or, or anything inbetween, then it'll be easy to fool them. What you want to do is convince those ones that have experience, fool them into thinking that its actually real. I've had older fellows actually say they couldn't tell if something was real life or not, when it was ever more clear then what we're comparing right now.
Now, thats just my 2 cents. How right it is, I wouldn't know
). But I oppose this to, for example, The Last of Us. Which has a very photo-realistic look because they are deliberately trying to look photo-realistic. It's lifelike, but you can see there is a distinct amount of creative feel and look to the presentation.
