• @CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      34 months ago

      Couldn’t disagree more. Immersion comes from the details, not the fidelity. I was told to expect this incredibly immersive experience form RDR2 and then I got:

      • carving up animals is frequently wonky
      • gun cleaning is just autopilot wiping the exterior of a gun
      • shaving might as well be done off-screen
      • you transport things on your horse without tying them down

      Yeah that didn’t do it for me.

    • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I had way more fun in GTA 3 than GTA 5. RDR2 isn’t a success because the horse has realistic balls.

      To put another nail in the coffin, ARMA’s latest incarnation isn’t the most realistic shooter ever made. No amount of wavy grass and moon phases can beat realistic weapon handling in the fps sim space. (And no ARMA’s weapon handling is not realistic, it’s what a bunch of keyboard warriors decided was realistic because it made them feel superior.) Hilariously the most realistic shooter was a recruiting game made by the US Army with half the graphics.

            • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              14 months ago

              I see, and yeah graphics can help a lot. But how much do we actually need? At what point is the gain not enough to justify forcing everyone to buy another generation of GPUs?