Team Future Chief
Crysis 3 looks average according to most sensible reviewers, the overwhelming darkness, lack of art direction and on-rail mapping making for dull and similar environments. "Lot of crap" is a good way to put it, quantity rather than quality, only impressive on a purely technical angle and hence only appealing to fetishists. Not exactly an example you'd want to follow.
Whether you (or I) personally like Crysis3's graphics is besides the point. It's the most obvious example of "cutting edge graphics" in a modern game that people will present. You're free to come up with better examples.
Nonetheless, adding detail to a scene without disturbing the gameplay isn't that hard. It has been, and still is for some titles, a common way to build shooters for years, starting with a rough textureless layout until gameplay is right, and then adding the eyecandy.
Could you go into depth on how you would improve the fidelity in this without disturbing the gameplay? It's true that some titles start by making an empty level with only placeholder textures, but make no mistake. Props, movables and whatever is needed to make the scene look right are added. If you don't add things like these, you'll end up with something that looks like a wall painting.
Ludicrous. Better looking graphics aren't necessarily closer to reality. Even then, using realistic graphics doesn't imply having to stick to arbitrary rules fitting the perception of reality your average unimaginative person has. See: Serious Sam HD, Painkiller HD, New Super Mario Bros, DKC Returns...
Nobody said they *have* to be closer to reality, but "Doom 2 HD with cutting edge graphics" heavily implies graphics with realism in mind. You have to make assumptions when the pitch consists of 1 line of text and similar occurances in history point toward that conclusion.
Are you disputing that realistic looking water invites the player to interact with it? Are you disputing that something like that is expected? How would cutting edge graphics work with not having room over room? How would zooming by with 50mph look?
More nonsense. Plenty of modern games have AI worse than Doom and work just fine. Chasing the player in zig-zags would be an improvement over "move to specific cover point, alternate between shooting a few bursts and crouching until death by player ensues" script type you see in your average pseudo-military shooter.
No. Just no. It's true that many modern games feature lacklustre AI, but the AI was made with that level of graphics in mind and having monsters slowly move forward in a zig-zag fashion makes no sense whatsoever. It would look ridiculous.
Again with assuming everyone shares your oddly contrived expectations based on a twisted sense of realism. This simply isn't true.
So you're saying that if you see realistically blinking lights, computers flashing, lava burning away you *don't* expect there to be some sort of sound accompanying that?
You could make the case most people think like you do, CoD sales and the like proving it to an extent, and that to be successful commercially a Doom HD remake would have to follow your strange rules. That would be contestable, but that could be an argument you could make.
CoD has nothing to do with it. The failure of the modern FPS has absolutely nothing to do with realism and everything to do with bad design choices. The problem isn't that they're realistic or strive to be realistic. They're not and they don't. The problem is that the developers behind them are lazy and in many cases the publishers won't let them evolve their concept because the old still sells.
You seem to think that there is a scale where realism in graphics and play equals boredom. Are you forgetting that Doom was a huge leap forward in the sense of realism? Realism in games isn't about moving slowly through a cutscene filled linear corridor. It's about having the visuals, sounds and interaction have the kind of feedback you'd expect. You don't *have* to follow the exact same rules that the real world does, but there has to be a logical connection between that and the context you're trying to establish.
However, the notion a Doom HD remake as explained in the OP could not be built at all and result in a coherent game is flat-out wrong.
No. There is a reason it always fails miserably.
We'll disagree on that, but could you explain exactly what the *point* of Doom2 HD would be?