How important is real world detail to you (in games)?

[babo]

GoatLord said:

The believability of the table's wobble--or the way it breaks apart if you were to smash it--is dependent entirely on realistic graphics.

Membrain said:

I'm not sure if I can entirely agree with you there. Whilst realistic graphics work when the rest of the game is supposed to be realistic, ala Half-Life 2, then sure. On the other hand, I've seen a number of games with cartoonish or otherwise non-realistic art styles that nevertheless felt "real" because there was a distinct amount of object interaction going on.

You guys just have different definitions of "graphics"

I get what Membrain is saying, I think he is referring to graphics as textures and "visuals" if you will, which is different and not mutually exclusive with in-game physics.

[Patrol1985]

Physics are a completely different matter to me. While I want my games to remain looking like games I am all for improved physics. Havok physics engine was an awesome idea and pushed this aspect forward in 2004.

[Koko Ricky]

I consider accurate physics to be a form of high-end graphics because I consider the animation of the table to be graphical in nature. So really nice looking physics, to me, is equivalent to really nice looking visuals, and visuals are graphics.