I skipped the text and looked at the images and was unable to understand if they were supposed to be bad or good examples. I liked them. Then k read through the text and learned that they are supposed to be bad examples.

But why though? I suspect that either I am not good at this kind of thing, or this is a purist thing, like „don’t put pineapples on pizza because they don’t do that in Italy“.

I don’t want games to look realistic. A rainy day outside looks gray and drab, there is nothing wrong with rainy days in games not looking like the real thing, but awesome and full of contrasts.

>I don’t want games to look realistic. A rainy day outside looks gray and drab, there is nothing wrong with rainy days in games not looking like the real thing, but awesome and full of contrasts.

In photography and cinematography contrast and color curves are near ubiquitously modified artistically to evoke a certain feeling. So even without 3D renderings added colors are adjusted for aesthetic over raw realism.

I totally agree. The example pictures in the article look fine.

I don't know what the author wants, but perhaps it's some kind of industry insider view similar to where "true artists' make movies that are so dark you can't see anything, and the dialog is quiet mumbling and the sound effects are ear-shattering. Perhaps there's an equivalent to that in games.

I believe the author, but I'd also have liked some "before/after" comparisons, where the sane scene is shown with the actual, "bad" tone map and a fixed one.

You can get a bit of a feel for what the author meant though if you compare them with the "good" examples further below, in particular the Zelda one.

The intro is basically “lol these are trashy and terrible and none of them could pass as even a mediocre film or photo”

They look fine to me and good, these aren’t films or photos, and you’ll need to convince me that they _should_ look like them.

Real life has a lot of sensations that games don't. A rainy/foggy day might look boring, but it feels nice to be out in (ideally). Well, that and computer audio is/can be about as good as humans can perceive, but displays are nowhere near it.

So both of these mean you have to jack up the sensation so people can feel something.

From what I understood is that these are supposedly bad because they look like video games instead of photographs. Not sure what the problem with that is though. I'm fine with video games looking like video games.

Reminds me of how movies / shows these days have gotten so dark, when in the past even dark scenes were often lit in such a way as to show details.