I love gaming stories where...

[schild]

...The press has no clue what they're talking about.

Though, with this, we run into another problem. One which we're fast approaching (I give it one more generation, maybe two). If you remember a few weeks back to the article about electric town, Japan being too geeky and scaring society, imagine what will happen when virtual worlds and games really do look better than real life.

Two things will probably occur:
1. The schism between reality and ...virtual reality will become much bigger and geeks will really remove themselves from society. Did you see the girl in the red dress?
2. Things will get creepy for your average person - fake people that look real freak most normal non-gaming types out (and even most gamers).

I'm interested in seeing how they avoid this problem since most designers don't have the balls to be abstract and really just want to make the MOST HUMAN THING POSSIBLE.

[HaemishM]

Wow, what a knob-slobbering article. Not that PGR3 doesn't look sweet, but the building detail? How often do you notice that while zipping by at 200 MPH?

[Roac]

I'm interested in seeing how they avoid this problem since most designers don't have the balls to be abstract and really just want to make the MOST HUMAN THING POSSIBLE.

Except for the growth in cel shaded games.  Or those with cartoonish graphics a'la WoW, or about half the GC titles.  Depends on what kind of game you're making, although games with relism are in more demand.  Then again, how is this different from other medium?  Take movies for instance.  People in suits or spaceships on wires don't cut it anymore.

[schild]

I did say most designers. There's always exceptions and there's a lot of them. But look at most of the shit on the shelves. Even if the number of games that aren't realistic are higher in number, the shit that is fills up the shelves. EA stuff, Midnight Club, Gran Turismo, etc.

[Roac]

I did say most designers. There's always exceptions and there's a lot of them. But look at most of the shit on the shelves. Even if the number of games that aren't realistic are higher in number, the shit that is fills up the shelves. EA stuff, Midnight Club, Gran Turismo, etc.

Everything you listed are sports titles (EA is hard on for sports stuff), which makes it diffuclt to buy off on a remake of Enduro.  Why, artistically, would you want a cel shaded sports game?  XIII and Killer7 do it as a nod to comic books.  Wind Waker does it to appeal to a younger audiance.  Mario Power Tenis is obviously looking to do the same, so again it isn't about having balls or not, it's about audiance.  If you hate realism, Mario is waiting.  With the average age of a console user being well over grade school level however, the tendancy for the market is to get a more realistic title.  It's hard to pull off a WoW-ish title to a mature audiance. 

What you get with realistic graphics is immersion.  So if you are trying to break immersion, you have to have a fairly compelling reason as to why.

[schild]

Realistic graphics as they stand right now are immersive. Once they get too close to looking like humans themselves, it will break immersion. It will become something else entirely. That's the problem I'm talking about. Right now, I've no problem with it. This coming generation will probably be ok as well.

But one more generation? I think we're going to get into the realm of creepy weird.

[Samwise]

Once they get too close to looking like humans themselves, it will break immersion.

I've heard that claim before and don't buy it.  On the one hand, 8-bit graphics are less immersive than what we have now.  On the other hand, perfect photorealism would be less immersive than what we have now, or so the argument goes.  Clearly, then, there is some sort of "immersion curve" relative to graphic realism, with its peak somewhere in between. 

Doesn't that seem slightly ludicrous?  Would movies shot with real actors be more "immersive" if they were digitally animated, but using something like the Source engine to make sure they weren't too realistic?  If this immersion curve existed, it'd stand to reason that we could improve on our current "realistic" filmmaking techniques by decreasing the level of realism.

[AOFanboi]

But one more generation? I think we're going to get into the realm of creepy weird.

Which is why I prefer my graphics abstract (Frequency/Amplitude, Rez, Darwinia) or functional (WoW, Kirby Canvas Curse). Realism in graphics is for people who can't admit they are playing a game.

[AOFanboi]

Would movies shot with real actors be more "immersive" if they were digitally animated, but using something like the Source engine to make sure they weren't too realistic?

So far, only two well-known movies have been shot with all sets computer generated: Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, and Sin City. Neither of these went for a realistic look, but purely stylistic/artistic.

I guess the jury's still out.

The problem with going for photorealistic graphics is that there sill always be some glitch - clipping, animation, collision detection, what have you - that eventually will manifest and break the realism. Not everyone notices such things, but I would wager gamers are more likely to than "normals".

[Merusk]

I await the day I can upload my conscious to the 'net and live forever.  Until then 'realistic graphics' mean nothing to me.

Also, those buildings are pretty damn cool but I bet the flesh still looks plastic.

[Roac]

So far, only two well-known movies have been shot with all sets computer generated

Everything Pixar?

[Bunk]

Time for the requesite Uncanny Valley link: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/U/Un/Uncanny_Valley.htm

[schild]

I'm gonna stop by and talk to one of my professors at UMD that discussed the actual term for the too realistic conundrum. But for now: HYPER-REALISM.

Term that appeared in the early 1970s to describe a resurgence of particularly high fidelity realism in sculpture and painting at that time. Also called Super-Realism, and in painting is synonymous with Photo-Realism. In sculpture the outstanding practitioner was Duane Hanson, together with John de Andrea. More recently the work of Ron Mueck and some of that of Robert Gober could be seen as Hyper-Realist. Leading painters were Chuck Close, Robert Bechtle, Richard Estes, Audrey Flack, Ralph Goings.

Works with environments:


Not so much with people:


Creepy enough for you?

[schild]

Basically here's the problem. People who create something too realistic will go out of their way to do that. In other words, things that shouldn't be exaggerated will be and things that should be won't be. I'm not talking about the ass and titties of team ninja games, but things like noses, hands, feet, eyes - will look TOO real. It's a pretty sound theory that I'm willing to accept as I know that everyone in the world wants to create or be the perfect specimen of a human being.

[Merusk]

So far, only two well-known movies have been shot with all sets computer generated

Everything Pixar?

If you're including that, you've got to include Final Fantasy:The Spirits Within as well. And as close to real as they got, you could still tell those people were CGI and looked 'wrong.'

[Roac]

If you're including that, you've got to include Final Fantasy:The Spirits Within as well. And as close to real as they got, you could still tell those people were CGI and looked 'wrong.'

This has more to do with mixing the art and the story, IMO.  CGI people have been used in movies for years, albeit as background.  SW3 is loaded with it, and it looks fine.  In other movies, actors have been crafted entirely out of CG as the main - for example, The Matrix did so with Neo on several instances.  You can't say super-realism is flat wrong, because there are so many other instances where it works just fine.  More likely, people mistake the notion that an art form, such as super-realism, sells itself - they don't.  FF tried to sell itself on the grounds that the CG was groundbreaking.  And it was; but the story wasn't very compelling, and the CG wasn't expressive enough.  The Incredibles' style of art added to the story, whereas Polar Express just looked bad (IMO) and had an uninteresting story. 

As for painting, realism faded out of favor due in part to photography.  Why spend so much time trying to be photo-realistic when you could just take a photograph and save yourself the trouble?  Merely being painted doesn't do anything to inspire you, the viewer.  The method of painting doesn't in and of itself convey anything; it has to be in context.  Again, in large part as to why art has gone so far into the extreme of abstract.

[schild]

I've mentioned him before, but in cases like Gerhard Richter, he achieves photorealism by simply doing things a camera can't do. Some people don't classify him as photorealism. But get close enough to any painting and it looks shitty.

[Samwise]

Not so much with people:


Creepy enough for you?

A little, but I think that's only because the legs look plasticky - in other words, it's not that the picture is too realistic, it's that there are breaks in its realism (I think AOFanboi nailed that one).  Cut down the specular lighting in that picture and I wouldn't be creeped out in the slightest.

(Edit) I might also be an abberation, though.  Some people are creeped out by finely detailed statues of people (like Renaissance-era marble sculptures).  I've always found them very compelling and not creepy in the slightest.

[schild]

But that's the problem. Artists don't want female legs that look shaved that morning or the day before. They want perfectly good plasticky smooth legs. Getting rid of flaws. It's one of the faults of man. The results won't be more immersion it will be "Doesn't that look a little TOO perfect?"

There are no limits to how much every artist wants to mimic a god in terms of creation.

[Shockeye]

The feet look good, the kneecaps not so much.

[Samwise]

But that's the problem. Artists don't want female legs that look shaved that morning or the day before. They want perfectly good plasticky smooth legs. Getting rid of flaws. It's one of the faults of man. The results won't be more immersion it will be "Doesn't that look a little TOO perfect?"

There are no limits to how much every artist wants to mimic a god in terms of creation.

You aren't arguing against realism, then, you're arguing against airbrushing.  Which is not realistic.

[schild]

I'm arguing against using the imagination to create the perfect human. Which is what will inevitably happen. Also, I'd imagine seeing a hyperrealistic painting of my face would freak the hell out of me.

[Hoax]

Why worry about this when some claim that we'll be able to design are own babies?  I mean what will japanese people look like once they have the ability to actually design their kids to look like their favorite anime characters?

Reality is too scary for me to worry about video games...


*edit*\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Megaman Soccer for the NES was THE MAD SHIT FIZZLE YO.

[Nija]

Everything you listed are sports titles (EA is hard on for sports stuff), which makes it diffuclt to buy off on a remake of Enduro.  Why, artistically, would you want a cel shaded sports game?  XIII and Killer7 do it as a nod to comic books.  Wind Waker does it to appeal to a younger audiance.  Mario Power Tenis is obviously looking to do the same, so again it isn't about having balls or not, it's about audiance.  If you hate realism, Mario is waiting.  With the average age of a console user being well over grade school level however, the tendancy for the market is to get a more realistic title.  It's hard to pull off a WoW-ish title to a mature audiance. 

What you get with realistic graphics is immersion.  So if you are trying to break immersion, you have to have a fairly compelling reason as to why.

Fuck Madden. You can get away with more the less realistic it is.

[Samwise]

I'm arguing against using the imagination to create the perfect human. Which is what will inevitably happen.

That's entirely different from "realism", though, so your original statement about realism breaking immersion ("too close to looking like humans") isn't what you really meant.  What you meant was "too close to looking like mockeries of humanity grown in a secret Nazi facility".  I agree, using our improving graphics technology to create Nazi zombie clones would be a bit creepy.  I don't think that every step towards photorealism is a step towards Nazi zombie clones, though.

Also, I'd imagine seeing a hyperrealistic painting of my face would freak the hell out of me.

Does seeing a photograph of your face freak you out?  Or seeing yourself in a mirror?  How about (hypothetically) a wax sculpture?

Of all of those, I imagine the wax sculpture would be the freakiest to most people, and the mirror the least.  The mirror is the most realistic, the wax sculpture is the least realistic.  You can't pin the freakout factor on realism there.

[HaemishM]

Let's all keep in mind the fact that EQ2 was touted as using the most polygons to achieve the most realistic environments and people for the absolute tops in immersion. That was the stated design ethic behind EQ2's entire art design.

How's that doing again?

[Samwise]

The error there is that assuming more polys = more realism.  You also need models, textures, and animations that resemble the objects you're trying to represent.  From what I've seen of EQ2, its textures were pretty bland, and that on its own is enough to throw realism in the crapper.

[Arnold]

The feet look good, the kneecaps not so much.

Her kneecaps look friggin' enormous, and her legs are far too long.  Her face looks like it was severely beaten by the ugly stick.

[TheWalrus]

 But wouldn't you be less likely to accuse the homely shy girl to be a robot, than the hot ninja chick in the post apocalyptic world we'll be living in when the machines take over?

[Ironwood]

Heh.  Post that on fark and you'd still get the requisite amount of morons posting 'I'd hit it' pictures.

That's realism.

[HaemishM]

The error there is that assuming more polys = more realism. 

I believe this is the error that is driving each generation of console hardware creation, as well as both Nvidia and ATI's current marketing strategies for the PC video card market. And all of them essentially forget that the number of polys don't matter if the artist can't use them well.

[Roac]

I believe this is the error that is driving each generation of console hardware creation, as well as both Nvidia and ATI's current marketing strategies for the PC video card market. And all of them essentially forget that the number of polys don't matter if the artist can't use them well.

There are several other reasons to want high-poly cards.  For one, it allows you to throw more objects onto a screen.  Instead of three or four baddies, you can have an army.  For another, it kicks framerate up on lower poly loads, which makes the game play smoother.  Consoles are just tools to help make art, and it's again confusing the method of art with art itself.  Canvas and paint don't make art, context makes art.  Realistic graphics can be great for games where they want you to feel like you're "really there", because as the viewer you'll spend time marveling at your environment.  It's also one of the easiest angles to pitch

[WindupAtheist]

And all of them essentially forget that the number of polys don't matter if the artist can't use them well.

Is Nvidia supposed to care, or have something to do with that?  They're just making tools.

[schild]

And all of them essentially forget that the number of polys don't matter if the artist can't use them well.

Is Nvidia supposed to care, or have something to do with that?  They're just making tools.

Yes, they are. I suspect it's not getting any easier to push a card to any sort of limit. If it were, no programmers would bitch and moan about the proprietary shit on consoles.

Edit: And yes, I understand it has more to do with the environment than just the graphics card. But then, I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't going out of their way to make things easier.

[HaemishM]

And all of them essentially forget that the number of polys don't matter if the artist can't use them well.

Is Nvidia supposed to care, or have something to do with that?  They're just making tools.

You damn right they should. They should do everything at the hardware and driver level to make it easy on the artists and programmers to make shit look good, without necessarily having to resort to adding more polys or things that choke the graphics processor.