2K: New Genres Impossible Without Photorealism
- Thread starter Cognimancer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I've experienced quite a few emotions because of games. Positive and negative. Had nothing to do with photorealism. It turns out it's actually possible to create a masterful piece of art if you rely on talent rather than tools.
This guy probably thinks that knowing where the Lens Flare is in Photoshop is all you need to be a graphic artist. Someone fucking fire him already; he doesn't belong where he is.
This guy probably thinks that knowing where the Lens Flare is in Photoshop is all you need to be a graphic artist. Someone fucking fire him already; he doesn't belong where he is.
Bullshit. I don't know what more to say. We lack empathy with game characters, something that can only be fixed with better graphics? Hell no! If that's the case, why did I feel like a pile of shit for making Zaalbar kill Mission in KOTOR? After all, they're just pixels, right?
And if that's the case, why will I never choose any ending that kills Shepard in ME3, because it would leave the love interest without their love?
And if that's the case, why do I feel so depressed at the end of L.A. Noire?
You, Mr. Hartmann, are the problem with the industry. You are using bullshit reasons to push out cookie-cutter games, and saying that the problem is the lack of technology? Good graphics don't make a good story. Good writers do. Maybe you should look into that.
And if that's the case, why will I never choose any ending that kills Shepard in ME3, because it would leave the love interest without their love?
And if that's the case, why do I feel so depressed at the end of L.A. Noire?
You, Mr. Hartmann, are the problem with the industry. You are using bullshit reasons to push out cookie-cutter games, and saying that the problem is the lack of technology? Good graphics don't make a good story. Good writers do. Maybe you should look into that.
That is so full of shit that it's not even funny.
Photorealism is not necessary.
Text can invoke emotions.
The fucking in-game taunts in TF2 each easily convey more emotions than the entire cast of characters in Crysis combined over the course of the entire game. The look on the Heavy's face as he's firing his minigun makes him immediately relateable, as you understand what he's feeling and why with merely a glance that lasts a fraction of a second. The same with the Scout's cocky smirk and the Demo's rageface as he's charging you. Stylism fucking rocks.
Photorealism is not necessary.
Text can invoke emotions.
The fucking in-game taunts in TF2 each easily convey more emotions than the entire cast of characters in Crysis combined over the course of the entire game. The look on the Heavy's face as he's firing his minigun makes him immediately relateable, as you understand what he's feeling and why with merely a glance that lasts a fraction of a second. The same with the Scout's cocky smirk and the Demo's rageface as he's charging you. Stylism fucking rocks.
Wow, what a colossal load of crap. This guy must have terrible taste in games if that is what he believes. I could name many, many games that did what he said they can't yet. Some are a decade or more old. It makes me happy that basically all the posts in this thread are against this guy.
This actually makes me angry. And sad.
If you think that better graphics are the only way to get innovation, or to get us to empathize with characters, you're just wrong. We don't empathize with most protagonists because they're fucking boring and not interesting in any damn way. We didn't need amazing graphics to empathize with the Prince in Prince of Persia, we didn't need fantastic graphics to fall in love with Bioware's companion characters, we didn't need anything to feel the pain Wander felt when he lost his horse. Hell, the companion cube was just a fucking box and we feel in love with it. Wheatly had no face, and we fell in love with him. We felt emotions because these things and characters are well-written. Something that you, and many others, put on the backburner so you can focus on, guess what, better graphics.
And for innovation, just really? The most innovation these days is happening on fucking cell phones. They seem to be innovating just fine without amazing graphics. Yeah there's a lot of crap, but they're innovating a hell of a lot more than console games. And then there's the whole indie scene, which also has quite a bit of stuff that's not great, but again, they're at least trying to innovate, and they aren't using amazing graphics to do it.
I mean... god damn. This guy is just so wrong it hurts.
If you think that better graphics are the only way to get innovation, or to get us to empathize with characters, you're just wrong. We don't empathize with most protagonists because they're fucking boring and not interesting in any damn way. We didn't need amazing graphics to empathize with the Prince in Prince of Persia, we didn't need fantastic graphics to fall in love with Bioware's companion characters, we didn't need anything to feel the pain Wander felt when he lost his horse. Hell, the companion cube was just a fucking box and we feel in love with it. Wheatly had no face, and we fell in love with him. We felt emotions because these things and characters are well-written. Something that you, and many others, put on the backburner so you can focus on, guess what, better graphics.
And for innovation, just really? The most innovation these days is happening on fucking cell phones. They seem to be innovating just fine without amazing graphics. Yeah there's a lot of crap, but they're innovating a hell of a lot more than console games. And then there's the whole indie scene, which also has quite a bit of stuff that's not great, but again, they're at least trying to innovate, and they aren't using amazing graphics to do it.
I mean... god damn. This guy is just so wrong it hurts.
I was going to type a version of your comment, but you already did it for me, so... 'quote'!Nasrin said:
Guys, it's STORY, not visuals. Best example. Persona games with Playstation 2 graphics. Terrible graphics. Awesome stories. OK, so good voice actors really help too :0
Well, I'll agree that it's nicer to look at a face with more polygons, but I disagree with the idea that it has to be photo-realistic. Jut look at Pixar movies: they provide an emotional experience with cartoonish characters. The same could be said for video games. I loved watching charaters talk and move in Halo: Reach, while the characters in Call of Duty, which were supposedly rendered using state-of-the-art motion capture technology, seemed somehow more lifeless. I think it's more about using what you have to it fullest extent than trying to achieve perfection and falling short.
Photo-realism isn't the biggest issue for making graphics more realistic in today's AAA games. Lack of subtle animations is.
You're not going to feel like you're effectively communicating with another person even if they're photorealistic, their voice actor is superb, and the game environment is perfect while they stare at you with nothing moving but their mouth and they're standing like a pole was rammed up their butt.
I'd consider it quite likely that until you get better nonverbal communication in games that better graphics will do next to nothing for making communications with NPCs feel immersive.
And, yes, there is also the whole big deal that everybody else is harping over in this thread that a story is superior to graphical fidelity.
You're not going to feel like you're effectively communicating with another person even if they're photorealistic, their voice actor is superb, and the game environment is perfect while they stare at you with nothing moving but their mouth and they're standing like a pole was rammed up their butt.
I'd consider it quite likely that until you get better nonverbal communication in games that better graphics will do next to nothing for making communications with NPCs feel immersive.
And, yes, there is also the whole big deal that everybody else is harping over in this thread that a story is superior to graphical fidelity.
Has this guy played Persona 4, Mass Effect, Silent Hill 2 , or even bothered to search for a good web game?. You don't need photorealistic graphics, Toy Story was a good movie without them
For a game to be able to give you the emotions he's talking about, you need good writing and engaging characters. Investing in shiny graphics will not let you invest in the good writers that are necessary to write a good story
For a game to be able to give you the emotions he's talking about, you need good writing and engaging characters. Investing in shiny graphics will not let you invest in the good writers that are necessary to write a good story
I think we are slightly missing the point. No game developer cod be stupid enough to say that you can't get emotions in a game without photorealistic graphics.
What he is talking about is new genres. And think of it, how many games are based purely on emotional appeal. There's Journey, Errr... that's kinda it.
He is talking not about scenes or setpieces of games that create emotion, he is talking about a game centered around exploring our emotions, and currently there are virtually no games that do that without putting you behind the barrel of a gun and telling you to kill lots of stuff first.
Personally I don't agree with this idea, I think that (as the game Journey shows) graphics aren't necessary to create immersion and identification with characters on such a level that your relationship with them is strong enough to carry the main focus of the game. I think that's what he is saying is impossible in that article.
What he is talking about is new genres. And think of it, how many games are based purely on emotional appeal. There's Journey, Errr... that's kinda it.
He is talking not about scenes or setpieces of games that create emotion, he is talking about a game centered around exploring our emotions, and currently there are virtually no games that do that without putting you behind the barrel of a gun and telling you to kill lots of stuff first.
Personally I don't agree with this idea, I think that (as the game Journey shows) graphics aren't necessary to create immersion and identification with characters on such a level that your relationship with them is strong enough to carry the main focus of the game. I think that's what he is saying is impossible in that article.
I take it that To The Moon [http://freebirdgames.com/to_the_moon/] is the living proof this guy is wrong.
...although not as wrong as some comments here what you to think. While what you say might be the most important, body language can add one more enhancing layer of connecting with characters in games.
...although not as wrong as some comments here what you to think. While what you say might be the most important, body language can add one more enhancing layer of connecting with characters in games.
What game is that from?algalon said:Photorealism?
Got that.
Even with Quantic Dream and others pulling their way out of uncanny valley, it's not exactly necessary to elicit emotional response. Look at the Bioshock series - games that are cartoonish, styleized, and question the basic fundamentals that society is built on. I get the argument - that emotions can't be expressed properly without being subtle in the changes - but gamers do not need that amount of graphic fidelity to have their "Ghost" or their "Titanic".
Oh, it's in the HTML.
Do you know anything about it? 'Cause I think my graphics whore self just shizzed.
*cough*Toy Story*cough*
If movies can create immersion and compelling characters without photorealism, there's no reason games should spend hundreds of millions upgrading their graphics while the characters remain shallow and the stories remain ad-hoc.
You want people to be more immersed? Create interesting, believable characters, and make them act like sane individuals driven by actual motivations. At any rate, it costs a lot less then a Sisyphean pursuit of total photorealism.
EDIT: And the post above me cited the same general example. Seriously, are video game executives the only people this isn't obvious to?
If movies can create immersion and compelling characters without photorealism, there's no reason games should spend hundreds of millions upgrading their graphics while the characters remain shallow and the stories remain ad-hoc.
You want people to be more immersed? Create interesting, believable characters, and make them act like sane individuals driven by actual motivations. At any rate, it costs a lot less then a Sisyphean pursuit of total photorealism.
EDIT: And the post above me cited the same general example. Seriously, are video game executives the only people this isn't obvious to?
Or The Longest Journey?IndianaJonny said:
Or Dreamfall?
Or The Binding Of Isaac?
Or Myst III? (No, it wasn't photorealistic. Some parts of it look downright silly today.)
Etc, etc. I don't believe this guy at all.
Ill play devils advocate: Lack of photo realism eliminates our ability to create SOME new genres.
Maybe as many as 1% of the possibilities.
Sure, some games would be much more possible if they had additional realism, but seriously...to this day, people come up with incredibly powerful play experiences using 8 bit, never mind the range of technologies available today. Every play Passage? Sleep is Death? The Marriage? Hell, consider what kind of innovations to storytelling experience came along with Dungeons and Dragons with exactly 0 processing power. In fact, I say that most of the innovations in genres come from the indie scene, which is usually years behind the AAA industry in photo-realism.
Having photo realism would be cool. But in the mean time, there is more possible gameplay innovations out there using existing or outdated technology then there are atoms in the universe. I'm reminded of a (Probably wildly misremembered) story of a composer telling Bach while they were walking along a beach that the last of the great songs had been written, to which Bach said, "Of course. Oh look, here comes the last wave of the ocean"
Maybe as many as 1% of the possibilities.
Sure, some games would be much more possible if they had additional realism, but seriously...to this day, people come up with incredibly powerful play experiences using 8 bit, never mind the range of technologies available today. Every play Passage? Sleep is Death? The Marriage? Hell, consider what kind of innovations to storytelling experience came along with Dungeons and Dragons with exactly 0 processing power. In fact, I say that most of the innovations in genres come from the indie scene, which is usually years behind the AAA industry in photo-realism.
Having photo realism would be cool. But in the mean time, there is more possible gameplay innovations out there using existing or outdated technology then there are atoms in the universe. I'm reminded of a (Probably wildly misremembered) story of a composer telling Bach while they were walking along a beach that the last of the great songs had been written, to which Bach said, "Of course. Oh look, here comes the last wave of the ocean"
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Seriously? Go play dys4ia, Mr. 2k guy, then come talk to me about emotions in games and photorealism.
Work with what you have, not with what you don't.
Seriously? Go play dys4ia, Mr. 2k guy, then come talk to me about emotions in games and photorealism.
Work with what you have, not with what you don't.