Jimquisition: Photorealistic Sociopathy

[RobfromtheGulag]

The message I took away was from this Jimquisition was that good graphics are not required to convey emotions. I don't know if anyone is going to disagree with this, even the 2K guy who made the statement.

I don't think good graphics detract from conveying emotions either though, by the same token. Games that come to mind are Silent Hill, Dragon Age, or Oblivion. They're going for the realistic look in these games, but they couldn't quite get it, and the result is the dead-eye syndrome that affects games to this day. Assuming they could perfectly tailor a face to a human's when a loved one dies or they fall in love or something, that'd be nice. Graphics are certainly not a crutch or a stand-in for story, but done well I think a game with realistic graphics would trump base graphics trying to convey the same scenario.

 

[Captain Trek]

Could someone tell me what the name of game we briefly see from 2:20 to 2:25 is? I can't quite make out what Jim says...

 

[-|-]

What I mean is that it's not up to us to decide what artistic style they should use to convey the meaning they intend to convey. If they say they need photorealism then they need it.

There's a big difference between "I want photorealism to convey emotions" and "You need photorealism to convey emotions."

My view is that the gaming industry needs photo-realism as a stylistic choice open to developers. Also, a corollary of this is that this ability also implies that any graphical effect imaginable can be achieved.

"Recreating a Mission Impossible experience in gaming is easy; recreating emotions in Brokeback Mountain is going to be tough, or at least very sensitive in this country... it will be very hard to create very deep emotions like sadness or love, things that drive the movies," he said. "Until games are photorealistic, it'll be very hard to open up to new genres. We can really only focus on action and shooter titles; those are suitable for consoles now."

He continued, "To dramatically change the industry to where we can insert a whole range of emotions, I feel it will only happen when we reach the point that games are photorealistic; then we will have reached an endpoint and that might be the final console."

Is what the 2K actually guy said and I mostly agree with him apart from the final console bit.

I know that the escapist community is a bit reactionary and prefers to go from the headline rather than read the story, but jim is no better here. His faux reactionary "look at me" take on things has sunk to a new low. Yet, another rant about an opinion that doesn't actually exist that we can all agree with? Amazing Jim, truly amazing - really pushing the envelope this time.

 

[Epona]

I agree, as I am playing Secret of Mana and can't wait to play Secret of Evermore again right after I beat SOM again, I can't help but to wonder why I don't have this attachment to any current gen games.

I came to a half ass, probably wrong conclusion but here it is. This generation has been great and terrible, we have seen great games and terrible business practices. So if the games are so great (and they are), why do none of them make me smile like some SNES games, mostly from Squaresoft? I think it's that current gen games are great but only the first time through. In 20 years I doubt I will be playing any current gen game.

So yeah, pretty graphics aren't everything.

About the Chick-Fil-A thing. I think it's the homosexual side that is being pushy but I don't have a dog in this fight. I may not be seeing the whole picture because I have little interest in following it but what little I have seen makes the homosexual crowd look overly aggressive.

You know what I find amazing? Just how quickly the homosexual movement has grown. It's like one day it shows up everywhere and people won't shut up about it. The same people who didn't give two shits about it a week earlier. I think some people are tools for those pushing this movement.

 

[Tharwen]

pretty good episode, but I just have to say this just because.

Hatfilms Hatfilms Hatfilms oh my god Hatfilms were in this.

Oh my god me too oh my god oh my god Hatfilms

 

[geizr]

It seems that a lot of the whining and complaining about what's wrong with the gaming industry is confined almost exclusively to the mainstream, triple-A content. This is not to say that there aren't problems with games outside that regime, but it always seems to sound like that particular regime has the highest concentration of offenses. Maybe it's time to move away from or at least de-emphasize triple-A gaming. Seriously, if all we ever do is ***** about it, then maybe it's just not worth bothering with anymore.

 

[Faerillis]

I'm going to disagree with you on one thing, Jim. A religious statement has a place anywhere and everywhere regardless of whether anyone agrees with it or believes in it, including the speaker him/herself. As much as it grates on my nerves more than anything to have someone try to win an argument against me by throwing an "insert religious text here" quote at me and think that it trumps all other arguments because you can't prove a religious statement or opinion as being false.... I would rather have the freedom to do the same than suppress anyone's right to say otherwise. I believe Chick-fil-A has a right to express such an opinion even if doing so is a very very stupid thing to do indeed.

I believe he means Religious Statements have no place or value outside any place of worship or theological discussion. Nor should religion influence political opinions or issues because really, we don't live in the Middle Ages and it really shouldn't matter.

 

[Tippy]

Super-realistic graphics tend to convey the complete opposite to an emotional connection from me. Heavy Rain was as uncanny valley as you can get, and L.A. Noire reached a whole nother level where everyone looked like real people wearing rubber man suits and hats.

Well, that just means we're almost there right? There's got to be an uncanny valley before we hit "true" photo-realism, there's got to be a night before the day.

But I generally agree that graphics have absolutely NOTHING to do with conveying emotions, the human brain is an amazing device that can "fill in" the missing visuals with our raw power of imagination to help convey the emotions. As Jim said, books are the perfect example. I've read some absolutely memorable pieces of writing that have driven me to tears (or inversely, punch the air in excitement/joy). The human mind can simply take WORDS and translate them into faces, emotions, etc that can tug at our hearts.

Hell, they say sex brings out the deepest emotions - and I've read some pieces of writing which literally had me breathing heavily, sometimes more intimate/emotional than I've even seen sex in MOVIES using actual people, let alone video games. (I hope I'm coming off as creepy, I hope I'm not the only one who has read some mind-blowing novels about intimate romance and relationship).

So whichever asshat said we need photo-realistic visuals to achieve that is talking out of his...well, ass.

 

[Cain_Zeros]

I teared up watching an LP of Okami, and I'm man enough to admit it. If I can emotionally connect to a non-photorealistic game that I'm not even playing, I'd say there's no weight to the argument that photorealism is required for emotional connection at all.

 

[PhiMed]

"I think no religious statement has any place in something that isn?t a church or a religious topic." - Jim Sterling

Golly gee Jim. Maybe you should go and try to do some more of that actual Journalism you were talking about earlier. Do you even know where Dan Cathy made his statement concerning his personal opinion on gay marriage? Of course not. You're too busy stroking your outrage in defense of your liberal opinions. Here, I've done it for you since you were too busy to bother:

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=38271

Here, I'll even reference some of your fellow liberals:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/dan-cathy-chick-fil-a-president-anti-gay_n_1680984.html

He said it in an interview with "The Baptist Press: News With A Christian Perspective". A relevant place for one to speak his mind on religious opinion? Have some crow to go with that side fat you'll be scooping out and eating. Maybe you can open an episode with you stuffing some Chick Fil A into your maw.

"Oh no, I'll defend a guy on his free speech, by saying that someone else should not say something"

Oh wait, you forget the fact that he's using the money to pursue his own viewpoint.

Since you're not overtly pleasant, I can say without guilt that you should do your own damn research before running your mouth.

On topic: I liked the fact that you talked about books. You can make an engaging character with only the power of words.

Well, I don't know who this guy is, but I'm pretty sure he's not the mayor of a major population center who is threatening to punish Jim financially for his opinions.

So... your argument pretty much falls apart there, because that's what's happening to Dan Cathy. Right now. As we speak.

Freedom of speech protects you from the government, not other people. Other people can criticize you all they want.

I thought Dan Cathy was a HUGE asshole, until government officials started to state they would withhold building permits because Chick-Fil-A doesn't have "Chicago values" or "Boston values". Then he got my whole-hearted support.

 

[Soak]

Welcome to the church of Jimquisition

Also, what's new?
I mean, that those companies made statements about photorealism is news to me, but wasn't unpredictable. That the "real", the memorable bonds and emotions with games, game-characters or atmospheres isn't necessarily defined by photorealistic images isn't new either. If you look at visual art it becomes clear immediatly, that the painting, or whatever image, doesn't have to be photorealistic to trigger certain emotions and reactions. Considering other art, like books, as already mentioned, there hasn't to be any images at all.
And why is that? (Now i come to the part where i think you (Jim) stepped a bit short, maybe thought about it, but never mentioned) Because, while humans are considered visual-recipient-animals, when it comes to the perception of arts, triggering emotions and such, the most important role lies within the imagination (or what you wanna call it). For example, Limbo becomes intense by imagining the dangers lurking within the atmospheric environment, similar to Bioshock, when you imagine the stories of Rapture (Bioshocks true protagonist. Also, i so hope Infinite will be just as good). And books again are the perfect example, considering, aside the potential writing style, it depends fully on your imagination (in a sense, those are the best "graphics" you'll ever get, as long as your brain-hardware supports it). And here's where i'm getting back to your line of arguments, as you pointed out the importants of creativity, i go along with that, as imagination and creativity will always go hand in hand.

Now, i have nothing against better graphics and why not build games around that, as long as the course games as a whole won't be dominated by that alone.

Also, though i think this is intended, the images of this presentation are kind of disturbing, wickedly put together :/

 

[Raso719]

Meanwhile, in Japan, we have games that almost perfectly mimic the look of an anime like Bleach Soul Resurrection and the various Naruto games. But most importantly they don't abuse the hell out of the colors brown and grey. I'm sorry, but real life isn't a dull and gritty display of brown and grey. I cringe when I think about how people believe that a dark and brown world somehow appears more believable than, say, that flowery meadows by the shrine of Mara in Elder Scrolls IV.

 

[Deathmageddon]

Jim, you would actually boycott a company because their christian owner expressed his own, personal views to a christian radio station? I am disappoint. Plus, doesn't that contradict the message of the video? Dafuq?

 

[HalfTangible]

Dammit, I was perfectly ready to thank god for you and then you go and do that chick-fil-a crap AGAIN...

First of all Jim, 'i support traditional marriage' is a political opinion, not a religious one.

Second of all, you should at LEAST hate the food served somewhere before you cut out your own fat over it >.>

Name one reason an atheist (ie non religious reason) would give to deny same sex marriage that isn't an outright lie and I might buy that. Just to curb some of the easy lies, our world is drastically overpopulated so a couple not producing offspring isn't bad in fact this needs to happen more if we're ever to reach some sustainability. Adopted children tend to do better with gay parents then straight in every peer reviewed statistical study. This isn't because gay people are better parents but only those who really thought about having children and really want them have kids and so they are self selecting. This is also due to the stricter vetting procedure of adoption. In other words gay people don't accidentally have kids and lock them in a closet for 10 years because they both can't and wouldn't bother.

Also, homosexuality is most likely a common (roughly one in ten) genetic mutation like having a longer second toes. This can be shown many ways, one of which is that homosexual men also have higher predispositions towards other specific physical traits. In other words, it is not a choice. Therefore, politically, in a society that claims universal freedom and life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, denying some people the right to love is fundamentally against the founding principles of the country and, politically speaking, only has religious rational to make the division. Given the doctrine that calls for separation of church and state the reasons and many other religious based decisions are also against the fundamental principles of yours, and nearly every other first world country, most of whom no longer consider it an issue.

Excuse me sir, you seem to have misplaced this. The post I made stated only that supporting traditional marriage is a political opinion, and that you should try chicken sandwiches before calling them s*** (admittedly a bit hypocritical of me, though in my defense it WAS bad the one time I tried it like 10 years ago, but I digress). You seem to be responding to a post containing multiple religious talking points, including whether or not homosexuality is 'right', as well as multiple generalizations. You also seem to be making the assumption I will lie to you when I have yet to say anything that couldn't either be factually verified or an opinion.

But in non-sarcastic answer to the only thing in this hateball that actually had anything to do with what I said... ahem...

Name one reason an atheist (ie non religious reason) would give to deny same sex marriage that isn't an outright lie and I might buy that.

1) Who do you think you're kidding? Even if I DID tell you an argument atheists who don't support gay marriage use, you would deny it flat-out, denounce it as religious garbage (and/or conservative propoganda, depending on your mood), and then shout.

2) Counter-proposal.

How about I point out that many religious people are indifferent to - and in many cases genuinely support - gay marriage, and that many of those people (claim to) have the same faith as those who don't, showing it's separate from religious affiliation?

Oh! How about that many of the people who went to chik-fil-a are gay and in support of free speech, which they would NOT be if they thought this was a genuine hate cri- wait, sorry, talking point. Also irrelevant to this particular discussion.

... Ok, here's one. Marriage is a legal and social contract. Therefore anything related to allowing or not allowing a particular kind of marriage contract would fall under the law. (Actually PERFORMING it can fall under the church, but you can't force a priest/rabbi/whatever-its-called-in-whatever-religion to wed a couple anyway so it's irrelevant to this discussion) If a discussion falls under the law, it is political.

(But if you want one reason an atheist would have to oppose gay marriage, I'm against all relationships. Period. Love is nowhere near the wonderful thing people make it out to be. In fact, it's not good at all. It's awful. I can't even PRETEND I think you'll believe this.)

 

[him over there]

Sure we don't need photo realism to tell our story, but an aesthetic should mimic the tone of a story. We wouldn't use a bright happy cartoon setting for a gritty tale established in the real world just like we wouldn't use the grey and brown ultra detailed and grim world aesthetic to tell a story about bunnies tickling each other.

We don't need photo realism to tell a story, but we need something close, even if it's just barely, to optimize the way we tell some specific types of stories. To limit ourselves technologically is to limit ourselves creatively. Plus the farther away from the uncanny valley we get the better.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

Why is Jim even needing to make this video? We've known for YEARS that "graphics =/= good game" even if developers have been too thick to get it. Why is "mainstream developers STILL retarded graphics whores" newsworthy at this juncture just because some meathead comes out with another baseless claim?

 

[Porecomesis]

Having played Iji, Pandora's Tower and Bastion, I agree with what Jim's saying and disagree with Crytek and 2K.

Hell, I read fanfiction on a regular basis. It's not hard to find things more emotionally absorbing than Crysis or Call of Honourfield.

 

[grumbel]

Two different issues get a bit mangled up here. Realistic graphics are of course not needed. However there is some truth to a piece of hardware being maxed out. When you look at games of the past, many of them only happened due to technical progress and more advanced technology, many were even the direct result of technology. Doom didn't start out with a design document and ideas on how to fight monsters in hell, it started out with technology that allowed to do first person 3D games really fast. It was the technology that drove the games design, not the other way around. Same is true for Populus, Starfox, Mario64, Final Fantasy VII, Assassins Creed and a heapload of other games. If it wouldn't be for having new technology to play with, those games would never have happened the way they did.

The real breakthrough titles that establish new genres and change the industry for years to come are those titles that happen early in a new console generation. Rarely do those titles come out late in the generation, because by then, everybody already has kind of settled into a type of genre and gameplay that they just repeat with slight variations. That's simply how the industry works and how it has worked for the last two decades, if new tech comes around people will experiment with new ways of using it and that will give rise to a lot of new ideas that never would have happened otherwise.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Graphics Shmaphics, current gen consoles are starved for RAM, bring on the next gen.

This was my first thought too.

Bring on next gen so we can have more physics objects and more animations, and that in turn will do an enormous favour for a games presentation and feel. Also more enemies on screen without them becoming retarded would be great too. Current gen consoles were showing their limitations in these regards almost as soon as they were birthed.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

I wouldn't say BioShock Infinite goes for a cartoony art style or something -- it's certainly not as (photo-)realistic as some of the Call of Honourfields but it goes for as realistic as its fantasy setting allows -- but this is an episode were I could've shouted "Amen!" every five seconds nonetheless. Good job!

While I liked what I saw so far, even though I really didn't want to see anything before actually playing the game and be surprised while playing it, I think the game has contracted a severe case of da Anime heads.

Just look at Elizabeth, that damsel-in-distress sidekick character:

http://static.gamesradar.com/images/mb/GamesRadar/us/Games/B/BioShock%20Infinite/Everything%20Else/Daily/2010-08-18/Screenshot%20zoom%20story/elizabeth_zoom1--article_image.jpg

Realistic? Those eyes would take up some serious real estate of her skullspace, making her brain roughly the size of that of a big dog, with her cerebellum being squeezed against the lower backside of her skull.

Also, staying with the character of Elizabeth, for I really hate Levine & folks for teasing us with a whole bunch of awesome (yet ridiculously unreal) characters that would look just fine if they popped up in anything from Fist of the North Star to Ninja Scroll - tell me you revise your opinion that her body proportions are anywhere near 'real', please. Come on, her head is bigger than her chest, and she's so skinny she'd have to have her skin stretched for months before some mad doctor could pop them silicone boobies in.

http://images.wikia.com/bioshock/images/b/bd/Bioshockinfinite_elizabeth_portrait.png

Granted, there are other images of her available, but some of those seem to come from FMV sequences, and I am not entirely certain about them having been produced in-house or if it's just another case of Deep Silver/Axis (Dead Island promo trailer) or Mythic/Blur Studio (Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning promo trailer) - it just remains to be seen.

They might still just pull a Digital Extremes/The Darkness II or Gearbox/Borderlands and revise and redefine the graphical aspects of the game, but none of what I've seen so far screams "REALITY".

In fact, if I were to bump into a person with the proportions Elizabeth features, I'd consider believing in Aliens, and I'd be very afraid I might snap her neck by sneezing at her. In short, I'd be a bit horrified.