Jimquisition: Photorealistic Sociopathy
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
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.
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.TitanAura said:
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.Casual Shinji said:
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.
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.
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.Frission said:
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.
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 :/
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 :/
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.
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?
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.Loki_The_Good said:
But in non-sarcastic answer to the only thing in this hateball that actually had anything to do with what I said... ahem...
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.)
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.
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.
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?
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.
Hell, I read fanfiction on a regular basis. It's not hard to find things more emotionally absorbing than Crysis or Call of Honourfield.
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.
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.
This was my first thought too.octafish said:
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.
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.wackelpudding said:
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.
Yes but Chick-Fil-A is a fast food outlet. People go there for food, nothing more. Personally I refuse to eat anywhere that will use my money to fund causes I don't agree with. Especially a business that thinks homosexuality is immoral but not pumping trans fats, grease and misc junk in the bodies of an entire nation.Nicolaus99 said:
Whilst you are correct about everything else, I actually know a girl from college who has a similar bodily frame to Elizabeth, and she has no apparent trouble supporting tits of a similar size. And as my friend's breasts are natural, I imagine Elizabeth's anatomy is entirely possible (excluding eyes and head).Headdrivehardscrew said:
Varya said:
I never said BioShock Infinite had a realistic (art) style per se. It has a more realistic style for me than something I would call "cartoony". It is, however, set in a fantasy setting and as such I consider some abnormalities [from "real" reality] as "normal".Headdrivehardscrew said:
Speaking of Elizabeth's anatomy which you both referred to:
Her eyes might be/look big and look anime-ish, but there are people [especially women] whose eyes are or at least appear this big. There are cases where the iris takes up freaking much space of the visible eye. So, yes, it looks odd, but it isn't too unrealistic.
Her body anatomy? While I'd like for her to look more like she wouldn't be blown away by wind speed of Beaufort 4 or 5, there are, again, women who have such proportions [which you might want to call unhealthy]. Then again, the corset she's wearing: Guess, what its purpose is? To squeeze her body into a "perfect" form. Fashion is crazy like that sometimes.
The biggest problem I have with Elizabeth's appearance is her neck. But, once more, such can be found in real life.
You could question that Irrational decided to put all these rather abnormal appearances into one person and you could call it exaggeration that they did, but it is a real possibility within their universe. For me, it doesn't make it "real" real, but also not cartoony.
And why do colourful textures and/or lighting make it cartoony? Is everything that's somewhat set in fantasy automatically cartoony? If so, I gotta adjust my world view.
One thing we all agree on, though, is that photo-realistic graphics wouldn't benefit Infinite. That's something.
The only thing that kind of went unsaid is the real reason 2k made their ridiculous statement: It's a subtle plea to the console giants to hurry up and launch their new systems.
If 2k really believed in what they claim, they would be developing games for PC.
If 2k really believed in what they claim, they would be developing games for PC.