Where I'm from 2k games are infamous for just being horrible. I would never take anything that company says seriously.
Notch Calls Out 2K Boss Over Photorealism Comments
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Oncea again, Notch is correct. Photorealism does not mean something is good.
Also, Luck of the Fryrish is like, the best episode of Futurama. That's not to say the rest is bad, it's just that one episode shines very bright.
Also, Luck of the Fryrish is like, the best episode of Futurama. That's not to say the rest is bad, it's just that one episode shines very bright.
I think there's a place for stronger emotional connections through BOTH realism AND fantasy. It all really depends on the context of the overall game though, and some games work better on an emotional level using a number of different visual styles. As for Mr. 2K, I think he mis-spoke.
Or I'd like to think that since I would like to think people in this business know what they're talking about...
Or I'd like to think that since I would like to think people in this business know what they're talking about...
You know what? You're right about Mass Effect, but not that guy. That is the problem with the standard of graphics we use today. Because of the level of graphics we've achieved, many developers foolishly think everything can now be rendered in-game, but that just invites bugs into the cut-scenes. This wouldn't have been a problem at all if the characters were - rather then rendered through typical xbox/ps3 graphics - hand drawn. So yeah, that 2K guy is VERY wrong... if anything, once we reach photo-realistic graphics, there will be 10x the bugs sneaking their way into the cut scenes. Expect some serious moments in games to become funny youtube videos in the future!zungerman090 said:
But yeah, in response to the actual post I will just say this is EXACTLY what I expected a suit at the head of a game development company (in this day and age) to say. Making things prettier will make them better and add immersion! Wow... things are just as bad as I always exaggerated. This explains the many bland and lackluster "AAA" games this gen. It's like Michael Bay talking about how explosions make good stories and making every character the 'comedic relief' adds depth to them.
zungerman090 said:
The issue with those romance scenes (and a lot of other emotional sequences) is twofold. It's due to stilted and jarring animation and borderline amateurish, shoehorned writing. More so the latter then the former mind you.Fasckira said:
It doesn't matter how realistic it is, as long as the characters are distinct and recognisable, well written and move like something that's NOT out of a creepy nightmare.
"Notch Calls Out 2K Boss"; what is this an episode of Jerry Springer?
(We've got a surprise for you Notch, we've got Christoph Hartmann backstage! *chair comes flying from stage left)
Writing is one thing. You can portray a lot through words, or through some sort of other communicative media.
Graphics that parallel real-life will however be easier to identify with. You see Otacon start to cry and you think gee, that's sad, but the more realistic Otacon looks the more you can identify and immerse yourself in the scenario.
[He's cried in pretty much every game he's been in hasn't he?]
You can't really emotionally portray an expression of betrayal or stoic depression with a smiley face icon.
(We've got a surprise for you Notch, we've got Christoph Hartmann backstage! *chair comes flying from stage left)
Writing is one thing. You can portray a lot through words, or through some sort of other communicative media.
Graphics that parallel real-life will however be easier to identify with. You see Otacon start to cry and you think gee, that's sad, but the more realistic Otacon looks the more you can identify and immerse yourself in the scenario.
[He's cried in pretty much every game he's been in hasn't he?]
You can't really emotionally portray an expression of betrayal or stoic depression with a smiley face icon.
Personally, anything before Futurama went off the air for the first time (before the movies, though they were good also) were good.The Great JT said:
OT: I still dont believe making something photo-realistic will make it more engaging for the Players, In fact, I think it will cause a even greater disconnect, depending on the game.
I can't believe people are defending Hartmann here. I must be missing something. Is he saying photo-realism is better for conveying emotion on the characters faces, or is he saying photo realism is better with creating all emotion in general?
I'm pretty sure either one is fallacious. For conveying face motion, simple animation and character design can be just as good or better. Look at the example given at the top of the article, Wind Waker Link. His design works well in the context of the game, it's simple, but his face is essentially one big canvas to express his emotion through his large eyes, eyebrows and mouth. It's simple and subtle, and works much better here than a large amount of detail.
Another example would be Wheatley. Not even a humanoid character, but the amount of work put into making him fully able to convey emotions and subtle human characteristics is astounding, and it pays off.
I'm pretty sure either one is fallacious. For conveying face motion, simple animation and character design can be just as good or better. Look at the example given at the top of the article, Wind Waker Link. His design works well in the context of the game, it's simple, but his face is essentially one big canvas to express his emotion through his large eyes, eyebrows and mouth. It's simple and subtle, and works much better here than a large amount of detail.
Another example would be Wheatley. Not even a humanoid character, but the amount of work put into making him fully able to convey emotions and subtle human characteristics is astounding, and it pays off.
I think (read: hope) that what Hartmann meant to say is that photorealism will help realistic games; we need to finish getting past the uncanny valley. As it is, we HAVE to rely on exaggerated styles, because the option for photorealism isn't there, and anything that attempts it is likely to fall short.
Of course, if he means it the way it came across, then nevermind.
P.S. Thanks
Of course, if he means it the way it came across, then nevermind.
P.S. Thanks
I think this is a good point. IF you're going to have a "realistic" aesthetic, you need to push it all the way to photorealism or the whole uncanny valley thing rears its (literally) ugly head and distracts from what you're trying to say.Covarr said:
For example, just finished the whole Alan Wake series. The facial animations in the first game's cutscenes...oh. my. god. Took me out of an otherwise pretty well written game. In the sequel, American Nightmare, they stopped with the animated cutscenes, and instead used live action to excellent effect. It was a good choice that worked with the current limitations of the medium. When true photorealism arrives, there will be more choice-- but in the meantime, don't try for what you can't achieve. It's painful.
HD graphics don't suddenly allow for companies to make gamers care for their characters.
When Aieris died it had nothing to do with her being in pre rendered movie. It was because people generally cared for this character. Enough to cry for her. Graphics had nothing to do with that.
I cared for the guys in Call of duty 4 and the ending was kinda sad. It still wasn't the graphics. It was the characters that I was together with and the things they said.
Graphics don't make people care for people, their characters and the way they act make people care for them.
Even if Skyrim would be fully photo realistic I still wouldn't care for the people I save and such. I just don't know them. They haven't been with me. For my companion I still wouldn't feel much. They are a packhorse for me.
In fact most games with very high HD graphics have made me care very little about the heroes. Because it's often to short or they are just not likable.
If game developers want to show off a lot of emotions with their games they could try with an anime style game. You can easily show a lot of emotions and do it without much of a problem. A good voice actor helps a lot too.
When Aieris died it had nothing to do with her being in pre rendered movie. It was because people generally cared for this character. Enough to cry for her. Graphics had nothing to do with that.
I cared for the guys in Call of duty 4 and the ending was kinda sad. It still wasn't the graphics. It was the characters that I was together with and the things they said.
Graphics don't make people care for people, their characters and the way they act make people care for them.
Even if Skyrim would be fully photo realistic I still wouldn't care for the people I save and such. I just don't know them. They haven't been with me. For my companion I still wouldn't feel much. They are a packhorse for me.
In fact most games with very high HD graphics have made me care very little about the heroes. Because it's often to short or they are just not likable.
If game developers want to show off a lot of emotions with their games they could try with an anime style game. You can easily show a lot of emotions and do it without much of a problem. A good voice actor helps a lot too.