Poll: Photorealism in Games: Doing it wrong?

[daltonlaffs]

A common drive for game designers and the graphical hardware developers (NVidia, ATI...) is "better graphics." Presumably, the goal of computer graphical technology as a whole is to reach a level of realism that makes our video games, CGI movies, and simulations absolutely indistinguishable from real pictures and video.

However, I believe that the industry is going in the wrong direction if they want to achieve this.

Currently, the focus is on higher detail. Make the shadows and lighting dynamic. Draw further and further away. Animate every hair on that fearsome animal's body. While this does help games catch up to the general level of detail that reality has, it creates a huge problem. The game's graphics become too perfect.

By "too perfect", I mean beyond what humans are used to. Can you see figures clearly at 100 feet away? Probably not, and sure as hell not if you're nearsighted. And yet, most games will draw that far into the distance. Your vision gets blurry when you run through vapor or smoke in real life. Of course, how could the game designers sacrifice that glorious clarity that they worked so hard to achieve? They can't bring themselves to hide all those individual hairs they animated behind a blur filter!

To further prove my point, look at any picture of something in real life, then look at a recent FPS screenshot. What's the real difference here? The weapons look about the same, the soldiers look fine... but that game shot is so crisp. You can see too far into the distance, and camera/lighting artifacts are absent. The screenshot is too perfect to be real. It's not flawed enough.

So, in conclusion, I think games, movies, and other genres that are aiming for photorealism should take the win-win approach of putting "human limitations" into play. Not only is it much closer to the genuine article, but I'm willing to bet it will save a HELL of a lot on rendering and memory -- anything beyond 20 or so feet is an indistinct blur, so no need to render it very vividly. The same goes for any object or location that the player can't get close enough to. You don't even need to have hi-res textures to begin with for background objects! Just put that softening filter on and get back to working on the actual game part.

Poll question is semi-related. Discussion topic: Your thoughts on my viewpoint, kplzthx?

 

[Kollega]

I also wonder what happened to the poll.

OT: Your point is a damn good one: seemingly obvious, yet never brought up. I've heard that the people making CGI cartoons has been aware of "too-perfect picture" problem for quite some time now, and i really hope game developers will also start encountering it in the near future so they'll, as you've said, put graphics on hold and work on the "game" part of their games.

I also have to say that your definition is not exactly correct - things 20 feet away are not an "indistinct blur" per se, but details indeed become so small you cannot see them.

And finally... i must admit, i'm not a big fan of photorealism in general. I like stylized look in games i play. Team Fortress 2 is a perfect example.

 

[stinkypitz]

Very interesting point you have there. Realistic graphics of the future won't necessarily come with better hardware, there will have to be some new techniques used in how everything is rendered, otherwise it just wont look right.

 

[Geekosaurus]

I'm not sure which to vote. When you look at things in real life, you focus on what you want to see and the rest is kinda out of focus - but you don't notice it. The only way a game can simulate this is with a sort of virtual reality visor that tracks where you're looking on the screen. I know this technology is already available, but I doubt it's being used in developing the next-gen consoles. I think they should just keep doing what they're doing and they'll get there in the end.

 

[Digital_Utopia]

I also wonder what happened to the poll.

OT: Your point is a damn good one: seemingly obvious, yet never brought up. I've heard that the people making CGI cartoons has been aware of "too-perfect picture" problem for quite some time now, and i really hope game developers will also start encountering it in the near future so they'll, as you've said, put graphics on hold and work on the "game" part of their games.

I also have to say that your definition is not exactly correct - things 20 feet away are not an "indistinct blur" per se, but details indeed become so small you cannot see them.

And finally... i must admit, i'm not a big fan of photorealism in general. I like stylized look in games i play. Team Fortress 2 is a perfect example.

Well to be honest, it's just that way because the objects appear smaller - which, by its very nature is done pretty accurately in 3D games.

Unfortunately the developer themselves needs to work more with atmospherics and other elements that make things less sharp over distance - things like fog, heat shimmer, the sun/lighting and even general humidity can reduce the sharpness of objects at a distance.

However, it's important to note that certain breaks with realism can be necessary to make a game playable/enjoyable. Especially if you need to react to actions taken by an enemy from a distance.

I think a far more annoying practice in games - in terms of graphics anyway, is the "grey/brown is real" habit. Where game developers decide that in order to make things more realistic that a grey/brown filter is placed over the game to wash out the colors.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

A difference between photorealism and realism is that one tries to recreate artefacts from a camera and the other just tries to recreate reality. Our eyes are not exactly like cameras.

Art styles are quite tricky. If a game developer is trying to create a game that looks like a movie then some things might be out focus, there might be lens flare, it might have a low framerate with lots of blurring. If a game developer is trying to make something vivid that captures the visual sense of looking at something real then everything might be in sharp focus, there will be no "camera" artefacts like lens flare or splatters of liquids and the frame rate will be so high than humans can't tell any difference if it was higher with no blurring.

 

[sneakypenguin]

Never seen a game where draw distances where too good. In real life you can see someone from a mile or 2 away, i've never played a game where you could spot people beyond 2-400 meters, and even then your in low res texture range.

We are nowhere near photo realism in motion.

 

[bojac6]

I think we need to focus on gameplay elements rather than graphics. Forget looking better, just make the games more fun. I honestly don't care about graphics as long as they are good enough for me to tell things apart. If it has a mechanical affect, that's different. Destructible environments, for instance, are not "graphics" but a way of making a cover system dynamic. I wish developers would stop focusing on graphics and start making more interesting mechanics elsewhere.


That said, two games where I noticed the graphics and wholeheartedly support other games developing in similar lines were Braid and Borderlands. Less realism, more impressionism. I loved the comic book style of Borderlands and Braid was just gorgeous.


And finally, yeah, a game with a 2 mile draw distance is a waste of resources. If I'm looking through a sniper scope, that's one thing. But if I'm just standing there and can pick out the dude in a guard tower across the valley, that's just silly.

 

[JeanLuc761]

Hmmm...I can see where you're coming from and I'd definitely like to see companies work towards emulating realistic "vision" effects. However, as to your point that "anything beyond 20 feet or so should be an indistinct blur", I couldn't disagree more.

I'm nearsighted and wear glasses. I'm fully capable of picking out people even at distances of 200 feet. The eye is designed to focus directly on what you're looking at, whether that distance be a centimeter or a mountain 30 miles away. If things are blurry at 20 feet, you DEFINITELY need to invest in a nice pair of glasses.

 

[Dexiro]

I have bad eyesight so i often say that some games have better graphics than real life xD

 

[Geekosaurus]

I think we need to focus on gameplay elements rather than graphics.

That's a very good point. An engrossing story can totally make up for below-average graphics. It sucks when you make visual effects more important than plot - Avatar, I'm looking at you.

 

[veloper]

Some games have DoF to blur distant objects.

I usually turn it off.

With cameras, objects can be out of focus, but eyes automaticly focus on the thing you want to look at so you don't experience much blurring.

 

[bojac6]

I think we need to focus on gameplay elements rather than graphics. Forget looking better, just make the games more fun. I honestly don't care about graphics as long as they are good enough for me to tell things apart. If it has a mechanical affect, that's different. Destructible environments, for instance, are not "graphics" but a way of making a cover system dynamic. I wish developers would stop focusing on graphics and start making more interesting mechanics elsewhere.


That said, two games where I noticed the graphics and wholeheartedly support other games developing in similar lines were Braid and Borderlands. Less realism, more impressionism. I loved the comic book style of Borderlands and Braid was just gorgeous.


And finally, yeah, a game with a 2 mile draw distance is a waste of resources. If I'm looking through a sniper scope, that's one thing. But if I'm just standing there and can pick out the dude in a guard tower across the valley, that's just silly.

Say that about a game like Prototype, which could have definitely used the 2 mile draw distances.

In prototype there are collectible orbs scattered throughout the city, however because of the poor draw distance, you can't see them from more than 40 feet away, making them very difficult, and frustrating to find.

The same goes for many open world games featuring collectibles.

Maybe the reason you don't think we need 2 mile draw distances if because you mostly play linear games, but I'm sure that people who play open world games would enjoy having longer draw distances.

I'll give you Prototype, but for a different reason. Telescopic vision or whatever would not have been out of character for Mercer, he had all kinds of other crazy powers.

And I do play open world games quite a bit, but I still have to disagree. It may make collectibles harder to find (though I usually fine that at a distance, the collectible will show up from further away than the rest of the environment, allowing you to see it before the building forms around it), but isn't the point of collectibles to be an achievement when you find them all (in the sense of accomplishing something difficult, not necessarily in the sense of a game achievement)? Aren't they hidden and in tough to reach places to make you think about how to get them and challenge you?

A two mile draw distance in AC2 wouldn't help with the feathers, they were usually below the roof tops and kind of hidden. It also makes no sense because you're a normal human. Ok, so you did have Eagle Vision. How about Red Dead Redemption or GTA? No powers, why on earth should you have a clear view for further than a person can realistically see?

 

[lacktheknack]

anything beyond 20 or so feet is an indistinct blur, so no need to render it very vividly.

...Are you nearsighted? Because I can read house numbers all the way down the street.

 

[ALuckyChance]

Photorealism in games is only good if they manage to make the gameplay good as well. One of the reasons I'm hyped for Crysis 2: The game looks beautiful AND it seems more fun than the original, which I plenty liked to begin with.

Most games have huge draw distances because they seem to think every hero has perfect 20/20 vision, and sometimes better. Luckily, DoF exists, which can go a long way for realism, if they implement it right.

 

[MasterV]

In addition to what the OP said, add every character in every game looking like they're made of shiny plastic and everything is, well, shades of brown and grey in recent "photorealistic games". I'll pass.

 

[DSK-]

I don't mind companies who want to achieve photorealism. It isn't necessary, but I think in simulation games or games where a high degree of graphical realism is needed it would be fine.

Having said that, good creative design and artwork in games regardless of realism can work wonders for the experience and help immersion into the game world.

It isn't just about the graphics but the gameplay also. Any developer who neglects that will not prosper.

I still play many games from the 90's that required a 2/4MB graphics card.

 

[jamesworkshop]

Too perfect is a problem because it is no longer photoreal a good example is that ray tracing allows you to create a surface that is 100% perfectly reflective but the fact is most surfaces even mirriors are nowhere near 100% reflective