More realistic graphics less real?

[RyaNtheSlayA]

As I was playing Uncharted today on my PS3, I then went to Battlefront on my Mac. I've speculated it before but I haven't really sat down to share it until now. All these new games with amazing graphics sure look good in screenshots don't they, but all these graphically advanced games seem less real to me. As we slowly close in on photo-realism I am starting to notice more subtle problems that completely ruin the wonderful bloom, dynamic shadows, bump mapping, and massive textures. I begin to noticed problems in animation, facial expressions, objects with low polygons compared to others etc.

On a PS2 lets say, you are playing Red Faction, since its of course not graphically realistic, you don't seem to notice the small nicks in animation and low resolution textures on the cavern walls. Now skip ahead and you are playing Red Faction Guerilla. As you are running around the martian landscape it seems so beautiful, then you notice a small animation glitch as your man is walking. Or how when you're running up a hill, your feet don't go with the hill, but rather clip through and seems to be walking on invisible steps, as you close in on a sign, it is grainy and looks like they took a horrible cellphone picture of a stop sign and pasted it on the 3D object. In this otherwise beautiful scene, near perfect, these little things become apparent. Ruining the "realistic" graphics in my mind.

I don't know about you guys but this sort of thing bugs me, in older games, I don't tend to notice as much, but as we reach photo-realism, we will never realize "real" graphics till we pay attention to little things such as that. Those things are also what can make the graphics seem spectacular in my opinion.

Just my two cents is all.

[kunoh]

I think style is important as well. For instance, I really love the style and look of Team Fortress 2. It uses all the latest graphical advances like normal mapping, higher poly modeling, etc - but the look is totally unique and simply cool. I think a lot of developers get into the rut of making ultra realism the focus without thinking about style. And as for sloppiness like polygon clipping and low res textures, there are still things that have to take a hit in terms of quality to make everything else ship on-time. I'm not saying these shouldnt be dealt with, just that most game companies these days operate on a crazy schedule and things like that are considered minor in terms of what has to be done. In the future, some programmer will write code such that whenever you walk an incline, your feet will always be flush with that incline - but right now things like animation layering and normal map blending will be more important since those things will bump the graphics up a notch over the competition.

[blackmagepwns]

Good to know I'm not the only one that thinks the same thing, I try not to let it bother me TOO much though.

[J T]

There's a funny episode of 30 Rock where Tracy wants to make a porno videogame and Frank insists it's impossible to make a porn videogame because if the graphics aren't realistic enough then it's not sexy, and if the graphics get too realistic, there's always something a little bit off about the people and they seem creepy, so it again is not sexy.

[Budsmoka]

There's a funny episode of 30 Rock where Tracy wants to make a porno videogame and Frank insists it's impossible to make a porn videogame because if the graphics aren't realistic enough then it's not sexy, and if the graphics get too realistic, there's always something a little bit off about the people and they seem creepy, so it again is not sexy.

Live action cut scenes?

[Jrecee]

Yes. Even when you watch a movie where they use CG characters, there are still things about them that give them away. And it takes milliondollar computers and massive rendering times to do that.

Games that had the "best" realistic graphics for their time have usually aged the worst. Mario 64 still looks better than any of the flat faced characters from goldeneye because of the cartoony style.

I think it could be another 10 years before hollywood can crank out a near indistinguishable human clone and probably a lot more before games can do it.

[jfrost]

There's a funny episode of 30 Rock where Tracy wants to make a porno videogame and Frank insists it's impossible to make a porn videogame because if the graphics aren't realistic enough then it's not sexy, and if the graphics get too realistic, there's always something a little bit off about the people and they seem creepy, so it again is not sexy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

[Anayo]

I will agree that realistic graphics like Gears of War II really raises my expectations to almost unfair levels.

[RCBH928]

I am huge fan of style not realistic graphics(although like realistic too)

but what I noticed is that realistic graphics are kind of plain. I think Rainbow Six, FEAR, and Killzone 2 has this type of graphics. I am not sure if real life is plain, but they say these games got realistic graphics. Yes the graphics are sharp clear, but very very plain, specially walls.

but if people want realistic, why make them graphics? Lets go back to FMV, the future as they predicted back in the mid 90's. It can't get more realistic than...real. Why waste so much time created graphics that look real, when you can just put actors in.

[MrPopo]

There's a funny episode of 30 Rock where Tracy wants to make a porno videogame and Frank insists it's impossible to make a porn videogame because if the graphics aren't realistic enough then it's not sexy, and if the graphics get too realistic, there's always something a little bit off about the people and they seem creepy, so it again is not sexy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

Beat me to it.