Pixels versus Polygons

[J T]

I'm a big fan of holography graphics.

Whatever happened to holograms?



They always wowed me at the arcades. So did virtual reality. Neither seemed to see much of a life beyond their novelty though.

[Curlypaul]

That game always gave me a blazing headache after just a few minutes of watching it. The Virtuality tom cat fighting games was OK though

[Mod_Man_Extreme]

Ah the wonderful world of laserdiscs.

[corn619]

I would like to see a 2D pixel game that uses all of the power of todays consoles for gameplay and graphic innovation. That would be a dream come true.

[the7k]

After seeing games like King of Fighters XII and BlazBlue compared to Street Fighter 4... 3D is pig disgusting.

It all depends on the artist, really. 2D can look great, 3D can look great. The problem I have with 3D is that 3D artists tend to focus way too much on making things look as photo-realistic as they possibly can. I've always hated this focus on realism, it takes away what little imagination is already within people.

There's also just some things that can't really be done properly in 3D. Capcom is saying if they do a new Darkstalkers, it'll be in 3D, but anyone who has played that series knows that many of the moves would be almost impossible to pull off in 3D, or at the very least lose impact.

[lordofduct]

After seeing games like King of Fighters XII and BlazBlue compared to Street Fighter 4... 3D is pig disgusting.

It all depends on the artist, really. 2D can look great, 3D can look great. The problem I have with 3D is that 3D artists tend to focus way too much on making things look as photo-realistic as they possibly can. I've always hated this focus on realism, it takes away what little imagination is already within people.

There's also just some things that can't really be done properly in 3D. Capcom is saying if they do a new Darkstalkers, it'll be in 3D, but anyone who has played that series knows that many of the moves would be almost impossible to pull off in 3D, or at the very least lose impact.

I beg to differ.

I don't think the artists try to hard for photo realism, it's that their bosses demand they try for that. So a lot of them practice it more.

Nearly all the 3D artists I know have sick ass independent stuff in their own collection... it's just stuff that never makes it in games because the producers don't think people want that kind of stuff. We may appreciate the artistic side, but the general consensus is "realistic graphics == teh awesomes"

[J T]

I think video games need to achieve photo realism. They are not there yet, though games like Heavy Rain are pushing things closer to that goal. Realistic graphics are nice because they give you a bench mark for how powerful the technology has become. I think this is part of why people like them- it's easy to tell which realism games have better graphics. They also aid in the immersion into the game world.

That being said, I prefer a game that offers artistic vision... that lets you swim around in an artistic fantasy world. I think the realism movement in games has provided important contributions to these artfully styled games as well though. Many 3D physics, emotional expressions, lighting effects, particle effects, reflection effects, etc. have come about as a result of trying to achiever realism. The same techniques then get applied in cartoonish, cell shaded games, or other artistically driven graphics. So even though I like games that provide a unique style, I think the push for greater realism in graphics is still an important artistic endeavor for the techniques it provides.

[lordofduct]

@JT - totally agreed

in other art worlds realism is a time honoured tradition. Oil painters attempted realism for centuries and still do. Of course other artistic avenues spurred from that. Art in it's simplest form is man mimicing nature, and what's simpler then photo-realism when mimicing nature?

We can't say photo-realism in games isn't art. That is a masterful skill for an artist to model something realistic. Saying it wasn't would be like saying Rembrandt's multiple self-portraits aren't art. Rembrandt is as much as if not more of an artist then Dali with his surrealism or George Grosz with Dadaism. And it's certain these impressionists, surrealists, and other bizarro artists credit these "realists" all through history for inspiration.


As for the 3D artist calling himself an artist on the other hand... heh... I know my buddy Adny denies being an artist.

[the7k]

I'm not saying realistic 3D isn't art. I'm just saying it doesn't involve a lot of imagination. In the end, a non-abstract self-portrait is merely following a blue print.

The push for realism back in the NES era all the way to PSX era (and even early PS2) was good, because technology was so primitive that there were all kinds of ways to approach such a goal - you'd always come up short, but everybody would come up short in a different area, thus creating a style. Now that we are in the age of HDTVs and 1080p displays, it'll get to a point where Game A is going to look just like Game B.

Is a self-portrait of Rembrandt art? Sure. The real question is - is a self-portrait of Rembrandt as interesting to look at as any given work by Dali?

[lordofduct]

Your question about Rembrandt... yes I do think looking at any given self-portrait could evoke just as much from me as any Dali.

What it would evoke would be completely different. What interested me in it probably isn't the surrealistic world described by Dali, but instead maybe the intricate work to display some unknown character in the background and creating some intention and meaning to the image. Realistic looking art is full of symbolism and description of an era. It isn't just a snap shot of an object.

Bar in mind, photo-realism still has artistic aspects when it comes to imagination. First off we will NEVER have perfect photo-reality in a video game... unless we just plastered film shots into it (and in which case would require SO much work using ****... crap forget the name of that stupid device with all the cameras and shit ). To have an immersable 3D world like we have the amount of money and resources would be ridiculous... and we'd never have the fantastic landscapes we have in games because you'd have to build live versions of them as well. The restrictions on dynamics is ridiculous. If you want that we've already had it (albeit very low res and kind of grainy) on the Sega-CD, 3DO and other consoles/computers.

It still is a combination of unique and interesting lighting engines, physics engines, and mastery of drawing and photo manipulation to create the look. This near photo-realism is already achievable and pushes human artists to the limits... they just aren't in game because the rendering time takes hours for a mere second of video.

So where the creativity comes in is the artist ability to create imaginitive worlds that you never saw, but look like they could be real. Do you ever think you'll walk into Mordor?? No... but in the movie it looks like you could! And that is one creative looking place! Or even just take some video games... like Gears of War 2... will we ever walk down those rambled streets of those cities with the brawny bastards carrying monstrous guns and battling with locust??? NO. Does it look real? YEAH, and it's creative to.

It's just a different kind.

And Game A won't look like Game B. Does Gears look like Halo (I know mainstream, but it clears my point)??? No it doesn't, they are two completely different creative spurs that strive for photo-realism. Does Half-Life 2 look like Portal??? Yeah, cause the same guys made it.

Just like in Surrealism with Dali's "The Matador" feels a lot like "Swans reflecting Elephants". There's progression, but you can simply tell they are the same artists.

But compare say Rembrandt to Vermeer... both very realistic. But neither emoting the same thing or creating the same world. You can distinguish one artist from the other. Maybe not who they are distinctly from the art (that takes tons of practice), but you will know that the two pieces sitting next to each other probably weren't by the same people.



My point is photo-realism isn't just a "bowl of fruit". There's more to it. Movie are photo-realistic because they are photos. Yet there is a butt load of creativity thrown into them. Through visuals, special effects, story, character development, lighting, direction, etc. Games have all this potential and even more! Despite if they're photo-realistic or not. Not to say I only want photo-realism. I just appreciate both.

You can compare it to animated films to live action films. One borrows from the other and vice versa. They both are artistic and creative and one isn't stunted over the other. They just have their own paths and methods unique to them, and share others.