Slashdot Mirror
Realistic Human Graphics Look Creepy
WellHungMonkey writes "A really interesting read on Slate about how realistic human faces in games and on robots and so on, are not necessarily the way to go -- the brain isn't fooled, it attaches itself easier to Snoopy-like simplicity... Or Lara Croft attributes, but I'm not sure that's the brain talking."
While simplicity is good, as far as mental-recognition goes, taking simplicity to the max is a bad idea, especially when we have the technology to produce quality-driven graphics. You have to stay around the current level of production quality or you will lose audience. A good example of over-simplification for graphics is demonstrated by the terrible reviews given Radical's unsightly (cell shaded) The Hulk PS2 game. So there's subject matter to consider, as The Hulk was a kind of wacky cartoon/comic, but there was always a darker side to it for me. I was disappointed with the semi-recent Hulk movie, but does that mean the game had to suck too?
For me, a balance of player control with appealing storyline is critical to any video game, and the lack of plausible graphics never helps. Perhaps this could be graphed on a curve or something, but I truly believe there is a balance between all elements of any game or CG film for that matter. Even in film there is still a kind of gameplay, in the physics used and the modes of operations designed to portray the story. Compelling writing fuels the arts, not parlor tricks, so this subject is not exactly cut and dry, by any means... it's very subjective and taste-driven. Another thing to consider is the date that media is designed, because we can all look back at early animation or even live-action special effects and think it looks fake, and the stuff created today will look fake tomorrow. Is there a ceiling to special effects?
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
but really, are very realistic paintings of people creepy? (and paintings as realistic as photographs *do* exist) no! why? because they're *realistic*.
oh, and the author thinks his roomba is cute because it acts sort of like a *pet*. a very stupid and clean pet, but a pet, not a human.
-ninjaneer
It seems as though that 'the movies' have been in the uncanny valley for a little while. I thought that "The Hulk" was very realistic, but it was missing 'something'. I didn't care too much about that but it seems as though most people instantly pointed and said "FAKE!". It's like the 90/90 rule. "The first 90% of the code accounts for the first 90% of the development time. The remaining 10% of the code accounts for the other 90% of the development time". We are now in the last 10% of making realistic CGI humans, and it isn't easy!
I read the article, and came away unconvinced.
I buy the starting premise of the article: that as computer render figures get more human, viewers become harsher judges of the figures. Mario was cute, while the much more lifelike CGI Neo, in the Matrix Reloaded, was stiff and zombielike.
Since this becomes more true the better the rendering, the Slate writer concludes that computer rendered humans will always look creepy.
I suspect this is another one of those computers-will-never-be-able-to-act-human arguments. Most people want to reassure themselves that there's something inherently irreproducible about life, and humanity. This desire leads us to predict that computers won't be able to render convincing humans, beat a person at chess, or ever create art.
My guess is that a decade from now, people will look at predictions like those in the Slate article, and laugh.
I've seen paintings that look intensely lifelike, so why should such representations be beyond the capabilities of future computers?
Check out my blog: My Galaxy is Milky Way Adjacent
That's kind of the point. As they become more realistically human, they require a higher standard for the brain to accept them. The fact is, humans aren't any harder to animate but the brain is much better at noticing the differences. Spaceships look good because the brain doesn't intrinsically recognize the proper shape for a spacehip.
I'm sure that to pilots a lot of the plane animations in Pearl Harbor looked just wrong. If someone drew a dragon with the ears tapered back along the top of the head instead of out to the side would you immediately notice that as wrong? Now draw a human and move any feature around by half and inch and see what a difference it makes.
t
This would not be so funny if you have actually ever been in combat and seen just this thing happen. I've seen my share of combat, but stuff like this is disturbing as Hell and sticks with you for the rest of your life. In computer games, you are looking at vectors, wire frames, Gourard shading etc...etc...etc..., but the real life that you are "simulating" in games is represented by brain tissue, blood and human lives.
Semper Fi
Is this why burn victims strike people so oddly? Everyone reacts differently to them, but not usually in a normal way. Once these poor people loose their identities, they become something else, to everyone else. It's not fair to them, they're still them!
-Patrick
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
That's one thing I've always liked about America's Army. The developers are constantly pushing to move the game towards realism. It keeps away the "haha! you sux0rz, you n00b!" bunnyhopping jerkweeds you find in games like CounterStrike. Usually I can't play for more than about 45 minutes before I need to go do something else less stressful. This is as it should be because, ultimately, what they're simulating isn't a game. I think it's been an instructive tool for showing some of these kids that it isn't like it is in movies.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
That's simply amazing. That picture looks like someone just used the Healing Brush on a Real photo. If you told me that was a real photo cleaned up I'd definitely believe you at first glance. For me personally only the Forehead and of course the shirt look fake.
On the topic at hand I really would rather the people not look totally real in the types of games I play, FPS. But for Adventure/Mystery games (do they make them anymore btw) etc it could be really cool. Of course real looking people with Brain Dead AI will ruin things. I think the graphic component will arrive well before the AI does. I mean if your playing a game and start acting stupid most AI characters just stare blankly into space not commenting. I want to see games where the Characters are like "Hey jackass, stop running around me in circles" etc.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Completely correct.
However, the notion is like this:
Man 1:
You see these little squarish symbols on the map there?
Man 2:
yes
Man 1:
They represent units. There are the infantry regiments and battalions, the field artillery here , the armored units over here, the mech inf behind.
Man 2:
I see.
Man 1:
We move them around, and gain terrain by pushing the enemy back.
Man 2:
Brilliant! Let's do it.
Now, that's abstracting the flesh and blood nature of the soldiers on the ground doing the moving around and the civilians getting caught in the middle.
When true-to-life realistic games come across, and you see the bodyparts flying around, it's a lot harder for joe public to say it's okay to lose a regiment on a "bad day".
So while psychologically it's harder to "see the white of their eyes", I think ultimatly it serves the soldiers all around the world that the public realize they are not just game pieces to be moved around.
I think also that it is better if 500,000 19 year olds get the "kill them" out of their systems by shooting virtual soldiers that respawn in 10 seconds than enlisting to go "kick some ass" overseas.
(to the great chagrin of recruiters everywhere)
Perhaps it would be good to set up netcafes in "hotspots" with free fps gaming like counterstrike, so that the locals can get their kicks instead of making roadside bombs.
I also noticed an interesting side effect. Any ill-conceived notion of invulnerability is shattered by playing those games, because you will be killed in the games, no matter how good you are. Everybody that plays those games know that the ones who rush the tunnels die first. And the lone sniper whose team has been wiped out can last a bit longer, but he gets killed too. Maybe not this round, but next.
The realism makes people realize that being gung-ho about fighting with guns makes you dead.
"Piter, too, is dead."
"I've crossed referenced [the subject's] credit card receipts and have pinpointed his location to..."
That's a neat trick, credit card processors take days to settle payments, and queries generally require a court order, and are generally historical in nature.
"We have a live satellite image of the location..."
Really? On a satellite that is travelling at 17,000 mph. Normally we are lucky to get a blurry snapshot, at best, every 90 minutes. More likely a snapshot every few days, owing the the orbital mechanics of spy satellites. Geo-stationary satellites are too far away to get a decent close-up from.
"I've cross referenced the FBI's database..."
Until recently the FBI's database was a green-screen application that would take days to search properly. Assuming what you were looking for was in it. And your search didn't require more than one word at a time.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming