Slashdot Mirror
Videogame Graphic Advances - Not That Important?
Thanks to the IGDA for its 'Culture Clash' column discussing the recent advances in graphics quality for games, and why increased detail isn't always a good thing. The author, referencing a previously Slashdot-covered article about "unsettlingly funereal" hi-poly face models in games, points out: "Dependence on increasingly real visuals alone to generate emotion will inevitably hit a wall: at some point game graphics will look as good as real life. Developers have an arsenal of emotioneering tools at hand; to limit themselves to just one, however prominent, would be ill-advised", before further warning: "Overfocus on hyper-realistic graphics and modeling, while not a bad idea in a general sort of way, can also impede quality of gameplay."
At GDC 2003, Jason Rubin, head and founder of Naugthy Dog, a highly successful development studio for PS1 and PS2, delivered a speech (slides available here, audio and slides available on Gamasutra (free painless reg. req.)) on a closely related subject : improvements in graphics quality will not be sustained over the next few years, and relying on them to impress potential customers is a bad idea.
Moral : as long as gameplay, character development and story do not suck, nice graphics are of course an asset, but they're useless in case of an already shitty game...
Who needs a
They look like dead people, because they're about the right shape and color, but lack all of that "whatever" that makes a person alive.
Hence, funereal, or having to do with a funeral.
It's got to do with our perception of artistic representation of faces. The phenomenon is known as the "Uncanny Valley." We cut things a lot of slack when they don't look realistic at all (mario, for example) but when they get really, really close to real-- the tiny bit of difference sticks out like a sore thumb. There's this nasty place just before 100% realistic where even the tiniest imperfection makes things look awful. And they generally end up looking like dead people.
Consider the faces in games containing models of real people-- The Matrix, or Alias. They look like walking mannequins, and can be kinda unnerving.
OH man, i am SO glad you mentioned this...
And not only does more abstract character become more accesable, but we even tend to IDENTIFY more with a character that is drawn more abstract. Which is really cool.
It is fun to read comics and see this sort of thing in practice. In a some comics (BONE is a good example) there are a few characters that are drawn very abstract as compared to the rest of the cast. This makes it so that you identify soley with a few of the caracters, and the author can really dictate your experience, as he is controlling through whose eyes you are expereienceing the story.
Just another way for graphics to enhance a storytelling experience. It would eb really cool to see a similare sort of thing in video games. Perhaps someday...
But yeah, for anyone that is intersted in comics -- or just use of graphics in general "understanding comics" is a easy, yet very infomative and accesible, read. Cool
I've been thinking about this for quite some time and I realize that I'm more comfortable around cartoon and animated graphics than I am with pseudo realistic graphics. I've seen some movies and games where they try to make the face of a character as realistic as possible. However, it just feels eery to me. The closer they get to reality the more eery it feels. There is always something that just doesn't fit. Lips don't move properly, the skin is too shiny, the face too perfect, or the features too symmetrical.
In fact, I just looked on Google to see if anyone else noticed this and found this article.
The current player base for diablo II LOd/ vanilla is as big as the entire population of everyoen who has ever played nethack.
Check the bnet stats. 10,000 on D2 at any given time.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."