Slashdot Mirror
Heavy Rain - Playing a Story
Edge Magazine is running a piece about Heavy Rain, a thriller by Quantic Dream that's been in development for a few years now. Edge spoke with David Cage, the game's writer and director, about using graphics technology not simply for breathtaking landscapes or realistic lighting, but to bring the characters to life and make them more believable. Cage walked the folks at Kotaku through a demo, and they provided details on how the controls will work. From Edge:
"'We worked very hard on motion capture, especially facial motion capture,' explains Cage. 'As you know, eyes are incredibly hard to do: the minute movements they constantly make mean you can tell whether something is human or not. We created a technology to motion-capture that from actors.' The shaders applied to the lead character's eyes and the skin that surrounds them also conspire to nudge Heavy Rain's characters closer to believability. The 'deadness' that so often afflicts such digital mannequins has been significantly chipped away, and we are presented with Madison, a character whose facial features, though attractive in an expectedly unnatural sort of way, also carry blemishes that succeed in breaking down her artificiality."
PS3 only. Good quality visuals. It is a detective story/game.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
All this realism stuff gets on my nerves. Sure it looks more realistic but is it actually a better game? Are the graphics on the Wii "realistic" hell no, they are basically cartoons but the games play well and I don't care about the graphics. So the eyes flicker around in this new game like the eyes of people in a meeting just waiting for it to finish, flicking to the clock, back to the notes and then gazing out of the window in a day-dream before flicking back into the room in case they are asked a question.
Realism isn't always the best way to convey the most emotion and impact, look at the finest paintings from the likes of Rembrandt, and its that impact that games companies should concentrate on rather than on yet another way to make a dull game look pretty.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
?ho immediately thinks of the production of "Chubby Rain" from that Steve Martin/Eddie Murphy comedy Bowfinger? heh. Off topic. Mod me down.
I think you probably do need to say it. What's your point? That every attempt to improve facial features is doomed because of the uncanny valley? That this technology shows that the uncanny valley worries are unjustified? That this project has achieved a lot but still fails due to the uncanny valley? That despite suffering from the uncanny valley, this project nevertheless has achieved a remarkable level of empathy?
"Realism isn't always the best way to convey the most emotion and impact"
Emoticons work much better.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
The games industry is becoming more and more like Hollywood. They think pretty pictures, famous names & loud noise will make up for a lack of story.
Games were more playable on the 8-bit computers & consoles than on today's supercomputers/superconsoles. Yeah the graphics were shitty at times but you still got more immersed in the game than you do these days. Its hard to get too involved in an 'interactive movie' with a few decisions/actions.
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
Agreed.
However, looking at the development of art history, the masters first worked toward realism. Caravaggio with his tenebrism (dramatic shading, where 3D games begin to take off with better shading and lighting) really began to bring things to life. When they reached that pinnacle of realism, other forms began to emerge. I imagine gaming will do something similar as we become bored of perfectly realistic games, even if they are masterpieces of both art and game design.
Anybody else with a more extensive art background have any other comments on this?
-
Good lord, when I first saw the title of this thing I thought of that movie with Christian Slater from about ten years ago, "Hard Rain", and thought they were making a game out of it. It was at that point that I cried out in fear and pain, thrashing my keyboard into the wall and curling up in the corner, a whimpering smudge of a geek. "Make it stop...." was all I could be heard to say...
-
Most of you won't remember, but Quantic Dream is the studio that brought us Omikron: The Nomad Soul. That game had a soundtrack with David Bowie on it.
They also brought us Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy.
I'm a fan of their immersive adventure style games. Hard Rain ought to be a knockout.
They're using their grammar skills there.
I think that's a helluva good point and one I've never considered before. I've got to admit, I like games primarily for the graphics... though I'm not much of a gamer, so I suppose I'm probably the typical eye candy gamer.
However, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I love technology... I like to watch it advance before my eyes... and in no other place is that quite as startlingly evident than video games.
Of course, I can get hooked on a good video game with ok graphics (I LOVED Alpha-Centauri for years), but great graphics done properly can add quite a bit to a game, IMHO.
And in terms of parent's comment, I'd say that's a very good point... the obvious place to push the envelope (and the easiest, in certain respects) is graphics. Once we've reached the threshold of "realism", the creative impulses can move in other directions.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
Titian is often considered the master of "old school realism". In the end, however, realism gave way to Van Gogh, Impressionism, and alternative "representations" - which ultimately culminated in abstract art, and afterwards, representation became mixed. Indeed , the choice of representation became art itself. It is similar to how we had a realistic push in gaming for a few years, and then suddenly cel shading became very popular. I don't think we have come full circle yet, however.
It's not that games were somehow better back then, it's that you were younger and had more time to spend selecting and learning to play video games - and that you're comparing random games from today with your best memories of the best games of the past.
My best memories of, say, Deus Ex are much better than Crysis was... but I'm sure they're much better than Deus Ex actually was too.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
All this realism stuff gets on my nerves. Sure it looks more realistic but is it actually a better game?
Sometimes, yes.
I don't care about the graphics.
Yes, you do, you just don't realize it.
I've said it before, and probably better, but every part of the game affects gameplay, and can make a game better or worse. More realistic graphics can, in fact, make a game better.
Now, granted, Crysis was mostly about pretty pictures and who's got the bigger dic^Wvideo card. But that doesn't mean this particular game is going to be another Crysis.
Realism isn't always the best way to convey the most emotion and impact,
Not always, but sometimes.
Look at film. Certainly, there's a place for anime, and it often does a better job than a summer flick which is focused purely on pretty pictures. But there are also films which are vividly realistic, both in video ("graphics") and in story and dialog -- downright gritty. And everything in between.
Taking your example:
So the eyes flicker around in this new game like the eyes of people in a meeting just waiting for it to finish,
Have you never seen a movie which makes good use of facial expressions, even eyes?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Quote: "the obvious place to push the envelope is graphics"
The main problems in games is not graphics. Good 3D models and high resolution textures are common and realistic lighting is being pushed more and more.
The two main problems are lack of detail and lack of realistic physics. The lack of detail is evident in just about any game. I am not aware of any game for instance where dust is modeled as individual particles. Outside scenes are even worse. Roads are often textured rather than modeled meaning that if you see an imperfection in the road and look at it from different angles up close you do not see different lighting conditions and shadows. Foliage is still not realistic despite much progress. Etc...
Physics is in some ways doing better. Many games define their own and that's the way the game works. But we do expect people and animals to move a certain way (regardless of what the game tells us about its physics) and to have certain facial expressions. Those have to be dead on. And so far, no game can even make a human being walk right, let alone respond to a wound realistically. Grimacing is horrible.
So to recap, there is much more to a game than "graphics", whether you mean polygon counts and shaders or simply pretty still shots. There are many places in dire need of pushing the envelope and graphics is not the main one of them. In fact, with so much in need of improvement I honestly doubt we will see truly realistic games in my lifetime (next 30-50 years).
Agreed.
However, looking at the development of art history... I imagine gaming will do something similar as we become bored of perfectly realistic games, even if they are masterpieces of both art and game design.
Anybody else with a more extensive art background have any other comments on this?
Interesting thought, but not one that persuades me. Many games have already made a virtue of deliberately non-photo-realistic visuals. Molyneux' games, for example, have cartoonish visuals not because he doesn't have the graphic sophistication to go for near photo-real but because he chooses not to.
I think the visual aesthetic has a lot to do with the entire experience the director is trying to impart. I really love The Witcher (my review here) for its immersiveness, and part of that immersiveness is the beautiful visuals which are clearly aiming towards (although not, at least on my hardware, quite achieving it). You really can, in The Witcher, just stop and watch the moon rise and be blown away by the beauty of the scene.
Photorealism also suits stories which build on the 'film noir' genre, as it's clear that Heavy Rain does - but black-and-white might work better (it's noticeable that the palette in those Heavy Rain screenshots is pretty subdued).
However, in the game I'm trying to work on I want to end up with a 'charcoal and wash' visual - very little colour and not a lot of detail. I don't - yet - know how to do this - near photo real would be a lot easier and may be what I eventually end up with. But the reason for that choice is partly to make the game look distinctive, but it's also to comment on the culture of the people I'm trying to tell a story about.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Why don't you wait and see? Producing a compelling game is a fine art and it might suck for a multitude of reasons, but I fail to see why you pour hate on it because it strives for realism and a strong narrative.
Really? Wolfenstein 3D immersed you more than Crysis? Yeah, ok...
What are these interactive movies that you're referring to? I haven't played an interactive movie since the mid-nineties when they were still being made. I've heard people say MGS4 is an interactive movie, but that's just one game out of thousands.
When discussing the present state of video gaming, there are two extremes. On one side you've got the drooling, slack-jawed idiots who are easily distracted by pretty colors and shiny things that go boom, and one the other side you've got posers who want to appear hardcore (or what they perceive to be hardcore) by damning modern games as heresy because they aren't Pong. Both camps are equally worthless.
This is really just a myth. Crysis has very good gameplay, and the narrative is quite engrossing too. The large environments and foliage aren't just there for appearance, they actually affect the gameplay. Enemies can see you from far away, and you can hide in bushes and behind trees, and crawl through tall grass to remain unseen. There's also a sense of distance and scale because going on foot to the next objective can often take a very long time.
I have to respectfully disagree. While I will admit that the nostalgia effect you describe is real and affects me too, it is not the whole explanation.
Far too many games have way too bland gameplay nowadays. Anyone having played assassins creed will know what I mean, although the story was quite intriguing. F.E.A.R. also suffered from shoot-the-same-guy-a-hundred-times-in-some-hallway-syndrome. Absolutely boring rubbish, although the paranormal events made it quite intriguing at the beginning. Half-life 2 had absolutely shitty gameplay in spite of an intriguing story and good graphics. I could go on and on, but you get the point.
But I also recognize some real good titles, which almost disprove your nostalgia effect theory. Portal was absolutely stunning for example, or Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy was very interesting, and most importantly: different. They stand out from the crowd.
But too many games nowadays focus on graphics and being "epic" and whatever, and the gameplay and/or story suffer as a result. It pisses me off.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but I meant to say that the previous statements apply primarily to facial capture. Full body capture is dramatically easier and pretty close to as realistic as it's going to get since you're already capturing movement close to the skeleton. Facial capture is trying to capture all the skin and muscle and fat sliding around on top of the skull, which is the primary reason it's much more complex.
Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
All that work for nothing, because the game will be terrible. How can you tell? A focus on 'quick time' events. This type of game play is not even remotely fun. Please developers, stop using this aged and pointless game mechanic.
The Rose Tinting Effect of Memory. You remember the games/movies/albums you liked in those days, and tend to forget the rest. The signal to noise ratio has always been the same, you're just forgetting the noise. Also, your tastes and standards change over time. As a kid, Tron was orgasmic to me. Watching it now i could see more flaws and not be as entertained by this or that.
Wish i had mod points for ya.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
I regularly watch excellent films. Maybe you should watch something other than mainstream Hollywood productions.
Length != quality.
Anyone who claims that quality films are few and far between and that there aren't any films with an excellent story is obviously not well versed in films. It's like saying that there aren't any games with good gameplay.
Which doesn't mean that length is the same thing as quality.
Can you actually cite any of that?
You speak in generalities, that the U3 engine is "outdated" and "relies on normal maps" but are there actually any benchmarks that show the Cells can push a lot more similarly-processed polys than the 360's graphics?
I'd love to think that devs have thus far only unlocked a fraction of the possibilities lurking beneath the glossy plastic sitting in my entertainment cabinet, but from what I've seen, games thus far look pretty comparable between the two.
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear