Should they get much better?

#1 Posted by Arkthemaniac (6535 posts) -

I've been looking at the graphical status of games nowadays, and I wonder how good they're going to get. When I think about playing a game that has completely photorealistic graphics, I somewhat shudder.

Here's why. In Gears of War, you chainsaw people in half, but you know for a fact that it's fake. It doesn't look real or anything. With photorealism in games, you would see the bones cracking, brains flying about, and blood dry on the corpse. Do you really want that? I don't. Games are so violent nowadays that I can't see a reason for them to be made REAL, you know? It makes me think we'll fall into the hole of desensitization that plagued Rome due to the Colosseum.

Also, I think you've all seen this pic. Do we want this?
#2 Edited by BiffMcBlumpkin (3720 posts) -

What are you asking, whether or not games should be made with "photorealism" in mind or if advancements in hardware should stop? Very, very few games are made with photorealism in mind. Often the only psuedo-photorealistic thing in supposedly "photorealistic" games is the environment (trees, rocks, buildings, other inanimate objects,) even in those games character models are [purposely] unrealistically stylized. The extra horsepower people associate with photorealistic graphics also allows for sharper, more detailed ultra stylized visuals, insane and beautiful effects (particle, explosion, etc.,) insane lighting engines, and more happening onscreen simultaneously. Also it's virtually impossible to replicate photorealism in living, organic beings. It would take a nearly infinite amount of horsepower to generate it and man hours to create it. Imagine the length of time it takes to produce a beautifully detailed CG movie, push those visuals to the brink of photorealism, now parlay that into a video game where a practically infinite amount of human movement animations have to be accounted for and everything has to be generated in real-time by a box the size of a VCR. 

People have been talking about photorealism and games hitting a graphical brick wall for eons now. 

 

#3 Posted by Arkthemaniac (6535 posts) -
BiffMcBlumpkin said:
"What are you asking, whether or not games should be made with "photorealism" in mind or if advancements in hardware should stop? Very, very few games are made with photorealism in mind. Often the only psuedo-photorealistic thing in supposedly "photorealistic" games are the environment (trees, rocks, buildings  - inanimate objects,) even in those games character models are stylized. The extra horsepower people associate with photorealistic graphics also allow for sharper, more detailed ultra stylized graphics, insane and beautiful effects (particle, explosion, etc.,) insane lighting engines, and more happening onscreen simultaneously. Also it's virtually impossible to replicate photorealism, it would take a nearly infinite amount of horsepower to generate it and man hours to create it. Imagine the length of time it takes to produce a beautifully detailed CG movie, push those visuals to the brink of photorealism, now parlay that into a video game where a practically infinite amount of human movement animations have to be accounted for and everything has to be generated in real-time by a box the size of a VCR. 

People have been talking about photorealism and games hitting a brick wall for eons now.

 "
The question I pose is, if it were possible, would you really want it?
#4 Posted by jakob187 (21670 posts) -

Personally, I think we're at a good limit to cap graphics at for a while, and game developers should use this time as an opportunity to catch up on improving GAMEPLAY in most games, as well as story-telling mechanics to offer a smooth experience that really grips you.  Sure, there are a lot of people that may not agree with that (for instance, the console makers).  However, I look at games like Gears of War 2, MGS4, Bioshock, and Call of Duty 4 and think, "man, I could just handle these graphics for another 5 or 6 years".  Regardless, people are going to continue pushing the envelope, but gameplay will continue to suffer for it.

The only way, honestly, to make this industry absolutely strengthened rather than pushing and pulling back and forth (despite the fact that video games make more money in a year than the movie industry or music industry...but our products do cost $60 as well) is to start letting some other development houses catch up.  I mean, there are plenty of places that could make some really INCREDIBLE games, but they don't have the assets in order to get the resources needed to make said games.  In turn, what you get are corporate companies pumping out high-end graphics with mediocre gameplay and selling millions because of the vanity of human beings, while you've got indie companies challenging the gameplay functions of those games (and in most cases exceeding it) but they have low-end graphics and have to rely on imaginative art direction...which APPARENTLY makes the common people think "oh, it looks stupid".
#5 Posted by BiffMcBlumpkin (3720 posts) -
Arkthemaniac said:
"BiffMcBlumpkin said:
"What are you asking, whether or not games should be made with "photorealism" in mind or if advancements in hardware should stop? Very, very few games are made with photorealism in mind. Often the only psuedo-photorealistic thing in supposedly "photorealistic" games are the environment (trees, rocks, buildings  - inanimate objects,) even in those games character models are stylized. The extra horsepower people associate with photorealistic graphics also allow for sharper, more detailed ultra stylized graphics, insane and beautiful effects (particle, explosion, etc.,) insane lighting engines, and more happening onscreen simultaneously. Also it's virtually impossible to replicate photorealism, it would take a nearly infinite amount of horsepower to generate it and man hours to create it. Imagine the length of time it takes to produce a beautifully detailed CG movie, push those visuals to the brink of photorealism, now parlay that into a video game where a practically infinite amount of human movement animations have to be accounted for and everything has to be generated in real-time by a box the size of a VCR. 

People have been talking about photorealism and games hitting a brick wall for eons now.

 "
The question I pose is, if it were possible, would you really want it?"
That's something I couldn't answer without actually playing it first.
#6 Posted by BiffMcBlumpkin (3720 posts) -
jakob187 said:
"Personally, I think we're at a good limit to cap graphics at for a while, and game developers should use this time as an opportunity to catch up on improving GAMEPLAY in most games, as well as story-telling mechanics to offer a smooth experience that really grips you.  Sure, there are a lot of people that may not agree with that (for instance, the console makers).  However, I look at games like Gears of War 2, MGS4, Bioshock, and Call of Duty 4 and think, "man, I could just handle these graphics for another 5 or 6 years".  Regardless, people are going to continue pushing the envelope, but gameplay will continue to suffer for it."

I thought the same thing after playing RE4 years back... now, playing it today - not as easy on the eyes as it once was.
What games do you think have suffered because of the effort put into the visuals? Do you really believe they would've been made better had they been uglier? What games do you think have been so much better because the developers chose not to develop a decent engine? Do you believe those games wouldn't have played as good if the developers had put serious effort into refining the game's visual quality?
#7 Posted by HistoryInRust (6311 posts) -
Arkthemaniac said:
The question I pose is, if it were possible, would you really want it?"
I would want it, if only because Biff's point is absolutely correct. 

There will be purposeful stylization to deter from the shock of the violence and the gore.  Hell, even Gears of War 2 is taking the game in a more "cinematic" direction, in opposition to a more realistic direction.  And not every game is violence-centric.  Racing games, sports games, Tycoon games, there are a slew of games that can benefit from increased graphical integrity without fearing the dreaded M rating. 
#8 Posted by brukaoru (5079 posts) -

I don't want graphics, or games rather, to start using photo-realistic engines. I wouldn't want to feel like I was actually killing a person or an animal, that would make me feel sick. Hopefully if graphics reach that point, developers will step back and look for other ways to visualize their games. 

#9 Edited by Arkthemaniac (6535 posts) -
Sir_Ragnarok said:
"Arkthemaniac said:
The question I pose is, if it were possible, would you really want it?"
I would want it, if only because Biff's point is absolutely correct. 

There will be purposeful stylization to deter from the shock of the violence and the gore.  Hell, even Gears of War 2 is taking the game in a more "cinematic" direction, in opposition to a more realistic direction.  And not every game is violence-centric.  Racing games, sports games, Tycoon games, there are a slew of games that can benefit from increased graphical integrity without fearing the dreaded M rating. "
You and Biff are both right in your own way, and I can see the applications in many titles, like racing games (GT5, for example, makes me crap myself in pleasure), but here comes my favorite word.......
HOWEVER, while these games would be helped with that, there's developers like Rockstar who love to push people's buttons and would use this opportunity. As a result, we may have games that are beyond bloody, sickeningly gory, and completely unsettling in the worst way. I fear these games.
#10 Posted by HistoryInRust (6311 posts) -
Arkthemaniac said:
You and Biff are both right in your own way, and I can see the applications in racing games (GT5, for example, makes me crap myself in pleasure), but here comes my favorite word.......
HOWEVER, while these games would be helped with that, there's developers like Rockstar who love to push people's buttons and would use this opportunity. As a result, we may have games that are beyond bloody, sickeningly gory, and completely unsettling in the worst way. I fear these games.
"
Err.  Don't play them? 

It's not the medium's fault.  Also, I think you are taking things out of context with the violence--Rockstar usually has something to say to accompany the battery on-screen. 
#11 Edited by BiffMcBlumpkin (3720 posts) -

Photorealism would, if anything, tone down the over-the-top gore seen in many games today. I've never seen it, but I imagine when someone is shot in real life they don't vaporize into a cloud of hazy red goo.
Again, hyper stylization makes games better, there's no reason developers wouldn't continue to stylize objects within their games simply because they have the means to make things somewhat photorealistc. Epic had the means to make the blood in Gears much more "photorealistic," why do you think they chose to make it over-the-top stylized and at times cartoonish?

#12 Posted by Arkthemaniac (6535 posts) -
Sir_Ragnarok said:
"Arkthemaniac said:
You and Biff are both right in your own way, and I can see the applications in racing games (GT5, for example, makes me crap myself in pleasure), but here comes my favorite word.......
HOWEVER, while these games would be helped with that, there's developers like Rockstar who love to push people's buttons and would use this opportunity. As a result, we may have games that are beyond bloody, sickeningly gory, and completely unsettling in the worst way. I fear these games.
"
Err.  Don't play them? 

It's not the medium's fault.  Also, I think you are taking things out of context with the violence--Rockstar usually has something to say to accompany the battery on-screen. "
Yeah, I could not play them, but it lowers the overall view of the gaming world. When I talk to people who don't play video games, and I say, "I play video games," they usually think I like games for the gore of it (I fit into that "look", I guess). 
Also, I just don't like Rockstar, and I'd see Manhunt 4 or whatever being excessive. It doesn't help that they get anti-publicity more than anyone gets normal publicity (except Wii Fit, maybe), so those are the games that people know about.
#13 Posted by StaticFalconar (4849 posts) -

Even though graphics power is enough (IMO), we still need more computing power to get some better AI or more things to fit on the screen at once without lag.

#14 Posted by Snail (8604 posts) -

Yes I would want it, but if itgets too real it will become dangerous (psycologically that is).

#15 Posted by Roger_Klotz (780 posts) -

I believe they are going to improve on the physics of most games. I think graphics have reached a plateau and cannot get better. But the next time we will see a console will be for awhile. Unless nintendo decides to go HD and make a new wii or console.

#16 Posted by DualReaver (3882 posts) -
brukaoru said:
"I don't want graphics, or games rather, to start using photo-realistic engines. I wouldn't want to feel like I was actually killing a person or an animal, that would make me feel sick. Hopefully if graphics reach that point, developers will step back and look for other ways to visualize their games. "
You're thinking about this all wrong Bru.

caption




























Imagine that with photo-realistic graphics.
#17 Posted by Arkthemaniac (6535 posts) -
StaticFalconar said:
"Even though graphics power is enough (IMO), we still need more computing power to get some better AI or more things to fit on the screen at once without lag."
Completely, 100%, die hard, will-shoot-the-naysayers in favor of that.
BiffMcBlumpkin said:
"

Photorealism would, if anything, tone down the over-the-top gore seen in many games today. I've never seen it, but I imagine when someone is shot in real life they don't vaporize into a cloud of hazy red goo.
Again, hyper stylization makes games better, there's no reason developers wouldn't continue to stylize objects within their games simply because they have the means to make things somewhat photorealistc. Epic had the means to make the blood in Gears much more "photorealistic," why do you think they chose to make it over-the-top stylized and at times cartoonish.

"
Stylization would still happen, but it doesn't happen a whole lot as it is nowadays, and definitely happens less than it used to. As graphics tend to become more advanced, people like to shy away from the more stylized view in favor of the realistic. Seeing as how games have been getting more realistic, and people are praising their realism more and more, will we keep going or hit a wall? Will the praise continue onto the photorealism, or will we eventually say, "Nope, that's too much."?

Stylized games are fine, and in the case of games like No More Heroes, MadWorld, and, to a lesser extent, Gears of War, the blood can be actually funny because of how fake it is. Will they continue to lessen as time goes on as they have been? Will they become extinct, or will these also meet a brick wall where they will resurge?
#18 Posted by HistoryInRust (6311 posts) -
Arkthemaniac said:
Yeah, I could not play them, but it lowers the overall view of the gaming world. When I talk to people who don't play video games, and I say, "I play video games," they usually think I like games for the gore of it (I fit into that "look", I guess).
What are you talking about?  There are films you probably avoid seeing for the same reason, but that's not detrimental in any way to the "film world". 

And who gives a shit what people think?  If they think you're into the gore, let them, because they obviously don't know how dynamic video gaming is. 

Also, to further reinforce Biff (I'm not doing it because it's Biff, just because I think his point's pretty sound), extreme gore would be allayed by the advent of hyper-realistic graphics.  Take Halo, for instance.  I mean, that's not the top of the graphical food chain, by any means, but the gore is not that absurd.  For that matter, neither is the gore in Grand Theft Auto IV.

As a matter of fact, take a look at the historical progression of gore in video games.  I think you'll see gore play a more prominent role in the times when graphics engines were still being tweaked into mere functionality.  Take Doom and Mortal Kombat, for example.  As the gaming industry has fined-tuned their visual product, so too have they toned down the levels of blood n' guts, as it were.  Stray examples, like Doom 3 and Resident Evil 4, are more the exceptions and not the rules.
#19 Posted by Arkthemaniac (6535 posts) -
Sir_Ragnarok said:
"Arkthemaniac said:
Yeah, I could not play them, but it lowers the overall view of the gaming world. When I talk to people who don't play video games, and I say, "I play video games," they usually think I like games for the gore of it (I fit into that "look", I guess).
What are you talking about?  There are films you probably avoid seeing for the same reason, but that's not detrimental in any way to the "film world". 

And who gives a shit what people think?  If they think you're into the gore, let them, because they obviously don't know how dynamic video gaming is. 

Also, to further reinforce Biff (I'm not doing it because it's Biff, just because I think his point's pretty sound), extreme gore would be allayed by the advent of hyper-realistic graphics.  Take Halo, for instance.  I mean, that's not the top of the graphical food chain, by any means, but the gore is not that absurd.  For that matter, neither is the gore in Grand Theft Auto IV.

As a matter of fact, take a look at the historical progression of gore in video games.  I think you'll see gore play a more prominent role in the times when graphics engines were still being tweaked into mere functionality.  Take Doom and Mortal Kombat, for example.  As the gaming industry has fined-tuned their visual product, so too have they toned down the levels of blood n' guts, as it were.  Stray examples, like Doom 3 and Resident Evil 4, are more the exceptions and not the rules."
Oh come on, it's naive to compare the fim industry to the game industry when looking at it from an outsider. Everyone watches movies, while less people play games. That changes quite a bit.
The point is, people feel satisfied when they get a headshot, and it's more satisfying when there's some sort of grand reaction. Even games as far back as Symphony of the Night knew that how the enemy dies is more important than you killing it. If GRAPHICS becomePHOTOREALISTIC, not GORE becoming REALISTIC, will there be a problem? Or, do you feel that one would mean the other in all cases?
#20 Posted by BiffMcBlumpkin (3720 posts) -
Arkthemaniac said:
"StaticFalconar said:
"Even though graphics power is enough (IMO), we still need more computing power to get some better AI or more things to fit on the screen at once without lag."
Completely, 100%, die hard, will-shoot-the-naysayers in favor of that.
BiffMcBlumpkin said:
"

Photorealism would, if anything, tone down the over-the-top gore seen in many games today. I've never seen it, but I imagine when someone is shot in real life they don't vaporize into a cloud of hazy red goo.
Again, hyper stylization makes games better, there's no reason developers wouldn't continue to stylize objects within their games simply because they have the means to make things somewhat photorealistc. Epic had the means to make the blood in Gears much more "photorealistic," why do you think they chose to make it over-the-top stylized and at times cartoonish.

"
Stylization would still happen, but it doesn't happen a whole lot as it is nowadays, and definitely happens less than it used to. As graphics tend to become more advanced, people like to shy away from the more stylized view in favor of the realistic. Seeing as how games have been getting more realistic, and people are praising their realism more and more, will we keep going or hit a wall? Will the praise continue onto the photorealism, or will we eventually say, "Nope, that's too much."?

Stylized games are fine, and in the case of games like No More Heroes, MadWorld, and, to a lesser extent, Gears of War, the blood can be actually funny because of how fake it is. Will they continue to lessen as time goes on as they have been? Will they become extinct, or will these also meet a brick wall where they will resurge?
"
But there was nothing stopping Epic from making the blood in Gears "photorealistic." If they can make photorealistic water, they can make photorealistic blood. They didn't.

Gears wasn't made to be anymore photorealistic than, say, the original Half Life was. Valve just didn't have the engine back then to make the human models more believable, or the buildings (and landscape, etc.) more "realistic" looking. 

Giving developers more to work with is never a bad thing.
#21 Posted by HistoryInRust (6311 posts) -

No need to cyber-yell.  You're the one hung up on how graphics would bolster violence and cause people to pick on you in high school for liking video games.

#22 Posted by brukaoru (5079 posts) -
DualReaver said:
"brukaoru said:
"I don't want graphics, or games rather, to start using photo-realistic engines. I wouldn't want to feel like I was actually killing a person or an animal, that would make me feel sick. Hopefully if graphics reach that point, developers will step back and look for other ways to visualize their games. "
You're thinking about this all wrong Bru.

...

Imagine that with photo-realistic graphics.
"
You are so funny, Dual!

Imagine it!


















#23 Posted by BiffMcBlumpkin (3720 posts) -
Arkthemaniac said:
"Sir_Ragnarok said:
"Arkthemaniac said:
Yeah, I could not play them, but it lowers the overall view of the gaming world. When I talk to people who don't play video games, and I say, "I play video games," they usually think I like games for the gore of it (I fit into that "look", I guess).
What are you talking about?  There are films you probably avoid seeing for the same reason, but that's not detrimental in any way to the "film world". 

And who gives a shit what people think?  If they think you're into the gore, let them, because they obviously don't know how dynamic video gaming is. 

Also, to further reinforce Biff (I'm not doing it because it's Biff, just because I think his point's pretty sound), extreme gore would be allayed by the advent of hyper-realistic graphics.  Take Halo, for instance.  I mean, that's not the top of the graphical food chain, by any means, but the gore is not that absurd.  For that matter, neither is the gore in Grand Theft Auto IV.

As a matter of fact, take a look at the historical progression of gore in video games.  I think you'll see gore play a more prominent role in the times when graphics engines were still being tweaked into mere functionality.  Take Doom and Mortal Kombat, for example.  As the gaming industry has fined-tuned their visual product, so too have they toned down the levels of blood n' guts, as it were.  Stray examples, like Doom 3 and Resident Evil 4, are more the exceptions and not the rules."
Oh come on, it's naive to compare the fim industry to the game industry when looking at it from an outsider. Everyone watches movies, while less people play games. That changes quite a bit.
The point is, people feel satisfied when they get a headshot, and it's more satisfying when there's some sort of grand reaction. Even games as far back as Symphony of the Night knew that how the enemy dies is more important than you killing it. If GRAPHICS becomePHOTOREALISTIC, not GORE becoming REALISTIC, will there be a problem? Or, do you feel that one would mean the other in all cases?
"
Throwing SotN in there really makes no sense. How do you makes a "photorealistic" representation of an insane fantasy creature?

#24 Posted by Arkthemaniac (6535 posts) -
Sir_Ragnarok said:
"No need to cyber-yell.  You're the one hung up on how graphics would bolster violence and cause people to pick on you in high school for liking video games."
Pick on me? Nah, dude, everyone at my school plays videogames, at least the guys. It's the broads I'm worrying about.
Also, I didn't mean the caps to signify yelling, but to rather make the words stand out more.
#25 Edited by DualReaver (3882 posts) -
brukaoru said:
"DualReaver said:
"brukaoru said:
"I don't want graphics, or games rather, to start using photo-realistic engines. I wouldn't want to feel like I was actually killing a person or an animal, that would make me feel sick. Hopefully if graphics reach that point, developers will step back and look for other ways to visualize their games. "
You're thinking about this all wrong Bru.

...

Imagine that with photo-realistic graphics.
"
You are so funny, Dual!
We're only one or two generations away from a photo-realistic Dante, hopefully he'll be wearing his DMC3 attire. :D
#26 Edited by BiffMcBlumpkin (3720 posts) -
brukaoru said:
"DualReaver said:
"brukaoru said:
"I don't want graphics, or games rather, to start using photo-realistic engines. I wouldn't want to feel like I was actually killing a person or an animal, that would make me feel sick. Hopefully if graphics reach that point, developers will step back and look for other ways to visualize their games. "
You're thinking about this all wrong Bru.

...

Imagine that with photo-realistic graphics.
"
You are so funny, Dual!

Imagine it!


















"
It would look exactly like Anderson Cooper. Cooper May Cry 5, coming soon.
#27 Posted by brukaoru (5079 posts) -
DualReaver said:
"We're only one or two generations away from a photo-realistic Dante, hopefully he'll be wearing his DMC3 attire. :D"
Sigh... We can only hope Dual, we can only hope.

BiffMcBlumpkin said:
"It would look exactly like Anderson Cooper. Cooper May Cry 5, coming soon."
You dare compare Dante to Anderson Cooper? FAIL!

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.