Notch vs Hartmann... FIGHT.

[Romeo]

Read this first.

Now, for those that still refused to click the link, basically it is a disagreement between Eric Notch (Minecraft's creator) and Chris Hartmann (Owns 2K games) about whether or not games need photo-realism to be emotionally evocative. Notch says no, Hartmann says yes.

Now, obviously I couldn't stage a debate on IGN, because anyone who doesn't agree with Notch's every word there is drowned out in a sea of "no, ur just a consoel player". So, I brought it here! HUZZAH!

Now, by all means, do your voting in the poll, but I'm more interested to read peoples replies, so please post down below as well. And yes, I am only leaving a "Yes or No" option because frankly it forces people on to a side rather than allowing for middlegrounds (Which is boring).

Now, not to skew any opinions, but my own personally belief is to side with Hartmann on this one. By my nature, when I see a blatently pixelated or "fake-looking" thing, my mind instantly snaps out of the experience and I'm reminded that "Oh yeah, you're just a bunch of code". The more realistic looking games though tend to immerse me and blur that line, so that I tend to think of them as people or creatures, not some fascimile of life. Which in turn makes them more emotional when I see their experiences unfold. Now, I'm not saying games can't be emotionally engaging without stellar graphics - I found Bastion to be a phenominal experience despite being a very cartoony-looking game - but I do agree with Hartmann's assessment that improving the graphics does bring more emotional connection.

Now, DISCUSS!

[Jerion]

Interesting topic.

Our view of graphics-based immersion seems to be shaped by the cutting edge visuals of the time. It's about context. Twelve years ago, Deus Ex was to PC graphics as Mass Effect 3 is now: It looked good enough to get the job done, but won't look that great up next to the cutting edge in a pure visual fidelity comparison.

Because it is again relevant, I'm gonna post this video. If you've seen it, skip down to the next paragraph. Otherwise watch it before going on. I'll wait.



Okay. Watched it? Good.

I don't believe that we strictly need photorealistic art to have a truly emotional connection between the game world and the player. However, the distinction between photorealistic art (PA) and photorealistic graphics (PG) is important. Video games are a predominantly visual medium. Video. Visual. It's right in the name. Because of this, artists can use the visual aspect to construct a strong aesthetic. Deus Ex HR is a good example here. When you remember the visuals of that game, the most defining and atmospheric element could be chalked up to the art style. But the art style itself would have benefited from greater graphical detail. For an easy example of this, compare the game's realtime visuals to the Director's Cut CGI trailer cooked up by Eidos Montréal, Goldtooth and Visual Works, or even it's own pre-rendered cutscenes:

(Spoiler alert- this is contains some of the game's opening)


Director's Cut Trailer:


Or to switch gears, take a look at what Epic is cooking up with Fortnight:





It almost looks like a damn Pixar movie, and it's going to take that aesthetic as far as it can with the graphics tech (Unreal Engine 4, by the way).

Do games need PA to be emotionally evocative? No. Where visuals are concerned, the art style and aesthetic create that emotional bond. But PG can absolutely improve said art styles and get the most out of them.

All that said: Visuals are just once piece of the puzzle when it comes to forging an emotional bond between player and world, and writing, sound/music, are also incredibly (perhaps even more) important than the pictures we look at. Where the visual element is concerned though, more sophisticated graphical tech can absolutely improve things.

[Driber]

Interesting topic indeed.

Whether graphics improves the emotional quality of a game or not, it definitely is not a requirement to create an emotional quality game.

When I first played FF7, I was overwhelmed by the game. The in-game character models were not exactly extremely realistic looking and actually fell short of character models of other PSX games, but it did not stop me from completely falling in love with the game and its characters.

It's not just eye candy that matters. Actually, sometimes the absence of things forces your brain to be more imaginative, causing a higher level of immersion.

[The Zoo Boy]

Originally Posted by Driber

Interesting topic indeed.

Whether graphics improves the emotional quality of a game or not, it definitely is not a requirement to create an emotional quality game.

When I first played FF7, I was overwhelmed by the game. The in-game character models were not exactly extremely realistic looking and actually fell short of character models of other PSX games, but it did not stop me from completely falling in love with the game and its characters.

It's not just eye candy that matters. Actually, sometimes the absence of things forces your brain to be more imaginative, causing a higher level of immersion.

I agree with Driber. Although I think that better graphics do improve the emotional quality of a game, it is definitley not a requirement. I have played many games with sub-par graphics that I felt had a great story with lots of emotion. Red Dead Revolver comes immediatley to mind.

[BLOWHARD]

The graphics should match the intent of the game. And sometimes the graphics available can shape the type of game.
If it's realistic, it should look realistic. LA Noire just wouldn't work if it looked like Minecraft. The reality of Tomb Raider games has changed along with with how realistic the graphics have gotten.
This is an interesting one to think about.

[staticon]

Must admit, I prefer earlier (pre-AoD) Tomb Raider. The ease of control allowed me to immerse myself in the game far more quickly than the large learning curves of some more recent offerings.

Ease of control also worked within Project Eden, Pain Killer, Doom III, etc.

Though I have to say, the most immersive games I ever played were the Zork games from Infocom - and they had no graphics at all.

Happy days.

[EDIT]
I see that, so far, I'm the only one who doesn't think graphics are important. Must be my age - I used to enjoy the old, text based Star Trek game on the teletype machine at work.

[Driber]

Originally Posted by staticon

Must admit, I prefer earlier (pre-AoD) Tomb Raider. The ease of control allowed me to immerse myself in the game far more quickly than the large learning curves of some more recent offerings.

Funny, the folks who got into TR with Legend onward say they find the classic control system having the most steep learning curve

Originally Posted by staticon

I see that, so far, I'm the only one who doesn't think graphics are important.

Did you miss my post?

[staticon]

Sorry - only just spotted this:

Originally Posted by Driber

Did you miss my post?

No, I hadn't - it was me being imprecise with my post.

What I meant was that, at that time, I was the only one who had voted for the 'Graphics do not improve . . . . ' option.

One thousand apologies. It won't happen again.

[@m]

I don't want photorealism in games. I prefer that the time spend on creating state of the art graphics is spend on longer gameplay instead. Now I don't like the look of minecraft either, but I think that's a design decision and not a technology limit. To me games already look good enough for years.

Recently I was replaying Commandos 2, which was released in 2001 and to me it still looks good. Again I rather have that they spend the time on other areas of the game.

[Elliot Kane]

I have two words for anyone who thinks photo-realism is a requirement for serious emotional engagement in games: Planescape: Torment.

Amazing writing, a great story and terrific characters are all necessary for true emotional engagement. But in the same way that an animated film can engage as well as any film involving real actors, so a game can draw you in and make you feel for the characters regardless of how photo-realistic the graphics are.

In truth, I have played a number of games that I felt a degree of emotional engagement with, and watched a ton of live action films which were strictly candy floss and engaged my emotions lightly if at all.

Graphics are not the thing that create emotional involvement. Only great writing can do that (And great acting, be it real, by animation, or by proxy. Anyone think Gollum in LotR is not 'well acted'?).

Great graphics don't hurt, but true emotional depth is never a result of graphics alone.

[Romeo]

Originally Posted by @m

I don't want photorealism in games. I prefer that the time spend on creating state of the art graphics is spend on longer gameplay instead. Now I don't like the look of minecraft either, but I think that's a design decision and not a technology limit. To me games already look good enough for years.

Recently I was replaying Commandos 2, which was released in 2001 and to me it still looks good. Again I rather have that they spend the time on other areas of the game.

No, but my opinion is that (Imagine if Minecraft had a plot/story) if the "characters" in something that looked like Minecraft were going through turmoil, or experience elation, or anything, I simply wouldn't care - I'm constantly just seeing them as videogame characters, my mind simply can't look at something like that and see "Aha, lifeform, care about this." In comparison, some of the things in Mass Effect are very blatantly not real lifeforms, but because they look sharp enough, it does keep me "in the experience" to the point where my mind loses that distinction between code and character. At a certain point, they simply become "people". Now, even a game like Mass Effect however can ruin that experience, when the graphics go haywire. Instances where Shepard will start twitching during conversations, or looking entirely in the wrong direction, or having clipping issues, those break that immersion. And, they are also a step away from photorealism, which I think lends a bit more weight to the idea.

Originally Posted by Elliot Kane

I have two words for anyone who thinks photo-realism is a requirement for serious emotional engagement in games: Planescape: Torment.

Amazing writing, a great story and terrific characters are all necessary for true emotional engagement. But in the same way that an animated film can engage as well as any film involving real actors, so a game can draw you in and make you feel for the characters regardless of how photo-realistic the graphics are.

In truth, I have played a number of games that I felt a degree of emotional engagement with, and watched a ton of live action films which were strictly candy floss and engaged my emotions lightly if at all.

Graphics are not the thing that create emotional involvement. Only great writing can do that (And great acting, be it real, by animation, or by proxy. Anyone think Gollum in LotR is not 'well acted'?).

Great graphics don't hurt, but true emotional depth is never a result of graphics alone.

I would say the writing in the original Deus Ex is absolutely superb, but I have a tough time getting in to it now, because it is simply too dated looking. Paul isn't Paul anymore, he's just some developer's creation. I can't look at him and see him as I used to, the medium has been pushed far enough forward. Same goes for games like the Halo series - the characters look and animations are poor enough that I find it immersion breaking, which of course, kills the emotional connection as well.

[Elliot Kane]

Romeo,

I think the difference lies between games that are supposed to look as photo-real as possible and those that aren't.

Even today's best looking games in terms of photo-realism are sooner or later going to look dated in some way or other. New effects will be invented that render older ones obsolete, or our ideas of what the future will look like will change and the 'old' version will seem silly to a new audience.

That happens in film & TV all the time. Look at some of the old 70s and 80s stuff, with all the hair styles and clothing SO blatantly of the period that believing we are in the future is impossible, so immersion is impossible. They can still be fun to watch, don't get me wrong, but they clearly show their age.

But the stuff that is NEVER supposed to look real never ages in that way. Whether it's stuff like the first Broken Sword games that are basically cartoons or stuff that's just plan weird, like Grim Fandango, the number of pixels per inch may make them look a bit dated, but nothing else will.

I like photo-realism in games, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's essential and it certainly isn't the only way to do things, whether for emotional involvement or otherwise.

There are some terrific sprite based games out there that have really great characters and stories and which can most certainly emotionally engage. Would they be better right now if they had photo-realistic graphics? Sure. Would they age half so well? I doubt it. And would it make them better games? I would have to say it would not.

[Driber]

Originally Posted by Elliot Kane

Anyone think Gollum in LotR is not 'well acted'?).

Great graphics don't hurt, but true emotional depth is never a result of graphics alone.

Ironic that you use Gollum as an example there, because he was seen as a major milestone in photo realistic CGI in movies

Originally Posted by Romeo

I would say the writing in the original Deus Ex is absolutely superb, but I have a tough time getting in to it now, because it is simply too dated looking. Paul isn't Paul anymore, he's just some developer's creation. I can't look at him and see him as I used to, the medium has been pushed far enough forward.

I think you're looking at it wrong; you are comparing a game you've played, then seen the next installments getting better and better and eventually compare DX:HR with DX1.

I think that's quite different than if you had never played the series and started with DX1 today.

I feel the same way about TR1; playing that game today doesn't have the same level of immersion anymore for me, but I don't blame that on having "higher graphics standards".

Originally Posted by Elliot Kane

But the stuff that is NEVER supposed to look real never ages in that way. Whether it's stuff like the first Broken Sword games that are basically cartoons or stuff that's just plan weird, like Grim Fandango, the number of pixels per inch may make them look a bit dated, but nothing else will.

I absolutely loved Grim! Awesome game. And you're right, the characters are not supposed to look "real", yet the game was so well made that I played it with a high level of immersion.

The humour and the outstanding voice acting played a big role in this, I think.

And it's funny, your example of Grim is in a way similar to mine of FF7; not very "realistic" looking in-game models, but the backgrounds were extremely photo realistic for its time.

[Romeo]

Originally Posted by Driber

If I was in a cheeky mood, I'd post "Ahhh, PCs - the superior gaming platform".

But I'm not, so....

And then I would point out how much more we've all had to waste updating said platform to ensure our games aren't slideshows.

Originally Posted by Elliot Kane

Romeo,

I think the difference lies between games that are supposed to look as photo-real as possible and those that aren't.

Even today's best looking games in terms of photo-realism are sooner or later going to look dated in some way or other. New effects will be invented that render older ones obsolete, or our ideas of what the future will look like will change and the 'old' version will seem silly to a new audience.

That happens in film & TV all the time. Look at some of the old 70s and 80s stuff, with all the hair styles and clothing SO blatantly of the period that believing we are in the future is impossible, so immersion is impossible. They can still be fun to watch, don't get me wrong, but they clearly show their age.

But the stuff that is NEVER supposed to look real never ages in that way. Whether it's stuff like the first Broken Sword games that are basically cartoons or stuff that's just plan weird, like Grim Fandango, the number of pixels per inch may make them look a bit dated, but nothing else will.

I like photo-realism in games, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's essential and it certainly isn't the only way to do things, whether for emotional involvement or otherwise.

There are some terrific sprite based games out there that have really great characters and stories and which can most certainly emotionally engage. Would they be better right now if they had photo-realistic graphics? Sure. Would they age half so well? I doubt it. And would it make them better games? I would have to say it would not.

See, from an aesthetics standpoint, I'm not saying everything should be based in reality - I consider Morrowind the best-looking Elder Scrolls because of how alien and colourful everything is. However, from a pure graphics standpoint, I don't see any example of where poor graphics can compete with bleeding edge ones (Personally speaking, of course). Yes, eventually the "good" of today will look like a joke in a few years, but that's not an excuse for stagnation. Just because current graphics will eventually wither in time wont make shoddy graphics look better.


Good discussion so far though, REALLY glad I brought this here. This is the perfect community for it.

[Elliot Kane]

Driber,

Ironic that you use Gollum as an example there, because he was seen as a major milestone in photo realistic CGI in movies

Sure, but I'm using him as an example of what animation can achieve in blurring the lines when it comes to 'acting'.

A digression, not my main point

There's no reason at all that similar techniques could not be used for something a lot more cartoony, after all.

[Driber]

Originally Posted by Elliot Kane

A digression, not my main point

Hence why I said it's ironic, not that your example is invalid

[Elliot Kane]

This is where I would post the video with Gollum/Andy Serkis winning an MTV award, but it's filled with swear words, so you'll have to find it on YouTube yourself!

Hilarious, but absolutely not safe for work!

[Lyle Croft]

Tomb Raider underworld ANNOYED the crap out of me.

I was like LARA you * you're so dang slow on your motorbike. Stupid Computer you're so slow, Stupid keyboard!!!!!!!!!.

My HEART was beating SO FAST yesterday cause i was in the part where the motorbike scene. and after that my whole body was warm and my heart was beating quickly. So i would say yes "realistic" graphics do help since they make me more stressed and scream like a baby. While unrealistic makes me scream and not stressed.

[Driber]

If I was in a cheeky mood, I'd post "Ahhh, PCs - the superior gaming platform".

But I'm not, so....

[Elliot Kane]

So naturally you won't, Driber, of course!

***

For anyone doubting my earlier 'sprite based games can rival photo-realistic games' comment, I present to you Master Of The Wind. By no means the ONLY example, but one of the best.

It's a (Legally!) free game, and will likely run on any computer, built for gaming or otherwise, as it is sprite based.

Of course if the idea of Superheroes in the traditional Fantasy RPG setting doesn't at least intrigue, it may not be your thing...

[Driber]

Originally Posted by Elliot Kane

For anyone doubting my earlier 'sprite based games can rival photo-realistic games' comment, I present to you Master Of The Wind. By no means the ONLY example, but one of the best.

One of the best? Seriously?

I had to see that for myself so I downloaded it and gave it a whirl.

Already after 5 minutes I had to quit the game because the script was just.......boring.

[xzx]

Lol. If you want 'realism' play 'L.A.P.D. -SWAT 95'. It is all actors and real picture scenes, it sucks. You cannot match the technology to achieve immersion in realistic format, YET! This is more of a full 3D-holographic-future thing that you just can't do on a 2D screen. You are NOT making a future of video games NOW. You're making the GREAT HISTORY of video games. The ART of the PAST. When some people look back and play an N64, it's not because it is SO GREAT, IT'S GREAT BECAUSE,....... IT SUCKS! LOL!

[Elliot Kane]

Driber,

It's a 35+ hour game. Five minutes is not QUITE enough time to see what it's about! That said, if it's not your thing, it's not your thing

***

Romeo,

I must admit, I've been blown away by the awesome graphics of a game a number of times (Starting with the original Tomb Raider, interestingly) but as you say they all date in the end in some way or other.

I have to agree that it's good that the medium moves forward and constantly works to improve what it is capable of. Hopefully that will always continue. I think we are a very long way yet from the kind of full interactivity and immersion that may one day be possible.

But I also think there is room for vast differences in emphasis in games. Great graphics will never compensate for poor storytelling, bad characters or lousy gameplay, but for me at least the reverse is just not true. That and 'great' in graphics is often a matter of opinion anyway.

There is a very hard to find free game, for example, called Final Fantasy High (At risk of providing Driber with another five minute wonder! ) that I tracked down because I read such amazing reviews of it. It's sprite based and takes place over the course of a year, with the tile sets changing to reflect the seasons and custom cartoon-like battle animations. It's far from photo-realistic, but it has its own style and, because it's cartoony, will never truly look outdated. Not 'great' graphics if what you want is photo-realism, but in its own way it kinda is.

Just don't ask me where you can find it, these days! Took me hours to track down last time!

(And yeah - any forum that can discuss rather than argue will always get MY vote! )

[Romeo]

Originally Posted by Elliot Kane

Romeo,

I must admit, I've been blown away by the awesome graphics of a game a number of times (Starting with the original Tomb Raider, interestingly) but as you say they all date in the end in some way or other.

I have to agree that it's good that the medium moves forward and constantly works to improve what it is capable of. Hopefully that will always continue. I think we are a very long way yet from the kind of full interactivity and immersion that may one day be possible.

But I also think there is room for vast differences in emphasis in games. Great graphics will never compensate for poor storytelling, bad characters or lousy gameplay, but for me at least the reverse is just not true. That and 'great' in graphics is often a matter of opinion anyway.

There is a very hard to find free game, for example, called Final Fantasy High (At risk of providing Driber with another five minute wonder! ) that I tracked down because I read such amazing reviews of it. It's sprite based and takes place over the course of a year, with the tile sets changing to reflect the seasons and custom cartoon-like battle animations. It's far from photo-realistic, but it has its own style and, because it's cartoony, will never truly look outdated. Not 'great' graphics if what you want is photo-realism, but in its own way it kinda is.

Just don't ask me where you can find it, these days! Took me hours to track down last time!

(And yeah - any forum that can discuss rather than argue will always get MY vote! )

And I think that first paragraph lends itself further to the point, does it not? When we've finally hit photo-realism, there is no more graphical improvements to be had. At that point, the graphical quality will have been pushed to equal reality itself, meaning as gamers we wont have to worry about a game looking choppy in ten years - it will be eternally attractive.

I agree 100% here. No matter how phenomenal a game is, there's still always room to improve.

No, they wont, but for the matter of this discussion one cannot induce variables like that. The argument essentially is based on the merit of graphics alone. Meaning, we have an amazing story that looks like Minecraft, versus an amazing story that looks like Battlefield. I don't think any of us woud ever argue graphics can be used in place of story-telling, only as a compliment to it.

I have enjoyed some good sprite-based games (Little known Romeo fact: One of the most commonly played games on my shiny-new rig is Battle for Wesnoth, which is sprite-based). I also love the Pokemon series of games for their gameplay, despite being sprite-based games. That said, I feel as though an immense graphical overhaul would be a necessary step if either of them ever wanted to be taken seriously as a story-telling game.

Yeah, my issue with IGN is that opinions are UNANIMOUS there. You cannot dislike Skyrim, it is the best game ever. You cannot argue with Eric Notch, he is always right. You cannot find any good points about the Call of Duty franchise, it is the best game ever created. There are dozens upon dozens of examples like that at that wretched place. lol

[xzx]

I think that photo-realism will make a lot of things seem gross. I see graphics stuff and I can stomach it because it doesn't look real. I do really like better graphics but L.A. NOIRE grosses me out too. They just took away sex and replaced it with gore.

Something that is annoying me is the voice actors. They're full on realism, nothing created about them. A cartoon is a cartoon and it's another dimension. So if or when photo-realism is introduced it has to be inter dimensional. Remember that if two exact same dimensions exist then neither will exist!