Notch vs Hartmann... FIGHT.

[xzx]

'Shivers95' uses real people stuck in video games. 'ShiversII'. A really strange game is 'The 11th hour'. It's a sequel to to; 'The 7th Guest' but got lower ratings. 'The 7th Guest' was why cdroms became so popular just to play it. 'The 11th hour' uses FMV video clips. This stuff is just OLD NEWS! When they burst the bubble with the almost real technology video cards to make billions of calculations a second it blew all that junk away. So create better graphics, make it look real, heck yeah but don't lose the gaming aspect that it isn't real because the flaccid is brewing.

[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 It's far from photo-realistic, but it has its own style and, because it's cartoony, will never truly look outdated.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

[Elliot Kane]

Romeo,

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.

True, but non-photo-realistic graphics can wow, too. Whether through strangeness or the use of beautiful lighting, it is possible to create something with the pull of art that wows in its own way.

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.

True. But how about a great story that looks like Iffermoon? (Another free game, but NOT RPGMaker!) That thing is bizarre as heck, but also strangely beautiful. Would photo-realism make it look better? Would it even be possible?

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.

Wesnoth is actually rather cool, at least until it gets to the 'you will need to make every move 15 times to get the EXACT right result' upper difficulty levels.

It certainly seems to have enough fans that DO take it seriously enough to make and play dozens of modules for it. For a non-AAA game, I'd say that was pretty good.

The same is even more so of Pokemon, of course. Those games are insanely popular for no reason I ever really grasped. Just not my thing, I guess, but Poke-fanatics are everywhere who take them incredibly seriously.

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

Urgh. I'd hate that! Talk about boring! The whole point of a discussion forum is to discuss, but I've seen (And NOT joined!) far too many that are the way you describe. I've never understood the appeal.

[xzx]

Well anyhow. If they want BETTER they're going to need new consoles. Xbox360 and PS3 are stretched to their limits.

[Driber]

Originally Posted by Elliot Kane

Urgh. I'd hate that! Talk about boring! The whole point of a discussion forum is to discuss, but I've seen (And NOT joined!) far too many that are the way you describe. I've never understood the appeal.

I suppose the appeal is "belonging to a group" as is very common IRL, too.

Think of it as a group of chavs hanging out on the street. When one starts to yell profanities at that odd-looking bypasser, then all of them will, for a false sense of solidarity.

I myself have also set foot in a couple of forums where my head was instantly bitten off bringing in a different opinion than what was the "norm".

It just made me stop visiting those places and it makes me appreciates communities like these (Eidos Forums) all the more

[Romeo]

Originally Posted by Elliot Kane

Romeo,



True, but non-photo-realistic graphics can wow, too. Whether through strangeness or the use of beautiful lighting, it is possible to create something with the pull of art that wows in its own way.



True. But how about a great story that looks like Iffermoon? (Another free game, but NOT RPGMaker!) That thing is bizarre as heck, but also strangely beautiful. Would photo-realism make it look better? Would it even be possible?



Wesnoth is actually rather cool, at least until it gets to the 'you will need to make every move 15 times to get the EXACT right result' upper difficulty levels.

It certainly seems to have enough fans that DO take it seriously enough to make and play dozens of modules for it. For a non-AAA game, I'd say that was pretty good.

The same is even more so of Pokemon, of course. Those games are insanely popular for no reason I ever really grasped. Just not my thing, I guess, but Poke-fanatics are everywhere who take them incredibly seriously.



Urgh. I'd hate that! Talk about boring! The whole point of a discussion forum is to discuss, but I've seen (And NOT joined!) far too many that are the way you describe. I've never understood the appeal.

I'm not saying that they can't wow, however, I don't appreciate a game like Bastion for its graphics. Its art style is amazing, but its not the thing you pull up to show off your machine's horsepower. But while non-pristine graphics can wow, I feel like more often than not, they detract from the experience. When I see "oh yeah, game" the immersion is shattered. Gameplay-wise, story-wise, everything-wise, Mass Effect is my favourite in the series. But seeing Shepard's head clip through the neck-protector on his armour will RUIN the moment when it happens. As a game, photo-realism would've eliminated those "bad spots".

I haven't played it (Will do after this), but my instinctual response is yes, it would. There's no situation in which worse graphics help in the story-telling process to me. The closest case I can think of is that it makes no difference (In games where the story is a write-off anyways).

Wesnoth is awesome, I accidentally stumbled across it a couple years back and have been enjoying the plethora of campaigns. Pokemon I've been in to since I was a wee runt, and I recognize it isn't for everyone.

It is very annoying. The comments section is just a series of "Obvious opinion" followed by "Yes, I agree" "You're totally right" and "Finally someone who speaks the truth". 'Tis VERY frustrating.

Originally Posted by Driber

I suppose the appeal is "belonging to a group" as is very common IRL, too.

Think of it as a group of chavs hanging out on the street. When one starts to yell profanities at that odd-looking bypasser, then all of them will, for a false sense of solidarity.

I myself have also set foot in a couple of forums where my head was instantly bitten off bringing in a different opinion than what was the "norm".

It just made me stop visiting those places and it makes me appreciates communities like these (Eidos Forums) all the more

I understand the logic in it too, yes. But I still hate it, it is sooooo dull. My car club sort've got in to that a few years back (If you're doing an engine swap, these are the only logical options, and don't argue). It actually drove me to do ridiculous, asinine and ultimately useless mods just to force people in to proper discussions. lol

[Elliot Kane]

Driber - Yeah, same with me. The forums I stick around on are those like this one where people talk to each other rather than yell at each other, or the written equivalents thereof

***

Romeo,

I'm not saying that they can't wow, however, I don't appreciate a game like Bastion for its graphics. Its art style is amazing, but its not the thing you pull up to show off your machine's horsepower. But while non-pristine graphics can wow, I feel like more often than not, they detract from the experience. When I see "oh yeah, game" the immersion is shattered. Gameplay-wise, story-wise, everything-wise, Mass Effect is my favourite in the series. But seeing Shepard's head clip through the neck-protector on his armour will RUIN the moment when it happens. As a game, photo-realism would've eliminated those "bad spots".

Oh, if I just want to show off the graphics capabilities of my machine, I'll just load up Witcher 2 with all bells & whistles operational. Great game and yes, the looks DO add to that, I have to admit. But other things can be great in their own way without making my vid card sweat!

I haven't played it (Will do after this), but my instinctual response is yes, it would. There's no situation in which worse graphics help in the story-telling process to me. The closest case I can think of is that it makes no difference (In games where the story is a write-off anyways).

This is what Iffermoon looks like:



The lizardy-looking kid at the front is the main character. The duck is one of his friends. Photo-realism might not be an option! It's weird and it's completely different and in it's own way, its awesome, at least IMO

Wesnoth is awesome, I accidentally stumbled across it a couple years back and have been enjoying the plethora of campaigns. Pokemon I've been in to since I was a wee runt, and I recognize it isn't for everyone.

Played the heck out of Wesnoth when I first found it. Started out by trying to over-protect my main characters. You can imagine how THAT ended! Really liked the 'main' campaign and tried a few of the others, too. I know the latest version does run on Win 7, but I am far from up to date with it. Some day, maybe...

***

EDIT: While I'm about the capping, this is Star Stealing Prince:



As you can see, it's a sprite based game and almost as far from photo-realism as you can get. But it's also beautiful, and in a way that could not be done with photo-realism.

[xzx]

When games first came out I remember they were really lame. All there was was Pac Man, Centipede junk. Aside from some arcade games that still weren't so great but still ate quarters. Then he got this first ever 3D robot game where you go save a family. It was just WAY out there in graphics and I was like, "Whoa.".

They had this game at an arcade place and it was a real guy who looked like Garth Brooks. The character just stands there and you jump at a certain time or something and or you die. Seriously though, it was horrible and NOBODY played it. If they did they just had a 'stoopid' look on their face. Ha ha!

So in the 50's or when, they thought that controlling video wasn't possible. Figuring further ahead will seriously disrupt us as we know it. Who knows what'll come from this. We could be able to control time itself. Often you'll notice that instead of releasing stuff they'll just argue and act stupid. It's obvious(I'd guess) that the military etc, whoever already has this technology. We're just the big raging public mass.

[Romeo]

Originally Posted by Elliot Kane

Driber - Yeah, same with me. The forums I stick around on are those like this one where people talk to each other rather than yell at each other, or the written equivalents thereof

***

Romeo,



Oh, if I just want to show off the graphics capabilities of my machine, I'll just load up Witcher 2 with all bells & whistles operational. Great game and yes, the looks DO add to that, I have to admit. But other things can be great in their own way without making my vid card sweat!



This is what Iffermoon looks like:



The lizardy-looking kid at the front is the main character. The duck is one of his friends. Photo-realism might not be an option! It's weird and it's completely different and in it's own way, its awesome, at least IMO



Played the heck out of Wesnoth when I first found it. Started out by trying to over-protect my main characters. You can imagine how THAT ended! Really liked the 'main' campaign and tried a few of the others, too. I know the latest version does run on Win 7, but I am far from up to date with it. Some day, maybe...

***

EDIT: While I'm about the capping, this is Star Stealing Prince:



As you can see, it's a sprite based game and almost as far from photo-realism as you can get. But it's also beautiful, and in a way that could not be done with photo-realism.

See, and while I like the art style of Iffermoon, I honestly do feel like more impressive graphics would do such a world more justice. Also, I feel like you may be misinterpreting what I mean when I say photorealism: I don't mean it can't have fantasy, sci-fi or horror themes, I just mean that the graphical quality is indistinguishable from real-life. So Mass Effect would still have pulsing lights, flying cars, Asari, Krogan, Drell, Turian et al, but the quality of its appearance would make it seem completely real.

[Elliot Kane]

I know what you mean, Romeo

My own point is that 'looking like real life' is not always a good thing and sometimes can be downright detrimental. I don't know if you've ever played the Overlord games, as yet another example. but the cartoon-like Minions just would not work if they looked real. They're cute & funny because they are cartoony. Both games have very good graphics, but it's a deliberate cartoon style that suits the mood of the game.

I think that games are a lot like films in this. Live action works amazingly, but a mixture of live action and animation/puppets can also work brilliantly (Does anyone REALLY prefer 'more realistic' CGI Yoda to the Muppet used in the original films?) and there is still plenty of room for cartoons, even as animation grows more sophisticated.

Would something like Pixar's Brave even work as a live action film? How about Finding Nemo? No matter how great live action films get, animation continues to thrive alongside it and I think there is good reason for that.

I think it is far more important that the style of the artwork match the game than whether or not it could be mistaken for actual film footage taken from life.

So while I must admit that I love photo-realism where it is appropriate, I do not think it is always the best option for a game, any more than it would be for a film.

[Romeo]

Originally Posted by Elliot Kane

I know what you mean, Romeo

My own point is that 'looking like real life' is not always a good thing and sometimes can be downright detrimental. I don't know if you've ever played the Overlord games, as yet another example. but the cartoon-like Minions just would not work if they looked real. They're cute & funny because they are cartoony. Both games have very good graphics, but it's a deliberate cartoon style that suits the mood of the game.

I think that games are a lot like films in this. Live action works amazingly, but a mixture of live action and animation/puppets can also work brilliantly (Does anyone REALLY prefer 'more realistic' CGI Yoda to the Muppet used in the original films?) and there is still plenty of room for cartoons, even as animation grows more sophisticated.

Would something like Pixar's Brave even work as a live action film? How about Finding Nemo? No matter how great live action films get, animation continues to thrive alongside it and I think there is good reason for that.

I think it is far more important that the style of the artwork match the game than whether or not it could be mistaken for actual film footage taken from life.

So while I must admit that I love photo-realism where it is appropriate, I do not think it is always the best option for a game, any more than it would be for a film.

Again, don't confuse amazing looking cartoons for photo-realism. The minions in The Darkness are cartoony as well, but they're a good-looking cartoony. And they'd look even better with even better graphics as well. Not saying we'd need to eliminate their cartoonish charm, just sharpen everything up, make it look "better".

Funny you bring that up, my biggest gripe with CGI is that it often looks so utterly fake, which is why my own personal preference is for puppetry (Boom, alliteration).

Again, don't confuse better-looking with live-action. Consider that the "graphics", so to speak, on animation have come so far, it looks more and more realistic, that barrier to immersion is being chipped away. There's no mistaking it is animation, but they're taking more and more cues from reality (Realistic lighting and reflections, smoother animations, more facial movement, etc). The movies look better for it.

[Elliot Kane]

That's what I'm saying, though, Romeo. A great looking cartoon is still and always a cartoon. It may have better lighting or more detail and things are possible now that never could have been attempted even a decade ago, but no cartoon will ever look photo-realistic because they just aren't made to look photo-realistic.

If Nemo looked like an actual fish, the film would suck. Same with The Little Mermaid and all the talking critters in that. None of the non-human characters would look half so interesting or endearing if they looked just like real creatures.

Added finer details is not what makes photo-realism. 'Could this be a photograph/actual film taken from life' is what makes photo-realism. And that look is not always the right choice for every project, be it film or game, at least IMO.

[Driber]

Originally Posted by Elliot Kane

If Nemo looked like an actual fish, the film would suck. Same with The Little Mermaid and all the talking critters in that. None of the non-human characters would look half so interesting or endearing if they looked just like real creatures.

That's quite harsh, EK.

Babe, and especially Charlotte's Web were quite endearing. I enjoyed those movies and think that they prove that talking critters who are photo realistic can work very well

[Elliot Kane]

Originally Posted by Driber

That's quite harsh, EK.

Babe, and especially Charlotte's Web were quite endearing. I enjoyed those movies and think that they prove that talking critters who are photo realistic can work very well

Pigs are naturally cute looking creatures. I had no idea anyone did Charlotte's Web with anything like photo-realism. I remember it being a great book, though I read it as a kid which was... Not yesterday!

Still, SOME animals can work as characters in a photo-real story, I have to admit. Nonetheless, in the specific case of Nemo I'm sticking with 'would suck'. Probably true for most of the Disney or Pixar style films. Ants? A Bug's Life? Not promising photo-real...

[Romeo]

Originally Posted by Elliot Kane

Pigs are naturally cute looking creatures. I had no idea anyone did Charlotte's Web with anything like photo-realism. I remember it being a great book, though I read it as a kid which was... Not yesterday!

Still, SOME animals can work as characters in a photo-real story, I have to admit. Nonetheless, in the specific case of Nemo I'm sticking with 'would suck'. Probably true for most of the Disney or Pixar style films. Ants? A Bug's Life? Not promising photo-real...

See, and again now, as I've already said, I consider the fact that animation these days are borrowing more and more elements from real-life to be a good thing. A cartoon that doesn't "react" properly - as in the way reality dictates things like shadows, reflections and movement should happen - looks worse than a movie that has grasped those "realism" elements. I find this to be most obvious when it comes to humans in an animated film. I don't mind when they have big heads and eyes, I recognize that is a stylistic choice, nothing else. What I did mind was improper facial animations, a disconnent with environmental factors and sync errors. Again, the closer those elements get pushed towards photo-realism, the better it looks - period.

[Elliot Kane]

Are you sure you actually mean 'photo-realism' in all of this, Romeo?

The impression I am getting is that you want realistic physics far more than you want a realistic art style. Which would NOT be the same thing at all as photo-realism.

Unless we're talking Loony Tunes or similar, I'd agree that realistic physics are good in anything.

[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.

[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.

[warunasanjaya2323]

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.

Romeo, I agree to Chris Hartmann. On the otherside photo realistic graphics is not the only way to achieve emotion in video games. Anyway it's pure unawareness to articulate that it wouldn't aid, or that we shouldn't be determined towards them.