Graphics

[Guest Tokakee]

So don't get me wrong, look at my brand new next gen console, with it's x amount of polygons on the screen at once. Really, look, that car actually does look like a car. You can even see the little trickles of rain slowly dropping off the bonnet from the just passed storm. It is just so damn realistic.

So what's the problem? We play games because we would like to be that character, we aspire to be that one person. The world looking like it should, yeah, that makes it even better. We can take that to a whole new level. But really, aren't we forgetting what games are? Are people forgetting that games are just an illusion, that, someone like you or me have gone and created this world. Is our grip on ever increasing graphical power slowly destroying what games should be about? My friend, as much as he loves zelda he almost despises the wind waker. Why? Because it looks kiddy.

Really, what's with that. Realism is great in such games as gran turismo and GTA, games where they really are based on reality (though not necessarily in terms of gameplay, but in look of the game) but when it comes to Zelda there's just no way i'd like to replace the sea for a city, and the boat for a car. Of course that's taking it to the extreme. But I mean, how much better was animal crossing becuase you were living in a village, with animals, and they weren't massive bears with big sharp teeth and claws.

So now i've gone off about realism, it's realism and the growth of it that's getting to me, but surley the two are linked, the amount of 'realistic' games in the days of the NES were barely none (correct me if i'm wrong) but now there's loads, and how many are to come in the future?

[vamecum]

So what's the problem? We play games because we would like to be that character, we aspire to be that one person.

←

Hell no. I play games to experience something, be at fun, scared, thrilled, etc.

[Hello Goaty ♥]

I play games like Dead Or Alive 4 and Kameo, because secretly I've always wanted to be a girl.

[Dork Knight]

You're not a girl

[squirtle]

You're not a girl

←

He's barely a man.

[Nagrub]

Well, yes.

But... if they had the ability to make realistic games in the days of the nes, they probably would. And I dont just mean in a graphical sense either. playing a game will always have a huge amount of detatchment from the 'real thing' And there is no way they can ever get around that. There can always be a powercut, just as you get that final capsule toy in shemue. Utterly wasting any sense of emersion that you might have held.

[Dimahoo]

Theres a time and a place for any graphical style - regardless of gerne.

Graphics are irrelevent - its simple gameplay that makes a game.

If you have a decent interlinked animation and/or control system and the game plays smooth - the world becomes irrelevent.

[TheSlugFormerlyKnownAsNap]

Sometimes I want to be a fat moustached plumber jumping around rainbow worlds eating mushrooms.

Sometimes I want to be a big black bad guy tearing up a state in a huge killing crime spree.

Sometimes I want to drive cars I can never afford around cities I've been to or plan to go to or know from television.

And thanks to the marvels of modern technology, I'm not stuck on option 1.

[Nagrub]

Animation cant exist without a form of graphics underlaying it. i would argue that the more complex the form of graphics underneath is, the more scope there is for impressive and complex animation.

Try to animate 10 pixels. Sure, its possible to make it look pretty. try to animate say 1000, suddenly all aspects of the animation can be more refined and focussed.

Obviously i'm exagerating here a bit, but you get the idea.

[Wiper]

i would argue that the more complex the form of graphics underneath is, the more scope there is for impressive and complex animation.

←

I'd actually contend this point, to a degree.

Certainly very low detail objects have limited animation - there're only so many ways you can animate a character 8 pixels tall by 4 pixels wide - but beyond a certain point I'd say that increasing detail only constricts scope of animation.

Unfortunately I'm not an artist, so my explanation may prove clumsy or inadequate, but please bear with me.

As you add complexity to the graphics of a specific object, it becomes more 'whole', more 'solid'. Indeed, it generally becomes more realistic (or believable in the case of fantastic objects - futuristic technology; alien creatures; invented plant-life etc.). This is often desirable, particularly with titles which seek to place the character in realistic settings. Titles like the Project Gotham Racing; Gran Turismo; Half-Life; Dead or Alive series' - all of them with each incarnation try to move closer to 'realism', no matter the realism of their setting.

Of course, this leads to them trying to achieve more realistic animation to validate their accurate modelling, as well as taking into account realistic physics - techniques such as rag-doll physics, the realistic movement of layers of clothing and hair, these have severe implications for the animation of characters.

By creating complicated meshes to animate, the onus is for the animator to match the detail of the object he is working with. This means they have more work to do - as smaller touches are required for things to look 'right', details such as modelling the movements of minor components of the object become necessary to match the complexity of its model. However, in increasing the detail required, the choice available to the animator is diminished. Certainly they have more to work with, but all the individual parts of an object have to work together, thus the more that are constrained into agreement with each other the less can be done with the overall work.

Of course, this is necessary for the developers on the route to replicating reality precisely, but is unnecessarily limiting for those developers with different intentions. For those attempting more stylised titles, simple, pliable models are desirable, as they enable animators to bring them to life in ways impossible with the more detailed, more realistic models.

One of the more popular stylistic effects used is the warping of dimensions of a character to demonstrate force or speed. This can be seen in titles such as Street Fighter III, where a character might have a subtle effect of having a limb 'stretch' slightly as part of it holds in place (say the forearm) for a frame while the rest (lower arm) moves forward, the forearm 'catching up' as the swing ends, making the force of the strike more apparent.

Another, more obvious use is for objects made of materials with unusual properties, such as the 'stretchier' characters apparent in many of the Street Fighter titles (such as Dhalsim, or Necro: ). The properties of such characters seem impossible - while having pliable bodies, they are somehow able to maintain a muscular structure within them, thus appearing both hard and soft. It can also be seen in titles such as Wacky Racers, or earlier than that Stunt Race FX, with their putty-like capability to warp, yet appear to be entirely solid at the same time.

Titles like Viewtiful Joe and The Wind Waker also take advantage of their stylised, yet relatively simple models, giving a freedom of expression hard to imagine on more fully realised models; Joe's energetic movements and Link's expressive features would seem out of place when placed onto more 'filled' bodies, such as the models from the Dead or Alive or Shenmue series'.

This problem is common with all the above stylistic choices; exaggerated movements which would fit in perfectly with simpler models, enabling freer expression for the artist, seem out of place in more detailed titles. Much as the stereotypically deformed and simplified features of anime characters (large eyes and mouths, small noses and ears) enable easier - and more extreme - emotional feedback than more realistic approaches, so simpler models offer more extreme stylistic effects in animation.

In conclusion then; extra detail provides more for an animator to work with, which to a point increases the variety of animation they can achieve. However, beyond that point, it begins to constrain the animator, even while giving them more work to do. So while it increases the detail, it ceases to increase the scope for animation.

Er, that's it really. Took longer than I expected... and turned out just as boring as you'd expect. Sorry!

[Spacehost]

I wouldn't wager many games nowadays actually were over-realistic, outside of the sim genre. I mean, Resi 4, or MGS3 for example- it looks sort of real-ish, but it's very characterised, like a good anime.

I think the main issue is "dull looking" as opposed to "realistic" games.

[Mogget]

Graphics are irrelevent - its simple gameplay that makes a game......

......and it's realistic graphics and physics that makes a simulation. It all depends what you're looking for.