Look! It's almost photo-realistic! Who cares?

Hydrosylator

Picked up (actually bought) some pc games for the first time in years yesterday, stuck one in and fired it up (Thief 3), and something seemed odd.The amount of polygons, mostly. I sat looking at it, having gorged myself on next-gen teasers in the past while, alternated with 3dsmax renders of my own devision. I'd forgotten what a FPS actually looks like on a good monitor, having been treated to the fuzzy disguise of a console through a TV for the past while.

Within an hour I was immersed in a way I hadn't been by a game in years, don't ask me which game did it last either. I was in the game. As a result of what? Shadows. Sounds. Scripted AI. Clever level design. In fact, all the same things I loved about the first Thief game, except with slightly better graphics. Which brings to an important point to consider on the eve of the so-called next-generation, in games,just how important is the holy grail of photo-realism?

I'm as guilty as anyone else of getting excited when I see some of the fancy stuff Microsoft and Sony are waving at us these days, but all it is is fancy stuff, it's not games, is pictures of what games might look like. And who really gives a damn what a game looks like when the moment a controller is in our hands, we can tell how good a game is, and all the sparkly bits in the world won't save a **** game, you can supply your own exmples for that one, you know what I mean.

Development teams are getting bigger and bigger, yet in a strange way all the biggest projects are, for the most part, getting ****ter and ****ter. My friends go out and buy some of the best looking crap I've ever seen, and it gets tossed to one side after a week or two to be replaced by an older, better game.

Now, as someone working towards a future in 3d modelling, I can see huge benefits in the new technology. A modeller is now expected to model more things than ever, but to make a realistic model is som much easier now that we have machines that render polys like nobodys business, with as many maps as you need.

But there's a reason all these retro games packages and devices are so in vogue now, and it's not just nostalgia. The fact is, we're having games shoved in our faces on their aesthetic merits alone, and nothing new is happening with the way we play, and what is new gets put to one side to make room for a floor to ceiling stand packed solely with EA's latest piece of glossy excrement.

And think of how we view games, take a photo from a war and a picture from a wargame, for example. After a while you notice somethin. Reality is more ambiguous, less cut and dried, than video game worlds. we have to squint to tell what's what. Photo-realistic games will be harder to play, or will need artificial embellishments to make them playable. How much fun would it be to have to find someone on Grafton St in a game if they didn't have a corresponding arrow over their head, or a dot on some practically useful, but theoretically ludicrous, GTA style radar. Realism will only benefit simulation games, and even then, it still won't make up for bad code.

I have to get out of here now, so you'll have to continue for me. Do we really care about photo-realism?

orangerooster

I dont really agree with you on some of your points but not all, photo realism as in the sense of seeing a world as we would see it in real life is not what I think the ultimate aim of games is photo realism and realism are two totally different things. For example think of how fun the Metal Gear games would be if the soldiers had realistic vision, answer= not very, same applies to fps games, how fun would it be to die from the first shot you take? Thats why the genre of sims exist- for those who want realism in their games.

Though photo realism is an aim the game mechanics will always remain the increase in graphics doesnt mean that Doom 3 or Half Life 2 eschewed the standard unrealistic 100% Health 100% Armour technique their predecesors and the rest of their genre had. What im trying to say is that as graphics improve the fact is the game mechanics must remain in the game. For your example of grafton st. lets say in four or five years time someone makes GTA:Ireland and you have to meet a contact on Grafton st. that same familiar GTA arrow will still be hovering above their head just like it did in the first GTA right up to San Andreas no matter the change in graphics.

You do make the very vaild point about graphics overiding gameplay in modern gaming. I think Unreal 2 and Doom 3 are the best examples of this both sold on the fact that they had the very best in graphics- they were the dumb hot chick at the party everyone wanted to score and when they did felt a vague sense of shame at the act. But when the package comes together you get the best gaming experiences we've had and certainly the most immersive. You named Thief 3m, which were you more immersed in The Cradle in T3 or the Monastery in Thief one? Im playing Ninja Gaiden at the moment which has absolutely amazing graphics coupled with amazing gameplay. Its always been the same really, remember Rise of the Robots? Man for the time those graphics were great but the game was an ambonination against mankind, then think around the same time we had Starfox, state of the art graphics for time and was also an excellent game.

In short I think I generally disagree with you. Even if photo realism does happen I think we'll still have the same old same old we have right now of the latest graphics whores favourite versus a dog ugly masterpiece with the true greats where effort was put into all aspects of the game. Half Life one and two are great examples of this- Half Life 2 in particular because its recent and gorgeous to look at while a dream to play to. I think that photo realism is just next step on the graphics ladder and that things will go on just as they are now.

Sorry bout the big post!

madrab

why did you start 2 thread with the same thing in them?

Jimi-Spandex

Double postage?