Accurate human rendering in game [2014-2016]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes I've meant Lara, not even trying to be realistic.
Mind you, I don't have a problem with that - there's always been and will be a place for stylized characters, even if they're conforming to stereotypes and such. I just don't see what that image does here.
 
Mind you, I don't have a problem with that - there's always been and will be a place for stylized characters.
I agree, where as for me looking at a video game that aims to be realistic and ends up looking like Uncanny Valley crap when it isn't handle properly. My most extreme example is this game character looking more real/realistic to me than anything I've seen posted recently in this thread -
tumblr_neoszrpX251tcx07yo2_500.gif


Fortunately, there are developers saving me from this i.e. Blizzard, Valve Software to name a few that seems to actually understand what they are doing : >
 
Yes, you're mixing up things here a lot. De gustibus non est disputandum - you're free to like whatever you want, but this thread is not about that. Feel free to make another one about stylized characters and all, but please don't disrupt our focus here.
 
PeanutButterOnPickles probably means "believable" or "plausible"...which it has more to do with animations/characterization than pure visual fidelity/realism.
That gal in the gif looks very alive to me, so to speak, with gestures that reveals a chracter a personality even if she is very "cartoonish looking".

In the persuit of realism developers often forget to make their characters behave like human beings which can nullify their effort...but this is a digression.
 
Last edited:
Still, the animation comes off as cartoonish and exaggerated instead of accurate or realistic (that is the intent anyway). I really like Overwatch personally (and Blizzard characters in general) but this is not the thread for it.
 
Sorry but that's something a human can do so it's perfectly realistic...I actually saw a model do it in an advertising, I believe it was Loreal ad or Garnier.

Humans can exaggerate or rather emphasise.
 
Last edited:
I agree, where as for me looking at a video game that aims to be realistic and ends up looking like Uncanny Valley crap when it isn't handle properly. My most extreme example is this game character looking more real/realistic to me than anything I've seen posted recently in this thread -
tumblr_neoszrpX251tcx07yo2_500.gif


Fortunately, there are developers saving me from this i.e. Blizzard, Valve Software to name a few that seems to actually understand what they are doing : >
I fucking love the art style and animation.
I wouldnt say realistic but more "believable" in the sense that the viewer can identify with her as a living character as opposed to the uncanny valley soulless looking 3D models that lack any kind of believable expression despite the realistic detail. All thanks to a likable design and expressive animation
 
Sorry but that's something a human can do so it's perfectly realistic...I actually saw a model do it in an advertising, I believe it was Loreal ad or Garnier.

Humans can exaggerate or rather emphasise.

I wasn't talking about that gif specifically but Overwatch in general. It's not realistic because it doesn't try to be, that's what Blizzard excels at, creating believable worlds/characters that are not grounded in reality.
 
I wasn't talking about that gif specifically but Overwatch in general. It's not realistic because it doesn't try to be, that's what Blizzard excels at, creating believable worlds/characters that are not grounded in reality.

Yeah I know what you mean.
I say though that is a degree of realism in those characters as well...it just not in the way skin, hairs, eyes are represented.

Regarding the part n bold well I would love to discuss it more but I would go off topic.
 
Yes, this thread is about the rendering aspect of characters. There's certainly a lot more involved in them, from design through animation to whatever, but all those elements are a lot less technical and thus more objective, which means it's not so simple to discuss them. Feel free to open another thread and start a discussion, I'd be happy to join - but here, let's just keep it to the rendering aspects.
 
Often I can not understand why people say that something is Uncanny Valley. The only known thing that I would describe as Uncanny Valley for me is this:


Until Dawn, Uncharted 4, Squadron 42, Ryse etc. I like them all.
 
Often I can not understand why people say that something is Uncanny Valley. The only known thing that I would describe as Uncanny Valley for me is this:


Until Dawn, Uncharted 4, Squadron 42, Ryse etc. I like them all.
Holy shit, is that from housewives of Beverly Hills? It looks just like them.
 
Often I can not understand why people say that something is Uncanny Valley. The only known thing that I would describe as Uncanny Valley for me is this:


Until Dawn, Uncharted 4, Squadron 42, Ryse etc. I like them all.
I recently setup a big Sony LED TV that has an absurd contrast ratio with calibrated settings (Gamma, color ect.) and played through PC games like Ryse, and while it looks really good it also doesn't look convincing at all to me in terms of "accurate rendering" or in my classification realism. However, when I went through Portal 2 again my jaw dropped at the realism, for e.g Wheatley's introduction at the start; I was totally convince that Whealtley was inside my room.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top