Next-gen images vs. human perception

[Shifty Geezer]

I posted this in the NBA thread, but given the glut of next-gen screenshots we're getting and repeated opinions I thought it deserves a topic of its own for consideration.

Will next-gen graphics actually appear less satisfying then current gen in some ways? Here's what I said...

---

I was talking with a friend about this, and we concurred that the problem with next-gen is it's getting too close to real. With current-gen, graphics look like computer generated graphics. Your brain knows as much and accepts it. With next gen they're getting closer to real. Your brain tries to interpret it as real but finds it can't, because of slight discrepencies between real-world and CG. The end result is an image that can't be accepted as CG as it looks realistic, but can't be accepted as real because it has faults - producing an image that grates, instead of impresses.

Human brains can be very picky when it comes to realism. Even a photo realistic image with a couple of flaws like a dodgy shadow here or there will not rest easy on the eyes. Perhaps this will represent a difficulty for art appreciation next gen? Whereas non-photo like renders will be lapped up as the brain can accept them as artworks.

---

Wunderchu suggested Vysez posted something about this. I haven't had chance to go looking for it though ATM. I'll be interested to hear other perspectives, especially those more in this field (like Laa-Yoshi). Are next-gen artists facing an uphill struggle bordering on the vertical as they push photorealism?

 

[Vennt]

Yeh, I've seen people explain this problem of gfx being "too real" with reference specifically to the theory of the Uncanny Valley

Whether this applies to graphics or not is still open to debate, but I can see the link.

Earlier graphical limitations forced a level of conceptual abstraction that meant as a gamer it was very easy to get immersed and enjoy a game for what it was, as graphics have become more and more photorealistic have we begun to lose the safety net of that conceptual abstraction?

I believe so, as we get closer and closer to true photorealism we stop abstracting and start to see more and more "flaws" - flaws that in previous generations that were easily ignored due to the amount of imagination & abstraction required for immersion - This would certainly point to a shift in perception and gaming immersion IMO.

V.

 

[London Geezer]

I think the psychological implications of getting close to photorealism are being grossly overlooked by everyone.

I firmly believe one of the many reasons why Final Fantasy TSW was slated is due to the fact that the more we look at images that are supposed to be photorealistic, the more our brain picks up the little mistakes which we are still unable to overcome. Especially when humans are involved and reproduced digitally.

A movie like the Incredibles is not photorealistic, however its stylised look creates absolutely no problems in out brains because we know it's not real. It's not meant to be and never intended to be.

A movie like FFTSW aimed at photorealism, and because of this the audience spent most of their "brain computing" time trying to somehow connect the images to reality, trying to see what's right and what's wrong, and ultimately, most were disappointed. Animation in the movie was a big culprit. Having photorealistic characters moving like dummies is like talking to a wax dummy in Madame Trussaud. Might look real, but you know within a millisecond that it's not, and we tend to be grossed out by real-looking things that are not actually real.

Games will get there one day, and our brain will react the same way. Even if technically the games will look and move and act liek the real thing, we will know that it's not real. We will know it's just a game.

 

[Mefisutoferesu]

To add to that... the fact that FFTSW had a terrible story didn't help preceptions either. Kinda like looks good -> tastes good.

What I'm wondering is more about the sociological issues we'll face with games of this level of realism... games like GTA get so much flac about being "killing trainers" and things of the such. What's going to happen when we see GTA at near photorealism, with blood everywhere an so on? I imagine the politicians will have a field day and it'll be reinvigorated as the new hot topic. I do imagine we'll see much more stringent age restrictions and the second some stupid fool does something and there's a connection to a game all hell will break loose.

 

[nelg]

Good question!

My opinion is that initially, especially while looking at still shots, this may force us to become more critical. After some time though I would wager that comparison will give way to appreciation.

 

[gurgi]

I know it is true for me personally. The more realistic a scene is, the more obvious its imperfections. That's why I really like alternate rendering techniques like cell shading. All the power, without the reality. I kinda play games to escape that anyway! =P

 

[Mefisutoferesu]

Maybe, the uncanny valley will have devs shy away from their obsession with realism... gamers too. More often than not most people simply cast aside anything at isn't realisitc, calling it cartoony. I hope so, since I'm with Gurgi on this... I play to escape and seem something that's artisitcally impressive.

One thing, though, is the uncanny valley is pretty much reserved for living breathing existing creatures. In other words, things like cars and buildings as per the PGR3 pics recently posted will easily fool people... so perhap games where we see people minimally will pass the test? Perhaps American Footbal might... ... though the mo-cap situation is gonna NEED to change. Things like endorphine 2 are going to be critical... to bad it's really all there is now...

 

[Shark Sandwich]

I agree 100 percent with what has been said so far. I think the "uncanny valley" has already been reached in videogames to some extent.

Animation is the biggest culprit so far. For example, in Jade Empire (and the two KOTOR games), when you're having a conversation with an NPC, they will just stand there staring blankly at you, waiting for your responses. This always creeped me out, because in real life you're always doing something else while talking. It would be neat if you could have a conversation while walking with someone through the town, something like that. In fact, all the NPCs felt very robotic in those games. Many NPCs would just be standing stiffly and upright in the corner of some building, waiting to assign a quest to you. You could get away with that in the 16-bit days, but in a game like Jade Empire with its realistic characters, it stands out like a sore thumb when they do unrealistic things.

Another example of highly-detailed (although not too realistic) characters paired with bad animation is Final Fantasy X. FFX had the most detailed characters ever seen in an RPG at the time. Their animations seemed like they came straight from Final Fantasy VII, though. They were exaggerated and simplistic. To me, it felt bizarre seeing these beautiful characters go through their canned, repetitive animation routines. Thankfully, Square has said that they will use lower-polygon models with more-detailed animations for FFXII.

I'm curious to see what Unreal Tournament 2007 looks like when we have the finished product. UT2004 had highly-detailed characters, but they weren't very realistic-looking. When you see them running backwards, aiming and firing a rocket launcher in a different direction, and doing flips from side to side, it looks a little bit silly, but it doesn't look TOO out of place. The "over-the-top" exaggerated sci-fi setting of that game fits perfectly with the character models and animations. Imagining, say, an ultra-realistic US Marine doing those same moves is laughable. It's going to be interesting to see what they do for UT2007. I seriously doubt they can make the animations any more realistic, as that would mean eliminating all the crazy acrobatic moves that made the game so fun in the first place. We're going to see ultra-realistic characters doing very unrealistic things. I'm curious what people's emotional reactions will be.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Shenmue 2 had some of this. That game was ahead of its time.

 

[Ragemare]

Next gen graphics are no where near photo realistic, not even offline CGI looks photo realistic or anything like what I see when I look out my window. If you compare games to a real scene created by real light and matter then your going to be dissapointed. If you compare next gen to this gen then you won't be, are you saying that old games look better than new ones because they have worse fidelity?

I don't think a deliberately non-realistic render will be exempt from peoples nit picking anymore than one which is trying to be realistick. Dodgy shadows and low res textures will still catch your eye. In movies where realistick CGI is used it's often more impressive than CGI in a movie like the incredibles, despite the fact it has real actors and props in it which cause it's fakeness to become apparant. It still however looks very pleasing to the eyes.

I think some next gen games will look worse than ones from this gen due to bad artistry or a complete lack of consistency, but other than that I think they will be far more satisfying to look at in almost everyway. The exceptions being the lack of nostalgia and badly advised shiney shine (which is the artists fault to a certain extent).

If I'm stuck between not accepting game' graphics as cg and not accepting them as real life then I certainly havn't noticed.

 

[Mefisutoferesu]

Still the problem is the fact that it's "animation". Until we loose the concept of prescripted movements it's always going to have that unnatural feel to it. A good example from next gen is DOA4... watch the way the characters move... the animations need to complete even if it means going into an incredibly inorganic movement in strange positions. Saying all this I kinda have a better understanding of what Kutaragi was going on about in one of his interviews with Gotou.

 

[DigitalSoul]

I don't think game devs should dive too much to "realism" unless they are creating some kind of simulation. What we see in video games is an artist interpretation and it is also an abstraction of "reality". Things are exaggerated, manipulated and even distorted in such way to add uniqueness to their creation. The purpose to create something that leaves little to the imagination and game devs should stray too far away for that, imo.

While there are games that feature "realtistic" looking characters/environments, things still do remain stylized. They can add realistic qualities but they still have to be imaginative, imo.

 

[ChryZ]

We need more games with non-photorealistic rendering (NPR). Only those got a chance to become true timeless classics (graphics-wise).

 

[London Geezer]

Still the problem is the fact that it's "animation". Until we loose the concept of prescripted movements it's always going to have that unnatural feel to it. A good example from next gen is DOA4... watch the way the characters move... the animations need to complete even if it means going into an incredibly inorganic movement in strange positions. Saying all this I kinda have a better understanding of what Kutaragi was going on about in one of his interviews with Gotou.

Well, as it stands, characters still have hair and cloth going through them, and sometimes they just go through each other anyway. So there's still a lot of work to do before we get "sentient" characters with no scripting whatsoever.

 

[Mefisutoferesu]

Yeah, I know. I'm just saying until we get there the uncanny valley will be waiting. We're probably a generation or two away before we get the sentient characters.

We need more games with non-photorealistic rendering (NPR). Only those got a chance to become true timeless classics (graphics-wise).

True, but it's not necesarily because they weren't realistic. I think when you do something that breaks the concept of reality you also break the laws that bind us to reality... double jump for example. When you aren't held to the laws of reality new and interesting things can happen that otherwise wouldn't, which can translate into new / fun / different / interesting gameply. Though I'm not trying to say they're mutually exculsive... much like DigitalSoul commented... games like DMC are graphically realistic but break the rules. I think it's just more easily accepted with non-realistic characters.

 

[Ragemare]

Looking at the NBA pick, I have to say that developers should be really carefull with there skin shaders, get it wrong and you could have scenes where your supposedly healthy characters look like semi believable mutant corpses. This could be a show stopper in games where there not supposed to be that way.

 

[jvd]

Its with anything else . When you first see the quality it looks out of place. Then it becomes common place , then we get the cycle to repeat .

Once the x360 and ps3 are out for a year or so the graphics will seem right to us as we have adjusted .

 

[Karma Police]

I had a thread a couple of days ago where I asked at what line do people want to draw games at? That is, when does a game become too real and it starts changing your perception of reality? Or, what realistic things would you NOT like to see in a game?

Not many guys could answer that, so maybe it was just too loaded....

 

[Tacitblue]

I had a thread a couple of days ago where I asked at what line do people want to draw games at? That is, when does a game become too real and it starts changing your perception of reality? Or, what realistic things would you NOT like to see in a game?

Not many guys could answer that, so maybe it was just too loaded....

I think that's a question the special interest groups are already on in a big way, with the stance from them that ultrarealistic violence in the next gen games train impressionable young kids to be murderers or some such. A time honored tradition every generation, too realistic, warping the minds of kids, yet its ok to show war footage of executions on tv. Even given the interactivity of games, its a red herring, has there ever been any real correlation other than poorly raised people making the excuse that the game made them do it, or that porn made them do it.....etc ad nauseum.

 

[BlueTsunami]

HAHAHA....I can't believe that in the late 70's that there was Pong....in this day and age where talking about how games can alter our perception of reality, or where to draw the lines on how far games can emulate and properly represent our reality.....I love our species...we've come very far