How far can graphics go???

[CodeMonkey666]

Hey, I was pondering, but like, we all love to look at beautiful, crisp, clean computer graphics. Anything from the candy-colored worlds of like Ratchet and Clank to the super-realistic graphics of Ninja Gaiden, everyone loves graphics. My question is, though, how far will graphics go? Cuz I don't think all gamers want to be palying a game that literally looks like a film. At least, I know I won't. Ninja Gaiden's graphics may look extremely realistic, but they still have that computer-generated "look" to them, which lets me know that they're computer graphics. Graphics where one literally could not tell the difference from movie film, I don't think I will like.

 

So I guess my main question here is, like, what is everyone's own opinion on this?? Like, how far will the graphics go?? Will the games keep getting more and more realistic-looking visuals until they cannot be told apart from actual film (except for games that intentionally use funny graphics like platform games), or do you think developers will still leave in that "computer-generated" look??

 

There is still a difference between CG and reality; like, Ninja Gaiden's graphics I could look at all day. But, if Ninja Gaiden literally just looked like I was playing a movie right on the TV screen, with graphics indistinguishable from reality, I don't think I would like it nearly as much.

 

Also, how would developer's cope with killing people?? In movies, if you slash a guy open with a sword, they just don't show it (well usually they don't, and if they do, it's only really quickly). Cuz if they did show it, only there was no blood, people would laugh. But if they do, they limit their audience. In games like Ninja Gaiden and Metal Gear solid, they don't limit the blood too much because the games look like computer graphics and you can tell it is fake. But if they get to movie-realism in graphics where you can't tell the difference, and then make a game like Ninja Gaiden, it might be a problem to be hacking at multiple guys, but without realistic cutting effects thrown in.

 

Think of watching Braveheart, and seeing all those guys get hacked up, only no chests splitting open or intenstines coming out, etc....with movie-looking graphics, if you give a seen like that, like in a Ninja Gaiden type of game, it just wouldn't look right to see that katana cutting through enemies that look literally like real people, yet, you see no real gore. Not that people would actually want to see the gore, but with super realistic graphics, it might look stupid without it.

 

The thing is, game companies keep trying to reach the ability to give photo-realistic, movie-equivalent graphics. So when we get to that point, where do we go from there??? And will games ever be able to actually utilize move-equivalent graphics in the game characters, if the game is about hacking and slashing. You can't have a scene that looks identical to reality, and then cut the guy through with a katana, yet only blood spills out, intead of the intestines, or whatever, depending on where you hit the person.

 

you know what I mean; real movies limit what they show in terms of sword cutting because it would be too gory to show it and if they did show it and it didn't show the gore, people would say, "That's fake." but in games, you have to show the actual cutting through of the opponent; so with movie realistic graphics, that might be pose a problem since you might not want to show the gore to prevent every parenting group in the world from riding your back, yet all gamers will say, "This looks fake as all hell."

 

In a game like Ninja Gaiden, even though it is realistic-looking, it still looks like computer graphics, just very very good ones, so with Ryu cutting through opponents like that, you just say, "This game has awesome graphics and is very arcade-like in the fighting." But with movie graphics, I don't know if that would fly. And by movie graphics, remember, I mean graphics where they are indistinguishable from reality.

 

I dunno, I am rambling, just my opinions on this subject. What do you all think??? Cuz it is like we are trying to reach a goal, graphics-wise, that we may never be able to fully use (other than movies themselves I guess, so you could have Jackie Chan fight Bruce lee maybe, or something hahaha).

[Gregory DG]

No one knows just how far it will go and what is or isn't possible. I think, given enough time though, we could all be hooked into our video games like in The Matrix or a holodeck. Graphics at that point, naturally, will be as real as what you experience in real life.

 

Right now, I'm just looking foward to playing some games with Toy Story quality visuals. I don't think we're too far away from that.

[VidGameKing]

I would love to play a game where I can control a character, car, thing, that is so photo realistic that I would not be able to tell the difference between it, and movies, or the such. it would be the apitamy of cool in my book.

[NE146]

The thing is, game companies keep trying to reach the ability to give photo-realistic, movie-equivalent graphics. So when we get to that point, where do we go from there???

 

Well when we get to the point where anything is possible graphically (barring 3D/holographic images) and Photo-realism is cheaply possible for every 2-bit studio out there, at that point.. what would "Good graphics" mean? It won't mean shit.

 

So perhaps then perhaps at that point where 'realism' is passe, the game makers would have to start using their IMAGINATION to distinguish themselves or even better... start focusing on GAMEPLAY. That would be novel

[CodeMonkey666]

Well, I will never tire of "computer graphics-looking" graphics. But I think games will always have the realistic-looking kind and the kind that are goofy-looking on purpose, like Ratchet & Clank, The Legend of Zelda, etc...remember, artwork drives the game industry too. And graphics are the artwork put into the gameplay. If all games looked like reality, there'd be a loss of the artwork, because the super-colorful, cool characters would not be there. Remember, the real world itself, aside from the tropics or a flower meadow, is not super colorful. It is the artwork of videogames and television, and such, that makes the world have more color to it.

 

If games lose the colorful graphics, like Nintendo seems to favor a lot, and all look like movies, then all that colorful artwork will be out the window. No artwork of dragons, or of like Zelda, or Skies of Arcadia, etc....on game covers; they'd look like movie covers.

 

So I think movie-realistic graphics will only happen in games that aim for realism specifically; I think we'll always have cartoony graphics and candy-colored worlds in games for fun.

 

If you were to take like the casing for ratchet & Clank or for Ninja Gaiden or for Final Fantasy X back to 1932 and show it to people, they'd probably be amazed at all the color. Color these days is like more prevalent in society then it ever was. Even Pesi, who always had that old gray can, upgraded to the modern-looking blue can; because blue is more colorful, and symbolozies youth, vigoressness, etc.....color is very important.

So I think games will always keep colorful, phony-looking graphics, as well as having movie-realism graphics perhaps, one day, or aiming towards movie realism anyhow.

[+Random Terrain]

When I can't tell the difference between real life video and computer generated action in a video game, then I'll be happy. We still aren't even close. After that, we can move that super-realism into virtual reality or something better so you could be totally fooled and forget you are playing a game. That will be fun!

[bergbros2]

It all depends on processing power. Moving all those pixels at the old smooth 60 Frames per second and what not. That is why we keep on seeing next generation console every few years. People will always like to be close to realism as possible to go beyond this world into another one, to easier to suspend belief. I think great graphics and gameplay go hand and hand to enhance the experience. I will always take gameplay over graphics but the realization is that grapics are an important if not exclusive compenent in gameplay. That is why I disagree with a ranking system like Gamespot that uses graphics and gameplay as separate and equal components. The end result is the gameplaying expereince.

[Zaxxon]

It already takes a team of 40 programmers, artists and producers 18-24 months and millions of dollars to produce a game that isn't very realistic looking and they cost $50 to buy. Can you imagine the manpower, time and money it would take to get every minute graphic detail right so that it could pass for photo-realistic and what the game would have to sell for to earn it's money back? I don't see it happening anytime in the near future, just because of the work involved, not because it isn't technically possible.

[Vic George 2K3]

What I'm concerned with is how many more societal taboos and such will be broken in videogames as they get progressively closer to looking like you're actually there in the game. Will they get to the point where they let every person enjoy every form of depravity that exists in society without any consequence whatsoever to the player?

[VidGameKing]

What I'm concerned with is how many more societal taboos and such will be broken in videogames as they get progressively closer to looking like you're actually there in the game.  Will they get to the point where they let every person enjoy every form of depravity that exists in society without any consequence whatsoever to the player?

 

you lost me on "What I'm"

[kisrael]

One thing is movies can use camera angles and compose shots in a way that a video game. Non-FMV cutscenes will look more and more real, but most games will look different than most movies because they'll use the same old functional camera angles.

 

I have to say, I wasn't paying a lot of attention, but out of the corner of my eye, one of the modern football games (Madden?) caught in a 'time out' made me assume it was a real game on...they switched from angle to angle, the exact same ones a tv producer might use during a timeout situation, along with the onscreen graphic overlays. It was only when I noticed that it had been a LOOOOOONG timeout that I took a closer looked and realized I had been duped.

 

Another interesting question is, for me, will AI ever get good enough that there will be reason to feel bad about killing it or even turning off the machine after? We're still really far from that, but someday maybe...

[pmpddytim]

Personally I don't want photo realistic graphics. I want video games that are beyond belief, somthing that is obviously not real that I can dive into. Its that fantasy element and the gameplay that attracts me to modern gaming not the photo realism. Some of my favorite games of this gen have been cell-shaded or just completely not realistic. Don't get me wrong photo realistic games would be kinda cool but it would be a pitty to focus only on that.

 

No matter what happens I hope that game designers will continue to create fun, innovative game graphics as well as the photo realisitc visuals that are destined to arrive.

 

-Tim

[Fretwobbler]

The terminology you are looking for is apparantly 'Broadcast Quality', or it used to be at least.

 

I have an article in a 1994 PC Mag that claimed they were then 10 years from broadcast quality graphics, how wrong were they

 

Once they have reached Broadcast quality which they no doubt will, there is nowhere else to go, except for holographic perhaps. Sega Time Traveller anyone

[Mr.FoodMonster]

I have been thinking about this for awhile myself (more then a year) and I have thought of a lot of aspects. First off, I dont think that photorealism would be good. Would it be cool? Yes. But not something I want to see when I'm shooting baddies with a plasma rifle. See what I mean? You really CANT have it in some ways. Who is the person to decide how something would look in real life even though its completely fake?

Now, in the future I think there are going to be two or more different aspects of gaming. The first one being how it is now, with a controller, something that gives you unput in a game by the touch of a button. Uses media that you can go buy at the store, and need things like a HD (or memory card, whatever) to use and all that.

Then the intresting thing comes in, VR. Something that you either put on your head, cliche like, or something you get into. When you move, your charater moves. Whatever you do, people see you do. This is all on the internet, and you have keyboard just for accessing things like servers, and putting in your credit card for games ect. Now, this would really limit the gaming genre, and its also why I hope they go in two completely different directions. Some fat guy who loves fighting games is going to HATE that. You need to be in great shape, plus it gets rid of the possiblity for fireballs and that sort of thing. Fit guys will love the thing. It will end up being at gyms and the such.

VR would be cool, but it wouldnt last long for these and many other reasons. Plus, I didnt even get into handhelds, but I suppose thats for a different topic and another day.

[Fretwobbler]

But not something I want to see when I'm shooting baddies with a plasma rifle. See what I mean? You really CANT have it in some ways. Who is the person to decide how something would look in real life even though its completely fake?

 

Hmm, well no, nobody knows what a Klingon really looks like, nor a photon torpedo penetrating the hull of a borg whatnot, but they sure as hell look realistic on the telly

 

Then the intresting thing comes in, VR. Something that you either put on your head, cliche like, or something you get into

 

I think this sort of thing is the key to the future, although not just VR in the current sense. I'm more interested by your last comment in that sentance - "Something you get into", thats the future, total immersion in the game so you no longer realise the real world around you while you are playing.

 

Might not happen until after my life's record card is rubber stamped 'deceased', but happen it will. Robot arms controlled by thought are the first step and are starting to gather pace right now.

[thx1138]

That film Farnehiet whatever (the Bradbury one!) where the woman watches t.v on several full sized wall screens.

 

When I can sit in a room, with 4 walls, all of them screens, all photo-realistic graphics, then I might say "woah! that's enough".

[Zaxxon]

Stereoscopic 3D PC games are here and have been for a long time but 99% of gamers won't buy 3D glasses to try it. I think this should be the next thing to push for, not photorealism. If Sony produced a pair of 3D glasses for the PS2/PS3 and programmed support for them into their games a lot more people would be exposed to how cool it is. I think if most people had a chance to play their 3D games in true stereo 3D they wouldn't ever want to go back to our current 2D games.

 

www.stereo3D.com

[Fretwobbler]

The Illinios Holodeck - http://cave.ncsa.uiuc.edu/

 

I'll be visiting that when I'm next in America

[kisrael]

But not something I want to see when I'm shooting baddies with a plasma rifle. See what I mean? You really CANT have it in some ways. Who is the person to decide how something would look in real life even though its completely fake?

Hmm, well no, nobody knows what a Klingon really looks like, nor a photon torpedo penetrating the hull of a borg whatnot, but they sure as hell look realistic on the telly

Exactly. It's a kind of "hyper-realism" that many games will want; if it WAS real, this is JUST what it would look like...a giant, massive lizard of muscle and radioactive energy, not just some guy in a big rubber suit. (Not that lizards that are actually guys in big rubber suits don't have a style and charm of their own, which is why 50s godzilla is better than that 90s abortion...)

 

There are parallel issues in many other aspects of gaming, like physics, and just "realistic" worlds in general. (No one wants to play BUMPER 2 BUMPER 3000: the world's most realistic traffic sim) Finding the balance between realistic enough to feel like *something* and not so realistic that its as dull as real life is one of the biggest upcoming challenges for game makers. And all but the most abstract games need some level of consistency in how they meet that challenge.

 

(Come to think of it, physics and how stuff moves are hugely important in how 'real' a scene looks. We can come pretty close to photorealistic static scenes, but throw in a human smiling or winking or walking and the game is up.)

 

Come to think of it, sci-fi has to deal with these as well. Star Wars ships turn like WW2 fighters and look great, and even shows like Babylon 5 that try toget the physics right ignore the fact that humans are barely able to keep up w/ the speeds of real jets NOW, never mind at what speeds spaceships will be going at. "Elite II:Frontier" aims for as realistic as possible and is, for my money, a study in how NOT to do a sci fi flying combat game.

 

Personally, I think Halo and GTA:VC are some of the best examples of getting the balance just right.

[Big Player]

The Illinios Holodeck - http://cave.ncsa.uiuc.edu/  

 

I'll be visiting that when I'm next in America

 

Might want to be careful though. That's the same university that brought us the HAL 9000.

[VidGameKing]

What was wrong with HAL? He had a nice enough personality. Untill that guy started pulling the brain boards from his CPU!

[Fretwobbler]

Personally, I think Halo and GTA:VC are some of the best examples of getting the balance just right.

 

Not sure about Halo, players can still tend to 'slide' too much. The most fluid and natural movement in an FPS is Far Cry, no doubt. If your a FPS fan and havent played it yet, stop whatever it is you are doing and go straight to your nearest game store

 

I have never seen a character 'slide' in Far Cry, and whatching the enemy casually take a lighter from his pocket and light up a cigarette is sublime. Far Cry sets standards in many areas, character realism/fluid movement is one of them.

 

GTA Vice City on the other hand, excellent movement. I agree, probably the best overall balence there is (was, until Far Cry came out ) . Vice City really did hit the nail on the head.

[NintendoDieScreaming]

If we achieve real-life graphics, think about it this way: Movie-based games might not suck so bad anymore. Imagine how awesome a Matrix-based game would be? Even better, how awesome would Kill Bill be??? Very awesome, I'll tell you that. I don't care if I'm playing as a person called "The Bride", I can chop someone's head off and have him erupt in blood.

[+Random Terrain]

I have been thinking about this for awhile myself (more then a year) and I have thought of a lot of aspects. First off, I don't think that photorealism would be good. Would it be cool? Yes. But not something I want to see when I'm shooting baddies with a plasma rifle. See what I mean? You really CANT have it in some ways.

The game engine will make sure all of the normal stuff looks real, but the programmer can bend the rules for special weapons that don't exist and still make it look believable. Same as making a creature that doesn't actually exist. It will look "real" because of realistic textures, shading and all of the rest.

 

Who is the person to decide how something would look in real life even though its completely fake?

Same as always. The game designer and/or the artists. And if I ever get to make games, I will decide. As I said above, the game engine will make anything you create look real as long as you do your part to create an object that doesn't look like pure crap.

[JagMX]

I remember when it was all about gameplay....