The negative side of more realistic visuals in gaming...

I posted this in the GTA IV forum initially, which is why it focuses on that game in particular, but it pertains to all next-gen games as well. 

 I have to say that I'm looking forward to this game very much, but this concerns me...

The more realistic this (or any) game looks, the more the tiniest flaws are going to become very apparent.  The previous GTAs always had that comical flair to them, a bit of an animated film feel that made their inaccuracies forgivable, if not tolerable.  Now with the way this game is shaping up visually, I can't help but feel that my expectations for the world's behavior have risen to reflect the amount of visual realism that the game is striving for. 

People walking around aimlessly, the same models and textures for different pedestrians, traffic problems.......I believe most of these things will disappear with the help of better technology.  If not, they will not only stand out like a sore thumb, but will act completely opposite against our "suspension of disbelief" we hold for the world that the game is trying to convince us of.

This holds true for many other franchises and genres , but in the GTA games they are attempting to model and simulate so many different aspects of a functioning, living world and also make them interact in a believable, cohesive manner.  The amount of effort this must require boggles my mind to even think about, and I hold no envy for those assigned this task.

I'm not meaning to say that I wish for a graphical downgrade, not at all.  I don't know what the solution is.  But the more realistic visuals games have, the more flaws and imperfections will stand out, period.  To be honest, it takes me out of the experience.  It's like watching a great movie with great direction and screenplay, and then watching a completely incapable actor fumble around in a scene which reminds you that you are watching a movie and distracts from the enjoyment and impact of the overall experience.

So that's my rant......thanks for reading.

Thoughts?

There's a definition for what you're talking about... something Valley, saying that the more realistic looking things get, the more you're going to notice something's wrong with a characters motions and such. If you take a model of anything and put it in motion, something's going to give it away that it isn't real.ghostadv

Exactly.  I think I've heard the term before also.  When one aspect of a game is so far beyond the others, it creates a contrast that becomes so noticable as to take away from the overall experience.

Uncanny ValleyTheGrayEye

LOL!  Haha that's pretty good.

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]Uncanny ValleyRekunta

LOL! Haha that's pretty good.

Umm, no dude, that's actually what it's called, google it. 

I was coming into this thread expecting to disagree with you, but I actually agree with you. Why does the Mario universe seem so believable? Because I have no way to prove/disprove that's what a Koopa Troopa looks like...I just accept it.

If the game strives to be realistic in looks, I'm going to expect realistic behaviors to match. I'm going to notice that the main character's mouth is just a little too big, or the walking animation is a touch off.

In some instances, I still want more realistic looking games. But I would still like to see more original and inspired designs instead of just copying the real world. 

[QUOTE="Rekunta"]

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]Uncanny ValleyTheGrayEye

LOL! Haha that's pretty good.

Umm, no dude, that's actually what it's called, google it. 

I know, I'm not disagreeing, I just find the term fitting.

I've blogged about another downfall of super-realistic visuals before. Thought I'd repost it here, as it seemed appropriate. Vintage Appeal You know what I like about old games? They still require some imagination. With the games of today (which I do still enjoy mind you), you know exactly what you're looking at. You don't have do a whole lot of pretending to find yourself in the environment that your character is in. In the old days, you needed your imagination to fill in the textures, and character emotions, and combat movements. A few blocks on a screen isn't going to be all that visually descriptive. So in a way, it's the best kind of character creator tool. It's the best at making the world you're exploring the scariest, most colourful, or most intense place you've been. ebbderelict

Absolutely.  That's so true, I totally agree.  Is imagination in games no longer available for the gamer to decide?  Heh, I remember playing the original Metroid with the imagined "male" hero in the suit kicken' butts and taking names...needless to say the revelation after the ending gave me more of a kick because of it.  It's almost like too much information given in a game can work against it.

I was coming into this thread expecting to disagree with you, but I actually agree with you. Why does the Mario universe seem so believable? Because I have no way to prove/disprove that's what a Koopa Troopa looks like...I just accept it.

If the game strives to be realistic in looks, I'm going to expect realistic behaviors to match. I'm going to notice that the main character's mouth is just a little too big, or the walking animation is a touch off.

In some instances, I still want more realistic looking games. But I would still like to see more original and inspired designs instead of just copying the real world. 

Vampyronight

Exactly.  If there's even the smallest of imperfections, it stands out. 

You'd think that with all the resources and time developer's invest into creating virtual realities, if they turned their attention to something novel, unfamiliar yet creative, it would bring a breath of fresh air into the industry.  That's why I'll always be a Nintendo fan.

Thanks for the replies guys.

First of all that was way too much and lay off the bold. Secondly either you worry too much or are really hard to please. Just relax and have fun.

Having better visuals clearly takes you to a whole new reality to the point that we lose sense of our own reality. Immersion in this reality distorts our perception.

Hmmm, interesting perspective. Personally I find myself to be pretty apathetic towards the whole 'suspension of disbelief' thing though. I know I'm playing a game, and no matter how realistic it may look, I don't try to make myself believe it's real. Some things that might be jarring or detracting from an otherwise immersive experience, I just usually laugh at and keep playing. For example, in Resident Evil 4, sometimes when you kill a standing Ganado with the knife, instead of the usual flinch of pain, they do this flying spinning barrel roll thing backwards as if they'd been smashed with a sledgehammer. Hardly realistic. But instead of being irritated or disappointed, me and my friends might make comments about 'zombie gymnastics' or 'combat knifes with built in 10000 volt current', and turn it into an in-joke. Doesn't stop me absolutely loving the game though, it's become one of my favourites. Maybe it's because I play a lot of non-realistic and early-gen console games, but I find that graphics mostly matter little to my overall enjoyment.

I think the main issue with realistic graphics in my opinion is the continually rising standards. Many people spoiled on (or grew up with) Gears of War-level graphics would likely cringe going back to play early NES games, finding themselves barely able to look at it. That's how a lot of my friends are anyways, I notice it especially in younger gamers and casuals. Though I think that recent additions to console gaming like the VC, XBLA and the upcoming ability to buy/download PS1 games over the PSN are great steps towards more embracement of 'retro' games, especially ones that were overlooked in their heyday.

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"][QUOTE="Rekunta"]

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]Uncanny ValleyRekunta

LOL! Haha that's pretty good.

Umm, no dude, that's actually what it's called, google it. 

I know, I'm not disagreeing, I just find the term fitting.

I've blogged about another downfall of super-realistic visuals before. Thought I'd repost it here, as it seemed appropriate. Vintage Appeal You know what I like about old games? They still require some imagination. With the games of today (which I do still enjoy mind you), you know exactly what you're looking at. You don't have do a whole lot of pretending to find yourself in the environment that your character is in. In the old days, you needed your imagination to fill in the textures, and character emotions, and combat movements. 1) A few blocks on a screen isn't going to be all that visually descriptive. So in a way, it's the best kind of character creator tool. It's the best at making the world you're exploring the scariest, most colourful, or most intense place you've been. ebbderelict

2) Absolutely.  That's so true, I totally agree.  Is imagination in games no longer available for the gamer to decide?  Heh, I remember playing the original Metroid with the imagined "male" hero in the suit kicken' butts and taking names...needless to say the revelation after the ending gave me more of a kick because of it.  It's almost like too much information given in a game can work against it.

3) I was coming into this thread expecting to disagree with you, but I actually agree with you. Why does the Mario universe seem so believable? Because I have no way to prove/disprove that's what a Koopa Troopa looks like...I just accept it.

If the game strives to be realistic in looks, I'm going to expect realistic behaviors to match. I'm going to notice that the main character's mouth is just a little too big, or the walking animation is a touch off.

In some instances, I still want more realistic looking games. But I would still like to see more original and inspired designs instead of just copying the real world. 

Vampyronight

Exactly.  If there's even the smallest of imperfections, it stands out. 

4) You'd think that with all the resources and time developer's invest into creating virtual realities, if they turned their attention to something novel, unfamiliar yet creative, it would bring a breath of fresh air into the industry.  That's why I'll always be a Nintendo fan.

Thanks for the replies guys.

1) Only if the artist sucks.  If the artist is talented, then I welcome a better look at the picture they are trying to paint.  Given the option, I wouldn't downgrade the clarity of games with strong art direction such as Gears of War, Okami, RE4, Motorstorm and Valkyrie Profile 2 (dang it, their detail is ruining my imagination, given me a couple of fuzzy blocks and let my imagination soar!).

2) The Nintendo game you cited doesn't really support your point.  Samus's sex was indistinguishable because she was wearing body armor, not because of the low quality of the graphics.

3) With the exception of sports games and racing sims, there really aren't many games striving towards realism, at least in the console world.  And the appeal of realisitc games for most is that they offer them the opportunity to do what they can't do in real life (most of us aren't pro athletes or race car drivers).  On a related note, the fact a game doesn't star a chubby plumber crushing mushrooms with his butt doesn't mean its striving to be realisitic.  While details are still scant about GTA, unless gunshoot wounds don't heal with the right pick-up, one's wanted level doesn't go away and arrest means a lengthy trial and possible incarceration, I'd say despite its darker art style (the proportions of the characters are the same as they are in all the previous GTAs, so I wouldn't call it more realisitc) the makers aren't striving for realism.

4) To each his own, but your attempt to rail against the other guys doesn't really make sense, especially since you claim that you prize the unfamiliar.  Nintendo focuses on handful of franchises more than any company this side of Squenix. 

Sorry for not quoting, it's just too messy.  Anyhow....

2) The Nintendo game you cited doesn't really support your point.  Samus's sex was indistinguishable because she was wearing body armor, not because of the low quality of the graphics.

Look at Metroid Prime.  The same should apply to that as well, however since the level of the visuals were so detailed, any player was able to discern the sex of Samus from details that the graphics afforded (i.e. seeing her eyes through the visor.)  Given what was capable on the original NES, I don't think you would've known Samus was a she unless she was running around without the suit.

3) With the exception of sports games and racing sims, there really aren't many games striving towards realism, at least in the console world.  And the appeal of realisitc games for most is that they offer them the opportunity to do what they can't do in real life (most of us aren't pro athletes or race car drivers).  On a related note, the fact a game doesn't star a chubby plumber crushing mushrooms with his butt doesn't mean its striving to be realisitic.  While details are still scant about GTA, unless gunshoot wounds don't heal with the right pick-up, one's wanted level doesn't go away and arrest means a lengthy trial and possible incarceration, I'd say despite its darker art style (the proportions of the characters are the same as they are in all the previous GTAs, so I wouldn't call it more realisitc) the makers aren't striving for realism.

Of course liberties have to be taken for the sake of game play and so that the game won't be muddled down from trivial "realistic" elements.  I have no trouble with picking up health paks and immediately coming back from death's door and such.  What I mean is having one element of a game (the graphics) standing in stark contrast to the others (sloppy AI, etc) in such a way and so obviously that the overall feel of the game is compromised.

Someone posted about RE4 and how the reaction to certain weapons were wildly inaccurate.  Ok, I agree somewhat.  But overall, the various parts of the game came together so well as to be almost flawless that those other unrealistic aspects were easily overlooked and in no way detracted from the game in any significant way.  I for one have never seen an enemy spin around when struck with the knife while playing.....the only inaccuracies I've seen are things like shooting someone in the head was more akin to striking them with a rock.  But even then it could be argued that since the Ganado's were (SPOILER AHEAD)............................infected by the Las Plagas which gave them powers that were extraordinary, it gave the player the rational to accept the usually unacceptable.  By injecting the game with a fictional element such as the Las Plagas and potraying it in such a believeable and well explained manner, it allowed those playing to accept many things that they would otherwise find absurd.  That believability made the game that much more frightning and a very engrossing experience.

4) To each his own, but your attempt to rail against the other guys doesn't really make sense, especially since you claim that you prize the unfamiliar.  Nintendo focuses on handful of franchises more than any company this side of Squenix. 

   True, but they're also one of the founding (if not the founding) game companies that created the unfamiliar in the first place and continue to do so on a semi regular schedule.  I don't deny that other companies have created brilliant games that are original such as the incredible Katamari Damacy.....but in my opinion Nintendo (and Sega, RIP :cry: ) was one of the first to do so and was and still is the inspiration for many others. 

  This is getting a bit off topic from my OP.  As I've stated previously, it's not so much about realism in games leading to it's credibility and immersiveness but moreso about one element of a game contrasting with others so much so that the overall game universe ends up suffering and turns out to be not convincing.  If everything works seamlessly together and presents a superficial coat of realism, many things can be overlooked.