I can certainly accept that better graphics can lean more towards art than realism, the GW2 watercolour look for example. But the important thing is that the graphics are getting better. If you are going to use a cartoon style it had better look better than WoW and so on.
So realism per say is not needed, improvement is.
There has been a trend that started around 2000 to 2002, where games have not kept up with PC hardware, the power of the PC has been rising year after the year, but the complexity of the graphics has not. I recently saw this confirmed in PC Format where they discussed the issue.
For whatever reason this has happened ( I think it could be console parity ), we need to be pointing out that our games on the PC certainly could look better.
I can certainly accept that better graphics can lean more towards art than realism, the GW2 watercolour look for example. But the important thing is that the graphics are getting better. If you are going to use a cartoon style it had better look better than WoW and so on.
So realism per say is not needed, improvement is.
There has been a trend that started around 2000 to 2002, where games have not kept up with PC hardware, the power of the PC has been rising year after the year, but the complexity of the graphics has not. I recently saw this confirmed in PC Format where they discussed the issue.
For whatever reason, I favour console parity, we need to be pointing out that our games on the PC certainly could look better.
Well said.. BUT.. The one thing that I worry is the trade off with increasing graphics detail.. That has always been a bug I"m not sure was worth it.. The days of big large group battles, whether it be PvP or Raids is almost dead because the stress of detail put on the average graphics card is too much and causes lag.. I blame them both on character/armor detail as well as spell/skill detail.. Did we corner ourselves into 5,10 and limited 20 man content because of our desire for eye candy? Personally I wish spell graphics would be nerfed back 80%.. I think the devs in many games have went way overboard with the eye candy.. Same with avatar looks.. I would gladly play a character that looks simple cartoony like WoW, with simple spell graphics if it means we can get back to 40 person raids and 100 man PvP fights..
I can certainly accept that better graphics can lean more towards art than realism, the GW2 watercolour look for example. But the important thing is that the graphics are getting better. If you are going to use a cartoon style it had better look better than WoW and so on.
So realism per say is not needed, improvement is.
There has been a trend that started around 2000 to 2002, where games have not kept up with PC hardware, the power of the PC has been rising year after the year, but the complexity of the graphics has not. I recently saw this confirmed in PC Format where they discussed the issue.
For whatever reason this happened (I think it is down to console parity), we need to be pointing out that our games on the PC certainly could look better.
Well said.. BUT.. The one thing that I worry is the trade off with increasing graphics detail.. That has always been a bug I"m not sure was worth it.. The days of big large group battles, whether it be PvP or Raids is almost dead because the stress of detail put on the average graphics card is too much and causes lag.. I blame them both on character/armor detail as well as spell/skill detail.. Did we corner ourselves into 5,10 and limited 20 man content because of our desire for eye candy? Personally I wish spell graphics would be nerfed back 80%.. I think the devs in many games have went way overboard with the eye candy.. Same with avatar looks.. I would gladly play a character that looks simple cartoony like WoW, with simple spell graphics if it means we can get back to 40 person raids and 100 man PvP fights..
You are quite right, there has been a conflict between better graphics and putting the Massive into multiplayer since day one. I see the MMO industry moving away from big battles now though, GW2 was the last game since what. Warhammer to try it? Zoned pvp is my preferred gameplay option, you could have a game where detail of avartars and so on drops with too many players. In fact some MMO's have that in a limited form already.
Having a far more basic looking avarter when you go into a massive battle would be fine by me.
True Scot.. the one thing that games used to do, and not sure if they still do or not is give the players the option to go simple on spell or character graphics.. This is something that should be easy to do with one simple click, not something you have to dig into on your option panel to find things.. So if you are just in the city moving about, or in a small group or solo.. no biggy.. But if you get into large PvP battles or raids, it would only take one click to put your graphics in dumb mode.. LOL so to speak
What stood out in that article most to me (and especially after skimming through all the conversation here) was this line: "A lot of times, people think they want realism when what they really crave is internal consistency within a given universe."
The author calls this "Realism vs. Consistency"...I have always just tended to call it believability. Does an naspect of the game make sense given how the game is as a whole.
09:23 - 10:32 of this video on why we feel Nostalgia (Put out by Micheal with the Youtube Channel Vsauce), talks specifically about how and why we get songs stuck in our head. I know that might seem out of place for this thread at first. But, I think it puts forward an interesting point in a relevant way. That being: We all want a consistent and sensical experience with our entertainment. And, when we don't get that. It bothers us.
We have an amazing ability to disregard information that is factual, yet not relative to our experience. And in addition to this we are very good at making things up entirely in order to fill an information gap. Our ability to rationalize something (to make nan excuse for something that doesn't seem quite right. Or rather force something to make sense) is astonishing...
I think where a game looses us (where the immersiveness of our experience is broken). Iswhen despite our brains best efforts, we can justify what is going on.
I see this happening when we run into things like (as a few examples):
A crafting system that success rate within, is directly tied to combat level or the level of gear we are attempting to create or modify. We figure if we are practiced enough. That it doesn't matter that we may not be able to use an item because it isn't within our characters class or we don't have the level to use it....we should still be able to make it to sell to others for their use. and when we can't we are left with little 'rational explination' as to why.
Another and perhaps better example is when we break a quest....We might have figured out a step of the quest before it's time within the design of said quest. Maybe ended up obtaining and trying to use an item too early. Or expected that a duplicate of an NPC in another location would have identical knowledge of it's counterpart, given where we are at in a quest, even though we missed a step. And so we get stuck. The NPC is trapped in a dialogue loop. Or we render a quest incompletable simply because we were to smart for it.
So, in a world where reason is not always reasonable. we can end ourselves up feeling punished for being more efficient then we were meant to be. And, when we feel wronged we tend to become obstinate about who's fault it is and the course that should be taken to correct it (hence, rant threads).
The overall point here that I am attempting to make, is that we go far out on a mental limb to suspend our disbelief in the first place. In order to even be able play a game. And, to become accepting of it's relative reality. To even play video games period is mental workout weather we realize it or not. This is escapism. And, escapism is a break from one reality to become involved in another.
Sleep is a similar thing to escapism. As might hypnosis be considered. And, just like these mind altering states, I feel in our gaming it is important that developers consider that they are not just building fun and entertainment. they are not just manufacturing a distractionary activity. They are playing with human mental limitations and should be concerned about what ground they tread in doing so.
It is not just important to keep (pointing back to the article provided by the OP) Internal consistency because people are paying for it and desire it. But, because it can influence mental health. Albeit, people that are called angry gamers, trolls, and who are otherwise socially afflicted have underlying issues in their personality that are more cultured and fostered by bad game design decisions then they are created....Still balancing the degree of relative realism in an MMOG is important and I do feel some game developers don't feel a weight of responsibility that lines up with the degree of their societal obligation, given the position they are in.
And while it is a bit heavy to take this mental trip and arrive at the conclusions that we are at least by our expected natures justified in feeling wronged over an unreasonable break in relative realism. And that developers have an obligation to their consumers to provide an believable environment...I don't believe I am wrong about it.
I can certainly accept that better graphics can lean more towards art than realism, the GW2 watercolour look for example. But the important thing is that the graphics are getting better. If you are going to use a cartoon style it had better look better than WoW and so on.
So realism per say is not needed, improvement is.
There has been a trend that started around 2000 to 2002, where games have not kept up with PC hardware, the power of the PC has been rising year after the year, but the complexity of the graphics has not. I recently saw this confirmed in PC Format where they discussed the issue.
For whatever reason this has happened ( I think it could be console parity ), we need to be pointing out that our games on the PC certainly could look better.
I have no argument with that.
But what is improvement? Human eyes can only see so much details. At some point, the big design ideas (like the classic alien look ... which is different than everything else before it) are going to be more important than to be able to animate 10% more hair with the right physics.
I can certainly accept that better graphics can lean more towards art than realism, the GW2 watercolour look for example. But the important thing is that the graphics are getting better. If you are going to use a cartoon style it had better look better than WoW and so on.
So realism per say is not needed, improvement is.
There has been a trend that started around 2000 to 2002, where games have not kept up with PC hardware, the power of the PC has been rising year after the year, but the complexity of the graphics has not. I recently saw this confirmed in PC Format where they discussed the issue.
For whatever reason this has happened ( I think it could be console parity ), we need to be pointing out that our games on the PC certainly could look better.
I have no argument with that.
But what is improvement? Human eyes can only see so much details. At some point, the big design ideas (like the classic alien look ... which is different than everything else before it) are going to be more important than to be able to animate 10% more hair with the right physics.
I am not sure ideas in graphics will ever replace improvements in quality. We were talking ten years ago about how graphics could only go so far before they could not get any better. Well we don't have photo realistic games with animations that look like a film as yet. Just like then, I would say I am not sure we need that, but we have yet to reach that stage and in ten years time from now I think we may find ourselves talking about how this is just around the corner again.
I am not sure ideas in graphics will ever replace improvements in quality. We were talking ten years ago about how graphics could only go so far before they could not get any better. Well we don't have photo realistic games with animations that look like a film as yet. Just like then, I would say I am not sure we need that, but we have yet to reach that stage and in ten years time from now I think we may find ourselves talking about how this is just around the corner again.
We are already there in movies. In movies, we can have photorealistic CGI. However, if you look at animated movies, they use cartoony imagery on purpose.
I doubt games will be like "Avatar" anytime soon. It will still take some time for the technology to be good enough for that kind of stuff. Hell, Cameron waited 10+ years before the technology of pre-calculated CGI was good enough for his project, real time CGI isn't even remotely close yet.
Isn't the new gen (PS4, Xbox 1) pretty close? I think i saw a unreal engine demo that looks pretty photorealisitc?
But the point is that while doing Avatar may still be some time away, we certainly can do Despicable Me, Monster U, and animation movie level of graphics in a game now.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Scot
I am not sure ideas in graphics will ever replace improvements in quality. We were talking ten years ago about how graphics could only go so far before they could not get any better. Well we don't have photo realistic games with animations that look like a film as yet. Just like then, I would say I am not sure we need that, but we have yet to reach that stage and in ten years time from now I think we may find ourselves talking about how this is just around the corner again.We are already there in movies. In movies, we can have photorealistic CGI. However, if you look at animated movies, they use cartoony imagery on purpose.
Games will also be like that.
We're still in the uncanny valley. We can CGI monsters, landscapes, space stuff and blurry people at a long distance, but CGI people are still too weird looking for movies.
However, all the stuff that's going into making things look 'real' in movies is being put into those movies with the cartoony imagery, and it shows. The imagery is cartoony, but the lighting, shaders, multilayered skins and rigging are just as complex as any movie where they attempt to make something look real.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
We're still in the uncanny valley. We can CGI monsters, landscapes, space stuff and blurry people at a long distance, but CGI people are still too weird looking for movies.
Actually there are plenty of people replacement with CGI in movies with great success. For example, the close-up shot of Doc Octopus slowing sinking in the sea at the end of Spiderman 2 is pure CGI.
The issue is that they can only do existing humans, and at great cost. Generating a whole movie (like Polar Express) with believable humans are too expensive. That is why they only use that for life action movies, replacing humans when it is needed.
Why are people mentioning EQ as "realistic"? You mean the dragons, magic spells, and lego character models?
What MMO has been that realistic in the first place? The only one I can really think of is EVE, and though unrelated to my point, that game bored me to tears.
I agree with DamonVile's post, to be honest.
You can have fantasy elements yet still achieve realism, in that the game brings such a world to life. Skyrim, Dragon's Dogma, SWG (pre-cu), and many others have achieved this, one of the best ever IMO was Shenmue and that was on Dreamcast.
I'd have to change the point of this article to, too much realism is bad for certain types of gamers.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Why are people mentioning EQ as "realistic"? You mean the dragons, magic spells, and lego character models?
What MMO has been that realistic in the first place? The only one I can really think of is EVE, and though unrelated to my point, that game bored me to tears.
I agree with DamonVile's post, to be honest.
You can have fantasy elements yet still achieve realism, in that the game brings such a world to life. Skyrim, Dragon's Dogma, SWG (pre-cu), and many others have achieved this, one of the best ever IMO was Shenmue and that was on Dreamcast.
I'd have to change the point of this article to, too much realism is bad for certain types of gamers.
EQ is realistic?
- Jumping off a cliff again and again is realistic?
- waiting for spawn that suddenly appear is realistic?
- looking at a spellbook for mana to regen is realistic?
What EQ bring is to "a world to life" .. but boredom and grind that got designed away in newer games.
You can have realism in the fantasy genre. We seem to have moved on, now we are using the term realism to indicate how a game is internally consistent rather than what its graphics are like. This sort of realism is about the depth of the games background and lore, something rather overlooked in modern gaming, not just MMO's.
How about a game or two that is complex, avoids characters that would be at home in Pokémon, and inspires you like a good book or movie would due to the design of the world and systems.
Comments
I can certainly accept that better graphics can lean more towards art than realism, the GW2 watercolour look for example. But the important thing is that the graphics are getting better. If you are going to use a cartoon style it had better look better than WoW and so on.
So realism per say is not needed, improvement is.
There has been a trend that started around 2000 to 2002, where games have not kept up with PC hardware, the power of the PC has been rising year after the year, but the complexity of the graphics has not. I recently saw this confirmed in PC Format where they discussed the issue.
For whatever reason this has happened ( I think it could be console parity ), we need to be pointing out that our games on the PC certainly could look better.
Well said.. BUT.. The one thing that I worry is the trade off with increasing graphics detail.. That has always been a bug I"m not sure was worth it.. The days of big large group battles, whether it be PvP or Raids is almost dead because the stress of detail put on the average graphics card is too much and causes lag.. I blame them both on character/armor detail as well as spell/skill detail.. Did we corner ourselves into 5,10 and limited 20 man content because of our desire for eye candy? Personally I wish spell graphics would be nerfed back 80%.. I think the devs in many games have went way overboard with the eye candy.. Same with avatar looks.. I would gladly play a character that looks simple cartoony like WoW, with simple spell graphics if it means we can get back to 40 person raids and 100 man PvP fights..
You are quite right, there has been a conflict between better graphics and putting the Massive into multiplayer since day one. I see the MMO industry moving away from big battles now though, GW2 was the last game since what. Warhammer to try it? Zoned pvp is my preferred gameplay option, you could have a game where detail of avartars and so on drops with too many players. In fact some MMO's have that in a limited form already.
Having a far more basic looking avarter when you go into a massive battle would be fine by me.
What stood out in that article most to me (and especially after skimming through all the conversation here) was this line: "A lot of times, people think they want realism when what they really crave is internal consistency within a given universe."
The author calls this "Realism vs. Consistency"...I have always just tended to call it believability. Does an naspect of the game make sense given how the game is as a whole.
09:23 - 10:32 of this video on why we feel Nostalgia (Put out by Micheal with the Youtube Channel Vsauce), talks specifically about how and why we get songs stuck in our head. I know that might seem out of place for this thread at first. But, I think it puts forward an interesting point in a relevant way. That being: We all want a consistent and sensical experience with our entertainment. And, when we don't get that. It bothers us.
We have an amazing ability to disregard information that is factual, yet not relative to our experience. And in addition to this we are very good at making things up entirely in order to fill an information gap. Our ability to rationalize something (to make nan excuse for something that doesn't seem quite right. Or rather force something to make sense) is astonishing...
I think where a game looses us (where the immersiveness of our experience is broken). Iswhen despite our brains best efforts, we can justify what is going on.
I see this happening when we run into things like (as a few examples):
A crafting system that success rate within, is directly tied to combat level or the level of gear we are attempting to create or modify. We figure if we are practiced enough. That it doesn't matter that we may not be able to use an item because it isn't within our characters class or we don't have the level to use it....we should still be able to make it to sell to others for their use. and when we can't we are left with little 'rational explination' as to why.
Another and perhaps better example is when we break a quest....We might have figured out a step of the quest before it's time within the design of said quest. Maybe ended up obtaining and trying to use an item too early. Or expected that a duplicate of an NPC in another location would have identical knowledge of it's counterpart, given where we are at in a quest, even though we missed a step. And so we get stuck. The NPC is trapped in a dialogue loop. Or we render a quest incompletable simply because we were to smart for it.
So, in a world where reason is not always reasonable. we can end ourselves up feeling punished for being more efficient then we were meant to be. And, when we feel wronged we tend to become obstinate about who's fault it is and the course that should be taken to correct it (hence, rant threads).
The overall point here that I am attempting to make, is that we go far out on a mental limb to suspend our disbelief in the first place. In order to even be able play a game. And, to become accepting of it's relative reality. To even play video games period is mental workout weather we realize it or not. This is escapism. And, escapism is a break from one reality to become involved in another.
Sleep is a similar thing to escapism. As might hypnosis be considered. And, just like these mind altering states, I feel in our gaming it is important that developers consider that they are not just building fun and entertainment. they are not just manufacturing a distractionary activity. They are playing with human mental limitations and should be concerned about what ground they tread in doing so.
It is not just important to keep (pointing back to the article provided by the OP) Internal consistency because people are paying for it and desire it. But, because it can influence mental health. Albeit, people that are called angry gamers, trolls, and who are otherwise socially afflicted have underlying issues in their personality that are more cultured and fostered by bad game design decisions then they are created....Still balancing the degree of relative realism in an MMOG is important and I do feel some game developers don't feel a weight of responsibility that lines up with the degree of their societal obligation, given the position they are in.
And while it is a bit heavy to take this mental trip and arrive at the conclusions that we are at least by our expected natures justified in feeling wronged over an unreasonable break in relative realism. And that developers have an obligation to their consumers to provide an believable environment...I don't believe I am wrong about it.
I have no argument with that.
But what is improvement? Human eyes can only see so much details. At some point, the big design ideas (like the classic alien look ... which is different than everything else before it) are going to be more important than to be able to animate 10% more hair with the right physics.
I am not sure ideas in graphics will ever replace improvements in quality. We were talking ten years ago about how graphics could only go so far before they could not get any better. Well we don't have photo realistic games with animations that look like a film as yet. Just like then, I would say I am not sure we need that, but we have yet to reach that stage and in ten years time from now I think we may find ourselves talking about how this is just around the corner again.
We are already there in movies. In movies, we can have photorealistic CGI. However, if you look at animated movies, they use cartoony imagery on purpose.
Games will also be like that.
Isn't the new gen (PS4, Xbox 1) pretty close? I think i saw a unreal engine demo that looks pretty photorealisitc?
But the point is that while doing Avatar may still be some time away, we certainly can do Despicable Me, Monster U, and animation movie level of graphics in a game now.
We are already there in movies. In movies, we can have photorealistic CGI. However, if you look at animated movies, they use cartoony imagery on purpose.
Games will also be like that.
We're still in the uncanny valley. We can CGI monsters, landscapes, space stuff and blurry people at a long distance, but CGI people are still too weird looking for movies.
However, all the stuff that's going into making things look 'real' in movies is being put into those movies with the cartoony imagery, and it shows. The imagery is cartoony, but the lighting, shaders, multilayered skins and rigging are just as complex as any movie where they attempt to make something look real.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Actually there are plenty of people replacement with CGI in movies with great success. For example, the close-up shot of Doc Octopus slowing sinking in the sea at the end of Spiderman 2 is pure CGI.
The issue is that they can only do existing humans, and at great cost. Generating a whole movie (like Polar Express) with believable humans are too expensive. That is why they only use that for life action movies, replacing humans when it is needed.
But the cost is coming down.
You can have fantasy elements yet still achieve realism, in that the game brings such a world to life. Skyrim, Dragon's Dogma, SWG (pre-cu), and many others have achieved this, one of the best ever IMO was Shenmue and that was on Dreamcast.
I'd have to change the point of this article to, too much realism is bad for certain types of gamers.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
EQ is realistic?
- Jumping off a cliff again and again is realistic?
- waiting for spawn that suddenly appear is realistic?
- looking at a spellbook for mana to regen is realistic?
What EQ bring is to "a world to life" .. but boredom and grind that got designed away in newer games.
You can have realism in the fantasy genre. We seem to have moved on, now we are using the term realism to indicate how a game is internally consistent rather than what its graphics are like. This sort of realism is about the depth of the games background and lore, something rather overlooked in modern gaming, not just MMO's.
Maybe realism is a poor descriptor.
How about a game or two that is complex, avoids characters that would be at home in Pokémon, and inspires you like a good book or movie would due to the design of the world and systems.
Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011