[Op/Ed] The Realism Plague

[torrefaction]

I think you both seem to be ignoring that we convey more emotion through micro-expressions and the the looks in someone's eyes than we'll ever garner from any other sort of media. Can something stylized convey emotion? Sure.

Can it do it on the level that the actors in Brokeback Mountain did and not come across as ham-handed? Maybe. Which is, very specifically, the point he brought up. I'd say you're massively diminishing the expressiveness of the human face (as well as the emotions we feel in reaction to it) if you think that an animated actor can be "just as effective".

He doesn't say impossible either. He says tough. And when things are considerably tough, they become less profitable.

And not for nothing? 2K Games just put out Spec Ops, which I dare you to play and not be emotionally affected. They're also bringing Bioshock Infinite to the table (and Bioshock for that matter), Borderlands...etc, etc.

I mean, 2K has always been a publisher I really liked. I have played and greatly enjoyed a large majority of their catalog from pretty early on...and they don't just publish throwaway games. They back Irrational...clearly they don't think there can be no emotion in games.

I don't know...I just can't get myself worked up about a big publisher wanting to be able to play with emotions at the same level as Hollywood in games that feature people. Can it be done? Sure, Pixar proves that. But they are also at the top of their game and it's in no way an easy task.

[digitalErich]

I'm with Torr, if you read the entire quote and not just the snippet, there's nothing too controversial being said, I think. If you notice, he never speaks in absolutes (just says 'very hard'), but you would never have guessed that based on a lot of reaction to this here and on the rest of the internet.

I'm not sure anyone here would disagree that with current tech it's very hard to convey some of the more subtle human emotions. Now, with photorealism alone solve this? That's an interesting question. I'm sure that, on some level, it will definitely help but it's not a magic bullet (but note this person never says that, either).

[Ink Asylum]

Originally Posted by torrefaction

I think you both seem to be ignoring that we convey more emotion through micro-expressions and the the looks in someone's eyes than we'll ever garner from any other sort of media. Can something stylized convey emotion? Sure.

Can it do it on the level that the actors in Brokeback Mountain did and not come across as ham-handed?

In my opinion, yes. Absolutely. Unless you believe that movies, television, and theater that use live actors are capable of the highest level of emotional conveyance, greater than books, music and comics as well, then you agree as well.

Which is, very specifically, the point he brought up. I'd say you're massively diminishing the expressiveness of the human face (as well as the emotions we feel in reaction to it) if you think that an animated actor can be "just as effective".

Yes, an animated character can be just as effective as a live human face, and I can say that without diminishing the expressiveness of a live human. In fact, a skilled animator or team who can trigger emotions with an animation understands facial and body expressions better than most people do.

I don't know...I just can't get myself worked up about a big publisher wanting to be able to play with emotions at the same level as Hollywood in games that feature people. Can it be done? Sure, Pixar proves that. But they are also at the top of their game and it's in no way an easy task.

It's easier than his quotes make it out to be, and photorealistic character models aren't going to make it any easier. They may be even harder to animate effectively than more stylistic models.

[Ink Asylum]

Originally Posted by digitalErich

I'm not sure anyone here would disagree that with current tech it's very hard to convey some of the more subtle human emotions.

No it's not. At least, it's not any harder than it is for an animated movie. Games can produce similar levels of facial animation.

[Ghostbear]

I'm not worked up, but what he says is false. It is not required, it's just potentially more difficult for less dedicated or talented people to pull off. Again media has been conveying emotion powerfully, effectively without the use of someone's real face. They've been doing this for eons. I've been as deeply effected by the wrenching story in a comic book as I have by a powerful movie performance. I dare you to read Shooters (by Vertigo) and not be emotionally effected. Or a host of other things. I am not discounting the power of actors, I'm just saying that telling people we're limited by lack of them is patently false. Different? Absolutely. Need a different skill set? Sure.

Hedging his bets with his language does not make what he said any less silly.

[digitalErich]

Give the guy some credit; I'm sure he was talking in the context of AAA, realistic looking games. I'm sure he's talking about games like Gears or Heavy Rain.

I don't disagree with anything you are saying Ghost, but I'm not sure he does either. This seems to be one of those cases where a small quote is taken as some kind of manifesto to rally against.

Assuming what I first stated was correct, I'm not sure it's much of a stretch to say that more realistic graphics (in the context of a "realistic" game) will make it easier to convey the more subtle human emotions.

Edit: People have already basically said as much in this thread. People talked about their attachment to Beyond Good and Evil, or in the past Aggro from Ico. Did any NES game ever give you those same sense of emotional attachment? I would guess the answer is no. He's not saying tech is the thing holding emotional conveyance back, just that better tech can help to convey emotion more readily. Listen to Ravel's Bolero on a good set of headphones and then through the speaker on your iPhone; which one moves you more?

[Ghostbear]

Maybe, Maybe not. I'm just saying even hinting that anything less than photorealism is a negative, or rather having the appearance of saying so, puts a foul taste into the mouths of creators (and fans of their work) that have done so wonderfully without that tech.

[AversionFX]

The vast majority of games don't even come close to getting an emotional response because they A) don't have competent writing/acting or B) spend too much time holding players' hands, and never allowing the circumstance of the game to take hold. There are plenty of games from the 8 and 16-bit eras that tugged at our heartstrings. Back before we had the shiny graphics we have today, games had to rely on good writing to get an emotional response.

I can't really think of a game from the last few years to really pull me in and give me an "experience." There's too many tutorials, not enough consequences, too many cutscenes, and too many things that pull me out of what's happening to my characters.

I think I can say with absolute certainty that the only game to really pull me in lately has been DayZ. No handholding, no tutorial, immediate consequences, and completely unpredictable. The paranoia that takes hold of you as you sit in the woods covering your friend while he scavenges for supplies is just priceless.

Graphics will never be more important than good writing. The idea that the lack of photorealistic graphics is holding gaming back is ridiculous and demonstrates a poor understanding about what makes games great. Crysis was pretty, but it was ultimately forgettable as a game. People still talk about Chrono Trigger 17 years later, nobody is going to remember Crysis after that long.

[Superman's Dead]

NES games may not have given me emotional attachment (Kirby came close), but SNES games definitely did. I was playing Chrono Trigger on the seat of my chair, talking to every NPC in Zeal to find out more about Janus.

In my opinion the discussion should be more about plot versus gameplay elements. Or maybe that's a silly conversation and I just want more linear plot-based RPGs. I don't know. I DO know I need a beer.

HIGH FIVE GHOSTBEAR

[MagGnome]

That quote from the 2K guy in the OP struck me as odd. I've experienced the exact opposite of what he is claiming. As games have gotten more "realistic" graphics, my emotional connection to them has lessoned, with few exceptions. Perhaps that would change if the graphics improved even further, but so many of today's games lack any sort of charm or soul that they just fail to connect with me on a deeper level regardless of the visuals involved.

Two of the few games that ever moved me emotionally were Link's Awakening and Grim Fandango. Neither of those had even slightly realistic visuals.

[Ink Asylum]

Rock, Paper, Shotgun weighs in.

[menage]

I play games to have fun Or for the ride. I hardly need twitching eyelids in a mushy love scene. There's little gameplay there.

Games shouldn't try to hard to be real. Uncanny valley, and it will always be second best.

[JayVe]

Originally Posted by Grifter

I'm currently finishing my first play through of Rage and while I'm having a hell of a lot of fun with it and I think the graphics a pretty good (from a distance) one of the things that is really bugging me about it is it's lack of "life" or movement in the world. The world is incredibly static, I feel like I'm playing through a movie set made of concrete and for me that breaks a lot of the immersion that the game created through it's characters and dialog. Because of that lack of immersion it makes the task of connecting with the characters on an emotional level that much harder... not that Rage specifically is attempting to make that connection but you understand what I'm getting at.

I recently saw my nephew playing Wind Waker. Damn that game is brimming with life! The grasses, clouds, people and trees all breathe with energy. Even the tassels on the end of a moblin's spear are fluid and natural.

[Libuke]

Originally Posted by MagGnome

Link's Awakening

I agree that was great ending.

[JayVe]

Originally Posted by AversionFX

The vast majority of games don't even come close to getting an emotional response because they A) don't have competent writing/acting or B) spend too much time holding players' hands, and never allowing the circumstance of the game to take hold. There are plenty of games from the 8 and 16-bit eras that tugged at our heartstrings.

Heh. I just recently bumped into an EXCELLENT analysis of Megaman vs Megaman X. It looks at how the game not only conveys HOW to play without hitting you over the head with tutorials and hand-holding. It also examines how the player is emotionally driven through the game.

Highly Recommended!

[Superman's Dead]

That guy watched the Red Letter Media reviews one too many times. I like what he's saying but the style isn't the best

[AversionFX]

That's Egoraptor, and that's been his style of delivery for a long time.

His Sequelitis video about Castlevania is also particularly entertaining, also insightful.

[Wasson_]

is indeed inferior too-

[Xerxes]

Bullshit reasoning for wanting a new console. It's not the most popular opinion but I think with what we have now as far as consoles go, it could go strong for another year. Ton of games out there with feeling and none of them are hung up on realism.

[Kielaran]

The problem with comparing emotional attachment in NES games is that those games were a different beast entirely. They were still in the infancy of gaming. There were very few real story lines and much more in the way of 2-3 lines of a reason to play a game. I have no doubt that a good team could put out an NES style game that would elicit as much emotion as one with current gen graphics.