Photorealism in games: a friend… or foe?

Seriously, they need more Okami/Wind Waker style games. Great to look at, uses the system's power well, just not realistic in every aspect. You don't need to see each crack in the wall or each pore on a character's skin. Eventually, that leads to each game looking relatively the same, which goes to repitition and eventually, boredom.

i'm still waiting for my I-Girl. dating humans suck!

I think we need to hurry up and get photorealism over with so we can see better, more interesting art styles integrated into games. I don't want photorealism in my games. It's boring.

I don't mind photorealism in games like Resident Evil, FPSes, or games where realism aids in immersion and conveying a sense of the game environment. Photorealism and good art direction aren't mutually exclusive, just look at the visuals from ICO and Shadow of the Colossus.

Is it just me, or does anyone else think we will never really attain photo-realism, kind of like limits in calculus. After all, people were stunned by the PlayStation's graphics when it came out, and will be when PS9 (remember that commercial?) comes out, but we will always be able to pick something out that doesn't look right. People will always say "that's not next gen graphics to me".

Or do you think we'll be able to program reality, kind of like the Matrix?

I wonder how powerful a computer ( or console for that matter.. ) would have to be to render such graphics in real-time.

Hrmm..

Even photos aren't realistic. They're only an approximation of reality. So do we want to achieve eye-realism or photo-realism?

I would say that the games industry has so far been unable to match the sudden surge in visual complexity with a corresponding improvement in the quality of animation. Half-Life 2 was a step in the right direction, but so many games are compromised by poor motion. Paying attention to this rather vital part of the process, (for how well we engage will a character is not based on a massive amount of visual detail, but key ones in the right places), will make all the difference!

VC, i'd prefer eye realism as you would say. Though advancement in graphics technology such as high dynamic range has aided in the evolution.

"I wonder how powerful a computer ( or console for that matter.. ) would have to be to render such graphics in real-time."

The USS Enterprise D of course.

More violent games probably should avoid photorealism. While it makes it more intense for the gamer it also makes it more intense for the gamer's enemies.

Look at the Sin City comics and movie (especially the movie.) Both were good without being too realistic and the art direction made it easier to digest the violence and what not because it felt less physically real even though it still had real emotional impact.

And then there's the uncanny valley. A lot of games fall into that and it's not a fun place.

When the Internet2 is implemented, we will be able to share the entire world's processing power at once.

Imagine what we could do with that kind of power.

5 years from now, games like Splinter Cell will look primitive.

20 years from now, Zelda: Wind Waker will look like a cartoon.

Photo-realistic isn't really photo realistic. People should worry more about art direction rather than trying to capture reality since it is doomed for failure.

One of the things I always think about when I hear about pohoto realistic graphics in the future is damage modelling. Do you really want to see somebody's face get ripped apart when it is shot?

Also, you can't really have anything look realistic until you can replicate the randomness of true life.

I could honestly care less of what a game looks like as long as it's fun.

I still don't understand why they are trying to make characters like Sonic "more realistic" when they are cartoon characters.

Maybe by the time we reach photorealism developers will stop trying to load their games with all the latest buzzword features and instead focus on the gameplay...

more non pseudo-realistic renderstyles would be good indeed, but that won't happen until the techies loose their influence in gamedev - pushing polys is nice but surly not the end of the road. An interesting effort in non-photo-realistic rendering is that snowboard game coming for mac called Stoked Rider - there were some shots posted on ve3d a while back ago

Speaking of the guy above's comment about "seeing someone's face shot off"; how would that work? Will game devs have to code in ALL the parts of the body, a realistic working heart made of code? Will they program wood to be made out of grains and splinters so that when you shoot it, it falls apart properly? To LOOK real, it has to be MADE as if it were real. Impractical.

I simply prefer style over realism. In fact I think games loose more and more originality because most try to look realistic - that's boring. Realism is what I find in front of my house. I apprecciate features like for example cell-shading very much. Just take a look at this Stoked Rider (http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/655/655593p1.html) game mentioned above. This certainly looks interesting to me. I especially liked the 3d shot. Does anyone know when this is going to be released?

If the effort spent in developing more impressive graphics would have been put in creating better gameplay...

"Do you really want to see somebody's face get ripped apart when it is shot? "

in all seriousness, yes. i was very intrigued by the PS3 fight night videos, in which cuts and bruises appear in real time and the body reacts to punches in a way so realistic it's scary.

i'm tired of games that look great and all, but when you shoot someone in the face it just kind explodes like a cartoon. i want the real reactions when the bullet meats flesh and bone.

don't get me wrong, i love artistic games like katamari damacy and i'm looking forward to okami a great deal, but i'm also very eager for games to advance in absolute realism.

when i get kicked in the face playing a game, i don't want there to be a grunt and a colorful red spray, i want to see the bones in my cheek give under the force.

#19 scares me.

How many people still watch live-action shows from the 60's?

How many people still watch Looney Toons?

I rest my case.

There's nothing wrong with having the power to display photorealistic images. Not everyone has to use it. There are certainly games that will benefit from it, as many as will benefit from more "artful" styles. It's not like live action movies aren't artful. There's definite visual style depending on the director/cinematographer. There's nothing boring about reality. The only thing boring is people not knowing how to present it as entertainment.

"
i'm tired of games that look great and all, but when you shoot someone in the face it just kind explodes like a cartoon. i want the real reactions when the bullet meats flesh and bone."

I'd much prefer just a blood decal splattered on a face (a la Counter Strike:Source). I know that I've seen enough pics from various wars and places like rotten.com to know that I DO NOT want to have to see that in my games. Granted, good graphics doesn't mean you have to realistic damage, but then things will just look quite strange.

"#19 scares me."

because i want us to have the ability to produce games that are as realistic as possible? whatever..

I have said to others in the past that when graphics have reached the point at which I can no longer distinguish "reality" from the game world, then I will most likely put away my gamepad/keyboard and mouse forever and just walk away.

I, too, do not want to see the "real" effects of a gunshot wound, or someone being crushed beneath a vast weight or any of the other things that commonly occure in your average video game.

It's essential for there to be a separation between the game's reality and the player. To remove such barriers is, I believe, dangerous.