If you take that line out of context then I suppose it doesn't make sense. However, if you include the rest of the paragraph it does(which is why you don't isolate lines like that). It's the Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within syndrome. The more realistic they try to make it, the more people will scrutinize it since it isn't quite right; thus the "revulsion." It's a subconscious trick and one is more likely to have a more emotional response to something that isn't quite as creepy(more removed from reality).

I assume this quote however was relating also to the topic of photorealism in games, why else would it be quoted here?

Just because someone gets creeped out by realistic graphics doesnt have much to do with whether or not games should strive for photo realism (of course they must).

I personally am also more drawn more to the somewhat outdated still somewhat blocky looking games. These actually seem to be more emersive - to me at least than most of the newer games.

Quote:

---

The more realistic they try to make it, the more people will scrutinize it since it isn't quite right

---

This definitely seems true. I found myself getting incredibly irritated by Oblivion (graphically speaking) because I kept noticing things that "weren't quite right" where as I ended up completely immersed in games like Castelvania for the N64.

A polemic topic indeed. Mostly, driven by personal interests and subjective points of view.

Those who are wanting and even working for improving photorealism in games of course will be biased to think this is all bullshutt. Other people who have no access to producing photorealistic content will trend to say photorealism is crap.

I don't want to post my opinion in such complex things. I'd only say that Morrowind was lacking some features, like freedom of gameplay. Instead, they added more photorealism in Oblivion. Gameplay features still short. Somehow, photorealism makes some animations like jumping and crawling look like kraps in oblivion. Anyway, the fact is that I quit playing oblivion BEFORE ending the game. It didn't manage to keep me into the story.

Of course that is my personal opinion only, but I do think that, with or without photorealism, game designers are forgetting some things that seem to be far more important. The action, the story, what happens during the game, what happens with the characters: these will be always the priority facts for a game, as they will with any film despite special effects and production budget. If photorealism will or won't do any good, it solely depends if it contributes or distracts from the story essence and lifespan.

I loved Oblivion, but its far form "photo-realistic", for such graphics we still have many years to go. Maybe in 20 years photorealism in everything aspect will be possible in realtime.

Greats strides have been made in increasing realism in graphics. Remeber that the older primitive graphics were a product of tehcnology, just as modern graphics are. Contrived "styles" or non-photorealsim tend to be gimmicky and not lasting, even if visually interesting.

IN otehr words, if you want to make a cartoon game, make a cartoon game with goofy looking models, not rely on "cell_shading", because the original hand-painted cell animation was also of product of technique, the efficiency of painting frames with simple colors and no modelling of tones. Its not an end in and of itself.

Poeple often confuse technique with art. Just as digital photography is now very much accpeted over film photography, the art is not the technique or technology.

Each method, medium or technique has its unqie characters, but these characters in themselves are incedental, and the idiosyncracies of technique tend to attract only the less orginal creators.

.

There's plenty of room for both stylized and realistic games. I think there is a slow buildup of a backlash against the realistic stuff(thus this opinion piece and others), but it's not going to overtake the industry in regards to sales unless some kind of bizarre trend or transformation occurs. I think the writing will pick up on the realistic side. Something has to occur beyond just the visual. Gamers will eventually tire of titles just getting more and more realistic and cookiecutter. The rest of the game has to evolve, too.

The recent release Okami is one of the most unusual games to come out in a long time and is getting critical acclaim and a overwhelmingly positive response from gamers. I think it's one of the few stylized titles that surpasses the "gimmick" label given this style is more than just the visual. Its painterly style also finds its way into the gameplay via the painting brush mechanic. You're not only playing inside of a painting but painting to proceed. It's also a solid game, though and more than just pretty pictures. It's fun to play, immersing, and a huge game.

I think with the success(or at least the introduction and response) of Okami and some of the other non-traditional games coming(and that have already come and gone like Shadow of the Colossus and Psychonauts) that we'll start to see more variety as the realistic side of the industry becomes more saturated. There are too many game designers wanting to try something different(sales or no sales); thus like in painting or filmmaking, more daring and different works are going to emerge.

I didn't read the stuff before, but my optinion is:

A GAME HAS TO LOOK LIKE A GAME.

What means, not too realistic.
I find Dreamcast, N64 or Gamecube Graphics most attractive.

Is Photorealism in Games the Right Direction?

I think that photorealism isn't viable for a small studio like ours, and I'm betting our next title on it. Here's my reasoning for going in the opposite direction:

1. We can't compete on the same footing: The budget for our next title is under $100,000, compared to even the "meager" $10 million that Gears of War received.

2. There are alternatives: Other visual aesthetics are available to us, many of which aren't being investigated by larger studios. Surrealism is one example. Cartoon rendering, less so (as many titles rely on this aesthetic).

3. Some alternatives are viable: The demoscene has produced brilliant, eye-catching displays for years, using small teams. Half Life 2 had "wow" factor, such that experiencing a new vista was, in and of itself, a reward. Watching some of these demoscene productions brings about the same feeling. I think it's that "wow" factor -- not the aesthetic, itself -- that people are looking for.

We'll see in 2007 if I'm right, or if I'm living in a cardboard box. :)

Quote:

---

A GAME HAS TO LOOK LIKE A GAME.

---

Why is that? A game can look however you want.. this is a silly comment.

A Game needs to play like a game,
because thats the point of a game (not some Techdemo)

The gameplay is important,
so the grafix should fit the gameplay.
(like: First person adventure in a "realistic" enviorment ->
photorealistic grafix are good)
In contrast: A sylized strategic economics game:
more simple, and symbolic grafix are enough)