"The Uncanny Valley"

[AstroBlue]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102086

Interesting.

[Agent X]

That's a very good article. It offers a lot of insight into why attempting "extreme" realism isn't always desirable. Here's a good quote from the article:

Comic-strip artists have known this for years. As comic-book theorist Scott McCloud points out, we identify more deeply with simply drawn cartoon characters, like those in Peanuts, than with more realistic ones. Charlie Brown doesn't trigger our obsession with the missing details the way a not-quite-photorealistic character does, so we project ourselves onto him more easily. That's part of the genius behind modernist artists such as Picasso or Matisse. They realized that the best way to capture the essence of a person or object was with a single, broad-stroked detail.

It's interesting, because this isn't generally something I would think about, but it made a lot of sense when I read it.

[NeoZeedeater]

Very interesting article. I had thought about the creep-out factor of androids before but not of CG.

[Captain Vegetable]

I, actually, used to HATE (I mean hate, like with a white-hot firey fury of a passion) realistic graphics. I like whimsy, I like stylism, and I like an extremely unrealistic look and feel. Not because I used to nitpick at the "missing 1%," but because I just liked the unrealism much, much better.

Riddick, however, has changed all that. The graphics are remarkable in the realism department. Call me a convert.

Alias, however, looks like shit compared to Riddick. Well, to be honest, it looks like shit even without being compared to Riddick. This guy could have picked a MUCH more suitable game to write this article on. Like, well Riddick. However, had he done so, I feel as though his premise would have been shot to shit.

[Error]

I'd agree that i notice more things wrong with human characters than i do with anything else in a game. nice to see it named. Maybe this is why I couldnt stand Mortal Kombat's digitized graphics, and preferred Street Fighter 2's animated ones.

[AstroBlue]

I've always thought that Auron from FFX was really realistic. After reading that article I understand why: his eyes were partially hidden by his sunnies, and his mouth was partially hidden by his samurai collar.

[Diff-chan]

Riddick, however, has changed all that. The graphics are remarkable in the realism department. Call me a convert.

Alias, however, looks like shit compared to Riddick. Well, to be honest, it looks like shit even without being compared to Riddick. This guy could have picked a MUCH more suitable game to write this article on. Like, well Riddick. However, had he done so, I feel as though his premise would have been shot to shit.

His premise would not have been shot to shit. He listed recent games like RE Outbreak and Everything or Nothing. Besides, how many games out there look like Riddick?

Also how easy is it to tell when a human is rendered? Incredibly so. Just look at the 100 Smiths scene in Reloaded. He's absolutely right.

I doubt Riddick nails realism as much as it presents a cohesive whole.

[Captain Vegetable]

Now there's something I can agree with, Astro. Lipsynching is a joke in the VG industry, and it does a LOT to affect my view of any given character. I HATE bad lipsynching.

Eyes not so much, but they, too, can be an integral part of the "humanness" of any given VG character.

His premise would not have been shot to shit. He listed recent games like RE Outbreak and Everything or Nothing. Besides, how many games out there look like Riddick?

Also how easy is it to tell when a human is rendered? Incredibly so. Just look at the 100 Smiths scene in Reloaded. He's absolutely right.

I doubt Riddick nails realism as much as it presents a cohesive whole.

Yeah, I suppose you're right. Riddick still manages to fuck up the lipsynching and eye movement, so his point would not have been lost.

[FuryFox]

This happens all the time. Even in artistic terms, the closer something resembles photo-realism/real life, the more likely you are to notice what is "incorrect". Take an abstract sculpture of a figure, and it can be almost anything and its message remains intact. Take a perfectly-proportioned bronze, and the first thing you'll see is how the angle of the jaw is slightly askew despite everything else being perfect. I think this is why developing a particular style to communicate your imagery is so important, so things are compared and rated within their own perspective, and not constantly gauged against reality.

Likewise, the animation of say, a sprite like Alucard, can get away with all sorts of oddness, but any of the poorly done animations in VF4 stick out against their own standard of realism. I don't mind watching a 3-frame anime portrait of a character talk along with a text box, but watching and hearing a 3D model speak can be painful if the lip-synching is off and the voice acting is bad.

Granted, it's not a hard rule. 3D characters have reached superior and convincing levels, and you notice when an anime, for instance, enters into the "budget" section of the show. I think it has more to do with consistency within the work than an "uncanny valley". If your character is pushing 500,000 polys with normal mapping and all that, but is still animated like a PS1 character, someone's going to notice.

[Victrix]

A slight departure, but 'realistic' anything has never, ever, ever been a draw for me in a game. Why would it be?

Some 'realistic' games (be it art, design, whatever) are good. But they aren't good because of the realistic bits. They're good because they're good games.

Realism for its own sake in games drives me absolutely nuts.

It's also the last, worst, and weakest argument used by someone when trying to present some argument about some aspect of gameplay in a game :/