I think we still have a long way to go, even though graphics are getting close to photorealistic. One big problem is the way objects and lighting etc are calculated. I don''t think we''ll have perfectly photorealistic rendering until we stop using the diffuse/specular/ambient lighting model hack and stop using polygons to represent objects (why use polygons anyways when you''re using so many that each one is less than a pixel big on average... might as well use voxels or something like that).
While to you, a cartoony (or other non-photorealistic rendering method) might look best for a fantasy setting, I would prefer photorealism for any type of game. If I''m fighting a dragon, I want it to look realistic(since fantasy dragons never existed), and I want the ground it stands on to look real. I want my sword to gleam just right in the setting sun and I want my armor to look real and blind people with its reflection when they try to shoot me from far away.
I do agree that some game styles are best done in 2D (or a 3D world with movement restricted along one axis with a fixed camera), but I think even those games would be better with realistic images. Just think how cool the old school classics would be with realistic images. Instead of a really bad looking space ship, you could see every window on it and watch as the light of the ''slow-light lasers'' zoom by and light up your hull etc.
----------
Almost typo-ified using Extrarius'' AUTOMATIC Typo Generator, but I decided to be nice =-)
Graphical sophistication is bounded
Even though you think that the photo realistic graphics will be capable there will be able to create graphics that is better by making the movements more realistic the textures and the way they are effected by the enviroment and just make them plain better.
The day we can''t excell in graphics anymore will be the best day in videogame history. From that day forward game developers will actually have to do thier job and not only make games graphics but work on gameplay also this will be a time of genre breaking and creating something new. like back in the olden days of nintendo. When you dont put boundries on someone they dont push to get out.
OoMMMoO
OoMMMoO
quote:Original post by SpittingTrashcan
Overall, I guess the point I''m trying to make is that at some point, better graphics alone will not sell a game. For example, there are many many FPSes currently available which sell chiefly based on their improved graphics. There will come a time when the graphics get about as good as they possibly can. I''m saying that time is not far away, and that we as developers should plan for it by placing more weight on features other than graphical sophistication.
I think that on some level everyone connected with the video game industry is both aware and supportive of this observation, but commercial participants are burdened with the pressure for profitability (you can''t tell your shareholders, if you''re a publicly held firm, that your game didn''t sell because you eschewed mere graphical advancements in favor of experimenting with new models of emotional content and so forth). I''m stating the obvious here, but it''s sometimes necessary to reiterate things to keep it fresh on our minds (before people start bashing "all the game companies out there").
That said, I particularly find the efforts at formalizing game design by formulating a common, standard vocabulary, identifying patterns and so on very heartening. I also think that there is an on-going broadening of implementational assumptions, such as the decision to cel-shade Splinter Cell (using unconventional graphical technology within a genre to homogenize the gamer experience, which is A Good Thing™. I''ve read a few articles from Warren Specter and Will Wright, as well as perused the columns on game design in Game Developer Magazine and at GamaSutra, and am quite impressed by what I see. I think the public, including those of us who consider ourselves amateur or hobbyist game developers, are less aware of these efforts because they are still in their infancy and haven''t begun to affect the content we see on store shelves in a major way.
What am I saying? I think that this discussion is very fruitful, but what I would like to see is more dissemination of these formal tools and constructs in the amateur community to raise the level of discourse and design, as well as the development and adoption of more (low-cost) high-level tools to facilitate prototyping and exploratory/experimental design.
quote:You can''t have "civilization" without "civil".
Nor "civil war."
Graphics will always be a selling point to some extent, even when true photorealism is achieved, however, the selling point will mainly be artistic, not technological. In photorealistic terms this means that attractive or interesting looking "human" characters and interesting environments will sell the game, kind of in the same way specific actors can sell movies.
Although the wow factor that graphics generate will drop dramatically in the next 10 years and will probably not be an issue in the next 20 years, other things like the most realistic AI and most believable characters will take it''s place. Whether or not that''s a good thing or a bad thing is up to you. A lot of people here seem to want "simple" games like in the "good old days." Photorealistic graphics, animation and physics are not conducive to that.
I believe that once we get to that point either games will all be produced only by a few major studios with staffs similar to effects companies (because the art requirements will be ridiculous) or games will be made mostly out of liscensed material. That is, there will be companies dedicated to making parts of a rendering, parts of the physics, parts of the AI, specific characters, environments, etc. To build a game you would either liscense an engine, write your own, or mix and match, like things are nowadays. Once you have your enging you would also liscense a lot of the content. Characters, environments, etc. are all liscensed. The job of the game developer is to take all the liscened material and build a game out of it. This could either help or hurt the industry. Either we get a bunch of games that all look and play the same, or we get better gameplay because companies no longer have to focus on technology. My guess is both will happen.
Although the wow factor that graphics generate will drop dramatically in the next 10 years and will probably not be an issue in the next 20 years, other things like the most realistic AI and most believable characters will take it''s place. Whether or not that''s a good thing or a bad thing is up to you. A lot of people here seem to want "simple" games like in the "good old days." Photorealistic graphics, animation and physics are not conducive to that.
I believe that once we get to that point either games will all be produced only by a few major studios with staffs similar to effects companies (because the art requirements will be ridiculous) or games will be made mostly out of liscensed material. That is, there will be companies dedicated to making parts of a rendering, parts of the physics, parts of the AI, specific characters, environments, etc. To build a game you would either liscense an engine, write your own, or mix and match, like things are nowadays. Once you have your enging you would also liscense a lot of the content. Characters, environments, etc. are all liscensed. The job of the game developer is to take all the liscened material and build a game out of it. This could either help or hurt the industry. Either we get a bunch of games that all look and play the same, or we get better gameplay because companies no longer have to focus on technology. My guess is both will happen.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement