If it looks like a wall, it must be a wall, surely...

[Squirtle]

...Or, The problems with photo realism (IMO, of course).

These thoughts have been gestating in me since E3 (actually probably before then, probably since i played the first Red Faction and GT3) so they may ramble but bear with me...

So, if it looks like a wall, it must be a wall, yes? The closer we get to depicting real world objects, the better they look with all their bump mapping, vertex shading, tri-linear filtering etc etc, the more obvious it becomes we are playing a virtual construct.

A real wall, hit by a rocket propelled grenade would explode all over the place. Except if that wall is in any FPS you care to name (RF1+2 excluded -as long as that bit of wall has been designated as destructible) then that piece of beautiful constructed scenery is as rock solid, as impervious to damage, as completey immovable as...as... as Superman in a lead suit of armour with a titanium cod piece. That wall ain't going nowehere.

And this all came to a head in my thoughts after watching the GT4/HL2 videos.

Take HL2. You can pick stuff up and throw it, bodies crumple, mattresses fold, but... Take the scene with the radiator you can pick up and fling up the stairs to take out some soldiers. As far as i can tell, it does nothing to the wall behind it. Not a bump, not a chip in the plaster. Nothing. Play in this world, believe its real, but don't try and destroy what we say you can't. It just ain't gonna happen.

GT4. Lovely, shiny cars, gorgeous trackside detail (ignoring the 2d crowds - again ), immaculate handling, rock solid lead bunting at the edges of the track. Roadside hoarding as immovable as the mountain when Muhammed went there.

The closer we get, the more we see just how far there is to go, and the more these glaringly obvious constructed worlds jar us from our immersion in the game.

3D beat em ups suffer the same. SC2, VF4, DOA3, Tekken 4 - all sumptuous looking games, all featuring back breaking moves, all doing nary a piece of damage to the combatants.

The closer we get...

Games like Primal, Silent Hill3, Resident Evil + Zero, PGR, Amped, Halo etc etc...

The closer we get...

Any beautifuuly rendered, photo realistic enemy in any game you care to mention who sees his mate shot by your sniper rifle right next to him, and calmly turns and walks away. Or at the other end of the spectrum, any enemy that can tell where you are even though it was physically impossible for them to see you in the first place shows us that we are playing a game.

The closer we get...

So i ask, should games be striving for this real world perfection? Is it something that we want? It's something when HL2 gets game of the show at E3, and yet...

Well, I don't know the answer to this question. Obviously games designers like to make their games as good looking as possible, but does this end up spoiling the game, rather than something like GTA3, blatantly unrealistic looking, yet loved by many because from the outset you know you're playing a game.

Hmm...

What do you think?

[Saurian]

Beat em ups like Soul Calibur and VF are hyper realistic - I wouldnt never want to play a beat em up where if I have an arm break performed on me I cannot use that arm again. Games like this are just that - games - they play like a very fast and dynamic chess a battle of wits between 2 people. VF is realistic in the way the martial arts are depicted but the game system is deep enough without having to resort to realism.

I feel developers who are obsessed with realism are wasting their time - how realistic is Daytona? F-Zero or Ridge Racer? Not very, but they are sublime - Psyvariar is one of my favourite games, totally abstract and totally addictive. I want to play GAMES, not boring simulations.

[optimusomega]

Realsim can be very limiting IMO. I mean what games can you honestly say are 'realistic' (graphics aside) apart from flight sims on a pc

[mid]

Its a wall, it looks like a wall, just like all the others, right?

No, press "action" against this wall or you won't get into the secret area.

The more games get complicated, the more you're assumed to understand "Game Logic". The more games look like the real world, the more we expect them to follow real-world logic.

Why, if I'm bleeding, is picking some herbs going to help, eh?

Why, when faced with a wooden door, do I need to go on a quest for a key (which is bound to be with whichever monster is the biggest) when there is a perfectly good flaming torch there on the wall?

[Canton Province]

Beat em ups like Soul Calibur and VF are hyper realistic - I wouldnt never want to play a beat em up where if I have an arm break performed on me I cannot use that arm again. Games like this are just that - games - they play like a very fast and dynamic chess a battle of wits between 2 people. VF is realistic in the way the martial arts are depicted but the game system is deep enough without having to resort to realism.

I feel developers who are obsessed with realism are wasting their time - how realistic is Daytona? F-Zero or Ridge Racer? Not very, but they are sublime - Psyvariar is one of my favourite games, totally abstract and totally addictive. I want to play GAMES, not boring simulations.

Yeah...also, certain elements of realism need to be restricted to create a gaming environment, and others, need to be hyped. Its true though, the closer it gets to realism, the more boring it tends to become.

[El Geet]

The more games look like the real world, the more we expect them to follow real-world logic.

That's exactly the point. I'd imagine that one day we will see accurately protrayed real world environments with every object and action reacting in an accurate way with the environment.

To some this is seen as the Holy Grail...to others this is seen as a stifling of creativity. I think that that kind of interaction is perfect for FPS type games as, let's face it, most of that genre strives for realism.

Once we have a game that manages to replicate real world physics exactly there will be very little looking back...for better or for worse.

[Squirtle]

Beat em ups like Soul Calibur and VF are hyper realistic - I wouldnt never want to play a beat em up where if I have an arm break performed on me I cannot use that arm again. Games like this are just that - games - they play like a very fast and dynamic chess a battle of wits between 2 people. VF is realistic in the way the martial arts are depicted but the game system is deep enough without having to resort to realism.

I feel developers who are obsessed with realism are wasting their time - how realistic is Daytona? F-Zero or Ridge Racer? Not very, but they are sublime - Psyvariar is one of my favourite games, totally abstract and totally addictive. I want to play GAMES, not boring simulations.

Ask yourself if you'd be happy playing a beat-em-up of VF4evo'd depth but with graphics like Vib ribbon?

[Saurian]

Graphics mean absolutely nothing man - it's difficult to make a game look truly basic now. Look at Psyvariar on the PS2 - it's one of the best games on the machine, yet it's visuals are VERY simple. The graphics of Evo are not important, they look beautiful but it's beyond the point - you are playing the system not the graphics. A good example is to play the game with the VF1 character models and backgrounds - it still roxx exactly the same. You can make characters look alive now, but that still doesnt make any difference to the player - the game system is what keeps people coming back.

Initial D is another good example of hyper realistic. Even tho the car handling is pretty realistic you can perform skills that are detailed in the anime with absolute ease, due to this it's wipes the floor with realistic games like F355 for sheer fun!

I dont want games to look realistic - I much prefer artistic, like Viewtiful Joe.

[Garibaldi Biscuit]

Unfortunatly the level of realism you speak of would take an immense ammount of programming time Squirtle, something Publishers wouldn't be very understanding of, plus the ammount of money in perfecting such an engine to show all these effects would be pretty steep - hence we are going to see it advance in small ways, with Devs who can afford the money due to past successes, your example of Half-Life2's physics being a prime candidate.

Saurien does have a point, it takes enough effort to merely make a game which is fun to play without worrying about the effect that bullet A is going to have on wall C. We stand a risk of people becoming lost in the technology again, as the slew of FPS's after the original Doom demonstrated, and not realising that Doom was such a success because atmosphere, level design, and sheer excitement carried the graphics engine, not the other way around.

[Squirtle]

I think people have slightly misunderstood where I'm coming from.

First of all, I applaud people like Saurian who play games for the depth they offer irrespective of what they look like. Hats off to you, sir.

I think the point I was trying to get at was why include things in games that stick out like a sore thumb from the rest of the game? Immovable bunting, walls that are indestructible etc.

As someone else said, real world realism is seen by some as the Holy Grail of gaming, but should it be? I'm not so sure?

And whilst we're stuck in this middle ground at the moment, I'm getting more and more annoyed by the jarring elements in games.

Currently enjoying SH3, but why, down in the train station, can i climb back on to the platform, a height of a couple of feet, yet not climb over the barrier that separates the tracks which is about half a foot high?

Do you see what I'm getting at?

[Saurian]

OMG yes! - I see what you are getting at!

There are some glaring examples of this in so many games and I feel your pain! On role playing games this can be forgiven but on action games it's a problem.

[MonkeyWrench]

Take HL2. You can pick stuff up and throw it, bodies crumple, mattresses fold, but... Take the scene with the radiator you can pick up and fling up the stairs to take out some soldiers. As far as i can tell, it does nothing to the wall behind it. Not a bump, not a chip in the plaster. Nothing. Play in this world, believe its real, but don't try and destroy what we say you can't. It just ain't gonna happen.

Doesn't it fly into a drinks machine and smash the door open, leaving the cans to fall out and roll down the stairs? I'd say that's a pretty good example of realistic scenery interaction

Though I do see where you are coming from, but I think it's just a matter of limited time and resources. Could you imagine the abount of work that would have to go in to a game to cover all possibilities of what the player might do if they had free reign across the game world?

[Squirtle]

Take HL2. You can pick stuff up and throw it, bodies crumple, mattresses fold, but... Take the scene with the radiator you can pick up and fling up the stairs to take out some soldiers. As far as i can tell, it does nothing to the wall behind it. Not a bump, not a chip in the plaster. Nothing. Play in this world, believe its real, but don't try and destroy what we say you can't. It just ain't gonna happen.

Doesn't it fly into a drinks machine and smash the door open, leaving the cans to fall out and roll down the stairs? I'd say that's a pretty good example of realistic scenery interaction

Though I do see where you are coming from, but I think it's just a matter of limited time and resources. Could you imagine the abount of work that would have to go in to a game to cover all possibilities of what the player might do if they had free reign across the game world?

Surely that's where good game design comes in?

Oh, and it may hit the drinks machine actually. It's been a while since i saw them vids. I remember thinking what I outlined above though whilst watching them, though.

[MonkeyWrench]

It's not part of the game's design, it plays no role in the gameplay mechanics at all, it's just a nice little set piece (now if it was a game about throwing radiators into drinks machines then it would be...hey it might happen! Actually isn't that one of the games in Wario Ware ). Like I said if you had the time and resources you could do something like that to ever object in the game, which it looks like Valve has actually done with HL2 thanks to the Havoc physics engine, but you need those indestructable walls and invisible barriers to guide the player through the story or else the game would end up very confusing and most probably extremely dull.

[Lebowski]

being shoe horned into a level is one of the things that anoy me in a game, resident evil is legendery for doing this, the place is full of zombies yet they would rather wander around looking for a key or some jewel than stick the boot in and open the door. Could you imagane a game that let you do that it would totaly confuse you because it dosent sit with gameing convention

I think the problem is that a lot of games have to many cliches exploding barrels pushing crates lava levels ect. dont flame me but ico bowed to cliche a bit with its crate pushing bit, but you never felt like you were being pushed along and everyware seemed reachable because of the scale of the levels, i rember geting stuck on the first bit not realising you could climb out of that window and that totaly amazed me because i diddent expect it.

i think the thing your trying to say is that cliche still seems to be rife in games that are selling themselves as being realistic look at splinter cell if you want a recent example of some of these cliches because this game is full of them.