Video games have evolved in parallel with the explosive innovation of computer hardware. With more powerful hardware than ever before we are seeing games that push the limits of the video game format in many different directions. This has lead to enormous advances in the amount of content a game can support, online connectivity and in graphical capabilities. These innovations have undoubtedly helped drive video games into the massive entertainment industry it is today. It has also allowed creative game designers the power to create brand new experiences and genres. The leap in graphic capabilities make it possible to create vast and impressive worlds.
The technological push to improve video games has had an enormous positive impact on the industry. There is however, one area where technology is currently supporting a trend that in my opinion is damaging to video games.
The current generation of video game consoles is the first to be HD capable. This has lead to an enormous leap in graphic capability. While high definition makes it possible to create more stunning worlds than ever before it has also opened a pitfall that is seemingly trapping many developers and gamers alike.
The trend towards 'realistic' graphics in video games is taking video game designs down a dead end. Many games focus a great deal of resources on making their graphics as lifelike as possible. This trend is not new as games have been hailed for their realistic environments for several generations. The shift we see with High Definition however is that for the first time games can claim to approach photo-realism.
For some gamers, photo-realism is the ultimate goal of the industry. As more and more graphically impressive games are released they enthusiastically cheer on the lifelike graphics, or the destructible environments. It is not uncommon in the industry to equate graphic quality with the quality of the game.
There is nothing wrong with enjoying good quality visuals for your games, after all what separates video games from other games is the 'video' part and graphics will always be important for these games. The problem with the current trend towards incredibly lifelike games however, is that photo-realistic graphics will be compared against unbeatable competition. The more a game tries to look like the real world, the more it will be compared to what we see every day, and the more odd and awkward it will look.
It is not uncommon today to hear gamers praise graphics as extremely lifelike. When I hear these comments and see the games they are referring to I have to wonder if they live up to the stereotype gamers that never leave their house. So far, there has not been a video game that has been able to render something as basic as a running human convincingly. Despite the hundreds and hundreds of games that center heavily around this concept, no one has been able to make it look remotely natural. Sure, there is amazing detail in the models, they are probably motion tracked to move their arms as they run etc, but nothing has ever come close to looking realistic.
When looking at an actual person running, every single step is unique. Depending on countless variables like the surface, how tired the person is, the incline and a myriads of other vectors, each step will be a natural result of all of these tiny factors. When seeing the same thing in even the most advanced video game, there is none of this dynamic. People glide across the terrain without really interacting with it. Floating along as if they are suspended a fraction of an inch above ground. This is painfully obvious when the character makes any sudden turns. The complicated transfer of balance that is required in the real world is simplified into what most often looks like robots without mass just altering course.
In a stylized game world this is not going to be a problem. The graphics will not be compared to any real world counterpart. They are free to stand on their own merit. When Mario and Luigi set off yet again to save Princess Peach gamers are quite literally taken to a different world. The bubbly cartoon look of the Mushroom kingdom will never look remotely like anything you'd reasonably expect to see in nature. As a result, simplistic movement models, a peculiar physics model and all other design choices fit into the game world. When Mario changes direction in mid air it fits into the game world, in a realistic looking Mario game this would appear incredibly awkward.
Still, we are not at the endpoint of graphics development and games and movies will develop more and more refined tools to model the world around us. At some point in the future maybe some developers will create models that simulate all the different bones in a human foot and leg so they can render much more realistic movement. They might even create models where every pebble on your path is an individual object you can interact with. Even in this perfectly modeled world there is still one seemingly unsurmountable hurdle left for realistic looking graphics to pass.
Researchers working on creating life like robots stumbled across an interesting discovery. The more humanoid a robot looks, the more attached to it people will feel. By giving the robot arms, a recognizable face etc. people start to think the robot is cute and likable. This holds true only up to a certain point. When the robots become too life like the opposite occurs; humans reject them and find them creepy. The tipping point is when the robot looks so lifelike that the mind automatically compares it to other human beings. From this point of view people no longer marvel at all the things that are very similar to the real thing, they start noticing all the things that are not quite right.
This symptom is already appearing in video games. While most games have yet to reach the point where the human characters are that realistic, we are fast approaching it. Even though it is less profound, we are already seeing this effect in very detailed environments. When a modern game renders a highly realistic forest scene for example it is becoming difficult not to notice how unconvincing the scene really looks. The underbrush is usually lacking, the trees are missing the occasional deformed or splintered trunks, the surfaces surprisingly uniform, etc. Video games might be able to sell this 'photo realistic' interpretation to gamers who has never been in a real forest, but hopefully this will remain a very tiny segment of the market.
All this does not mean that game developers should just reject progress. Making video games look better will only strengthen the industry even further. In my opinion though, too many developers today sink way to much of their resources into the bottomless rabbit hole of 'perfect graphics'. Understanding that graphics will never be able to convincingly represent a real world scene and instead focus more energy on developing new and improved game experiences would drive video games much further ahead.
Sign up here with your email
ConversionConversion EmoticonEmoticon