Games and Realism: Part 2 - Untapped Graphical Potential
A bunch of executives are sitting in a room. One of them takes the floor and begins to talk about his new idea to the others.
"The CG-rendered cut scenes in our games have become very popular," he says. "At E3, we just show the people our cut scenes and they go crazy!" Nods and murmurs of approval fill the room. "And the technology of our craft has advanced very far!" the executive says as he eyes the people in room. "In fact..." He then pauses a bit to tease the crowd. "Our CG technology is probably the best the video game world has ever seen!" Light applause fills the room. "So I believe it is time..." he continues, with a finger pointed in the air. "...Time to take our cut scenes to the next level!" Tension fills the room. "Time to show the non-gaming word what we can do!" The anticipation is killing the others in the room. "TIME," he cries, "to take our skills to Hollywood!"
Pandemonium breaks loose. The executives applaud loudly, with whistles and cheers and yelps bringing music to the ear of the speaker. He can taste the enthusiasm of the others.
"The movie we will make," he says to interrupt the approving crowd, "will be called 'Final Fantasy: Spirits Within.' And we will make it look as realistic as possible!!!"
The crowd stands up to give the speaker a rousing ova.........
Okay, okay. Now if this were a movie or a TV show and not just a little blog, this is the part where the people in the meeting room all slow to a crawl and suddenly freeze, with the soundtrack doing the stereotypical slowdown indication of "Eeerrrrrrrr...." And then, the disembodied voice of a narrator would cut in. And it would say:
"Woa! Woa! Woa! Did I just hear right? Did he just say what I thought he said? No, wait wait wait. Let me get this straight. These guys, the makers of the Final Fantasy video game series, the series that has dragons, crystals, air ships, magic spells, meteors, Chocobos, Pugs, Malboros, Moogles, crazy machines, summon monsters, huge landscapes, eerie dungeons, elves, dwarves, and funny little men with blank yellow eyes, no face, and a pointy yellow straw hat... These guys are gonna make a movie that looks as realistic as possible?
Am I missing something here?"
Yup, that's how I would picture it. That's how I would start the movie version of this blog post. I mean, talk about a wasted potential -- the first Final Fantasy movie was made, and even though it was sci-fi, it focused on trying to make everything look and move as realistic as possible. What's the point? Why not go the "Sky Captain" route and just use real actors to perform in front of rendered backgrounds?
Even though Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children was a sequel to one of the worst Final Fantasy games, that movie got it right. The characters in the film looked as lifelike and realistic as possible, sure, but they decided to take advantage of the fact that they were creating an animated film. People practically fly in the movie while fighting in the air. The Akira-inspired motorcycle chase has the camera angle whirling around everywhere during the battles. That would have been a nightmare to film with real people, but with a fully rendered film, it was no problem. That's how you take advantage of your medium, a medium generated entirely from imagination, and show you can use to its full advantage.
But we still had to make it through that first blunder. The Spirits Within was created and I will never understand their decision. The creators of one of the greatest series of fantasy video games made a sci-fi Aliens rip-off that tried to show off how realistic it could make its people look. And given that this decision was made by a bunch of video game executives, it's not shocking, then, that video games themselves are following this trend.
And I'm not going to go the Nintendo route right now. You won't hear a "Graphics don't matter!" cry from me. Because they do. Of course graphics matter! Anyone who says otherwise is selling something. I just find it interesting that, given the amount of muscle these systems will have very soon, we aren't actually pushing the limits of our graphics. I feel like we are just getting better-looking versions of the same ol' things. I don't want to see that. I want to see better looking versions of something completely new.
Last post, I said that I love Capcom fighting games and other 2-D fighting games like Guilty Gear. While I mostly prefer them due to gameplay reasons, I also think they have a better aesthetic to them. I actually think, graphically, they look better than the 3-D games. Sure animation may be somewhat choppy in a game like Guilty Gear, but the things you can accomplish and get away with in a 2-D game are still heads up and above anything I've seen in a 3-D fighting game.
Let's take the Capcom series of DarkStalkers as a good example. The fighters in that game range from robots to zombies to succubi to vampires to mermen to Chinese ghosts to Frankenstein monsters to beings made completely of fire. Not only that, but the characters have the most bizarre styles of attacking, many of them requiring morphing body parts. I have yet to see anything in a 3-D game that even remotely resembles what I see in this game. Let's take a look at an animation of the character called "Lord Raptor":
As you can see, his leg turns into a freakin' chainsaw. This animation shows why I'm not surprised at all that no attempts have been made to make a 3-D version of this game. I'm no 3-D animation expert, but from what I've gleaned from conversations I've had with others, doing something like this doesn't seem trivial. An animation that has a leg morphing into something entirely different is probably not that simple. You'd probably have to hide the chainsaw in the leg at all times with its scale shrunk down to 0%. Then, upon animation of the attack, have it scale from 0% size to 100% size, giving the chainsaw the impression of "growing" out from his leg, rather than his leg just morphing into the chainsaw. And that's not really what the effect should look like.
Let's look at another example. In the classic NES game Mega Man, the first boss you fought in the final stage was a creature known as the Yellow Devil (whom my brother and I affectionately called the "Sunkist Monster," since he looked like a giant orange). In the NES game, his most famous attack is where he breaks into pieces one piece at a time that all individually move to the opposite side of the screen where he reforms by those same pieces. View the below movie by clicking on the picture:
Now, in Mega Man: Powered Up, the remake of the original Mega Man game on the PSP, they had to recreate the Yellow Devil. And how did they do it? By making the Yellow Devil "fade" into a cyclone of swirling pieces that, one by one, travel to the opposite side of the screen into another swirling cyclone before reforming. View a video of this by clicking the picture below (and I completely apologize for the low-budgetness of this clip, given that I literally recorded myself playing my PSP):
Now, is it just me? Or is the original Mega Man version far more impressive? That's a cool idea for an attack, and even though the creature himself is not animated, I think it's a far more effective presentation of what he is trying to do. When I first saw the Yellow Devil in the PSP game, I almost cried. It was such a cop-out. Not being able to see him break apart piece by piece and reforming by those same pieces on the other side felt like such a letdown.
Which brings me to my question of the day: Are you telling me that our 3-D graphical technology is still so far behind that we cannot duplicate a leg morphing into a chainsaw or a creature breaking himself into pieces and reforming somewhere else? We have 8 processors in the damned PS3, so I expect to see some advancements, here! I don't care if your textures are getting better. I don't care if you can use bump-mapping to make surfaces look more accurate. I don't care if you can animate thousands of the same solider on the screen at once. I don't care if the sky looks as real as the sky outside my window. I just want my morphing leg, dammit!
And it's not even just that. With all this processing power, don't you think game makes could come up with more games that really push the imagination? Shouldn't we start expecting games to take full advantage of the fact that video games are purely generated from imagination? Games like Killer 7 (exaggerated shading with skewed viewpoints), Viewtiful Joe (cartoonish, graphic-novel-look with lots of special effects to warp the backgrounds), The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker (colorful, cartoonish, simplistic, and playful look), Feel the Magic (odd single-colored, silhouetted characters with low color counts), and Okami (emulated ancient Chinese paintings) shouldn't be so rare that, when they show up, everyone immediately talks about how different they are (and it's interesting that Capcom is the maker of three of those games I just listed). We should be seeing more games that look like these (click on each picture, all of which I've stolen from IGN, to get a full-sized version):
Who here can honestly tell me that these screenshots don't stand out? Who here can honestly argue against the fact that, even if you don't like the look, there are a lot of style points scored in these screenshots? I mean, for all the presentations given at E3 and all of the tech demos shown to promote graphics, don't you think this looks more like a tech demo than anything else?
We are playing with a medium that allows us to create anything we want. There is no medium out there that has as much visual potential as the video game. Non-animated movies can't do what games can. Graphic novels can't do what games can. Photographs and painting don't have the control over the visuals that a video game has. So why are we still stuck making video games that show us things we can already see in other forms of media?
Before, we've always had technical limitations holding us back. But this next generation of consoles, particularly the 360 and the PS3, should have the muscle to start driving us into uncharted territories. Can you imagine a game that changes its look from cubism to a sketchy look to a cell-shaded look depending on certain conditions of the game (such as different worlds in the game)? Nothing else can provide that kind of dynamic visual control. It's that type of visual excellence I am expecting next generation games to give me. I'm no longer interested in trying to make grass really look like grass. Let's strive for more! Stretch the limits of my imagination. Take my senses for a ride. Show me something I've never seen before.
Maybe then, and only then, will I think you deserve a rousing ovation from everyone in the room.
- James
"The CG-rendered cut scenes in our games have become very popular," he says. "At E3, we just show the people our cut scenes and they go crazy!" Nods and murmurs of approval fill the room. "And the technology of our craft has advanced very far!" the executive says as he eyes the people in room. "In fact..." He then pauses a bit to tease the crowd. "Our CG technology is probably the best the video game world has ever seen!" Light applause fills the room. "So I believe it is time..." he continues, with a finger pointed in the air. "...Time to take our cut scenes to the next level!" Tension fills the room. "Time to show the non-gaming word what we can do!" The anticipation is killing the others in the room. "TIME," he cries, "to take our skills to Hollywood!"
Pandemonium breaks loose. The executives applaud loudly, with whistles and cheers and yelps bringing music to the ear of the speaker. He can taste the enthusiasm of the others.
"The movie we will make," he says to interrupt the approving crowd, "will be called 'Final Fantasy: Spirits Within.' And we will make it look as realistic as possible!!!"
The crowd stands up to give the speaker a rousing ova.........
Okay, okay. Now if this were a movie or a TV show and not just a little blog, this is the part where the people in the meeting room all slow to a crawl and suddenly freeze, with the soundtrack doing the stereotypical slowdown indication of "Eeerrrrrrrr...." And then, the disembodied voice of a narrator would cut in. And it would say:
"Woa! Woa! Woa! Did I just hear right? Did he just say what I thought he said? No, wait wait wait. Let me get this straight. These guys, the makers of the Final Fantasy video game series, the series that has dragons, crystals, air ships, magic spells, meteors, Chocobos, Pugs, Malboros, Moogles, crazy machines, summon monsters, huge landscapes, eerie dungeons, elves, dwarves, and funny little men with blank yellow eyes, no face, and a pointy yellow straw hat... These guys are gonna make a movie that looks as realistic as possible?
Am I missing something here?"
Yup, that's how I would picture it. That's how I would start the movie version of this blog post. I mean, talk about a wasted potential -- the first Final Fantasy movie was made, and even though it was sci-fi, it focused on trying to make everything look and move as realistic as possible. What's the point? Why not go the "Sky Captain" route and just use real actors to perform in front of rendered backgrounds?
Even though Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children was a sequel to one of the worst Final Fantasy games, that movie got it right. The characters in the film looked as lifelike and realistic as possible, sure, but they decided to take advantage of the fact that they were creating an animated film. People practically fly in the movie while fighting in the air. The Akira-inspired motorcycle chase has the camera angle whirling around everywhere during the battles. That would have been a nightmare to film with real people, but with a fully rendered film, it was no problem. That's how you take advantage of your medium, a medium generated entirely from imagination, and show you can use to its full advantage.But we still had to make it through that first blunder. The Spirits Within was created and I will never understand their decision. The creators of one of the greatest series of fantasy video games made a sci-fi Aliens rip-off that tried to show off how realistic it could make its people look. And given that this decision was made by a bunch of video game executives, it's not shocking, then, that video games themselves are following this trend.
And I'm not going to go the Nintendo route right now. You won't hear a "Graphics don't matter!" cry from me. Because they do. Of course graphics matter! Anyone who says otherwise is selling something. I just find it interesting that, given the amount of muscle these systems will have very soon, we aren't actually pushing the limits of our graphics. I feel like we are just getting better-looking versions of the same ol' things. I don't want to see that. I want to see better looking versions of something completely new.
Last post, I said that I love Capcom fighting games and other 2-D fighting games like Guilty Gear. While I mostly prefer them due to gameplay reasons, I also think they have a better aesthetic to them. I actually think, graphically, they look better than the 3-D games. Sure animation may be somewhat choppy in a game like Guilty Gear, but the things you can accomplish and get away with in a 2-D game are still heads up and above anything I've seen in a 3-D fighting game.
Let's take the Capcom series of DarkStalkers as a good example. The fighters in that game range from robots to zombies to succubi to vampires to mermen to Chinese ghosts to Frankenstein monsters to beings made completely of fire. Not only that, but the characters have the most bizarre styles of attacking, many of them requiring morphing body parts. I have yet to see anything in a 3-D game that even remotely resembles what I see in this game. Let's take a look at an animation of the character called "Lord Raptor":
As you can see, his leg turns into a freakin' chainsaw. This animation shows why I'm not surprised at all that no attempts have been made to make a 3-D version of this game. I'm no 3-D animation expert, but from what I've gleaned from conversations I've had with others, doing something like this doesn't seem trivial. An animation that has a leg morphing into something entirely different is probably not that simple. You'd probably have to hide the chainsaw in the leg at all times with its scale shrunk down to 0%. Then, upon animation of the attack, have it scale from 0% size to 100% size, giving the chainsaw the impression of "growing" out from his leg, rather than his leg just morphing into the chainsaw. And that's not really what the effect should look like.Let's look at another example. In the classic NES game Mega Man, the first boss you fought in the final stage was a creature known as the Yellow Devil (whom my brother and I affectionately called the "Sunkist Monster," since he looked like a giant orange). In the NES game, his most famous attack is where he breaks into pieces one piece at a time that all individually move to the opposite side of the screen where he reforms by those same pieces. View the below movie by clicking on the picture:
Now, in Mega Man: Powered Up, the remake of the original Mega Man game on the PSP, they had to recreate the Yellow Devil. And how did they do it? By making the Yellow Devil "fade" into a cyclone of swirling pieces that, one by one, travel to the opposite side of the screen into another swirling cyclone before reforming. View a video of this by clicking the picture below (and I completely apologize for the low-budgetness of this clip, given that I literally recorded myself playing my PSP):
Now, is it just me? Or is the original Mega Man version far more impressive? That's a cool idea for an attack, and even though the creature himself is not animated, I think it's a far more effective presentation of what he is trying to do. When I first saw the Yellow Devil in the PSP game, I almost cried. It was such a cop-out. Not being able to see him break apart piece by piece and reforming by those same pieces on the other side felt like such a letdown.
Which brings me to my question of the day: Are you telling me that our 3-D graphical technology is still so far behind that we cannot duplicate a leg morphing into a chainsaw or a creature breaking himself into pieces and reforming somewhere else? We have 8 processors in the damned PS3, so I expect to see some advancements, here! I don't care if your textures are getting better. I don't care if you can use bump-mapping to make surfaces look more accurate. I don't care if you can animate thousands of the same solider on the screen at once. I don't care if the sky looks as real as the sky outside my window. I just want my morphing leg, dammit!
And it's not even just that. With all this processing power, don't you think game makes could come up with more games that really push the imagination? Shouldn't we start expecting games to take full advantage of the fact that video games are purely generated from imagination? Games like Killer 7 (exaggerated shading with skewed viewpoints), Viewtiful Joe (cartoonish, graphic-novel-look with lots of special effects to warp the backgrounds), The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker (colorful, cartoonish, simplistic, and playful look), Feel the Magic (odd single-colored, silhouetted characters with low color counts), and Okami (emulated ancient Chinese paintings) shouldn't be so rare that, when they show up, everyone immediately talks about how different they are (and it's interesting that Capcom is the maker of three of those games I just listed). We should be seeing more games that look like these (click on each picture, all of which I've stolen from IGN, to get a full-sized version):
Who here can honestly tell me that these screenshots don't stand out? Who here can honestly argue against the fact that, even if you don't like the look, there are a lot of style points scored in these screenshots? I mean, for all the presentations given at E3 and all of the tech demos shown to promote graphics, don't you think this looks more like a tech demo than anything else?
We are playing with a medium that allows us to create anything we want. There is no medium out there that has as much visual potential as the video game. Non-animated movies can't do what games can. Graphic novels can't do what games can. Photographs and painting don't have the control over the visuals that a video game has. So why are we still stuck making video games that show us things we can already see in other forms of media?
Before, we've always had technical limitations holding us back. But this next generation of consoles, particularly the 360 and the PS3, should have the muscle to start driving us into uncharted territories. Can you imagine a game that changes its look from cubism to a sketchy look to a cell-shaded look depending on certain conditions of the game (such as different worlds in the game)? Nothing else can provide that kind of dynamic visual control. It's that type of visual excellence I am expecting next generation games to give me. I'm no longer interested in trying to make grass really look like grass. Let's strive for more! Stretch the limits of my imagination. Take my senses for a ride. Show me something I've never seen before.
Maybe then, and only then, will I think you deserve a rousing ovation from everyone in the room.
- James
posted by jchensor at
3:31 AM
8 Comments:
Gosh, you know, I gotta disagree with you on this - ironic since I've written an article that overlaps some of the topics you bring up. None of those games you mention (Killer 7, Wind Waker, Viewtiful Joe, Okami, Feel the Magic, etc.) are particularly successful (okay that's not entirely true; Wind Waker sold about 2 million copies in NA - a fantastic number, but about 1/3 of what Ocarina of Time sold). Games are a business, and unlike movies or other forms of media there aren't investors breaking the doors down, willing to throw money away on something that will not make them a return on their investment. The reason you do not see more games that explore more esoteric endeavors is because not enough people buy them, not because there's some strange innate industry hate for 2d graphics.
Plus, you've attributed a value to things like legs morphinig into chainsaws and bosses splitting themselves into pieces that are pretty hard to quantify, as they are entirely subjective. I think that unquestionably, things are possible in 2d that are impossible in 3d and vice versa; it's up to the public, ultimately, to decide if the tradeoffs are worth it.
By
omar kendall, at 9:01 AM
I think I agree with both James and Omar.
James, what about the Rock boss in the first Metroid Prime? He did that whole falling apart and piecing together thing (actually very much like the Rock creature from that Galaxy Quest movie). This should've been the way that Sunkist boss did his thing. But I guess the developers just opted for the easy way out.
Omar, part of this problem is budgets and the whole business mentality. Hopefully, with something like what Nintendo are trying to do with the Wii, development methods and restrictions can change. Nintendo have emphasised how the Wii will be very easy to develop for (3 people in 3 months could make a game apparently). And with the Download Service they are offering, the packaging & retail costs are completely removed. Not to mention having no publisher telling you how your game should be made too. This should help against this problem, and maybe we'll start to see more games that push the envelope of creativity and imagination.
Although I don't want to appear like Nintendo fanboy, they really have showed they are trying to do things right this time round. Although I think the 360 will allow for a similar cheaper development environment (with XBLA), it just doesn't have the innovation that Nintendo has (and besides, it really looks like Nintendo are going to clean up next gen). Still, I'm looking forward to more games like Geometry Wars on the 360 :).
By
Anonymous, at 4:57 PM
Technology is still a huge limiting factor.
Drawing a sword costs about the same as drawing a leg. The cost in 2D animation is per-frame, what's in the frame doesn't matter that much.
In 3D animation the cost is in the modelling and defining the animations, not per-frame. To make Raptor's leg into a chainsaw someone has to model that chainsaw. When Anakaris turns you into child they would have to model a child.
The overhead in 3D is in the number of unique objects you have.
The reason you don't see games doing thinks like DS did is that the technology just isn't there - to do what you can do in 2D requires far more resources.
James M
By
Anonymous, at 6:34 PM
Actually, you are correct, Omar. My post is completely ignoring profitability and, as all businesses will tell you, money speaks louder than anything else.
But I think it's because it's just not mainstream nor accepted yet, as playing to win hints at. I always joke that if I ever made video games, none of them would sell a lick. But I would like to see games shift towards being profitable and artsy. So I guess I'm trying to find ways to make games more artistic, not to make them make more money. I'm sure that will invalidate most of my arguments and complaints in the eyes of many who know how the real world works, but I think slowly but surely people can work their artistry into mainstream games.
Maybe I'll exapnd on this in a later post, but a good example is in The Sims like you mentioned in your post. That is a very unusal game, and one of the highest selling games in PC history. The level of abstraction that gamepresents isalmost genius from an artistic standpoint (this goes beyond just graphics, of course). Maxis could have gone many routes, but I think the route they chose contributed to its appeal. I haven't touched the sequels, but the first game definitely had a deliberate style and artistry to it.
So I think we can sneak it in there if done correctly. It's just that people aren't tempted to try. Hopefully, there will be a market for independent gaming that could possibly change how it's going. It'd be nice to have room for both the blockbusters and the indies.
- James
By
jchensor, at 7:11 PM
"The reason you don't see games doing thinks like DS did is that the technology just isn't there - to do what you can do in 2D requires far more resources."
Yeah, I figured that much from the conversations I have with guys like Derek Daniels. Which is why as the machines get more powerful, my expectations increase. I would love to see if the increased hardware of consoles can start to allow people to do those kinds of things.
Oh, and playing to win: Idon't recall the rock monster too much, but I do remember him breaking into pieces and such. I'm sure if the MM:PU guys really wanted to, they could have found a way to do it. But I think they did take the easier way out. But as James M implies, doing it in 3-D would be really expensive. One Yellow Devil would be made out of, probably, 30 individually animated parts: the entire product put togehter, every part to break away from the guy, and every piece in transit. Probably too hard to program properly with the current generation of systems.
- James
By
jchensor, at 7:16 PM
I agree with you for the most part, James, but I do think 3D games are getting closer to the sort of aesthetic that you're looking for.
I'm thinking of the Naruto fighting games for the Gamecube. One of the characters, Kimimaro, is a sort of dinosaur-man whose bones extend from his skin. He has a super where he sends the bones underground and they hit the opponent from underneath (there's a glitch to make this unblockable, but that's for another time), another move where he pulls out a bone and repeatedly stabs you with it, etc.
Some of the other character designs are quite creative as well, and most of the supers are visually impressive.
Just some food for thought...
-Josh
By
Anonymous, at 11:06 PM
Your Raptor leg example is doable in 3D games with vertex animation. It has been doable, but the amount of memory and the bandwidth it takes make it not ideal for PS2 generation. It is possible that we just might see some vertex animation in PS3 generation, but I doubt it.
American game players generally HATE NPR (non photo realistic) games, with exceptions of Blizzard games. It's risky for publishers to fund such projects. You gotta remember that America-made games are developed with targeted towards North America and European market, but not Asia (with exceptions of Blizzard games). Only Japanese publishers would allow NPR games because Japanese game players accept them better.
Also today's hardwares are optimized for high res 3D graphics, not high res 2D (720p/1080p). Don't expect high res 2D fighting games cuz there won't be any.
- Hyun
By
Anonymous, at 1:59 AM
The power of the machines is not really the issue. It's a tooling problem mostly.
To make Raptor sprout a chainsaw someone has to model and texture a chainsaw. To have Raptor turn his opponent into a basketball and dunk him someone has to model and texture a basketball, a net, etc. That's a lot of work for one move.
Same with Q-Bee whipping out a giant beehive, a big snake coming out of Anakaris' arm, etc.
The actual technology is not a problem. Just model a chainsaw and when the proper time comes stick it on the end of Raptor's leg, then hide it again. It's really not that difficult. The difficulty is in creating the chainsaw - creating the model, the texture coordinates, creating the blade animation, creating the texture, etc etc.
I think to a some degree this will always be an issue because 2d and 3d games are just put together differently.
Thing of it this way: 2d games are like drawing, and 3d games are like modelling with clay. Once you've modelled a giant dragon in clay getting it to flap it's wings is pretty easy, but once you've drawn a giant dragon if you want it's wings to flap you just have to draw them over again.
On the other hand, it you want your giant dragon to change into a snake you can just draw a snake. With clay you have to model a whole damn snake.
It's the same with CGI vs. animation. To make the T-1000 in T2 they had to spend a ton of time and money on all the morphing, whereas in animation someone could have just drawn it.
What is comes down to is drawing something really complex is a lot easier than modelling something really complex. Drawing 10,000 frames of something complex vs. modelling it once and then animating it - modelling is probably the way to go there.
But modelling something complex only to use it for 3 seconds of animation? It's just not a good way to spend resources.
By
Anonymous, at 11:02 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home