But that's the thing - "needs to get" suggests that one is settling for less. The Uncharted characters are excellently rendered and acted puppets, but they're still clearly CG characters. I guess my problem is, really, what you say about the impossibility of mimicking life perfectly. My reasoning is that if it's impossible to imitate life, don't attempt to imitate it at all. (I'm also not entirely sure I see a lot of value in pulling off a successful imitation, either.)Originally Posted by Loony BoB
It may not be perfect, but I will say that in Uncharted 2, I never once questioned the 'acting' of the characters. I think they're on their way to getting as close as a video game needs to get. As for 'close-up' bits, I'd say FFXIII did very well indeed. Obviously real-life actors will always be better - it's impossible for an imitation of life to be better than life itself. But you get the idea.
What logic do you think I'm using here? I said that CG actors can never replace real actors. I never said anything about halting progress when it comes to graphics. My problem is that not only are developers reaching towards a pointless goal (turning their characters into actors) but that they are over-reaching and falling completely short. Heavy Rain is a good example and so is Mass Effect 2. It's one thing to attempt to create realistic looking NPCs, but it's another thing to create them in hopes of getting the audience to sympathize with or be moved by them.
Gaming is not a less legit form of entertainment. I said it's "low", as in it's trying to mimic things that are done in a superior way by another medium (not a superior medium, mind you). In this case (and it's always been the case) - film. Sure L.A. Noire looks great, but I still don't see the value in attempting to render photo-realistic characters. Is that what art designers should be striving for? To finally, one day, fool people into thinking something is real? Even though films can already do this (with no fooling involved, since actors are real)? You might find my denial of "endless" technological possibilities depressing, but I find it equally depressing that so much money, creativity, and man-power is constantly being poured into something that will never not be an imitation.Why? Why is gaming any less a legit form of entertainment than, say, films, or tv shows? Or animated film to use a perfect example? Or do those fall short of your "high forms of entertainment" list as well? I do agree that there's a long way to go, but I find your denial of endless technological posibilities through human ingenuity depressing.
(Looking back on it, I probably should have provided a definition for my use of the word 'low'. I guess coat-tail riding, or copying, etc.)
My thoughts are that it's a great looking cartoon, but I was never convinced that they were real. They're also blue and don't look like actual humans, so this generally isn't a problem for me. My issue is in regards to when humans are rendered unconvincingly. Even when it's eventually done in a completely Valley-less way, I'll still wonder why it's in any way better than a real actor. The perfectly-rendered human will no doubt come from a very skilled graphic artist - but, as far as gaming goes, I dislike how so much effort is being put forth to make a game look like a real life simulator.
Hope this answers everyone's questions. It's entirely possible that I am the only person around here who is completely put off by this.
Reply With Quote