Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The Uncanny Valley: Give It Up Already
Jeff Tunnell, co-founder of Dynamix and GarageGames, designer and producer of about a bajillion critically acclaimed and successful games, has made a powerful point about the trend towards photorealism in games. That point being that since even movies - with painstakingly non-realtime-rendered computer graphics - still can't do it right and cross the "uncanny valley," why do we persist in trying to make games do the same thing.
For those who don't know and haven't clicked the link, the uncanny valley is a coin termed from robotics, originating with Masahiro Mori in 1970, which notes that human response improves as a robot (or in our case, computer-generated characters) becomes more lifelike, but only up until a point - after which it drops substantially. The tiny inaccuracies, the failure of certain elements to blend together correctly in a way that we don't even comprehend, become a really big deal. Our minds reject the image as being a person, and there's an automatic response to recoil, like seeing a corpse (or, in the case of an animated character, a zombie).
It's "creepy."
This isn't just a problem with human characters. Years ago, when I was working at SingleTrac, several veterans of the simulation industry who worked there remarked that in their previous field, they ran into problems as their simulations became more realistic. Pilots started complaining about things that were never an issue before, such as the airfield lights being the incorrect shade of blue. The more like lifelike the graphics, the more your mind will set off alarms that something "just ain't right."
It's probably some kind of self-preservation instrinct. I mean, if some grasses are looking wrong on the savannah and not blowing properly in the wind, that could mean that you have only seconds to act before you take a trip down a tiger's digestive tract. Your brain is hardwired to scream those alarms at you, and suppressing those feelings takes effort.
The solution many games have adopted is to drop the player into alien scenes and covering humans with so much battle-armor that you can't tell they are people anyway. Or bashing zombies, which are supposed to be all "creepifying." There's a stiffness and strangeness to it which still works okay in a first-person shooter, but fails in a game that would require more human interaction.
Tunnell questions why the video game industry still keeps trying to brute-force its way across that valley when we have clearly reached a point where things are going to get worse before they get better. This applies double for indie developers, who don't have the budget or manpower to achieve even the results the mainstream industry struggles to maintain.
But this brings up another issue - which is the need for really brilliant art direction. Photorealistic isn't easy, but it is a lazy approach compared to producing quality, consistent stylized graphics. But that's a whole 'nother topic, and one I don't feel qualified to talk about right now.
Make It Big In Games: If Robert Zemeckis Can’t Cross the Uncanny Valley, What Makes Us Think We Can?
Labels: game art
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 7:22 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I think you answered the question yourself when you wrote,
"Tunnell questions why the video game industry still keeps trying to brute-force its way across that valley when we have clearly reached a point where things are going to get worse before they get better."
It's because that valley can, and someday will, be crossed. But unless we keep trying to bridge the gap, we'll never get there.
Indie game studios should probably not be building that bridge, but I want to see the Bethesda Softworks and the BioWares keep plugging away at it. It won't happen tomorrow, and it might not even happen in a decade. But someday, it will happen, and it'll be friggin' sweet.
"Tunnell questions why the video game industry still keeps trying to brute-force its way across that valley when we have clearly reached a point where things are going to get worse before they get better."
It's because that valley can, and someday will, be crossed. But unless we keep trying to bridge the gap, we'll never get there.
Indie game studios should probably not be building that bridge, but I want to see the Bethesda Softworks and the BioWares keep plugging away at it. It won't happen tomorrow, and it might not even happen in a decade. But someday, it will happen, and it'll be friggin' sweet.
But this brings up another issue - which is the need for really brilliant art direction.
I remember this topic coming up in the initial design discussion for a game my studio was going to put together. I love games that have a more stylistic approach to the art, and I thought that our new game should take that approach.
I failed to convince, however, and the reason why in part was because I didn't state the reasoning as well as you just did up above:
Photorealistic isn't easy, but it is a lazy approach compared to producing quality, consistent stylized graphics.
Lazy is the key word there. Yes, we can use textures that look like real-world surfaces. But that is lazy. I made the mistake of saying it would be "easier to go with a more cartoony look", when what I should've said was it would be "lazy to go with a photorealistic look".
Lesson learned. ;)
I remember this topic coming up in the initial design discussion for a game my studio was going to put together. I love games that have a more stylistic approach to the art, and I thought that our new game should take that approach.
I failed to convince, however, and the reason why in part was because I didn't state the reasoning as well as you just did up above:
Photorealistic isn't easy, but it is a lazy approach compared to producing quality, consistent stylized graphics.
Lazy is the key word there. Yes, we can use textures that look like real-world surfaces. But that is lazy. I made the mistake of saying it would be "easier to go with a more cartoony look", when what I should've said was it would be "lazy to go with a photorealistic look".
Lesson learned. ;)
Great Post! My question has always been, what is there to be gained by this extra layer of reality? Video games are not real. Yes, real elements in a game are fun, but real elements in a game with cartoon style characters is just as fun. I think realism is simply the hype mainstream game companies use to take the edge off a boring game.
When I think of games that have incredible art, I am usually looking at something like this.
Tales Weaver
And kudos to coyote for keeping it real with cartoon characters. :)
When I think of games that have incredible art, I am usually looking at something like this.
Tales Weaver
And kudos to coyote for keeping it real with cartoon characters. :)
Semi-tangent, but related. I was discussing the idea of making Bond-style dating games (spying, exotic locales, gorgeous guys/girls, and MORTAL PERIL) and that got me thinking of Leisure Suit Larry 2, which basically is a Bond parody... But because the graphical quality in that game is SO far from realistic, they can get away with doing awful things to the avatar for comedic purposes.
Having the laser actually cut the spy in half when he reaches a bad end isn't a reasonable option with today's graphics. Even the semi-cartoony figures of LSL Magna Cum Laude would be far too disturbing if they were sliced up, imo.
Sierra had a whole slew of ridiculous deaths in early adventures, none of which would be funny if the graphics were anywhere near realistic. (I remember Roger Wilco being cut in half, drilled through the head, slicing his hands off and bleeding to death, being crushed into a cube, being crushed into goo...)
And certain other LSL2 scenes, like the painful body waxing (long story), wouldn't work the same without the over-the-top exaggeration allowed by the crude graphics.
I despaired of fighting games when they went 3d, because the 3d characters never manage to have as much personality and wackiness as the 2d characters, who can distort in so many ways. And I despair of cartoons if they're completely replaced by 3d CGI...
Having the laser actually cut the spy in half when he reaches a bad end isn't a reasonable option with today's graphics. Even the semi-cartoony figures of LSL Magna Cum Laude would be far too disturbing if they were sliced up, imo.
Sierra had a whole slew of ridiculous deaths in early adventures, none of which would be funny if the graphics were anywhere near realistic. (I remember Roger Wilco being cut in half, drilled through the head, slicing his hands off and bleeding to death, being crushed into a cube, being crushed into goo...)
And certain other LSL2 scenes, like the painful body waxing (long story), wouldn't work the same without the over-the-top exaggeration allowed by the crude graphics.
I despaired of fighting games when they went 3d, because the 3d characters never manage to have as much personality and wackiness as the 2d characters, who can distort in so many ways. And I despair of cartoons if they're completely replaced by 3d CGI...
Sierra had a whole slew of ridiculous deaths in early adventures, none of which would be funny if the graphics were anywhere near realistic.
Games can't be comical in the Disney channel sense when the the avatar and NPCs are getting sliced & fragged with blood fountains etc. - that's for sure.
But not all games have to be comical to succeed.
Look at Resident Evil 4 - a highly unfunny game with appropriate and creative avatar deaths ;-)
Cartoon characters of course don't necessarily mean that the game itself is good clean harmless family fun or simply on the lighter side but in the western hemisphere this is often associated.
Put those "cute" or "wacky" Super Deformed characters in a game and people often perceive it as child's play.
Personally, I have no problem with the Uncanny Valley - what bothers me most is a game with a beautifully designed world (realistic or artistic) with little immersion because of missing manipulation opportunities.
By this I mean: Does it suffice for an RPG to only find stuff in random crates? What good are splinter when I shoot into wooden structures when it is impossible for me to destroy these structures completely?
Those splinters are eye candy and have little to no effect on gameplay.
The other extreme is a game which puts me into, for example, a palace with 99 rooms - each modelled accuratedly and with dozens of objects (most identical, of course) in each room.
IMHO, for a gamer the appearance of a game steps into the shadows at some point in the game and he cares much more about the interaction and the story (if there is one).
The consequence of that can only be that interaction has the highest priority and everything else comes second.
And this is exactly why many newer commercial games fail to impress and games with non-perfect rendering at their time were highly successful ("Deus Ex" for example).
Games can't be comical in the Disney channel sense when the the avatar and NPCs are getting sliced & fragged with blood fountains etc. - that's for sure.
But not all games have to be comical to succeed.
Look at Resident Evil 4 - a highly unfunny game with appropriate and creative avatar deaths ;-)
Cartoon characters of course don't necessarily mean that the game itself is good clean harmless family fun or simply on the lighter side but in the western hemisphere this is often associated.
Put those "cute" or "wacky" Super Deformed characters in a game and people often perceive it as child's play.
Personally, I have no problem with the Uncanny Valley - what bothers me most is a game with a beautifully designed world (realistic or artistic) with little immersion because of missing manipulation opportunities.
By this I mean: Does it suffice for an RPG to only find stuff in random crates? What good are splinter when I shoot into wooden structures when it is impossible for me to destroy these structures completely?
Those splinters are eye candy and have little to no effect on gameplay.
The other extreme is a game which puts me into, for example, a palace with 99 rooms - each modelled accuratedly and with dozens of objects (most identical, of course) in each room.
IMHO, for a gamer the appearance of a game steps into the shadows at some point in the game and he cares much more about the interaction and the story (if there is one).
The consequence of that can only be that interaction has the highest priority and everything else comes second.
And this is exactly why many newer commercial games fail to impress and games with non-perfect rendering at their time were highly successful ("Deus Ex" for example).
# posted by 
: October 29, 2008 10:34 PM
: October 29, 2008 10:34 PM
I definitely feel it's possible to do the same kind of stylized, "fun" violence or weird stuff with 3D graphics - it's not just a 2D / 3D thing. But you definitely need to have the correct artistic style to pull it off.
Although - it was noted in the Penny Arcade Adventures game that there were a couple of problems with hair that simply can't exist in 3D. They had to make some changes... :) So maybe there are a few limitations there...
Post a Comment
Although - it was noted in the Penny Arcade Adventures game that there were a couple of problems with hair that simply can't exist in 3D. They had to make some changes... :) So maybe there are a few limitations there...
Links to this post:
<< Home
