GTA opts to not go completely photorealistic.

[Pagano]

Recently, I was having a fun night with a group of friends. Looking for somewhere to go, they choose to go to a get together of people I hardly know. As I entered the house, I searched my surroundings for friends, and boy did I find one: The GTA Game Informer. For so long, I studied the thing and studied a thing, and one thing in particular stood out from the rest of the amazing little details.

 

In a section called "The art of GTA" (or something similar), there was an interview with one of the map designers of GTA V. The whole thing was an amazing read that really gets me excited to see Los Santos, but one question caught my eye. The interviewer said something like, "GTA is closer than it ever has been to photorealism in its games, although Rockstar has opted to not go the complete distance."

 

The game designer replied with something like, "Making a game photorealistic in today's society isn't something to strive for, but an inevitable achievement. I believe that not going completely there gives us artistic freedom that really puts the characters over the top, and it's more fun."

 

Again, these aren't quotes, just the gist of what it said. I, personally, wholeheartedly agree. Los Santos is absolutely stunning in ever aspect, so there are no worries about the graphics. The choice to not go completely photorealistic keeps the game feeling a bit more over the top.

 

What do you guys think about this?

[Eternal Moonshine]

I like what i see. They're definately going for a more stylized approach, but mostly with colors. Everything else is as photorealistic as can be on this gen. Modded GTA IV on PC proves this

[nikonatorbelick]

probably in 10 years for now photorealism in videogames will become a standard that's what he meant by saying it's an inevitable archievement wich is kind of mindblowing, for now is better for them to work to the full potential of what they have avaiable and don't prioritize graphics over gameplay specially when this generation of consoles is about to end

[WhiskeyFoxtrot]

probably in 10 years for now photorealism in videogames will become a standard that's what he meant by saying it's an inevitable archievement wich is kind of mindblowing, for now is better for them to work to the full potential of what they have avaiable and don't prioritize graphics over gameplay specially when this generation of consoles is about to end

Took the words right from me, I completely agree.

[LBYN]

I believe that along with the system limitations and other factors, one huge component to opting out of the photorealism aspect is the chance of hitting the "uncanny valley." The uncanny valley is where a product that resembles a human and is almost completely realistic in it's appearance, but a few aspects of the product make it so the emotions people have when they see the product (or in this case game) would off-put many potential buyers.

 

For example, have you ever seen the robot faces that Japan is known quite well for? It has the same structure of a human face, but the skin is removed? This would be an example of the uncanny valley, because when people see this, their first reaction isn't "Oh cool!" Their first reaction is most likely "What the hell is that?! Burn it!!"

 

If Rockstar were to opt for photorealism, and slip into this uncanny valley, the buyers go out the window and sales drop. But thankfully, they took their own artisitc approach.

[AceHigh11]

GTA opted good. I liked reading that part of the article too.

[aliaseedful]

probably in 10 years for now photorealism in videogames will become a standard that's what he meant by saying it's an inevitable archievement wich is kind of mindblowing, for now is better for them to work to the full potential of what they have avaiable and don't prioritize graphics over gameplay specially when this generation of consoles is about to end

smartass, don't steal words out of my mouth!

[xWH1T30UTx]

Thanks for bringing this up as a topic, OP. I remember touching on the idea in this particular post of mine. I thought it was incredibly interesting, but I couldn't remember for the life of me where I'd read it before. Glad someone found it.

 

As far as this goes, I applaud the designers for not going photorealistic. I personally feel we are fairly far away from having games be completely photorealistic, and I for one am totally fine with this. I actually dunno how I feel about games being truely photorealistic; as I think they need to implement their own atmosphere and style to really be defined as a game. Look at Vice City for example. Sub-par 'graphics' (Even compared to PS2's standards) But y'know what? It had more style than most of the other games I've ever played as a whole. It looked damn good, even if the textures and character models weren't quite on par with everything else. And I wouldn't want them to really be, either.

 

Another thing I'd like to point out is the subject of detail. Some people seem to think that insane high-resolution graphics are some sort of freakin' industry standard for "detail" in a game. But that's not the way I see it. To me, detail is something as simple and small as one of the characters smoking a cigarette, or a pedestrian making a funny cell phone call. I don't think people should really care so much if the cigarette and the cell phone are textured in perfect 1080p,or whatever. They should be more concerned with the fact that the cell phones and things like that are even there in the first place.

 

Now, don't get me wrong, I enjoy graphics as much as the next guy, and I think a certain level of polish should be somewhat expected when it comes to the graphics within a game. The map designer is right, we will reach photorealism eventually. But it shouldn't have to be the main focus on every single game ever. (And then there's also the Uncanny Valley effect to worry about, like others have said.) I don't think that gives people the right to complain about how a game isn't photorealistic enough or brag about how photorealistic the game looks on their super high-end PC compared to the consoles. The graphics we have at the current time are the graphics that we get, so people need to get over it, get used to it, or enjoy it for what it is. The graphics & overall vibe look & feel damn good in V judging from just the trailers and screenshots. We're in for a real treat here.

 

EDIT: Thanks again for this topic, it'll be interesting to see what others think.

Edited November 25, 2012 by xWH1T30UTx

[azali10]

Photorealism would be bad. Stylization, even a little bit, helps avoid that uncanny valley effect. It's that subconscious feeling that something is off. Your instinct picks up what your eyes can't and recognize the image as being an animation. Makes people feel a bit creeped out.

 

 

 

Look at this. She's photorealistic, but you can tell there's something off about her.

Edited November 25, 2012 by azali10

[xWH1T30UTx]

Photorealism would be bad. Stylization, even a little bit, helps avoid that uncanny valley effect. It's that subconscious feeling that something is off. Your instinct picks up what your eyes can't and recognize the image as being an animation. Makes people feel a bit creeped out.

 

 

 

Look at this. She's photorealistic, but you can tell there's something off about her.

Agreed. As with most new technology, it hardly ever quite works the way that it was intended. (And sometimes looks creepy as hell in doing so.) I think when we 'hit' photorealism in games, it still won't be quite there, and will need some major improvement and a few more generations to be truly photorealistic and believable. (Also not creepy.) Just like with any other thing that's released, it'll probably be super expensive tech, and then it'll die down when nobody really wants it. Then it may pick up some-odd years later. Like I said in my previous post, I feel we are a long ways off from true photorealism. And you know what? I wouldn't be surprised if Rockstar doesn't use it, even then. Good on 'em.

[rapturerocks]

Thanks for bringing this up as a topic, OP. I remember touching on the idea in this particular post of mine. I thought it was incredibly interesting, but I couldn't remember for the life of me where I'd read it before. Glad someone found it.

 

As far as this goes, I applaud the designers for not going photorealistic. I personally feel we are fairly far away from having games be completely photorealistic, and I for one am totally fine with this. I actually dunno how I feel about games being truely photorealistic; as I think they need to implement their own atmosphere and style to really be defined as a game. Look at Vice City for example. Sub-par 'graphics' (Even compared to PS2's standards) But y'know what? It had more style than most of the other games I've ever played as a whole. It looked damn good, even if the textures and character models weren't quite on par with everything else. And I wouldn't want them to really be, either.

 

Another thing I'd like to point out is the subject of detail. Some people seem to think that insane high-resolution graphics are some sort of freakin' industry standard for "detail" in a game. But that's not the way I see it. To me, detail is something as simple and small as one of the characters smoking a cigarette, or a pedestrian making a funny cell phone call. I don't think people should really care so much if the cigarette and the cell phone are textured in perfect 1080p,or whatever. They should be more concerned with the fact that the cell phones and things like that are even there in the first place.

 

Now, don't get me wrong, I enjoy graphics as much as the next guy, and I think a certain level of polish should be somewhat expected when it comes to the graphics within a game. The map designer is right, we will reach photorealism eventually. But it shouldn't have to be the main focus on every single game ever. (And then there's also the Uncanny Valley effect to worry about, like others have said.) I don't think that gives people the right to complain about how a game isn't photorealistic enough or brag about how photorealistic the game looks on their super high-end PC compared to the consoles. The graphics we have at the current time are the graphics that we get, so people need to get over it, get used to it, or enjoy it for what it is. The graphics & overall vibe look & feel damn good in V judging from just the trailers and screenshots. We're in for a real treat here.

 

EDIT: Thanks again for this topic, it'll be interesting to see what others think.

This is absolutely the right way to look at it. Graphical fidelity is dependent on a lot of factors. There's no one standard to reach for. Just like in any art there needs to be a variety of technical details.

[Hardly]

It's like this: you can either attempt to paint the Mona Lisa, or you can attempt to paint monster trucks jumping over a t-rex. Let's say you're a fairly good painter, but you're no Leonardo. If you attempt to paint the Mona Lisa, you won't get the Mona Lisa, you'll only get a boring picture of a pretty lady. But if you paint a picture of monster trucks jumping over a t-rex, it doesn't matter whether or not you're a master painter because you just created a badass painting of monster trucks jumping over a t-rex.

 

There's more to the quality of art than just realism. What he means to say here is that they can strive for realism, but they can't perfect it. Nobody can, yet. Photorealism would be extremely impressive, but anything less and it loses its value. So by eschewing the paradigm of photorealism it allows them to create graphics that are impressive in other ways, and just really cool to look at.

[SDBred619]

I think you're misinterpreting what he said. It's not a goal for them, just an eventuality. Something that comes with the territory of progression. They are shooting for a realistic style still, there are no cell shades, no cartoon proportions etc. The graphics are rooted in reality. Photorealism is just not something they're focusing on as it will just come naturally with new tech.

 

Nothing about IV was stylized and nothing in V will be either.