Crytek and the insanity of realism

[Redwall]

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=68325

"Three years ago [Far Cry] looked amazing," he said. "Now it's too stylized, too cartoony, the colours are far too much. With Crysis we went for realism."

(on Crysis)

"It was insane… We wanted every leaf to have its own shading. It was very important for us. We have to model every leaf separately. There's a crazy amount of polygons."

Not that anyone's expecting much from Crytek, but...

[SpiderMonkey]

Yeah I found that quote pretty disappointing. "With Crysis, we have attempted to remove any suggestion of art direction! And remember, the key to enjoying good graphics isn't to use your eyes to look at what's on the screen, it's to read and embrace our boasts about the computational complexity of the scene!"

[n0wak]

If they really get such a boner for recreating realism, maybe they should look into this device called a "film camera". I hear it does a good job. Instead of filming what already is real, they are trying to recreate everything one grain of sand at a time. And for what? A lousy, shitty, cliche story with super restricted interactivity? What realism!

[MrChlorophyll]

I don't really mind it. It's an eventuality that games are going to gun for super crazy awesome graphics. And that seems to be Crytek's MO, so I pretty much expect it from them.

And as long as it's fun enjoyable/entertaining, I'll be happy. I'll get my story from BioShock.

[n0wak]

And as long as it's fun, I'll be happy.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/65/15

[Ben]

I usually find myself agreeing with Spector's comments; but that article is terrible and ill-thought out. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Wrestlevania]

Escapist article[/url'>"]"Fun" is a Four-Letter Word (by Warren Spector)

As in, the Warren Spector?

If so, I'm surprised it's not his 'mug' photographed* on the opening page...

Back on topic: Yes, I agree with the continued banality of Crytek's endless claims. But, to be fair, it's not like they can't back them up -- that game is visually stunning (in-development glitches aside).

It still remains to be seen if they've spent any time addressing the head-slamming boredom of Far Cry's between-set-piece trudging, though.

* Disclaimer: Is now a good time to mention that I appeared in Driver 2 as an ice cream seller?

[Duncan]

As in, the Warren Spector?

No, Warren Spector the gas station attendant.

Yeah, I have nothing to add to the conversation

[Wrestlevania]

No, Warren Spector the gas station attendant.

Fill 'er up.

[DanJW]

If they really get such a boner for recreating realism, maybe they should look into this device called a "film camera". I hear it does a good job. Instead of filming what already is real, they are trying to recreate everything one grain of sand at a time. And for what? A lousy, shitty, cliche story with super restricted interactivity? What realism!

Heh, at my art course the other day we were discussing photorealism. It's pretty easy to draw or paint a photorealistic piece, working from a souce photograph and using the right techniques (this is different to using a photo as inspiration or a basic guide and then doing your own thing from it). However, it does take a very very long time, is very boring and is ultimately pointless, bacause it is much easier to just make another print of the photo and copying by hand has

a) only minor artistic merit

does even less to improve your skills in the long run.

I hadn't thought about comparing it to game graphics until now.

[Marek]

This is a good discussion and I thought exactly the same when I saw that at Eurogamer. But let's not forget that taking photographs or video also requires art direction, at least if you want to do it properly. Even though cameras produce "photorealistic" images, the way they are framed, lit and shot are extremely subjective.

So... it's a good, but not perfect, metaphor for games.

[n0wak]

This is a good discussion and I thought exactly the same when I saw that at Eurogamer. But let's not forget that taking photographs or video also requires art direction, at least if you want to do it properly. Even though cameras produce "photorealistic" images, the way they are framed, lit and shot are extremely subjective.

So... it's a good, but not perfect, metaphor for games.

Yes, but games have that too. The main difference, like I said, is that with film you start with the reality and then you can do the editting, cinematography, and any post-production on the final product. With games, you start from scratch. You have to spend all that time building up the illusion of realism first... when, really, if you spent half that time working on mechanics and that post-production aesthetic stuff, you'd have a game that plays and interacts more realistically than one that looks real, but plays like shit and/or tells a lousy story.

[Wrestlevania]

You have to spend all that time building up the illusion of realism first...

Not to mention the ever-increasingly huge amounts of cash to boot.

Has me wondering if some enterprising souls will build some sort of virtual world and then allow dev-co's to build their games within it*. It's like taking the 'licensed 3rd party engine' idea to the next level I reckon (pun not intended).

TANGENT ALERT!

* Second Life's a bit like that, but so much of the HCI aspect is broken - as is the whole software engine itself. With a decent (likely very expensive) rewrite, I think gaming in Second Life would rocket.

But I'm not talking about the graphics here -- just the underlying character interaction processes and the physics model. If both of those got some serious, professional, game-like attention SL would be hugely more popular because it would draw in all your 'traditional' gamers. Imagine the possibility of meeting up with a group of others in-world, then having a spontaneous Counter-Strike session using the scenery of where ever you happened to be? The same could be done with racing (land, sea and air), or role-playing, or real-time strategy (from ground level right back to as far as you wanted, i.e. Defcon style). Going further, you could then build up a persistent solar system -- perhaps eventually leading to a small galaxy as things progress.

The possibilities are simply massive, but there's nothing competant enough to take on any of these just yet. Not in a way that 'traditional' gamers would take seriously.

So, my point: If what Crytek were building were to become persistent, and last longer than one title, I don't think people would be so alarmed at the minutiate detail Crytek are scrutinizing and them simulating. I think it's the simple fact that once Crysis has run its course, most of the assets, levels and characters they've built are likely to end up in the virtual bin. Just like FarCry and pretty much every other sequential game of this type.

[Thrik]

I think Crytek would be a lot more suited to simply developing engines rather than games.

[loonyboi]

Many, many, many moons ago (this was on PlanetQuake, to give you an idea of how far back we're talking), I wrote an article where I compared the art style in Myst and Riven to a Bob Ross painting. That is, they were all photorealism and no style whatsoever.

I got death threats. Seriously.

But I still say it was a valid point. Crysis is similar in a lot of ways, except what they lack in visual creativity in their world, they're attempting to make up for in some of the non-realistic elements. Like that giant spider-thingie. That was freaking cool.

I still tend to be bored by photorealism, but I think it can work and work well. Oblivion's a good example.

[elmuerte]

We have to model every leaf separately.

ETA 2100'ish?

Trees are very well suited to be automatically generated

[Thrik]

Yeah, I got the impression he meant "We have to make sure each leaf is a separate model" rather than "We have to manually produce each leaf as a unique model".

[toblix]

I had this whole diatribe going in my head about the leaf modelling comment, and then I came down here and you were already done with it. Great.

[JimmyTheFish]

And for what? A lousy, shitty, cliche story with super restricted interactivity? What realism!

Keep in mind that from what we have seen, this game is more interactive then most FPSs out there. You can shoot down trees and stuff.

[Marek]

I will shoot the leaves off the trees. I will shoot more leaves than perhaps I should, so that some animals will get up and they will find no leaves. And then some animals will die.

(Sorry. Eddie Izzard still stuck in my head.)

[miffy495]

What's wrong with that? Izzard is the only comedian I can watch repeatedly in a short time span and still find just as funny. Anyway:

I too often find myself bored by games that go for "Photorealistic." I remember back in 2000 reading a PC Gamer article that said that Max Payne's graphics were "nearly photorealistic" and at the time it sounded great. In the end though, what was it that made Payne worth playing? The stylized noir comic panels between levels. Nothing photorealistic about them. Looked incredible due to their style though. Ever since, I've been quite skeptical about anything that claims photorealism, as today's photorealism will be tossed aside as soon as a more photorealistic world is rendered. I'll take my Street Fighter 2 cartoons, thanks. You can see photorealism any time you want if you just turn off the damn game.

[Marek]

Photorealistic games only seem that way when they are released, but a few years later the photorealism breaks apart when compared to the latest advances in 3D graphics, and the only thing that can keep it from looking super dated is the art direction.

Photosourced Max Payne looks laughable now (look at those hands! etc.)...

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Screw the hands, look at the FUGLY shirt!!!

[Oath]

That screen still looks fully acceptable, so it might not be the best example, but yeah Remedy are doing the whole phototexture thing again in Alan Wake. In one screen you can see the engine of a car, and it's a completely flat photo layed on the model.

[Jake]

Many, many, many moons ago (this was on PlanetQuake, to give you an idea of how far back we're talking), I wrote an article where I compared the art style in Myst and Riven to a Bob Ross painting. That is, they were all photorealism and no style whatsoever.

I got death threats. Seriously.

While the Myst and Riven games don't have an art style 'overlaid' on top of everything (things aren't drawn to appear painted, or super-distorted, or monochromatic, or whatever) - they're pretty photorealistic - those games are dripping in unique and inventive architectural art direction, which is a very different story from Crysis, which is a game basically attempting to replicate an island with guys and some buildings on it. You see art and architecture in Myst and Riven that you would never see in another game or film because it was designed to be visually unique even while striving for photorealism. Crisis is just going for the photoreal part.