The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
It's easy to see where Sony's intentions lie. Microsoft started all this talk of the "HD era" with its Xbox 360 and Sony are going one better. The result is a world of higher definition, even more pixels on one screen and an ever greater strain on their (admittedly very powerful) PS3. But consider this: is hi-def really the way to go? Just what is it that makes an image truly real?
Does screen res have anything to do with in-game 'reality'? I don't think so. Evidence? Take a look at your standard-def TV. That news footage looks real enough doesn't it? I'll go one further. How about phone videos? Yes, those dark, scratchy, blurred messes of pixels that you shoot on a whim and flash to your mates. Are you ever in any doubt that what you're looking at is real? How terrible is that quality, and yet what you're seeing really happened. But consider how many pixels are making up the image. What is it? 320 by 240? Hardly 1920 by 1080, then. And at 16 frames per second? And yet, for all its cruddyness 'phone video' remains undeniably 'real'. Here's a twist. How about game makers use PS3 use PS3's power properly. Instead of ever more hi-res games, they make 'low-res' games that actually are indistinguishable from real life.
Imagine a game played through the eye of a phone camera. A game with big fat 320 by 240 pixels where PS3 wasn't used to pump more 'detail' into plastic characters, but was used to perfect physics, animation and lighting. Imagine it was a survival horror game. Imagine you're trapped in a city crawling with zombies. And now imagine how much scarier and much better it'd be.
Does screen res have anything to do with in-game 'reality'? I don't think so. Evidence? Take a look at your standard-def TV. That news footage looks real enough doesn't it? I'll go one further. How about phone videos? Yes, those dark, scratchy, blurred messes of pixels that you shoot on a whim and flash to your mates. Are you ever in any doubt that what you're looking at is real? How terrible is that quality, and yet what you're seeing really happened. But consider how many pixels are making up the image. What is it? 320 by 240? Hardly 1920 by 1080, then. And at 16 frames per second? And yet, for all its cruddyness 'phone video' remains undeniably 'real'. Here's a twist. How about game makers use PS3 use PS3's power properly. Instead of ever more hi-res games, they make 'low-res' games that actually are indistinguishable from real life.
Imagine a game played through the eye of a phone camera. A game with big fat 320 by 240 pixels where PS3 wasn't used to pump more 'detail' into plastic characters, but was used to perfect physics, animation and lighting. Imagine it was a survival horror game. Imagine you're trapped in a city crawling with zombies. And now imagine how much scarier and much better it'd be.
Page:
True, it was done, though to a lesser extent than it could be done now.
Perhaps this is how the industry will cycle -
As data capacities increase, sprites and images become the path to realism.
As processing capabilities and production costs increase, the balance swings back to designed textures, polygons and modelling.
Perhaps this is how the industry will cycle -
As data capacities increase, sprites and images become the path to realism.
As processing capabilities and production costs increase, the balance swings back to designed textures, polygons and modelling.
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> For me though, increasing data storage and processing capacities
> suggests a return to sprites, at least mixed into a 3d modelled
> environment.
>
> If there's enough data capacity to show a person running, and it
> can be smoothly edited together, a series of images played in
> sequence could display a running footballer with more realism
> and less intense effort than an incredibly accurate 3d model
> could. Both the image and the physical movements would be
> instantly corrected.
>
> Similarly, instead of animated textures, photographic images can
> be used to texture polygons. We've been seeing signs of this for
> a while. Increased data capacity and processing capacity can
> make it more widespread, with higher res images.
>
>
> For me, that's the future.
All that is like a snapshot of the video games industry 10-15 years ago. :) Alot of the above has been done a long time ago and mostly to cover up the limits of the technology that was being used at the time.
> For me though, increasing data storage and processing capacities
> suggests a return to sprites, at least mixed into a 3d modelled
> environment.
>
> If there's enough data capacity to show a person running, and it
> can be smoothly edited together, a series of images played in
> sequence could display a running footballer with more realism
> and less intense effort than an incredibly accurate 3d model
> could. Both the image and the physical movements would be
> instantly corrected.
>
> Similarly, instead of animated textures, photographic images can
> be used to texture polygons. We've been seeing signs of this for
> a while. Increased data capacity and processing capacity can
> make it more widespread, with higher res images.
>
>
> For me, that's the future.
All that is like a snapshot of the video games industry 10-15 years ago. :) Alot of the above has been done a long time ago and mostly to cover up the limits of the technology that was being used at the time.
Is it just be, or are characters generally inaccurately proportioned relative to real life?
You see a normal person walking down the street, and they don't really have the same kind of shape as a 'realistic' videogame character.
Part of that seems to be that characters aren't normal people - they're generally more muscular, or have bigger racks, or whatever.
But if you look at 'cute' pictures, the person or animal's features will be all out of proportion - a big head, big eyes, more 'round' body, less lankey.
There seems to be just an element of this in vijo game characters too - as if to add just a touch of love-ability (or at least non-threateningness) to a character.
Also, the way things are shot, or the camera angled, counts for a lot too.
Movies have encountered this problem. The one with Anthony Hopkins and lots of monkeys at first the animatronic monkeys looked artificial, not because of their design, but because the steady fixed cameras were out of synch with peoples' expectations of ape footage from wildlife documentaries. It just seemed artificial, wrong.
For me though, increasing data storage and processing capacities suggests a return to sprites, at least mixed into a 3d modelled environment.
If there's enough data capacity to show a person running, and it can be smoothly edited together, a series of images played in sequence could display a running footballer with more realism and less intense effort than an incredibly accurate 3d model could. Both the image and the physical movements would be instantly corrected.
Similarly, instead of animated textures, photographic images can be used to texture polygons. We've been seeing signs of this for a while. Increased data capacity and processing capacity can make it more widespread, with higher res images.
For me, that's the future.
You see a normal person walking down the street, and they don't really have the same kind of shape as a 'realistic' videogame character.
Part of that seems to be that characters aren't normal people - they're generally more muscular, or have bigger racks, or whatever.
But if you look at 'cute' pictures, the person or animal's features will be all out of proportion - a big head, big eyes, more 'round' body, less lankey.
There seems to be just an element of this in vijo game characters too - as if to add just a touch of love-ability (or at least non-threateningness) to a character.
Also, the way things are shot, or the camera angled, counts for a lot too.
Movies have encountered this problem. The one with Anthony Hopkins and lots of monkeys at first the animatronic monkeys looked artificial, not because of their design, but because the steady fixed cameras were out of synch with peoples' expectations of ape footage from wildlife documentaries. It just seemed artificial, wrong.
For me though, increasing data storage and processing capacities suggests a return to sprites, at least mixed into a 3d modelled environment.
If there's enough data capacity to show a person running, and it can be smoothly edited together, a series of images played in sequence could display a running footballer with more realism and less intense effort than an incredibly accurate 3d model could. Both the image and the physical movements would be instantly corrected.
Similarly, instead of animated textures, photographic images can be used to texture polygons. We've been seeing signs of this for a while. Increased data capacity and processing capacity can make it more widespread, with higher res images.
For me, that's the future.
I think Nighttrap and Burncycle were early versions of publishers giving that idea ago.
I think the sort of grainy quality of Resi 4 did a good job too.
I think the sort of grainy quality of Resi 4 did a good job too.
Its because with games the whole thing is being generated as it happens. Something like Final Fantasy Advent children for example is pre-rendered (like an ingame cut scene) so they have (in effect) an infinite amount of time to make the image being shown.
Besides. I dont want games to look too real. Id rather they were bright colours like a Mario game.
Besides. I dont want games to look too real. Id rather they were bright colours like a Mario game.
It's easy to see where Sony's intentions lie. Microsoft started all this talk of the "HD era" with its Xbox 360 and Sony are going one better. The result is a world of higher definition, even more pixels on one screen and an ever greater strain on their (admittedly very powerful) PS3. But consider this: is hi-def really the way to go? Just what is it that makes an image truly real?
Does screen res have anything to do with in-game 'reality'? I don't think so. Evidence? Take a look at your standard-def TV. That news footage looks real enough doesn't it? I'll go one further. How about phone videos? Yes, those dark, scratchy, blurred messes of pixels that you shoot on a whim and flash to your mates. Are you ever in any doubt that what you're looking at is real? How terrible is that quality, and yet what you're seeing really happened. But consider how many pixels are making up the image. What is it? 320 by 240? Hardly 1920 by 1080, then. And at 16 frames per second? And yet, for all its cruddyness 'phone video' remains undeniably 'real'. Here's a twist. How about game makers use PS3 use PS3's power properly. Instead of ever more hi-res games, they make 'low-res' games that actually are indistinguishable from real life.
Imagine a game played through the eye of a phone camera. A game with big fat 320 by 240 pixels where PS3 wasn't used to pump more 'detail' into plastic characters, but was used to perfect physics, animation and lighting. Imagine it was a survival horror game. Imagine you're trapped in a city crawling with zombies. And now imagine how much scarier and much better it'd be.
Does screen res have anything to do with in-game 'reality'? I don't think so. Evidence? Take a look at your standard-def TV. That news footage looks real enough doesn't it? I'll go one further. How about phone videos? Yes, those dark, scratchy, blurred messes of pixels that you shoot on a whim and flash to your mates. Are you ever in any doubt that what you're looking at is real? How terrible is that quality, and yet what you're seeing really happened. But consider how many pixels are making up the image. What is it? 320 by 240? Hardly 1920 by 1080, then. And at 16 frames per second? And yet, for all its cruddyness 'phone video' remains undeniably 'real'. Here's a twist. How about game makers use PS3 use PS3's power properly. Instead of ever more hi-res games, they make 'low-res' games that actually are indistinguishable from real life.
Imagine a game played through the eye of a phone camera. A game with big fat 320 by 240 pixels where PS3 wasn't used to pump more 'detail' into plastic characters, but was used to perfect physics, animation and lighting. Imagine it was a survival horror game. Imagine you're trapped in a city crawling with zombies. And now imagine how much scarier and much better it'd be.
Page: