Comments on: What do we really want from our rendering? IMO, the important thing is not so much to develop a uniform goal for every game, but to recognize that there is a point to graphics beyond just making things look more exactly like a photo. They convey emotions, and tell stories, and give gameplay signals. And depending on what you want those to be, you'll have a completely different answer to the question and an entirely different process and priority list. IMO, the important thing is not so much to develop a uniform goal for every game, but to recognize that there is a point to graphics beyond just making things look more exactly like a photo. They convey emotions, and tell stories, and give gameplay signals. And depending on what you want those to be, you’ll have a completely different answer to the question and an entirely different process and priority list.

]]>
By: EpicBattleAxe » Blog Archive » The Axe Factor 031: I Meant Shepard | Cry Havoc and Let Your Voice Be Heard!/2011/06/19/what-do-we-really-want-from-our-rendering/#comment-6121 EpicBattleAxe » Blog Archive » The Axe Factor 031: I Meant Shepard | Cry Havoc and Let Your Voice Be Heard! Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:16:28 +0000 Nearly every game I worked on in the last ten years, renders in linear space (Midnight Club IV, GTA IV, Read Dead Redemption and probably also Max Payne 3) ... this is a basic requirement for the usage of a PostFX pipeline. I think we started doing this around 2002. You can find extensive coverage in every PostFX talk on GDC from 2006 - today. I can't remember if John quoted the long list of examples. Physically based lighting models are around since the 80th. There are games that shipped completely with physically based lighting models that were tweaked to the specific needs of the games. See ShaderX7 "An Efficient and Physically Plausible Real Time Shading Model by Christian Schüler". Nearly every game I worked on in the last ten years, renders in linear space (Midnight Club IV, GTA IV, Read Dead Redemption and probably also Max Payne 3) … this is a basic requirement for the usage of a PostFX pipeline. I think we started doing this around 2002. You can find extensive coverage in every PostFX talk on GDC from 2006 – today. I can’t remember if John quoted the long list of examples.

Physically based lighting models are around since the 80th. There are games that shipped completely with physically based lighting models that were tweaked to the specific needs of the games. See ShaderX7 “An Efficient and Physically Plausible Real Time Shading Model by Christian Schüler”.

]]>
By: Reavenk/2011/06/19/what-do-we-really-want-from-our-rendering/#comment-5962 Reavenk Mon, 20 Jun 2011 03:03:35 +0000 As an artist, I tend to think in simple terms (LOL). My opinion is that the quality of game art comes down to one simple-to-say, impossible-to-quantify aspect: Colour. Is the palette good? Is the lighting good? Are the textures good? Theatrical imperfections and the pros and cons of photorealistic rendering technology don't have any impact on visual quality beyond how those things are used. Obviously subjective, but if the space of the screen obeys the fundamental aspects of good visual art aesthetics, then the end result, regardless of the technology behind (or within) it, is going to be visually appealing. Uncharted 2 looks stunning because of its bold and artful use of colour (contrast, brightness, tonal ranges, etc. all being part of the same topic). The technology helped achieve those results, but it's the results that are attractive, not the technology, and I've seen plenty of 'low-tech' games with stunning art which prove that point. At least, in my own subjective little corner of the world. Photorealism can have its own appeal due to the novelty. But photorealism isn't always visually appealing. I'm not sure what my point is. Just thinking out loud, I guess! As an artist, I tend to think in simple terms (LOL).

My opinion is that the quality of game art comes down to one simple-to-say, impossible-to-quantify aspect: Colour.

Is the palette good? Is the lighting good? Are the textures good? Theatrical imperfections and the pros and cons of photorealistic rendering technology don’t have any impact on visual quality beyond how those things are used.

Obviously subjective, but if the space of the screen obeys the fundamental aspects of good visual art aesthetics, then the end result, regardless of the technology behind (or within) it, is going to be visually appealing.

Uncharted 2 looks stunning because of its bold and artful use of colour (contrast, brightness, tonal ranges, etc. all being part of the same topic). The technology helped achieve those results, but it’s the results that are attractive, not the technology, and I’ve seen plenty of ‘low-tech’ games with stunning art which prove that point. At least, in my own subjective little corner of the world.

Photorealism can have its own appeal due to the novelty. But photorealism isn’t always visually appealing.

I’m not sure what my point is. Just thinking out loud, I guess!

]]>
By: snake5/2011/06/19/what-do-we-really-want-from-our-rendering/#comment-5886 snake5 Sun, 19 Jun 2011 09:17:36 +0000 I don't think realism is a bad goal at all, partly because it allows the audience to connect to what they're seeing. A physical basis to the rendering can even help make a stylized game look better. Consider that a heavily stylized film like Sin City is still starting with real life capture of actors into a camera, or that a hand drawn animation still needs natural motions and the knowledge of proper anatomy poured into the characters. I realize that's not really what I was discussing in my post, but maybe I should have, because I think artists can forget that grounding ourselves in realism is incredibly important before branching outward. With the ability to create something real, comes the ability to create something from another reality and have it still be relatable for the viewer. That being said, I have to agree with state of toon shading stagnating in a lot of cases. To me, my favorites for toon shading in large games came from the GameCube generation with Killer 7 and Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker. However, the indie space seems to have a much better sense of creating toon games in our current console cycle, specifically I think of thatgamecompany's Journey and Playdead's Limbo. As a final note, gamer's definitely don't actually know what they want. Proof of this can be found by stumbling into any forum of gamers trying to discuss rendering tech. Just because someone appreciates a piece of art doesn't mean that they know why they like it or how it was created, even if they can discern much of the artist's message and intention from their work. I don’t think realism is a bad goal at all, partly because it allows the audience to connect to what they’re seeing. A physical basis to the rendering can even help make a stylized game look better. Consider that a heavily stylized film like Sin City is still starting with real life capture of actors into a camera, or that a hand drawn animation still needs natural motions and the knowledge of proper anatomy poured into the characters. I realize that’s not really what I was discussing in my post, but maybe I should have, because I think artists can forget that grounding ourselves in realism is incredibly important before branching outward. With the ability to create something real, comes the ability to create something from another reality and have it still be relatable for the viewer.

That being said, I have to agree with state of toon shading stagnating in a lot of cases. To me, my favorites for toon shading in large games came from the GameCube generation with Killer 7 and Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker. However, the indie space seems to have a much better sense of creating toon games in our current console cycle, specifically I think of thatgamecompany’s Journey and Playdead’s Limbo.

As a final note, gamer’s definitely don’t actually know what they want. Proof of this can be found by stumbling into any forum of gamers trying to discuss rendering tech. Just because someone appreciates a piece of art doesn’t mean that they know why they like it or how it was created, even if they can discern much of the artist’s message and intention from their work.

]]>
By: snake5/2011/06/19/what-do-we-really-want-from-our-rendering/#comment-5878 snake5 Sun, 19 Jun 2011 05:36:30 +0000 My feelings on this are not black and white. Ultimately we are presenting an optical illusion that the human brain interprets in certain ways. But the medium we are in gives us a lot of leeway. Is it more important that a scene actually look like a bright sunny day would to the human eye, or that it *feel* like a bright sunny day? I think that is the heart of the matter, and one all about choice of art direction. In Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics" (which I recommend anyone in a creative field read), he has a large section on iconic images vs realistic ones in comics, and some great examples along the continuum between them. I think this debate about graphics is our version of the same thing - there's no one right answer, there will be great games done in a photorealistic style, great games that are abstract and iconic, and a great games in the broad spectrum inbetween. Still as a programmer I love reading the latest on physically based rendering, and its mainly because I believe it can give artists tools which are more consistent, which I think actually increases their creative freedom. If artists are spending last time faking the reflective properties of metal, for example, they can spend much more time on what they actually want an environment or character to communicate to the player, on an emotional level. At least, that's my theory. My feelings on this are not black and white. Ultimately we are presenting an optical illusion that the human brain interprets in certain ways. But the medium we are in gives us a lot of leeway. Is it more important that a scene actually look like a bright sunny day would to the human eye, or that it *feel* like a bright sunny day? I think that is the heart of the matter, and one all about choice of art direction.

In Scott McCloud’s “Understanding Comics” (which I recommend anyone in a creative field read), he has a large section on iconic images vs realistic ones in comics, and some great examples along the continuum between them. I think this debate about graphics is our version of the same thing – there’s no one right answer, there will be great games done in a photorealistic style, great games that are abstract and iconic, and a great games in the broad spectrum inbetween.

Still as a programmer I love reading the latest on physically based rendering, and its mainly because I believe it can give artists tools which are more consistent, which I think actually increases their creative freedom. If artists are spending last time faking the reflective properties of metal, for example, they can spend much more time on what they actually want an environment or character to communicate to the player, on an emotional level. At least, that’s my theory.

]]>
By: Gavan Woolery/2011/06/19/what-do-we-really-want-from-our-rendering/#comment-5872 Gavan Woolery Sun, 19 Jun 2011 03:22:50 +0000 Clearly this isn’t just games. I offer this from today: RT @ChristinaCoffin went and saw Super 8. entertaining movie, but If you took a drink everytime you saw a lensflare in the film, youd die of alcohol poisoning

I think the real question is more about why effects (specifically unrealistic ones, or exaggerated ones) are ‘cooler’ than a more realistic or subdued look.

]]>