When graphics become too realistic

They are making such huge advances graphically in video games that I fear in the future it will become TOO realistic and close to life that I will struggle to shoot a civilian in GTA X or play any video games with violence. What do you guys think? Edit* When the graphics become EXACTLY like real life, to the point where you can see a character's skin pores.. for me, even the most advanced game engines atm like cryengine dont seem realistic to me

i love brutal games like Manhunt,God of War & Mortal Kombat.

Manhunt 3 will be awesome this gen or next if R* is up for it

We all love amazing and detalied graphics, but as you said, we are seeing pixels which look very similar to human beings, yet you can still tell they are just pixels. But how is it going to be when videogames graphics advance just a little more and you wouln't tell the difference between a videogame charater and a real person? Noy only graphically, but phisically, with bodies responding perfectly to bullet impact?

You are not the only one worried about it, my friend

Indeed violence in video games may become less enjoyable when graphics are too realistic.

Meh.... I can still tell the difference.

I think a video game will remain a video game no matter how realistic it looks.

I think the majority of us are able to tell the difference between what's real violence and what isn't.

If we weren't then Action and Horror movies would be considered snuff movies.

@zer0dark30:

If you are that much of a wimp then go backwards when the ps5 comes out get a ps3 then for the ps6 get yourself a ps2 so that way you will be happy to continue playing games.

I think the video game industry should recognize this as a concern and strive not to humanize the graphics in the future. However if that is to happen, there should be general warnings before the video game starts, like: (The following is a work of fiction, and has no ties to anything in actual reality and is made for the soul purpose of entertainment) something along those lines. And of course, it is up to us as "actual" people to keep our "perceptions" clear so we are able to differentiate between what is real and what is not. ;)

There's a phenomenon called "uncanny valley" that actually covers this. It describes the point when a computer-generated figure or humanoid robot too closely resembles a human being. It sometimes invokes a sense of unease or revulsion to the person viewing it.

With advancements in VR, one can only imagine that a first person shooter in the same vein as Hatred in a hyper-realistic VR world is just around the corner. This will either repulse gamers, or bring out the true thrill-kill fanatics.

Imagine this type of tech with realistic humans being killed in the same fidelity:

well I do not enjoy violence in movies less, the more advanced that media became (and even less now that it is degenerating in the realism department).

So I do not think I would react too strongly if Graphics became realistic, if the entire game engine did, then I might though.

But in truth, if Violence became more scary and unpleasent, I would argue that that would benefit gaming, as violence would suddenly hold weight. And not just be "whack-a-mole" in the mind of the player. It might allow games to tackle violence in a much better light then other forms of media, and make players want to actively avoid lethal force to achieve goals.

Not that I think it will happen sadly.

I think the more realistic games become, the more desensitized to violence I will become. It's just like school shootings; at first I was shocked and couldn't keep myself from news updates for an entire week (like 9/11). Now, when I hear about school shootings, it doesn't even phase me - it's like, "oh well, welcome to America."

That apartment belongs to the most boring person in the world. Also, the person visiting it is a vampire.

Realistic human beings are still far behind, though. Realistic environments seem far easier to create. That entire room is static, nothing is actually touched or moved. The surfaces and the lighting are very convincing, but that's about it. Making things move in a convincing way and, even more importantly, making surfaces interact with each other in a convincing way still seems to be very difficult. I would like to see the character grab that chair in the bedroom and drag it across the floor in a convincing way. I would like to see the character touch the sheeting on the bed and the couch. I would like to see another character move through that house and be part of the environment, not a stickered on character model.

Also, this hyperrealism can sometimes outdo actual reality by being too crisp and perfect, but I guess that might also be what generates that uncanny feeling in some people. I personally feel a significant distance from reality is needed to actually feel immersed. Making things hyperrealistic only emphasises the aspects you can't make as realistic, like movement and interaction (compare for example the character models with the environment in The Vanishing of Ethan Carter). In my personal case, I think consistency is more important than actual realism (when it comes to immersion, at least).

I will love to shoot in games when they will look realistic.

Lol

@psn_m1nat3k:

This was a very informative post. Thank you for sharing the "uncanny valley" concept and the Unreal Paris 1.1 Virtual Tour. The unreal engine is a very convincing life-like program or whatever you call it. This whole discussion kind of reminds me of the movie Total Recall. I really liked the original Arnold Swartzenegger one.

lol dude, but i can't wait for that day, it'll be awesome, cause think about it, since they will be super realistic nobody will have to go out and shoot people anymore since they are basically shooting a real person (even though its a computer with great graphics).

1) The graphics WON'T become EXACTLY like real life. Diminishing returns. At a certain point they'll look real enough, and it won't be worth the time and money to make them look more real. Same reason why in so many games set in a city, it's STILL standard practice to only allow the player to enter through maybe 5% of the doors. Sure, the developers COULD fill every single building and every single room with something. But they probably WON'T. That's a bunch of work dedicated to simulating realism when maybe only 1% of the players are every gonna see it.

2) Not to disregard your opinion/. If you think that you'd be less-inclined to play a game if the graphics got real enough, that's fair. But I'd like to point out that people still KNOW that it's not real, so it probably wouldn't be a turn-off the way you think it will be. And if I'm wrong on that speculation, if too-real graphics really will turn people off from playing games, then the graphicvs won't get that real for that reason.

3) IF too-real graphics give the player a sense of revulsion when committing certain in-game acts, and IF it's ever going to be economically feasible to make a game that's that real, then I think that a third scenario is more likely. I suspect that those ultra-real games will be limited to contexts that don't involve stuff that'll turn off the gamer. You know, pretty much how movies go these days. You've generally got stuff that sugarcoats the death and violence (like most action blockbusters) or you've generally got ultra-gory stuff that's gory as shit but still cartoonishly gory. But within the context of the movie, there's generally and effort to ignore the real pain and suffering that would be caused by the HEROES' actions if that scenario was real. Either it's cartoony like Avengers or Transformers, or it's gory and disturbing but it's the VILLAINS who do the disturbing stuff (in order to make it easier to hate them, so that it makes for a more satisfying ending when the hero makes the villain dead). My best guess is that games are gonna follow movies in this regard. Games that are supposed to be FUN are either gonna tone back on the realism or deliberately manipulate the gamer by providing a justification for the hero to do bad or disturbing stuff. Games that AREN'T particularlty m supposed to be fun might be disturbingly realistic, but then there won't be a problem since the gamers know that they aren't supposed to be enjoying the stuff they're seeing. Sort of how we might enjoy a dude's guts getting spilled in Kill Bill, but don't have a problem when we see a dude's guts getting spilled in Saving Private Ryan.

For starters, you're underestimating how stimuli condition people. You can make the argument that playing violent games doesn't make people more inclined to want to commit real world violence, but the thing is that games AREN'T ultra-realistic. They're still essentially cartoons. IF they were ultra-realistic, then I suspect that continually killing game characters for fun could easily condition those players into wanting to kill real people.

But the bigger issue here is that people operate on incentives. The vast majority of people out there killing other people are NOT killing those people simply because they just had the urge to kill someone. The vast majority of the time, they're killing because they stand to get something out of killing that SPECIFIC person. Maybe it's killing a rival drug dealer in order to control his turf, or maybe it's killing the man who's sleeping with your wife in order to get a sense of satisfaction of getting back at someone who wronged you. But that's such a specific incentive that a video game character isn't gonna suffice as a substitute. You could kill a million ultra-realistic video game characters because you're mad, but that does nothing to solve your SPECIFIC problem of a rival drug dealer taking your money by muscling in on your turf. Killing video game characters doesn't get you your turf back, killing the actuall flesh-and-blood man who's selling on your corner gets your turf back. FOR THE MODST PART, games will not stop these kinds of killings because the games cannot possibly address why the player wants to kill someone in the first place.

@zer0dark30: Don't buy it then...

The Extra Credits web series touched on a few points related to this in one of their eps (it might have been the uncanny valley ep). First, while graphics just keep getting better and better, the difference between what we have now and something indistinguishable from the real thing is a gigantic gap and pushing that envelope is becoming exponentially more expensive from a development standpoint. There are so many things that can dispel the illusion. A game might look almost exactly like real life in a still photo but as soon as something moves it ruins the effect. Racing and flight sims can come damned close with current technology, but as soon as you try to simulate a living creature it becomes infinitely more difficult.

Game developers are also not necessarily incentivized to try to spend the money developing true photo realistic looking actors in games because that's not necessarily how games are measured these days. Increased graphical fidelity -used- to be the bar that new AAA games were measured by but nowadays people have realized that artistic merit trumps graphical fidelity and you can make an amazing looking game that doesn't necessarily look anything like real life.

That said, even if they could get to the point where a completely virtual actor looks exactly like the real thing in every respect I don't think that would have a negative impact on most people for committing acts of violence in a game because whether or not shooting someone is just part of an action story or a horrible, gut wrenching experience that makes you want to vomit isn't based on how good the graphics are. It's based on the emotional content and story context. Movies use real actors, but think about the difference between watching someone get shot in a movie like Die Hard versus a movie like Goodfellas or Reservoir Dogs. In one kind of movie it's fun action, while in another kind of movie it's shocking and horrifying. The difference between them has nothing to do with how realistic the violence looks. I can think of games like the original Fallout games where I feel awful for having killed an innocent character. Spec Ops: The Line is another great example. Play that game and see how good you feel about shooting people by the end.

-Byshop

My point is that this video of unreal parís is unreal, its not real enought. The graphics and textures are fine but if you observe carefully all are near still ambient. In some place you see a Little light interactions with object. On real life all things are in constant motions , the shadows are not statics because the sun or light bright are changed the position constantly. As a still photo will be convincent but things dont act like things does on real life. Reality its more tan just texture or H resolution, there are not much reflections of light on soft bright surfaces, the ambient are so death and still, not dust particulated surounded in front of the Windows from the light come from. The motion of the scene are chunky not real( real things dont need to be at 60fps ) instead i think thar variable frame rate will work better because the world its not robotics and things rarely does 2 movements as the same way twice. Color , texture, shadows and light work fine for a still photo , but you instantaneously can detach that its a computer image not real photo. This happen on a demo without humans involved that are drastically more dificult to do due the complexity on anatomy and envirovements interactions. So i play videogames since atary 2600 and videogames now are in terms of graphics 10,000 ligh years ahead from my tg 16 , snes , génesis , neo geo , Dreamcast , ps2 etc etc but dont be confused. Probably this console will be posible in another 15,000 light years from now and probably for this time Sony, Microsoft and nintendo are no longer on the market.

This. Though there are some very impressive visual effects out there, there isn't one game that totally tricked me into thinking it was real.

Some of the problem, or rather barrier that tehcnology would have to overcome for it to be " Too Realistic" is that before that point you get the uncanny valley, Which will put people off and make it look weird.
And even if we do get there, the majority will be able to tell the difference between fiction and reality, even if the ones speaking against it, much like those today, seem unable to do so.

I don't believe there will ever be a day that games will looks so realistic to rival life. Look at movies today, it's pre-rendered and it still can't provide indistinguishable images from the real thing.

IMO uncanny valley isn't because its too realistic but the fact that our brains can perceive all the points of fakeness or imperfections of these so-called "real" renditions. Technology (dolls or cg) just cannot duplicate 1:1 lighting, movement, etc etc. Therefore, our brains nitpick focusing on these imperfect tidbits and tell us what we are seeing is a grotesque or not-normal version of our reality. It's like a person who tells a lie and goes too far with it that everyone can tell it's a lie.

A game is a game; I can't see good graphics deterring me from a good hit and run in GTA. If our generation does see hyper realistic games, there will always be cartoony and anime style games as well. If all games were realistic, a large audience would be lost.

When will this happen, im ready

So a virtual child or baby is also ok to hit and run if available in a game?

@pimphand_gamer If a game was called Baby Torture 2035, no I guess that would not be "ok". I'm talking about GTA though which has no children and is satire anyway, which many people (usually ones who don't play the game) fail to see and think it's just torture porn or for future serial killers. It's all about context. So would it be "okay"?- technically yeah, because it's a game. That doesn't mean it's moral or a good example or will even have an audience. My point was that video games are GAMES and no matter how they look, they don't reflect real life for 95% of players. It's people who can't see that separation that have problems with it. I've done many things in games I wouldn't do in real life- pretty much everything I've done in games I wouldn't in real life. So your statement is unnecessary and mixing up my words and the point I was making.

I'd enjoy the games even more if graphics become too realistic

It is still a game no matter how realistic it gets. Also at least I hope so we still get the variety of games with their own unique art style. Not trying to be just as realistic as possible.

I'd respond the same way I would when I have a dream about murdering somebody; I just wouldn't care because it isn't real.

For flight sims, it's not even close to realistic yet. It'll be a while before that happens.

Agree. Although even a game called Baby Torture 2035, the reality separation is still present. Plus the year 2035, sounds kinda sci fi futuristic. I also didn't mix up your words, I asked a relevant and very hypothetical question concerning the hypocrisy of why one virtual immoral thing you wouldn't do in real life be any different for another immoral thing you wouldn't do in real life?. btw, Skyrim has pre-teen kids, GTA has "teens", like it's a far stretch to go younger or add animals that are near extinct.

@pimphand_gamer Then don't play the game? There will always be content in games that someone finds offensive. And I would hit a kid in a video game with a car, to be honest. Want to know why? Because it's a game. It isn't real. It never will be. It has no real consequences and does not reflect how I would treat a child. I have nieces and nephews I regularly care for and I still would have no remorse doing it in a fictitious game because it's in a GAME. I was originally making a cheeky joke that's now a lecture about the morality of who you kill in a game. If you have an issue with killing preteens in Skyrim, near extinct animals in GTA (lmao sorry but really dude?). Not to sound like a douche but come on... it's not real life. Again, I do feel like it's about context of a game though. It can be done in poor taste or in a manner that suits the game but either way it will always boil down to the same thing: it's a video game. To each his own. If you want to play a game where no one dies but "bad guys" I'm sorry to say you'll be missing out on a lot of good games.

I don't think you read my previous post lol but I agree with you. If you read for a second and stop impulse responding, I was questioning the hypocrisy of it being ok to kill an adult and not a kid in a game..because that is a standard of how many, at least in America, feel about it and is why you don't see babies or little kids in such games.

@antiparticle: did you need to bump a two-month old thread?

@zer0dark30: don't like it? Don't buy it

Then developers can focus on Gameplay and Storyline in future games. Graphics will eventually become photorealistic. This won't have that much impact on violence in games. Since there are violent movies, so people don't get to upset over a shoot out in a movie even Scarface style. or Pulp fiction over the top violence. People will still play these future 10th generation versions of violent games.

So Storyline and Gameplay along with innovation should happen more in videogames once the photorealism limit has been reached.

"pimphand_gamer"? Seriously? Wow.

@pimphand_gamer Allright man. I'm not here to argue. Explain yourself better then. I did thoroughly read your post and that wasn't clear at all. You seemed very defensive. I'm not impulse responding just trying to get my point across that I've clearly been saying this entire time.

First off, let me just state that "graphics" aren't the only way in which video games attempt to simulate reality. Artificial intelligence is another big aspect. Regardless of how "realistic" a game's "graphics" look, it will still fail as a simulation of reality if all of the characters act like scripted morons.

Secondly, let me state that I personally doubt that video game graphics will EVER look EXACTLY like real life. In part because of diminishing returns. Take something like The Last of Us. I particularly liked the look of that autumn segment, with the falling leaves and shit. Pretty stuff, and kind of nice in a melancholy way. Graphics that are EXACTLY like real life would allow me to see the veins on every leaf. Which ain't gonna happen. Because when you get to that fine a level of detail, you have to introduce EXPECTED RANDOMNESS. In autumn, I would EXPECT to see some of those leaves with random bite marks, I would EXPECT the occasional leaf to have some insect eggs attached to it. I would EXPECT to see the occasional random pile of animal poop scattered around. The fact that that DOESN'T happen indicates that this ISN'T exactly like real life. And I don't expect that kind of stuff to be included because that would potentially interfere with the flow of the narrative as well as not being worth the effort of including content that practically no one is gonna give a shit about.

Having said that, a simulation that is EXACTLY identical to the thing that it is simulating is in fact the very thing that it is simulating. If there is literally no way to tell the difference between A and B, then A and B are the same thing. So yes...artificial intelligence that is indistinguishable from real intelligence IS real intelligence.

But thankfully, I don't expect games to ever get that realistic. I don't think they're ever going to get more realistic than "realistic enough to sell the fantasy, but still clearly vastly different than reality".

Graphics can become photo-realistic in their portrayal of violence that's seen in GTA, and committing those violent acts still wouldn't raise a hair on my head in revulsion because these games are completely laughable in comparison to how real life violence feels. It's not just what you see that makes violence so abhorrent, it's the psychology and human element behind it. In GTA I'm not looking into a human being's eyes that's pleading with me for their last moments. There is no power, rage, hate, adrenaline, chaos, fear. None of these things are even in my head when shooting or driving over people in games. Until developers can model that properly (which I doubt many will), killing in gaming won't disturb me and I'll laugh while doing these things because that's all it deserves.

It doesn't matter how realistic you make it look, you cannot begin to compare real life violence to video game violence until you compliment those looks with humanity to equal it. Even then, there remains a gulf of disparity due to the lack of physicality. I recall reading on forums when the GTA V PS4 version came out how people were saying the 1st person view made them very uncomfortable shooting/knifing innocents. Didn't bother me a bit, because there were no mothers begging me spare their child, or fathers jumping in front of my hail of bullets to save their loved ones, or someone I'm about to plunge my knife into their chest screaming desperately for anyone to help him in his last moments. Instead, there's a store clerk that mine as well been a robot putting up his hands, then a "brain" splatter texture against the back wall while he falls down silent? Doesn't really bother me aside from the cognizance that the act is morally wrong. GTA kind of portrays people screaming and running away in panic, but it's not enough.

Not to say game violence hasn't made me raise my brow (Hatred's first trailer showing the guy shooting that woman in the mouth while she's pleading for her life an an example), but even there, the humanism is still lacking. I think it's to Hatred's immense credit that it makes people disgusted by its content. It should, because some of what it shows, even still for as far over the top and comical in tone for its material, hits closer to home in what violence entails than 95% of the games out there.

@zer0dark30: playing violent games might once give us a good experience and training to do violence in real life too :p

As lulu said "Meh i would still be able to tell the difference"

Also it will never become so realistic that a normal sane person wouldn´t be able to tell the difference and know its a game and not real life.

The issue here isn't going to fall to the developers, but likely to the players themselves. If you feel that the game looks so good that you can't bring yourself to shoot somebody then that's really your personal problem, the developer is just there to give you the option. There was a great episode of The Point a while back that had some thoughts on violence and GTAs first person mode if you wanted to check that out for more, because I feel like my opinions are essentially mirrored in that video

I found that the latest Witcher trailer was a bit too realistic when it comes to the violence. I still think the game is going to be amazing and I did thoroughly enjoy the trailer but I did feel a bit uneasy when I saw the blood. The guy's head coming off was crazy. And the last scene with all that blood. Woah... It's not cartoony like in GTA, where I never feel bad about killing. Even killing civilians doesn't feel bad in GTA cuz it doesn't look real. Even in first person it's not that bad tbh.