Doom III Comments by Kristan Reed

You make some interesting points FB. You'd be welcome around here if you didn't merely attempt to wind up the staff with inflammatory comments.

We reached a useful point in graphical fidelity and world interaction years ago. Where games have been falling down is in the areas of characterisation, story, and scene design. The missing element is derivative of this rather than the underlying delivery mechanism which became credible years ago. Both Doom III and Half-Life 2 make this inevitability more obvious rather than the solution they both pretend to be.

My God, how true, if only this were more widely recognised. It's so true, it's almost glaringly obvious, and yet virtually the whole community, from developers to publishers to journalists to gamers to interested third parties still buy into this absurd myth that cutting-edge graphics a good game doth make.

Surely the whole point of the original Half Life, the reason why it was such a stellar hit, was because it proved that there was more to first person shooters than pretty graphics? It was hardly Shakespeare but the fact that it had a storyline at all meant that its ageing Quake 2 graphics were simply irrelevant. Unreal and Sin should have won that round in the FPS wars hands down if conventional thinking about the industry were valid.

All the signals are that HL2 and Doom 3 are focussing all their resources on the graphics and letting originality and innovation fall by the wayside. They may well sell stacks of copies, but they won't win the kind of place in our hearts that the original Doom, the original Half Life, or games like Thief, System Shock, No-one Lives Forever did - by doing things that little bit differently. In the long run, their brands will suffer as a result.

But neither yourself or Cultureshock put forward an alternative to the current hardware trends and the implications of that alternative for the IT industry as a whole; slowing or halting the production and evolution of graphics hardware is something that your argument seems to necessitate.

I am not saying your arguments are invalid; I can totally sympathise and agree with your desire for a greater emphasis on stronger narrative and character development, but I think the continual persual of graphics and it's verisimilitude will bring about a slow change in the industry, with the introduction of talented artists, script-writers, technical directors, composers etc. from the film industry, as computer graphics in games becomes as sophisticated as any block-buster of today.

With better graphics hardware comes the oppurtunity for better interaction, and so arises the chance of stronger characterisation, and story development.

i think we may be starting to approach a point where the average punter wont really be able to tell the difference between different generations of graphics hardware or consoles, and this may be the point where development focus shifts from graphics to other aspects of the game as having the latest, spanglyest 3d engine wont be such a draw.

You seem to be saying that the purpose of games first and foremost should be to drive technology. If so, then I disagree. The purpose of games first and foremost should be to entertain. If they can do that, affordably, with existing technology (which they certainly can), why the constant push for games that exploit new, more expensive technology?

The way I see it, the big gaming franchises are onto a winner. Thanks to the PC industry's dependence on programmed obsolescence for the long-term health of its business model, game developers can get away with releasing the same game over and over again, with slightly prettier graphics every time. This isn't the way technology should be driven. Technology should be driven by creative people coming up with innovative new ideas that require new technological fixes.

Unfortunately, the market connives with this formula and the result is an industry that looks increasingly like Hollywood, where they remake old films again and again, losing any soul that might still be left in the old corpse, and replacing it with some rather snazzy but ultimately hollow CGI sequences.

Im not saying games should be, or even are, driving hardware devlopment; it's the other way round, and theres nothing we can do about it. Just as processors are getting faster and faster, so too are the graphics chips that are engineered by ATI and nVidia. Even if we could, I see no reason why we should stop it, to be honest; hardware development got us from Pong and Space Invaders to Half-life and Halo. Should we be so cock-sure that we have gone as far as necessary with graphics hardware and concentrate soley on gameplay? There are solid unchanging platforms out there for playing games; they are called consoles and generally don't change for a period of 5 - 6 years. What about the crap games that emerge from these stable platforms? You can't blame the obsession with state of the art graphical finesse for a dud xbox game can you?

Perhaps we shouldn't be blaming graphical leaps and rapidly evolving technology for bad games, but see it as an excuse or a scape goat for developers and publishers who are too scared and/ or pressured by ever tighter deadlines and budgetary constraints. Or maybe a lack of focus, a lack of good ideas, maybe even a simple lack of talented people. I'm working with some artists who couldn't model their way out of a paper bag, so I should hardly expect them to design a game rich in narrative and character design.

chuck - Well, photorealism is still a while away.
certainly is. its a bastard long way off. but thats not my point, the steps being taken are getting smaller, so that most people aren't going to notice the difference between consecutive generations, certainly a few generational leaps will be more obvious. in my gaming i've gone from the colour clash of my speccy, to the pretty okay graphics of the st, to the high colour of the snes, to the joy of 3d on the pc, to accelerated, texture correct, bilinear filtered 3d goodness with my voodoo1, but everything since that has been less in your face with the improvement. its better certainly, but there are no huge jumps anymore. no single step that can leave your jaw on the floor. well, until we get hold of better than life anyway :)

Be careful not to make a sweeping glance at a game that isn't released yet and immediately dismiss it as phantasmagoria. The marketing department will only ever be interested in something more tangible than the promise of great gameplay to wet the appetites of cynical journos. Showing a demo level and saying "This game uses High Dynamic Range Image based lighting solutions" is always going to win over rhetorical promises of advances in AI, or greater depth in gameplay.

I see no reason why graphical superiority and deeper gameplay can't go hand in hand; why do people immediately assume one negates the other? What I would say is games developers lack the focus and perhaps the expertise to develop greater narratives; something that will only change if we get more script writers and artistic and technical directors on board. And, as I've said before, to do this we need to further up the stakes in digital image quality. Im sure that once the boundaries of film and games have merged in terms of what is graphically feasible, it will be much easier for the talented film people to cross over from one medium to another. Which brings up another interesting argument

""As per my signal processing argument this is proof enough we've passed beyond the critical point. All further advancement does is move closer to the point where graphical fidelity becomes indistinguishable from reality, and that won't happen until we start going beyond 200 dpi @ 200 Hz territory, which requires graphics cards with at least eight times faster fillrates than the current generation""

I think you are missing the real issues here that are being tackled by companies such as ATI and nVidia. Since the third generation of Geforce 3 they have become less interested in poly power and more interested in image quality. Fill Rate has advanced, yes, but so has the architecture for rendering more advanced effects that will alow gameplay elements that weren't feasible or possible before. Pixel shaders and better optimised texture pipelines have given programmers and artists infinitely more flexibility in areas such as skinning and vertex deformation, for more advanced body and facial animation, greater pixel level control for effects such as depth of field and motion blur, ocular effects like glows, halos and other such things that will render a scene more realistically. These elements aren’t in and of themselves a sign of great gameplay, but they do offer more choice and flexibility to the artist which, when trying to tell interesting or more involving stories, can make a real difference. Take the girl from Half-Life 2 as an example. She has the most complex facial animation ever seen in a computer game, with facial movements that allow the character to emote more than was possible a few years ago. Again, this does not necessarily make a better game, but the [i]possibilities[/i] for greater characterisation and human empathy can only be guessed at.

To surmise, Im not too sure all the arguments against the progress in graphics are valid, but I can see where your fundamental concerns are. I’d proffer a good reason as to why most computer games today are lacking in the gameplay stakes, and it’s nothing to do with our quest for bigger better faster. The need for good story tellers and professionals from other industries, including film is key to better videogames, and I’d venture so boldy as to say the continual advances (and there are advances) in computer graphics could be the catalyst to this crossover.

Well, photorealism is still a while away.

Thank the flipping Lord! Who needs photorealism?? Even if photorealism were possible, can you imagine the time and effort required to make "photorealistic" environments actually realistic? Miyamoto made the point very well in some interview I read - they went for the cel-shaded Zelda because the world would have looked utterly bland and fake if they had tried to go for a 'realistic' look, with a tree here, a shrub there, a few blue jars in between.

Which would you rather read? A graphic novel by D'Israeli, or a photo love story by Bravo?

Yeah, and how do you think they achieved that beautiful cell shaded look? Could they have done that on an N64, or Snes? No way.

The point of improved graphical hardware doesn't just mean increased realism. It means increased choice and power for a games devloper; what they do with it is upto them.

Yeah, and how do you think they achieved that beautiful cell shaded look? Could they have done that on an N64, or Snes? No way.

The point of improved graphical hardware doesn't just mean increased realism. It means increased choice and power for a games devloper; what they do with it is upto them.

Well, er, yeah! That's kind of my point! I'm not having a go at new technology, don't know where you got that idea from. I'm having a go at the quest for ever great photorealism at the expense of creative and imaginative solutions.

Apparantly my signal processing argument's passed you by. I point you to the nearest reference books on graphics and psychology, and the past fifty years of animation films, just in case you need a prod.

No your signal argument didn’t pass me by, but you don’t even seem to have a cohesive point to the argument (the lack of deeper playing experiences in games), you are just bemoaning the lack of decent games out there, drawing criticism on Doom III and Half Life 2 for providing nothing more than spectacle when you have played neither game and so have nothing to back up those arguments.

The signal processing argument is a mute one, because you are supposing that we (and by we, I mean developers, graphics card manufactures, publishers etc) should forego the development of graphics hardware and software because we have already reached the point where we can fool the eye or the brain successfully enough to warrant no other visual advances in games. Your argument is a mute one because graphics technology is not just linked to games development but other areas such as manufacturing, the film industry, sceince and as such, will always advance even if games tech didn't. I therefore see no wrong in publishers and developers wanting to ride the wave of technological development, and to allow the artists and programmers a better and richer environment to flex their muscles.

HL2 duplicates my own work in this area. Again, it's a matter of record if you know where to look. It was perfectly possible, though at a lower degree of polygon and/or texture fidelity. Plenty of older games prove that. Excuse me for not being wowed, this was old to me over two years ago.

Arrogance aside, your declaration that HL2 duplicates your own work seems to counter your other arguments that games are making advances in the wrong area. You obviously consider such things as normal mapping and facial animation as key to your project, whatever that may be, so why do you show such abhorence towards graphics technology as a whole, and the industries supposed obsession with it?

In the end, you are starting to sound slightly bitter, or I may be confusing that with an underterminable arrogance. Either way, I fail to see the point you are making about todays games, and wait with interest to hear more about your game.

Well, er, yeah! That's kind of my point! I'm not having a go at new technology, don't know where you got that idea from. I'm having a go at the quest for ever great photorealism at the expense of creative and imaginative solutions.

Sorry Otto, I didn't get the gist of what you were trying to say. However, photorealism isn't being strived after for the sake of itself; most games today rely on making you believe you are doing something, whether it's being a terrorist, driving a car or destroying legions of armies, the whole experience is trying to draw you into that world. The verisimilitude of videogames is inherent to the whole gaming experience; A cartoon version of counterstrike wouldn't be the same, nor would max payne, or Doom 3. Photorealism isn't the term I'd use, more hyperrealism. There's nothing wrong with striving for it, providing of course the game stands up to other factors like gameplay and playability.

Ok, we seem to be saying the same thing. We both acknowledge that games need better narrative and character driven elements, with more focus on gameplay rather than graphical finesse. Indeed, we both understand the lack of creativity in this area, and perhaps the reasons for it's absence.

The problem Im having is primarily your assumption of Doom III and Half-Life 2 as mere eye candy and your inability to accept the real benefits of increased graphics technology and the chances it offers for better games. Im also not too sure what you are saying about the animation industry. As I see it, we have only just about reached the level of sophistication that was possible in the short pixar animation KnickKnack (you'd be right in assuming that I love that film) with regards to shaders, particles, animation quality etc. That was produced 14 years ago. Could existing hardware cope with animation quality of the likes of Toy Story (1995)? No, definitely not.

I just don’t think advances in graphical fidelity are done for the sake of it. That’s just like saying advances in processing power are just for the sake of it, or that advances in film technology in the early part of the twentieth century was just for the sake of it. Did we really need colour to tell a better story, or better matting techniques? Or more advanced optical effects?

The Republic is a brave attempt at something very complex and ingenious. I totally respect what it’s trying to do, and for all the talk of the infinite poly engine, the game was praised for it’s attempt at recreating a whole city with inhabitants that live and think autonomously. However, the game seemed to have its failings, or so I read from reviews, and it was apparently clear the game needed more balancing. Perhaps The Republic 2 can iron out the issues; I really hope it does because it’s an important game for the games industry at a time when originality is virtually non-existent (even though I regard originality as a little overrated).

I am looking forward to Half-Life 2 and Doom III and I’m willing to hold my breath in the hope that the gameplay offered will be groundbreaking, graphical splendour aside. I really do hear what you are saying, but I’m afraid I have a different outlook on the possibilities of the new advances. Im also slightly biased, being an artist ;)

However, photorealism isn't being strived after for the sake of itself; most games today rely on making you believe you are doing something, whether it's being a terrorist, driving a car or destroying legions of armies, the whole experience is trying to draw you into that world. The verisimilitude of videogames is inherent to the whole gaming experience; A cartoon version of counterstrike wouldn't be the same, nor would max payne, or Doom 3. Photorealism isn't the term I'd use, more hyperrealism. There's nothing wrong with striving for it, providing of course the game stands up to other factors like gameplay and playability.

Mmmm. I dunno. I still think the industry is locked into a way of doing graphics in games which has more to do with hardware manufacturers' business models and less to do with the needs of the game designer. I stand by my opinion that 'realism' in games would be easier to achieve with an alternative approach to graphical representation. Look at it this way: it's far easier to make a believable fictional world in a book or on radio than on TV or in a film. OK, so games are ultimately a visual medium, but in my opinion they'd be better off following the lead of graphic novels rather than Hollywood action flicks. This is why I think XIII looks far more interesting than, say, Doom 3.

Obviously in some genres, realistic graphics are desirable (I'm thinking racing, sports sims), and developers should strive for that to add to the experience. But in the kind of games I enjoy (ones which tell a story), I've actually found that the move to 3D has extinguished a lot of the atmosphere.

I must admit that the idea of photo-realistic games fascinates me. While I'd love to see more original (graphically speaking) games like Homeworld, XIII, REZ, Zelda, etc., in the end it's the possibility of a real-world environment (that looks like one) in games that holds the most interest for me. I think it's only natural that the development goes into that direction, and if every game would go for an "original" look, I bet this would become boring very fast. After all, how many cartoon movies can you watch before you want to see a real film again.

And what's wrong abput photo-realism, is it automatically less creative than a comic look? Surely not. Why should a photo-realistic rendering of a not really existing location be less creative than an "original" graphics style?

graphics slut! ;p

Yeah, I think it's "less creative" than (say) a cartoon-ey look because you're competing with nature/real-life and you're locked into making things look a certain way, if you want to be believable.

Going on that assumption Otto, are you saying Constable was less creative than say Van Gogh?

Well, the problem is that photo-realistic painting (though Constable surely isn't a photo-realist) was more or less a failure, that's why I carefully avoided such an example. :-D

What he said. :)

edit - actually, there's a point to be made here. Although (obviously) what fine artists are trying to do and what games art directors are trying to do are two different things, the same point can be made in reference to fine art. The attempt to perfectly capture content (as opposed to spirit) is a technical, not an artistic, undertaking. Which is why art in general has moved away from realism.

No, art has moved away from everything that has gone before it, and not just realism. The problem with modern art is it relies too much on the instantaneous shock and sensationalism that most "artworks" elicit upon first viewing. The modern art movement has also become the emporers new clothes, with only a select few actually feigning delight at it's supposed integrity and leaving others scratching their heads. But this is going off the subject somewhat.

My point is that art took new avenues with expressionism and surrealism with the invention of photography; a medium that could perfectly capture the real world, and also stood up as an artistic tool in it's own right. The art of photography is still valid, wouldn't you say? A creative photograph can show awareness of composition, mood, lighting, timing etc. and kind of kills the argument that trying to represent what is real cannot be considered creative.

Could existing hardware cope with animation quality of the likes of Toy Story (1995)? No, definitely not.

Start reducing texture and mesh resolution to the point where the message can't be carried. I reckon a P200 with 4MB Voodoo could do the job. That's what I meant by it being a signal processing problem. Could it achieve the same level of fidelity? No.

But you'd also lose the strong characterisation and wonderful subtleties that only highend 3D CG captures in that animated film. If you start to lose the details, you also start to lose empathy with your protagonists, which is what I was trying to say about the improved facial animation in Half Life 2; it can only enhance the empathy we feel towards the characters.

It's just too easy these days to dismiss realism in CG as passe, or worthless of any artistic merit. It isn't the be all and end all of CG expression, but it's one of the mediums main strengths and should therefore be praised; what would the point be of creating all this new software and hardware if we were then to use it to produce the same effects that are possible with paint, pastels and pencils? That, to me, sounds less creative than the hyperrealism that CG is good at. Not any less valid for certain types of games or films, but definately not as useful.

gameplay, characterisation, story, scene building, and the methods and technology to deliver it have been ignored at the expense of mere novelty

I agree with you here, to a degree. Yet, saying HL2 (apart from the fact that we all haven't played it yet) fails in that area is a bit like saying the latest Hollywood action blockbuster doesn't reach the same depth of characterisation like the Nouvelle Vague did.

What about Stalker though, for example, doesn't that sound promising in many respects (and I mean apart from the fact that it looks brilliant)?

And another question, have you played Gothic? Or Gothic 2, for that matter? There's a level of believable characterisation, NPC interaction and "living, breathing world" design here that hasn't been accomplished by any other game I've played, let alone surpassed. While it might still be far from what you're hoping for, I'd say it's definitely a step in the right direction (yet they got more or less ignored in the UK/USA, afaik).

The real point of this argument is that gameplay, characterisation, story, scene building, and the methods and technology to deliver it have been ignored at the expense of mere novelty. This isn't an argument against increases in graphical fidelity it's an argument against non-delivery in other areas.

Then why are we arguing?

As for Stalker, that is a good example of a game built around a strong story and gripping atmosphere; I haven't heard anything about it's graphical splendour (and it does look splendid). I seriously hope that game delivers on it's promise of free roaming non-linear gameplay; that is, after all the fundamental difference between games and film - non-linearlity.

We are witnessing exciting times in the games industry; saturation and repetition have caused a backlash from gamers as we seek for a new way forward; Im sure we will have an answer soon.

patience patience great work cannot be rushed

When is the xbox release chaps?