will art direction take centre stage as the "wow" factor, once photorealism is achieved? || share your thoughts and screenshots

H . R . 2

H . R . 2

Member
QeC44eN.jpg

image: (in-game screenshot) The Order 1886 - the perfect example of excellent art direction combined with stunning visuals


we've been told that we are only a few years away from achieving photorealistic visuals (hell, in select few cases I think we already have).
but do you think once photorealism is achieved,
visuals will cease to amaze?
will art style be prioritised over graphics by developers?
how will it affect us as players/consumers?

Share your thoughts and screenshots !​
 
I think the real problem is rather the amount of work needed to create all those props and to populate the maps in a convincing and meaningful way.
Even the Original Crysis had "photorealistic" mods that cranked up it's textures to 11 and since then everything just got better, but games never really lacked in "looks" but rather "atmosphere".
 
We are still many years away from photorealism on consoles. Art direction should take centre stage since that is usually what folks remember versus the photorealism.
 
If BOTW teaches us anything it's that consistency throughout the game world (NPCs, animals, enemies, buildings, foliage etc etc) is more important than per object detail.

The most visually annoying games are those where you have the main characters that look photorealistic but they're walking through a crowd of NPCs that look like they'e had butter smeared across their faces.

-Yakuza is a good example. Kiryu and the other main NPCs look amazing and then everyone else looks like shit.
-FIFA games where most of the players look pretty good but then there are the unknown players who didn't get a face scan and look generic, plus the crowds that look like something from a PS2 game.

There are plenty more examples but you get the gist....
 
Last edited:
My problem is games that has photo realistic visuals, the imperfections stand out much more and games are made by human being so it will always have imperfections.
 
It all depends on the game. I think most PS4 1st party games have a mixture of art direction and photorealism. Death Stranding is the closest thing to photorealism so far, and probably BF games.
 
Tranquil said:
Next let's work on realistic looking animations.
Click to expand...

this gen was the only generation where 3rd parties made a really promising start but suddenly went downhill. we got Unity, a remarkable technical achievement in terms of visuals and animations, but then Ubisoft went ahead and downgraded EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING in favour of pseudo-rpg elements that could help them with their microtransactions
 
Last edited:
We are light years from photorealism except for driving game or stuff like flight simulator.

Also good art direction is always an important thing to have, no matter if the art style is realistic or not.
 
Last edited:
Art direction has always been the real WOW factor in games. Look at the reception games like Breath of the WIld, Borderlands, The new wolfenstein series, Doom Eternal, Overwatch, Team Fortress 2, Dishonored, and on and on receive. They're consistently labeled the best looking games in the industry because of their art direction.

Photorealistic games have by and large been pretty boring and underwhelming to look at, regularly dropping saturation and increasing contrast to make the games pop blandly. I mean we're constantly surrounded by photorealism, the games that aim for it are always a pale imitation of reality and the art style is really not what brings people to those franchises. If call of duty or battlefield dropped back to a bit more of an animated realism rather than trying for stark desaturated realism the games would look better and age better over time.
 
True photorealism is possible now, not a single developer is striving for it because - those art styles that would benefit from it would suddenly have no where to go once achieving photorealism without vast strides in environment design. In other words, we could have it now but dev's don't want to give that to us - and it isn't even difficult; but it does create the problem of "What do we do now to top this" and it does remove the gradual improvement/easy sequel with only modest graphical improvement's Segway we've become accustomed to.
 
I think it has been that way for awhile. I loved the look of Dishonored compared to its peers because of the semi-cartoonish characters (especially the facial features). Ghost of Tsushima is unrealistically colorful and looks all the better for it. Games like Gravity Rush 2 and Tearaway will age like wine while most of the eye-candy fades away if the gameplay doesn't hold up.
 
I think current gaming audiences couldn't care either for graphics whoring or AAA gaming or nextgen hardware

just look at all the streaming of blocky minicrap
 
Art direction has always been centre stage..
There are "photorealistic" games that look better than other "photorealistic" games. That comes down to the art direction and the skill of the environment, character and effects artists.
 
Last edited:
Some years ago I saw a GDC video with a Naughty Dog artist who said that the tendency is art being more and more in the spotlight in the next generation.

His reasoning was that achieving good textures, modeling, etc would be easier and cheaper with new technologies like object scanning and competent/cheap engines. Even indie devs with little money will have access to these tools.

IMO, this is already happening in some sense. Many indie games on Steam have graphics that I would expect from AAA two years ago.

The tendency, in his opinion, will be more stylized AAA games, because it is a good way to differentiate from the rest and more realistic indie games since it will be easier to make one.
 
Nah

Standards adapt quickly, and bad elements of the graphics you may have once overlooked because there aren't many examples of games doing it better eventually become an eye sore when you go back to look on it
 
Art direction always has to be talked about for Nintendo not because of actual art direction because it is always underpowered hot garbage that can't do good graphics sans Fast Racing RMX.
 
always has been

I was all about dem realistic graphics for the longest time but honestly I was so wrong. Most of the games I thought were incredible and photorealistic have aged horribly lol. Good art direction always stands the test of time.
 
TeezzyD said:
You can have masterful unique art direction and photo-realism. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Usually those that pretend they are mutually exclusive are terribly biased towards one or the other. You can do both, you can appreciate both.
 
It already is honestly. We already achieved photorealistic visual, albeit with some imperfections.
What has been wow-ing people this gen in games like RDR2, The Witcher 3 or GOW was much more art direction than the graphics themselves. So much so there's other games with similar visual fidelity that just don't get talked about as much.

What we need to expand on now is dynamism. We can make games that look like photographs or movies, but we still can't interact with the enviroment in convincing ways while keeping that visual quality and immersion. Even keeping up a dynamic enviroment with such quality w/o any player input is already pretty hard.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who says they don't like photorealism and/or that they don't want photorealism in their video games is not deserving of respect.

I kid, of course. But I do find it baffling the sheer amount of people that are actively opposed to photorealistic video games. I love it. I want all games to strive for this. It blows my mind that developers don't strive for this. Get your stupid Borderlands and Zelda: Breath of the Wild art styles out of here. :D
 
Pure photorealism devoid of any sort of stylistic approach is super bland, boring, and doesn't impress nearly as much as what I would call "artistic photorealism". For example, we have the case of The Last of Us Part II or The Order 1886. These two still aim for a photorealistic look but they have a very strong sense of art direction (even having a subtle "cartoonish" look sometimes) and make a much more impactful visual presentation than if they went for a 100% realistic rendering.
 
Photorealism will be held back by every other factor, including but not limited to sound, animation, and AI. Something like that will surely be like some sort of nightmare.

I've never wanted reality in games, because reality in many ways is boring. Not visually, but it's part of the package. Realistic is for tech demos.
 
Last edited:
I sure hope so because art style allows for abstractions on which you can save a bit of computational power per frame for other stuff like better AI/level design/gameplay mechanics/etc. Graphics are just one part of a video game. Granted, it's usually the part that is pushed the most for selling a game but looking pretty is not enough for me nowadays.
 
Guilty_AI said:
It already is honestly. We already achieved photorealistic visual, albeit with some imperfections.
What has been wow-ing people this gen in games like RDR2, The Witcher 3 or GOW was much more art direction than the graphics themselves. So much so there's other games with similar visual fidelity that just don't get talked about as much.
Click to expand...

Exactly, RDR2 is another great example of how a game can look both picturesque and photorealistic at the same time. I firmly believe it all boils down to developers' ability to choose the right setting, the right engine, and the right art direction for their games, providing that they already have talented teams of course.
 
TeezzyD said:
You can have masterful unique art direction and photo-realism. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

here are a few more examples of photorealistic games with strong art direction


the following were captured in-game on a PS4 (base)

cVZY2xR.jpg

Alien: Isolation


PoXEAX7.png


QXB3TxV.jpg


PQZeKqE.png

Batman: Arkham Knight



BNi0NgZ.jpg


TOOnbgu.jpg


65CmvbM.jpg

Infamous: Second Son



bmtec8I.jpg


n5FDc1u.jpg

Killzone: Shadowfall
 
Last edited:
I think photorealism is best used, for the most part, where the game requires that level of fidelity...racing games, simulations, etc but if I'm playing a game where I want to escape into a world created by the designers imagination, the last thing I want to do is be reminded that I am playing a game because my character is played by an actor I recognise from TV or a fashion shoot. Photogrammetry is a great tool for artists but it's become a bit of a crutch alongside motion capture.
 
Nhranaghacon said:
I personally want true photorealism in games, I think it sucks dev's aren't giving that to us when they really in actuality could.
Click to expand...
"True" photorealism is years away, especially in character work. It's not just a matter of getting a photoscan rig, and facial capture. The shaders have to be created to properly mimic the way human skin looks, then we have to capture the movement correctly, not just the expressions of an actor wearing a face capture rig.
All those minute muscle fluctuations and flutters of an eyelid...a twitch of a nose. These are the things that characters are missing, and what throw the realism out. No matter how sophisticated the capture tools are now, we still are not quite there.
 
'photorealism' is such a stupid concept. It's a still 2d frame, it has no relation to reality. The big advances in games need to come in ai, animation, behaviour, physics. We are so far beyond striving for 'photorealism', that's such a limited goal, we need to aim for fully believable character behaviors.
 
photorealism = uncanney valley

For me photo realism is boring, it's telling me the art director doesn't have any idea so they fall back on reality as a crutch.

The only place it has any relevance is simulation, for driving, flying, etc
Where the game's intended goal is to get as close to reality as possible.

In all other cases, I rather have video games that take a stance, sell me YOUR universe, not some pale copy of reality.
 
Last edited:
Ballthyrm said:
photorealism = uncanney valley
...
The only place it has any relevance is simulation, for driving, flying, etc
Where the game's intended goal is to get as close to reality as possible.
Click to expand...

I completely agree
however, companies like Ubisoft turn that statement into the flimsy excuse that their games have not been downgraded, rather upgraded in terms of art direction. the difference between Unity and Syndicate is night and day
 
People in this thread are confusing photorealism with common reality. Which is why so many seem to be opposed to it.

For me, photorealism means the lighting/animation/materials makes an object or creature look like real. That doesn't mean said object or creature should be a real one like a car or a lion. It could be a weird looking flying vehicle, a sci-fi device or a monster. All requiring good art direction in order to look interesting, they still need photorealism in order to look convincing and believable. An alien creature, monster, etc, still need to react to shadows and lighting in the same way as a lion or car, otherwise they will look fake. That's what photorealism means, something that looks like it could be real. Not necessarily real things that exist in the real world.

Of course, you can have different visual styles that don't aim to look like real but even such art styles can benefit from photorealism. For instance, there's a certain cartoony game that looks better than others and that game is Plants VS Zombies Garden Warfare. That game is obviously not realistic at all, it aims for a CGI cartoon style. But you still get somewhat photo realistic lighting, shadows and materials. This makes it look much more impressive than something like Crash 4, which looks like a glorified mobile game where the lighting seems off and all materials look like the same flat looking plasticky thing.

Another example is the movie Roger Rabbit. Why do you think this particular movie looks so much better than other similar movies where they mix real actors with cartoons? It's because they added several photorealistic aspects on the cartoons themselves. They cast shadows, not only on the environment but on themselves as well. And they generally react to the lighting in the same way real objects do or at least that's what they tried to emulate. The result is something convincing. It's impressive for something as obviously fake and out of this world like a cartoon character to look so grounded in reality at the same time.

This is similar as all those stylized indie games that use pixelated or cartoony art direction but at the same time they use realistic lighting/shadows, physics and particles. You say you like the way these games look because of the art direction but in reality you like them because these pixels and fake objects look so interesting when they are lit with such realism.

That's the whole point. You can still put art direction on the front and create whatever crazy thing you have in your mind but it can still be photorealisitc in order to look convincing. With that in mind, i would say photorealism is very important to me. I prefer a convincing world over a fake one. I mean, that's why we get new consoles and graphics cards every few years. Because making convincing looking games requires power, the more power you have the more convincing the world a developer has in mind can be.

That's not to say older consoles couldn't produce great looking games. Non-photorealistic graphics can still be impressive in their own way. I'm not going to say something like Metal Slug 3 doesn't look amazing with it's detailed pixel art and animation. And even something like Okami, a fully 3D game that doesn't follow any realistic visual rule can look amazing. But photorealistic games can look amazing too, don't confuse the term with the boring reality.
 
Last edited:
SirTerry-T said:
"True" photorealism is years away, especially in character work. It's not just a matter of getting a photoscan rig, and facial capture. The shaders have to be created to properly mimic the way human skin looks, then we have to capture the movement correctly, not just the expressions of an actor wearing a face capture rig.
All those minute muscle fluctuations and flutters of an eyelid...a twitch of a nose. These are the things that characters are missing, and what throw the realism out. No matter how sophisticated the capture tools are now, we still are not quite there.
Click to expand...
Not true, I as a CGI artist have created photoreal pieces - true photorealism also - is something seen across swathes of Unreal Engine Student Reel's. To accomplish photorealism now, today - all you need is a team dedicated to delivering photorealism opposed to a team delivering a game that can be incrementally improved graphically with every new iteration.

Here is 1 not even good example of what can be accomplished with photorealism now -



Full Immersion Based Photorealism is also just within reach, if you look at recent examples in character work all that was needed were nuanced spec map's and this one improvement - a technique developer's have been excluding for about the last 7 years - catalyzes a new level character depth not seen before in gaming. Senua from Hellblade 2 is arguable something that the Series X should be able to accomplish in real time. And while it is not a perfect example of photorealism (really this fall's into the category of Full Immersion Based Photo Realism - with less break's in immersion due to character animations) it is far superior to what has been seen in the past.

As far as purely delivering a game that is photorealistic - we just don't have team's dedicated to delivering a photorealistic experience working on next gen titles. You could have stunted - unanimated faces but deliver them in a photorealistic manner today while striving to maintain photorealism and it would look leagues better than anything seen before. A modest game boasting photorealism could already be in gamer's hand's - it's a pity there hasn't been one.

But there are literally 100's of nearly flawless examples of photorealism now - I as a CGI artist's have tested this barrier and I know first hand that If I aimed to deliver a photoreal walkthrough that looked better than what is shown - it isn't terribly difficult.

Do these examples offer break's in immersion? Yes but immersion is not photorealism

Immersion Based Photorealism - or Photorealism with the caveat of a flawless camera and flawless animation's - an experience that does not break
immersion for the user - is something a team with 100% certainty could begin working on and deliver fairly soon if those people intended to.

Marbles -

Arguably the first Photorealistic "Game"



Photoreal Unreal Engine Tech Demo's

Arguably Photorealistic - Break's in immersion surface due to First Person Camera Constraint's

This does not render the below less Photoreal.

It does mean a Photoreal Game (even Modest) with few break's in Immersion is the foundation team's should build on.











 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Insomniac won't share news just because you ask: "Things take time, resources, and the greenlight to share them"
2
55
2K
FoxMcChief replied
Original Xbox - Share your memories
2 3
134
711
nush replied
Digital Foundry Hands On: Hogwarts Legacy on Switch 2 Lacks the Current Gen Wow Factor.
2 3
148
3K
Baemono replied
Demon's Souls Remake is sorely dissapointing in the art direction
2 3 4 5 6
272
18K
poodaddy replied
Have you ever stopped playing a game because you could not stand the art direction? (Expedition 33...)
2 3
145
900
Jigsaah replied
Top Bottom