My take on realism in game art
interpolator
Edit: Before you read, the thread title is dated. It wont update to the new one. You don't have to consider it important.
I don't usually advertise my own stuff so when I made this thread, I thought it was something I just had to put out there.
It's somewhat of a lengthy read, and the paragraphs somewhat deviate from each other, but I did my best to try and hold everything together and get my point across.
http://jordannelson2.blogspot.ca/2015/01/ive-grown-appreciation-for-ps1-graphics.html
I don't usually advertise my own stuff so when I made this thread, I thought it was something I just had to put out there.
It's somewhat of a lengthy read, and the paragraphs somewhat deviate from each other, but I did my best to try and hold everything together and get my point across.
http://jordannelson2.blogspot.ca/2015/01/ive-grown-appreciation-for-ps1-graphics.html
Replies
You might want to proofread that. Same goes for the article.
Edit: Well I changed it to "interesting". If that's not acceptable, you'll have to suggest one for me.
I will fix some of the spelling though.
Well, you can, but then there better be a truly interesting and well written article behind the loud advertisement. Otherwise you might get the clicks, but also annoy a lot of people.
How about "My new blog about game art/art", or, more descriptive: My take on realism in game art.
Although, Polycount doesn't update the thread title. So the old one still shows up, before clicking this thread.
i then read it 4 more times in order to try and decipher your point. You claim to evaluate things in a "scientific way" but frankly that's one of the most muddled, unfocussed, impenetrable splurges of vaguely connected sentences i've ever read. I haven't got time or inclination to crit it specifically (as i say i need to go and walk the dog, never mind i'm sure plenty of people will fill in the gaps for you), but seriously, you need to read more before you write more. Read a ton of articles and get a sense for how a point is constructed, supported and concluded. Since you're not actually arguing a point (as far as i can tell), merely making an observation, this should be relatively easy
also, do you actually know what the hardware limitations of creating and rendering PS1 assets actually are? Its a lot more than low polycounts and a lack of filtering. Research those and consider adding them to your article, it will help a lot to show you actually know what you're talking about. On a similar note, not all 2D graphics are sprites, and we didn't go from 2d to "true 3D space" simply because of the addition of polygons. Again, research
also, blank SLATE
You could probably change the title to: "Shallow insights into something I know very little about"
It's not meant to be about the detailed origin of graphics. As someone said, it's closer to an observation. The scientific part is because there are some truths/facts included in this but that's not suppose to be the take away from this.
However, please don't get angry at me for the thread title. I couldn't think of a better one at the time of posting and the forum wont update it, regardless that I did.
You tend to state for fact that you know something, when really you have little to no idea about the topic. This ends up aggravating people who actually know the ins and outs of the topic, and then the thread blows up.
I will give you credit that you are actually talking the criticism positively this time around.
Just something to keep in mind.
I guess appreciation for the former things are okay, but don't dwell on the past or else you will get left behind!
Less talk more art.
If this is just for your own personal online-journal then I'd say fine, it's your personal space to write about whatever you want with.
If you actually want people to follow your blog and use it as a source of information and/or present a thought or question then you really should back up any facts or statements you've made with actual research and primary sources of material, and have someone proofread it.
I would also recommend avoiding blanket statements in your writing, such as "There has been no greater quote in the world of computer graphics than this,"
You could have simply presented the quote by John Lasseter if you wanted to include it. Stating that it is the best quote in the world is an entirely subjective phrase and doesn't really have any business being in a scholarly article.
Also, you should really think about your target audience.
Layman speak is fine when done properly and with a professional tone, but this is a bit too fluffy and seems like it would of been written for an audience who has little to no knowledge about anything when it comes to how video games are made.
Since you're presenting this to "artists," I'd skip past the extremely basic things, or actually dive deeper than a surface statement about them. IE, if you're going to talk about the history of polygons, then talk about the HISTORY of polygons.
If you're going to talk about art history and how the fundamentals of traditional art theory still applies wholeheartedly to the development and execution of art assets produced on a computer for digital entertainment, or by how the idealized standards of human anatomy and the golden ratio of aesthetics have enamored sculpture artists since the classical periods to the digital-age of today, in which art is massively-consumed over a digital-distribution network socially rather than in a traditional private art gallery, then talk about that.
I'll argue it is. It's like a digital painter ignoring the history of fine art and the lessons the Masters taught us.
One of the saddest things I currently see is 3D artists lacking basic knowledge (i.e. low poly edge flow, joint construction, etc.) and instead just tossing as many polygons at it as they can. If proper low poly workflow and theory was taught then they would be much smarter with their current gen workflow.
You should always try to learn from the past even if it seems irrelevant.
Jordan, couple of personal questions:
What's your experience with writing essays? Academically? Editorially? Etc.
And a much more personal concern, what have you made in terms of art? I'm trying to get a read for your skills, and I can't seem to immediately find anything.
Regarding my art, I am in school right now.
I did tons of drawings, modeling, texturing, video composting, sculpting in my program but they are not for games.
I have to work on my environment portfolio in the background which is causing me a lot of trouble. I do not want to fail school so the time it takes for me to complete it is a lot longer.
I did post an end of year progress a few weeks ago, so I do believe there is no concern right now with my progress.
this...
That!
I've also noticed though that animations are often a weak point in many games, as if they aren't given a very high priority.
You couldn't be more wrong in my opinion.
If you don't think there is anything to learn from heavy restrictions / low poly era models, then you really don't understand what the fundamentals are for 3D modeling.
* Creating low poly meshes for Zbrush / Subdivision Modeling and knowing how to distribute the triangles (quads) properly is a fundamental from the low polygon modeling era.
* Examining the silhouette of your asset and making sure that each vert and edge has a purpose is a fundamental / practice from low polygon modeling.
* Proper edge flow for face loops is a fundamental from low polygon modeling when we had very little to work with and still had to convey proper expressions.
* Proper edge flow for joints (hinge joints, ball joints, etc) were all problems we had to solve back in the day when we suddenly had multiple bone influences per vert.
* UV Mapping comes from the era where you had to manually unwrap your character, take a screen shot, and morph it back into shape.
These are just some really quick things off the top of my head and from a character artists perspective.
In the end, like you mentioned, painting fundamentals haven't changed much, but I'd argue that it's the same for 3D modeling. Afterall, during the early days of 3D gaming, there were still studios doing high res modeling for cinematics and movies. The only thing that has changed is the tools like it has for digital painters, but the fundamentals are still largely the same.
I come from the era of PS2 / XBOX that you claim is irrelevant now days, but you know what? I'm an art director now. I teach and build pipelines based on my knowledge which started in the PS2 / XBOX era.
By making that very naive statement, you're insulting a lot of the people here and most likely people you admire who have been in the industry as long or longer than I have.
You have an idea... Try formalizing it and give it clarity. To do that you need facts before general glossed over thoughts.
It's good to have skills grounded expierence, it's equally good to contemperize your skill set when a better way comes along.
This is what I have a huge problem with. It's kind of like you're suggesting, 'Let's not teach kids that yellow and blue make green because we already have green markers. It will just confuse them. We've moved past the days of having to mix our own colors.'
I don't understand why you think it would cause students to cull polygons like mad.
There is a big difference between being smart about polygon distribution and culling like it's 1995. I am in no way suggesting the latter, just that it's a good teaching tool.
A flat, static quad is a flat, static quad. Unless the quad is of certain dimensions or your shaders are utilizing the verts for whatever reason it will not help to throw more verts at it. Sadly, I see this all too often.
Learning how to cull and be smart with your polygon distribution by learning how to model with restrictions is something that is severely lacking today from my observation. Learning with restrictions often leads to thinking outside the box and finding a more creative solution.
Current gen / past gen, it doesn't matter. You should always strive to be efficient with your 3D art. The answer should never be, 'throw more polygons at it'. As I've said many times, 'Just because we can doesn't mean we should.'
What do you mean by 'current gen' games anyway? I think a better phrase is 'bleeding edge games / tech' because there are a lot more 'current gen' games right now that still use previous gen polycounts than 'bleeding edge games / tech'.
At the end of it all, all this is silly. We artists like to think we're super important to the success of a game. In a small way we are, but not in the way we think we are. This shiny new PBR layer means nothing to the end user. They take screenshots of current games and say they look like PS1 era games. The end user is absolutely ignorant to whats in front of them and all the effort that goes into any AAA game.
Art pushes Tech and Tech inspires Art, but don't forget that Tech has final say and Art has to find workarounds.
With that said, I think it's interesting to look back and see the limitations of how things were done then. I have a spot in my heart for old school low polygon artwork and single diffuse textures.
But you don't necessarily have to look back to understand not to be wasteful. Because that same teaching with todays limitations in mind should still be taught and practiced today.
I'm kind of an advisor for the Art Institute down here, they want me to grade some student work and give pointers and this is something I see a ton of. More often than not, my crits involve stating that the students need to learn mesh distribution instead of just turbosmoothing the hell out of everything and going to town. I stress all the time to the instructors that they need to focus on proper low poly modeling to get that mindset in their heads. And it's really not even about "low poly" modeling as much as it is about "smart, efficient" modeling.
There is a nice quote on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle which ideally is aspired in engineering, "It seems that perfection is reached not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away"
The same problem exists in programming, student learn a few languages, tons of features around them, design principles... but they do not develop a feeling for what is overkill and what not, writing lots of inefficient code, due to a principle lack of understanding how the machine works. Which is why an education in that field not covering machine assembly at all, is also not ideal, no matter how far technology "on top" has evolved.
Minimalism doesn't always seem to be popular in a world where more of everything is typically considered better
Now about the actual blog post. Most criticism has been mentioned already, it lacks a proper train of thought, what is the goal of the article, terms, context... the only thing I can get is a feeling that old tech had a certain "truth" to it, and at the gist I would agree. If there are more limits you try to focus on the important things first. Though what is considered important may change over time (people in the 80s surely will tell you vivid color everywhere is important).
Next to those issues, there are in my opinion a few misconceptions in the article (the way it reads to me). The ps1 did not come from dust, nor did all the techniques people applied there. It doesn't make things more "true" being first, and it clearly was not the first step into 3d games.
A lot of the techniques we apply today are based on principles that have been researched often starting in the late 70s, early ages of computer graphics. The way raytracers work, light interactions... it just was too insanely expensive to do it "properly" so some simplifications quickly became standards in certain parts of the industry.
Advances in technology then allowed using more and more in real-time. The modern interpretation of physically based shading may not have been around for so long, simply as it was deemed too expensive, so people looked for other workarounds. Now that we can afford faking more parts of it, it became mainstream, and we see the benefits are huge, so it gained importance and we simplify it again and try to apply even under harder limits (see evolution of ps3 graphics). But you have to be able to "see the light" for certain things first, to really grasp the importance.
Coming up with something visually appealing is not the same as aspiring photoreal graphics. Compare a cheap tv soap opera (photoreal) to decent production. Though arguably most of it is based on some very very basic shading principles we find in reality.
And then we could play this same game not from the "technological" but from the artistic point of view, how did painters work in the past, what universal principles do they apply (despite their lack of technology/math backing knowledge hehe).
Anyway if you want to do an article for real, it's gonna be quite some work, and you should have plenty hints to move it further, if that was your goal making this thread.
I'm not good with words, but I still want to express myself. I'm putting together an awesome throwback to the Playstation 1.
What I'm doing right now is the most fun I ever had. It really feels like game development and game art intertwined with each other! Every polygon and texture I'm making is being made with fun!!!!
But there's a a disclaimer. My break off school is slowly running out, so I can only do so much with it. I'm literally cramming in hard for this while still thinking about the rest of my environment art pieces I need to fill my portfolio.
But this project has literally got me thinking why I love games. Why I love game art. And why I want to finally be apart of the game industry.
I hope to show it soon.
Someone was concerned about what I'm doing with my art, so I have to say something or no one knows what I'm doing. Not all the time I can post something if I don't think it's ready yet.
I'm not trying to be stubborn. Please understand I'm trying to be very careful with this.