Ever see a photo and think "By god, if I made that in a video game every one would laugh at me. But it's real life. o_O". Here's one I just saw. Share yours!
This is a common problem in doing environments for games. You almost always have to make things the way people EXPECT them to look, rather that how they look.
Most clouds look just plain ODD in the sky, but you accept them because, well, they are real and there they are! If i took the same clouds and put them in a game, they would stand out like a sore thumb. People would question their"realness", So i have to fake my clouds to look like what most people expect clouds to look like.
same goes for reflections, I see some pretty crazy reflections off cars and objects that would never pass scrutiny in a game.
It's almost like a reverse uncanny valley for environments. If it gets PERFECTLY real, then it looks odd, back it off a bit and fake it a little, and people will accept it.
I found myself thinking similar things when it comes to either being on a boat or a plane the clouds or the water just tile too much. I mean god made such an rookie mistake with the tiling.
I had that thought when I browsed the Rodin sculpture gallery at the SF Legion of Honor. I said "If I sculpted an exact likeness of this, and put it up on polycount for review without the reference I'd get 'nice start, but keep on working. You're not there yet.'"
im always stuck between making believable art and educating... the world is full of marvolous things that are too way out for video games YET
i think we are in for very interesting times ahead when it becomes "easy" (read computationally possible) to create very believable (lighting and materially) scenes that have NO place in the real wold but retain an otherworldly madness
It's a common problem, create a wall that is not straight in the game, and people asks why isn't this wall straight? That ain't right! Mainly because most perceive walsl to be straight when in most cases they are not.
Lighting, clouds etc is always a bit of a doosy.
Then again we shouldn't forget that most photos ain't natural, long shutterspeeds, post-processing etc etc. Photographers always strut their stuff, I know, I do it too.
My friend once walked past a wooden park bench where the wood was kinda crappy and falling apart but someone from the council had come along and painted it over with this thick, crayon-brown, super-glossy paint. The effect was the loss of all high-frequency detail and colour variation.
He was pretty sure that anyone who had handed it as a university assignment would have failed because:
No diffuse texture
Not enough detail in the normal map
Incorrect specular
Looks nothing like wood
Its because when making art we tend to make as much as possible flow in as real as possible a way. These are stand out features that are totally none normal in the real world, so your eyes catch them and see them as intruders in the scene.
In a game, we do the exact opposite and try to remove anything that stands out in a poor/obvious way.
this problem exists in all forms of game art, i would say especially in character art.
people keep criticising and touting "realism". comments like "that's not right, the bone structure is off, the muscle wouldn't do that, his eyes are too far apart, people don't have lips like that!".
but every single time i've gone to a polycount meeting in london and looked around, all i can see are perfect examples of exactly how wrong most people are when they make these comments. there are some really "strange" looking people, but they are also as normal and average as it gets.
supermodel looks are NOT normal, and shouldn't be the standard to strive for.
Believe me, I tried. This is the first time in the 20-odd years we've seen a dust storm like this as far east as where I am.
And every single bloody time it looked like some idiot had merely fucked with the fog settings and just set the render cull colour (yes, there's a work for it, I've forgotten) to orange.
The worst parts were; even when it was happening (2-3 days to clear up), it still didn't look realistic, despite looking the same as what I saw out my window, AND all the sushi I made had to be covered immediately or it turned orange.
I rely pretty heavily on public transportation to get me to where i need to go, and those times are always prime for people watching. I look around and think to myself, 'Oh that's wrong' and then just kinda chuckle about it. I try to catalog it, and look away before this happens.
It's just the nature of being of being a commercial artist. Your job is to play into the hands of the public perception. The really great artists can infuse a bit of that 'wrongness' into their work, and it just gives the pieces all the more character, but it is definitely a thin line to walk. You go very far at all with the deviation from canon, and people will start to be repulsed. I mean, why do we find Steve Beschemi acceptable but Gollum such a freak? (Joking... but not really :poly122:) And of course all of this last paragraph was in the context of a character or scene which is meant to be pleasing to the eye.
http://youtu.be/oPClPMW7-UAAnd every single bloody time it looked like some idiot had merely fucked with the fog settings and just set the render cull colour (yes, there's a work for it, I've forgotten) to orange.
this problem exists in all forms of game art, i would say especially in character art.
people keep criticising and touting "realism". comments like "that's not right, the bone structure is off, the muscle wouldn't do that, his eyes are too far apart, people don't have lips like that!".
but every single time i've gone to a polycount meeting in london and looked around, all i can see are perfect examples of exactly how wrong most people are when they make these comments. there are some really "strange" looking people, but they are also as normal and average as it gets.
supermodel looks are NOT normal, and shouldn't be the standard to strive for.
No, that is never an excuse for a face just not looking right. I've never seen a human being who looked like they were crafted by an artist with poor anatomy fundamentals -- i see 3d characters who look like that all the time.
But the genetic variation in mainstream game characters is minimal. I've noticed the design by committee effect happening as well, and unless the artist puts out direct reference of their inspiration, the commentary will always push the model toward an anatomical reference model or known standard.
It's like the "chick looks like a man" crits, which while valid, are also not outside of natural variation.
No, that is never an excuse for a face just not looking right. I've never seen a human being who looked like they were crafted by an artist with poor anatomy fundamentals -- i see 3d characters who look like that all the time.
you seem to be confusing two different points.
a character model can be both anatomically correct, and imperfect at the same time. the two terms are not mutually exclusive.
my point wasn't that people harp on about anatomical accuracy (which they should), it was that they harp on about (what is only their opinion of) perfect features.
oh, and there are plenty of humans that look like they shouldn't function, according to anatomy books.
the majority of the time, people will give criticism based on their own preference to how something should look. and yes Perna, a lot of the time that bypasses actual anatomical issues in favour of "beauty standards".
Personally I feel that you should "learn" the ideal or average face, and then add any variations from there. If their eyes are too far part, their lips are big, and nose is slim, that'd probably looks pretty weird. But each one of those parts could look okay on different people.
Most often the artist being critiqued is trying to make a character with that extra good looking flair, but will due to inexperience make some bad design choices that makes it look bad and just dull.
Dull isn't wrong, but it isn't interesting.
You can still make an imperfect character with interesting traits and features, often dealing with asymmetry and broken ideals in a good way.
Most often if an experienced artist or designer thinks what you are going for is dull, then it most likely is.
We are in the business of manufacturing a visual reality in such a way that it supports or even creates a narrative. So even though you will find things/people that look "off" in the real world, keep in mind that such things might very well detract from whatever story we are trying to tell.
That being said, though. I think that a lot of visual appeal (ie. not "beauty" as such) lies in imperfections. I mean, odd as it may sound, I often find myself as mesmerized by the droopy face of an old woman as I would by a young lady with a perfectly proportioned, symmertrical and biologically beautiful face.
So I would say, if you get the critique that it does not look right, take a step back and try to dissect what part of your work makes it geometrically unappealing to that person. I personally find that doing cartoon-ish things has helped my more realistic work, as that is entirely about the overall proportions of things and as such makes it impossible to get lost in making dimples. It all comes down to composition I guess, and the same goes for colour and lighting I think.
Replies
Those are mammatus clouds, by the way.
Most clouds look just plain ODD in the sky, but you accept them because, well, they are real and there they are! If i took the same clouds and put them in a game, they would stand out like a sore thumb. People would question their"realness", So i have to fake my clouds to look like what most people expect clouds to look like.
same goes for reflections, I see some pretty crazy reflections off cars and objects that would never pass scrutiny in a game.
It's almost like a reverse uncanny valley for environments. If it gets PERFECTLY real, then it looks odd, back it off a bit and fake it a little, and people will accept it.
i think we are in for very interesting times ahead when it becomes "easy" (read computationally possible) to create very believable (lighting and materially) scenes that have NO place in the real wold but retain an otherworldly madness
"girls dont look like that, dude"
Sexy!
:poly127:
Lighting, clouds etc is always a bit of a doosy.
Then again we shouldn't forget that most photos ain't natural, long shutterspeeds, post-processing etc etc. Photographers always strut their stuff, I know, I do it too.
He was pretty sure that anyone who had handed it as a university assignment would have failed because:
No diffuse texture
Not enough detail in the normal map
Incorrect specular
Looks nothing like wood
In a game, we do the exact opposite and try to remove anything that stands out in a poor/obvious way.
people keep criticising and touting "realism". comments like "that's not right, the bone structure is off, the muscle wouldn't do that, his eyes are too far apart, people don't have lips like that!".
but every single time i've gone to a polycount meeting in london and looked around, all i can see are perfect examples of exactly how wrong most people are when they make these comments. there are some really "strange" looking people, but they are also as normal and average as it gets.
supermodel looks are NOT normal, and shouldn't be the standard to strive for.
http://www.unrealplayground.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45162&highlight=shoddy
Believe me, I tried. This is the first time in the 20-odd years we've seen a dust storm like this as far east as where I am.
And every single bloody time it looked like some idiot had merely fucked with the fog settings and just set the render cull colour (yes, there's a work for it, I've forgotten) to orange.
The worst parts were; even when it was happening (2-3 days to clear up), it still didn't look realistic, despite looking the same as what I saw out my window, AND all the sushi I made had to be covered immediately or it turned orange.
I rely pretty heavily on public transportation to get me to where i need to go, and those times are always prime for people watching. I look around and think to myself, 'Oh that's wrong' and then just kinda chuckle about it. I try to catalog it, and look away before this happens.
It's just the nature of being of being a commercial artist. Your job is to play into the hands of the public perception. The really great artists can infuse a bit of that 'wrongness' into their work, and it just gives the pieces all the more character, but it is definitely a thin line to walk. You go very far at all with the deviation from canon, and people will start to be repulsed. I mean, why do we find Steve Beschemi acceptable but Gollum such a freak? (Joking... but not really :poly122:) And of course all of this last paragraph was in the context of a character or scene which is meant to be pleasing to the eye.
It's like if Turok, Rage and GTA had a baby.
No, that is never an excuse for a face just not looking right. I've never seen a human being who looked like they were crafted by an artist with poor anatomy fundamentals -- i see 3d characters who look like that all the time.
But the genetic variation in mainstream game characters is minimal. I've noticed the design by committee effect happening as well, and unless the artist puts out direct reference of their inspiration, the commentary will always push the model toward an anatomical reference model or known standard.
It's like the "chick looks like a man" crits, which while valid, are also not outside of natural variation.
you seem to be confusing two different points.
a character model can be both anatomically correct, and imperfect at the same time. the two terms are not mutually exclusive.
my point wasn't that people harp on about anatomical accuracy (which they should), it was that they harp on about (what is only their opinion of) perfect features.
oh, and there are plenty of humans that look like they shouldn't function, according to anatomy books.
the majority of the time, people will give criticism based on their own preference to how something should look. and yes Perna, a lot of the time that bypasses actual anatomical issues in favour of "beauty standards".
Dull isn't wrong, but it isn't interesting.
You can still make an imperfect character with interesting traits and features, often dealing with asymmetry and broken ideals in a good way.
Most often if an experienced artist or designer thinks what you are going for is dull, then it most likely is.
possibly the best example of what i'm trying to get at.
wireframe
vertex distortion
lowres lightmap
That being said, though. I think that a lot of visual appeal (ie. not "beauty" as such) lies in imperfections. I mean, odd as it may sound, I often find myself as mesmerized by the droopy face of an old woman as I would by a young lady with a perfectly proportioned, symmertrical and biologically beautiful face.
So I would say, if you get the critique that it does not look right, take a step back and try to dissect what part of your work makes it geometrically unappealing to that person. I personally find that doing cartoon-ish things has helped my more realistic work, as that is entirely about the overall proportions of things and as such makes it impossible to get lost in making dimples. It all comes down to composition I guess, and the same goes for colour and lighting I think.
Jesus Christ God, sort out that seam, lawlz...