Maintaining the suspension of disbelief...
polycounter lvl 19
I was going to write something on the topic as another article for my site but thought I'd get a conversation on the topic going here first. Chris (Holden) had some good insight on the subject and I really want to think what others think.
There's this certain sense of disbelief thats always shrouded over a videogame. You - thats us, the game developer - have to tread lightly as to not pull the gamer out of the universe you're trying to portray. And because of this, I feel too often that you have to make an area in a way thats too perfect, just so the player doesn't catch the imperfection and call bullshit on the game overall.
Example: I was in a house the other day that was fairly old, and made cheap. Think... 1980's middle America, shitty composite wood paneling on the interior. The boards on one wall didn't line up with corresponding corner. They were off by about 2-4" in some spots, more or less in others.
I was thinking that's a neat imperfection to throw in a game as thats something I try and do in everything I work on. But.. something so minute like that might come across as a mis-aligned texture, shifted UV's, whatever you want to call it. Now.. I know those terms are something professionals would know, but Joe Gamer would notice it as well and translate the 'error' however he pleases, probably negatively to the overall experience.
So instead you line everything up and call it a day. What you end up with is something that's too perfect. To Joe Gamer, however, its fine; The idea of wood paneling is portrayed, the lighting is fairly realistic, so its all there. And while the amount of 'perfection' this new room may have, that's an imperfection in its own right. Nothing is squared off like that in the real world.
Perhaps, on our end as artists, imperfections have to come in bigger shapes and forms and not worry about boards lining up, grass growing on concrete, a door hinge being broken, and so-on.
Chris and I started to then talk about this 'imperfection pass' we do on art work. I personally do it as a near-final step to the environment. Everything up until then is made on 0 and 90 degree angles. Things are lined up, spick & span. (It helps the unwrap process go as quickly and smoothly as possible). Once I'm done and everything is textured and rendering nicely it's time to add angles, off-kilter silhouettes, dents, edge imperfections, etc.
So - what do you guys think? Am I just blowing smoke or do you all try and practice the same thing? SHOULD we practice this method of adding imperfection to what we do?
While this topic may seem environment art centric I should hope it applies to characters as well so I'd love to hear from those folks too.
Thanks!
There's this certain sense of disbelief thats always shrouded over a videogame. You - thats us, the game developer - have to tread lightly as to not pull the gamer out of the universe you're trying to portray. And because of this, I feel too often that you have to make an area in a way thats too perfect, just so the player doesn't catch the imperfection and call bullshit on the game overall.
Example: I was in a house the other day that was fairly old, and made cheap. Think... 1980's middle America, shitty composite wood paneling on the interior. The boards on one wall didn't line up with corresponding corner. They were off by about 2-4" in some spots, more or less in others.
I was thinking that's a neat imperfection to throw in a game as thats something I try and do in everything I work on. But.. something so minute like that might come across as a mis-aligned texture, shifted UV's, whatever you want to call it. Now.. I know those terms are something professionals would know, but Joe Gamer would notice it as well and translate the 'error' however he pleases, probably negatively to the overall experience.
So instead you line everything up and call it a day. What you end up with is something that's too perfect. To Joe Gamer, however, its fine; The idea of wood paneling is portrayed, the lighting is fairly realistic, so its all there. And while the amount of 'perfection' this new room may have, that's an imperfection in its own right. Nothing is squared off like that in the real world.
Perhaps, on our end as artists, imperfections have to come in bigger shapes and forms and not worry about boards lining up, grass growing on concrete, a door hinge being broken, and so-on.
Chris and I started to then talk about this 'imperfection pass' we do on art work. I personally do it as a near-final step to the environment. Everything up until then is made on 0 and 90 degree angles. Things are lined up, spick & span. (It helps the unwrap process go as quickly and smoothly as possible). Once I'm done and everything is textured and rendering nicely it's time to add angles, off-kilter silhouettes, dents, edge imperfections, etc.
So - what do you guys think? Am I just blowing smoke or do you all try and practice the same thing? SHOULD we practice this method of adding imperfection to what we do?
While this topic may seem environment art centric I should hope it applies to characters as well so I'd love to hear from those folks too.
Thanks!
Replies
Then again, not too many people bother...its imperfections in details that brings out the scene...imo
Take for example. My apartment. You walk in and it's gorgeous. It looks perfect BUT when you start getting closer and looking around you will notice that some of the trim around the ceiling doesn't meet perfectly at the corners and it creates a slight gap that should have been filled in but it is not.
Doing this in a game is a small thing but like Adam said someone would probably just say oh they didn't push those close enough together, blah blah blah.
Our kitchen stove is a little off balance too and if you look at it you can tell as well. There are all kinds of things that are imperfect in our world that make things the way they are but if we try to replicate that to the fullest in games it doesn't always work out the same way.
We can do things as artists like hanging pictures on the wall a little crooked and posters or whatever a little off center. Mistakes people make in the real world.
I also try to add some things to my work that makes it less perfect. One thing I did was something that had a lot of screws and vents on it I modeled a screw hole in my high poly to go with the screws / bolts so that it would look like a screw had fallen out or had been forgotten.
It went un-noticed for a while but then I was told to fix it as it would look like someone forgot to "texture" or model that area.
I know character guys try to add a little bit of a-symmetry to a lot of the guys they do because in the real world most people are not perfectly symmetrical. Some have one eye thats slightly bigger or an arm that is a bit longer, etc.
Will these things be noticed? Maybe, maybe not but I think it could only add to the believability of the worlds we create.
maybe it's just the developers / artists.
if you have poor skills, your attempt at forced imperfection will look like an error to Joe Gamer. But if you have skills and the flexibility to use them, your imperfections will be slick and almost un-noticeable - just like in the real world.
Remember, it's only bad art you notice. Good art sails smoothly by.
There are games out there already doing this, and have been for years - I think it's the stark realisation that the game you're working on doesn't do this that brings it into question.
HL2 had some good slum environments, nothing looked perfect in that game.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, HL2 was the worst for just flat-out misaligning textures. Texture seems every where which were NOT 'real world imperfections' but laziness on someones part.
But, I know of the imperections in the game you speak of and I think a lot of it had to do with a lot of things being tossed off the 0 or 90 degree angle most brushed-based engines fall victim to. Only recently have I seen developers going more and more away from that and actually TURNING things slightly - OMG! (CoD4 I'm looking at you, thank you!)
I'd also venture to say that in most good character designs, the imperfections are even more important, and often what make the character stand out from the crowd.
I also implement the same "imperfection stage" in most of my pieces, especially my newer work. For someone just beginning their game artist trek, this could be something they could easily overlook, in their rush to make everything "factory new".
In cases like this, you need to add imperfection on a higher level. Doors that are slightly ajar, with a clearly visible room inside. Grates on the floor with fat pipes and large details underneath. Something that's noticeable while quickly moving through the environment.
On the other hand, say you're making an RPG/MMORPG. In these games, the player has free reign to walk around and check shit out. Knowing that possibility, you'd have to add more macro detail to areas that player can access.
I personally feel that a huge disconnect in games is world interaction. Physics. If I walk up to a desk and see a bottle cap or piece of paper, I want to be able to knock that off. Not in some cheesy pre-canned animation or typical havok physics behavior sort of way.
The movement of objects is a HUGE issue in keeping the illusion. If the physical interaction is there, players are not surprisingly more engaged than environments without it.
Compare the average UT3 environment .vs. something from Halflife 2. The visuals in UT3 are far higher fidelity than HL2's, yet the interaction isn't there.
While seemingly small, being able to pick up soda cans or knock over paint buckets goes a long way to adding realism to the experience. When you're engaged to that degree with the environment itself, minute graphical details really don't matter.
The visuals in UT3 are far higher fidelity than HL2's, yet the interaction isn't there.
[/ QUOTE ]
and for a damn good reason. I wouldn't like it if my awesome SUPER rocket jump is suddenly stopped by a can rolling dropping out from somewhere. Realism doesn't always equals fun in a serious competitive environment. It would equate to tedium
As far as immersion goes in HL2(DM), it all ends when i hear a squeaky kid swearing and spraying "O RLY?" everywhere.
he had been reading up on some articles, one in particular concerning Beowulf, that the closer we get to creating perfectly realistic interpretations of life, the further we get from believability.
but then we cross that line and reach that perfect combo when everything syncs and the believability comes back. the article he was reading stated that Beowulf went back and forth across this line, being why some people couldnt get into it very well. it was realistic, then it wasnt, back and forth, back and forth. this is why the first 1/3 of the movie i hated but the last 2/3's i loved since it went back to being stylized.
furthermore, from my prof's readings and personal experiences, people are able to project themselves more thoroughly onto, say, old 8bit Link than the recent realistic treatment of our little Hyrulian hero.
which i totally agree with, i can more easily get into a stylized/unrealistic game than say Assassin's Creed (which i loved). AC was great but i just couldnt let myself go and get completely into it. honestly i tried to pay attention through the dialouge scenes but because Altair was 'someone else' i found my attention getting harder to focus. and with the stealth aspects, i felt since i wasnt Altair there was little need to stay stealthy, whereas while playing Metal Gear Solid, i feel i am Snake and have to stay out of danger.
it's almost as if the more realistic direction we go, the more I feel like i'm intruding into that world, into that character's story.
another example, MMORPG style. the little pixled avatars in Raganrok Online versus Star Wars Galaxies. i AM that little pixel dude more than the ultra customized Rodian i spent so much time tweaking.
as far as textures/environments go, i feel that if you are going to do imperfections, they need to be universal through the game. if one place is perfectly aligned and the next isnt, then yeah, i'll stop and be like, 'hey! someone didnt line these up properly' or 'look UVW distortion'
of course everyone's line is going to be different. and we all have personal preferences in genre/storytelling/etc that play into this as well...
this is something me and my prof are going to talk a bit more about through the semester.
Example: I was in a house the other day that was fairly old, and made cheap. Think... 1980's middle America, shitty composite wood paneling on the interior. The boards on one wall didn't line up with corresponding corner. They were off by about 2-4" in some spots, more or less in others.
I was thinking that's a neat imperfection to throw in a game as thats something I try and do in everything I work on. But.. something so minute like that might come across as a mis-aligned texture, shifted UV's, whatever you want to call it. Now.. I know those terms are something professionals would know, but Joe Gamer would notice it as well and translate the 'error' however he pleases, probably negatively to the overall experience.
So instead you line everything up and call it a day. What you end up with is something that's too perfect. To Joe Gamer, however, its fine; The idea of wood paneling is portrayed, the lighting is fairly realistic, so its all there. And while the amount of 'perfection' this new room may have, that's an imperfection in its own right. Nothing is squared off like that in the real world.
[/ QUOTE ]
Mike Holmes would probably have something to say about the very last line in this quote. HAH, but thats an inside joke for Canadians.
To me I think this is a slightly false analysis. From both sides. This is going to sound highly contradictory and I don't know much about it all.
To me I think that this kind of look is entirely dependent on the game or look you are creating. It is ENTIRELY possible to construct objects to exact specifications. I mean, why not? Why is impossible to conceive that someone built something to specifications? In fact when buildings are built they don't purposely go around and tilt things at angles to make them look more interesting. When I walk around in my life I don't look at the crack in the wall or the fact that my desk is .125cm off center. I'm watching the whole thing and how I feel at certain points. I love the curves on my desk. But my desk is not beaten up, it's screws are still intact, the wood looks good and everything is how it is from when I bought it 4 years ago at Ikea (haven't had as good success from other Ikea products!)
But I also don't look at that when I fly through a video game. Most of the time I'm taking in the scene as a whole and very rarely noticing the small aspects of the scene. Some of the issues you mention about someone thinking an unwrap is off, or a texture isn't lined up. I think those paranoias come from designers. Especially now since I've finally moved to a next gen system (took me forever). But to me the FPS environment is the best example of this. When you are moving through a level very rarely do you stop to appreciate the off-kilter piece of work.
I think though that the more and more I become an artist and attempt to build game environments and improve myself to hopefully end up working in the industry I pay more and more attention to these small details. And I think they go a long way in making an environment natural. There is something about an imperfection that makes an object REAL. Because we as humans are never going to be perfect over time.
But I think the key aspect here is over time. First construction of all objects is going to attempt to be as perfect as possible. If I as a home builder am installing a shelving unit, then I want that unit to be plum and true. That means it needs to be exact. But in 10 years from now I'm not providing support for that unit and as such maybe the screws have allowed it to sag, or someone has placed an object on it heavier than it was originally weighted for. Or the metal has rusted or it collects dust etc etc.
To me the perfection aspect is entirely tied into time. ALL objects are perfect at original construction. So if I was going to put something together that was futuristic or modern, or well constructed than I would have an issue both as a designer and a viewer if that object was 'off kilter'.
However if time was introduced then I could understand something sagging, or denting, or dirtying, or scratched if the environment I was in was also building in me the conveyance of time.
One thing I DID take note of was that as I got more into next-gen development I decided to take a deeeeeep look into Gears of War (first big next-genner I was exposed to). And I noticed that the same workarounds that happened in UT 2004 were present in GoW. Textures not quite lining up, models clipping through each other etc etc. But as I said, when you're flying through the game you NEVER notice those small things.
So what do I know. I'm a bit of a noob when it comes to this as I'm just building my portfolio and working towards a job in this all. And may be I'm stepping out of line by posting this. But thats my higher-thinking on things. There wouldn't be rules without exceptions so obviously I'm not talking about all things all of the time. But thats just my thought.
[ QUOTE ]
Chris and I started to then talk about this 'imperfection pass' we do on art work. I personally do it as a near-final step to the environment. Everything up until then is made on 0 and 90 degree angles. Things are lined up, spick & span. (It helps the unwrap process go as quickly and smoothly as possible). Once I'm done and everything is textured and rendering nicely it's time to add angles, off-kilter silhouettes, dents, edge imperfections, etc.
So - what do you guys think? Am I just blowing smoke or do you all try and practice the same thing? SHOULD we practice this method of adding imperfection to what we do?
[/ QUOTE ]
A question for learning purposes to this would be to ask, once you have something unwrapped and/or mapped. How do you add geometry to the object without ruining the map/unwrap? In my cave scene I added a lot of extra geometry thanks to the great comments by you guys, and the solid lighting ended up hiding a lot mediocre unwrapping. And if the object was only mapped I could re-map it easily. But unwrapped objects posed a massive problem for me to add geometry to. I'd love a good technique for adding an "imperfection pass" to my future artwork.
Too me that added sense of realism lies in the detail you speak of. microdetail might not be evident to everyone rushing past guns blazing but its there, alas it gives the environment depth.
However i dont think we should think of it as "should we detail, or leave everything lined up"
I mean its our resonsibility as artist to find the right level of detail and also to finish our stuff on time and on deadlines.
So to summarize i guess my point is that it takes a bit of experience to find and add the right amount of detail. Do it right, and you get that 90+ metacritic, do it wrong joe gamer will wonder why you misaligned your textures
It's a game world, and as I've found time and time again, you often have to exaggerate details to get them noticed or believed. The same is true for characters as well environments - extrude the pockets on combats slightly more than you really need to to be realistic, make the chunky trainers slightly chunkier than real life. Even naked arms always get beefed up, because usually a 100% realistic arm looks like a twig once you get get into into the game.
So you want a picture to be crooked on the wall? Go ahead, but if it's off by 2 degrees then people will either not notice at all, or think you don't know how to line things up.
Game imperfection = imperfection * 18.9%
If you just make an "imperfection" to a small degree, then yeah to a lot of people it might just look like a misaligned texture, the trick is to not push it so far that it looks ridiculous, but far enough that it's obviously a conscious decision rather than sloppy work.
The problem with straight lines, perfectly aligned things and sharp corners is that they don't look inhabited most of the time unless you're doing a really clean environment (see new Mirrors Edge screenshots as a good example of this).
Anything to break up a straight silhouette in an environment is usually a good thing.
While meant for Keen's thread, I did a 15 second addition of cuts and moved verts that helped demonstrate the point being made here in this thread:
I generally do this sort of geometrical imperfections on even smaller things (stairs, the ground surface, general props, and so on) but the slight bends in the corner on the building above, I think, is a good demonstration of the point being made in this thread by most people.
Good discussion!
Then it also comes down to player expectation I suppose. There seems to be the psychological mindset that no matter how abosrbed into the game you are, that you still realize you're playing a game. Consider the following example:
If I were to make an environment that was starkly neat, clean, with perfect straight angles, perfectly aligned, scratch-free tiled floor, devoid of all dirt or any other imperfections, then stuck this in a game would you think:
a) *List of things that need to be fixed with this level / scratches, dirt, etc need to be added*
b) Wow, this artist didn't know what he was doing
c) a & b
d) "This is really jarring and un-nerving, something strange is going on here..." (purposefully for ingame reasons)
For instance, most humans do no have perfect anatomy proportions and definitely do not have perfectly proportioned faces, or even move in a smooth/fluid manner. Lighting/shadow is seldom as dramatic or obvious as movies and games make it to be. The properties that make our surroundings real are transparent to us in our daily lives. This sort of imperfection is hard to recreate in the virtual space because our brain percieves it more as a mistake rather than reality.
You often find this in special effect animations in motion pictures, where realistic movements are somewhat exaggarated for us to believe they are real. Same thing goes for characters and objects. This is held especially true in videogames. Anatomy, lighting, materials, objects, scale. audio.. everything.
Imperfections in the virtual world are made to make the world appear realistic, but if it's too subtle our human brains usually cant pick it up. It is transparent to us in the real world, especially to those who are not artistically inclined.
So like Rick already mentioned, you have to embellish it quite a bit to make it look more obvious. I think this applies to both realistic and stylized work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley
I think there's definitely a line between what people perceive to be perfect and what we can see... We generally assume 2 walls in a room will converge at 90 degrees, when we know in practice a lot of times, it isn't true.
The problem there becomes at what point do we start noticing and call it 'attention to detail' vs 'I think that looks wrong and unbelievable'
I always mess up environments because of that. I tend to be too technical in thinking what I need to add to a scene to give it a lived in quality vs just randomly throwing things around, piles of books, garbage, crap laying around, etc. It just ends up being too stagnant or rigid.
While environments keep getting better and better i have rarely heard someone say something a long the lines of "omg, this environment feels really creepy, its almost photo-real" (which is another topic for a interesting discussion
What about animations,sounds,special effects? As much as realism depends on models and textures,it equally depends on all else.Shitty sound effects or an un-normal animation can completely break the illusion,as can a bad model or texture.
realism is based on the general quality of the game.Not one specific area of design.
walking into a 3D apartment and hearing my feet on the carpet,ambient noises outside of the window(which get louder as i approach the window)people walking through the halls ouside my door,and especially things like realistic sound acoustics will easilly take my mind off a slightly bad model and keep me immersed.
I thought this same thing a few days ago, but I forget what I was looking at now. Something that features in game art a lot, but just seemed so much more tangible in the real world because of the 'used' feel of it. Can't remember if it was a sticker on something or what.
HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT: Everyone go out and take a picture of an example of what Adam is talking about, and post it here
Was an interesting read that I probably wouldn't have found otherwise though.
Very interesting topic though, these things I've never really thought about in great detail.
I always as a gamer had appreciated minute imperfections, however I think if one is going to travel down the road of imperfections there has to be a bit of a life behind it, otherwise it comes off as lazy.
If you're going to have trim that doesn't line up, I think dirtying the area sends the message it has been acknowledged by the artist. Or if you're going to have a slightly off kilter painting, perhaps a cleaner version of the wall's texture underneath that shows where the painting originally laid eases the mind.
its fine when you do the architectural / industrial thing,
but when it comes to nature or non manmade objects, balancing imperfection with gameplay is quite challenging ...
--oh look, 90 degree tree branches perfect for my stunt,
ah dat rock look like a man-sized-rectangle, gotta be my perfect gunfight covers ...
Who? Whyyyy?
Something that I saw in a Naughty Dog presentation stuck with me about imperfections - try and tell a story with your scene, even a simple one.
If your street scene has a battered car as cover, how did it get there? It probably wouldn't get questioned that it was sideways in a street - but perhaps showing that it has swerved and crashed into a wall would make it look all the more impressive in your scene.
Making a WC scene?
Put a empty toilet paper roll in the floor, a fingers-shaped smear of shit in the wall and see your joe gamers laugh with joy.
As for environment imperfections, it really depends on the environment your working on really. If it's a city like environment with loads of exteriors and interiors then you would get a lot of mathematical perfections in it's core -- how it's been built: the inperfections would go on top of that, like panels that would slightly shift with age, a misplaced frame that the construction worker missed, wear and tear, stuff like that.
As for more organic and natural environments like a jungle, make them too perfect (like a perfect row of trees) and it's actually unrealistic.