I suppose...

[Squirrelly]

...it's that day and age where all a texture artist has to do is take a photo, and plaster it onto a skin and receive "Ooh's and Aww's" all over the damn place. Now FrieChamp, don't get me wrong, Crysis looks amazing and near life-like, but is life-like honestly the best thing in the world? This isn't specifically aimed at Crysis itself. I love games that have a high artistic value, but when a game hardly is just trying to reproduce real life, it takes the whole object of a 'virtual reality' away.

But then again, there is hope. For instance, Unreal Engine 3, while looking amazingly beautiful and lifelike, most games on the engine actually have a certain style to them, and appear to have an artistic effort put towards them (note the keyword: artistic - I understand FULLY that Crysis has taken years upon years to complete and I praise you for that, but I just gather from the screenshots that you guys don't seem to want to put effort towards a certain art direction). I just really hate to see games start becoming so advanced, that it is very difficult to tell the difference between a game and real life. Sure it was imminent, but I really had hoped game developers would maintain those few factors that separate a virtual reality from a real one. What's everyone's position on this?

Also, I've brought this up due to the latest comparison shots from Crysis, specifically this one:

http://www3.incrysis.com/screenshots/cr ... t_set6.jpg

The rest can be found at http://www.incrysis.com

[Pericolos0]

there is a big market for people who want ultra realistic games over stylised games, and as long as that market exists these games will keep being made . I see crysis more as an amazing coder's effort than an artistic thing, which is also very important concerning innovation in the industry.

Personally though, I would not want to work on a project like crysis as a texture artist.

[Defrag]

Personally, I see room and the need for both realistic and stylised approaches.

It gives me something of a thrill to see just how far hardware & software has come when I see stuff like those Crysis shots. Remember back when we were running around in pseudo 3d games? It kinda blows my mind to know that we've (ok, they've) reached this kind of realism so quickly considering we were running around blasting sprites not so long ago.

[Vinny Testaverde]

well if realism is what your going for than photo textures would be the best way to go about it I suppose.

But realism isn't always the best way to go for making a game... I think part of what makes a game good is its unique style and look, and that comes in part from a certain style of textures. But realism can be good too.

Its relative to the experience you want the game to have...

[teeluu]

I've been thinking this thing for few years already. I really prefer more the stylised look than realism. I still want few games to aim realism, just to see how far we (ok they) can go, like Defrag said. It's definately amazing how far we (they) have gone already.

It makes me so excited, for example, to think about what would Painkiller look like with nearly 100% realistic graphics. I'd goddamn shit my pants with those monsters

[mikezilla]

Preface: I'm drunk.

You are simplifying what it takes to create a photo-realistic texture in a next generation enviornment. In previous engines it was pretty easy to take a photo and tile it and call it done. However, to do that in a newer engine requires a lot more of delighting the diffuse layer and manually creating 3d information in a normal or deformation map. It's certainly not easy and requires a professional eye to get right.

Also, play whatever you want, but don't criticize others for making the same decision differently.

[Squirrelly]

If you take offense by this mike, then I apologize, but it’s just an observation I've noticed with games as of late. But my case with UE3 and Crysis still stands. Brothers In Arms, while trying to be very realistic, still retains an artistic look and feel to it, but Crysis, unlike its predecessor Far Cry, just seems to completely based around generating a simulation of real life in all aspects.

And just FYI, the texture aspect is only one view on the matter. I could ramble on about other aspects of game development as well, but I just chose textures as its a field I specialize in.

[FrieChamp]

When you talk about art direction and styles, I think the matter is a bit more complex. Games get stylized for different reasons. For example some have a style that was created to give the game a specific, unique look (Okami is one of the more recent examples). Others look a certain way due to technical limitations and compromises have to be made. I am sure there are many, individual reasons for why games look the way they do.

FarCry was no different, I actually talked to our art director about this. The game had a "postcard" look from day one, overly saturated and bright to distinguish itself from the dark corridor shooters the market was flood with.

Art direction is in many ways about how to position your product on the market and make it stand out, to give it a certain "style" and in this aspect - photo realism is also an art style. Now that we have the technology to do it (or at least get very close to it) - why shouldn't we? Movies also have an art style, while being completely realistic, it's about the subtle things..

However I would like to stress that Crysis is more than just Act1 (jungle and North Koreans), although this has been the act which has probably been featured the most to the public. Me, personally don't have anything to do with that *hint alienship hint*

PS: The question whether you like realism in games or not, is a different story..

[st0lve]

I kinda agree with Squirrelly, cause I find old pixelated games more fun than all these über realistic looking games. Cause I play games to escape reality, not to step into a 2nd reality.

[NykO18]

I kinda agree with Squirrelly, cause I find old pixelated games more fun than all these über realistic looking games. Cause I play games to escape reality, not to step into a 2nd reality.

I'm currently playin Nintendo 64 games although my computer can handle almost any game on the market with full details.

I must agree that games were much funnier before.

But, that's probably the "vieux con" theorem.

[D3ads]

I agree with Stolve, but that doesn't mean that I'm not impressed by the games looking closer to real-life, especially the shot that was originally posted. Holy shit.. ok so it's not perfect.. but daaamn.

[Furyo]

But, that's probably the "vieux con" theorem.

I got a chuckle out of this one, but I'm sure I'm probably the only one with Koko here

[RD]

I prefer realistic games, but thats just my opinion.

There is just no reason stylized textures would be better than realistic ones. It would be great if it only took a picture to make good textures these days. I can hardly grasp how narrow your view as a dev must be if you dont agree with me on that. No offense

Games are for players and only the end result counts for them. Your effort as a texture artist is invisible and doesnt make a texture better by default.

Besides that, real life is a limitless source of inspiration. Games that use real life as a reference IMO usually have more depth than games that dont. The whole reason FPS and other games are enjoyable is because they manage to simulate some things from reality, such as physics, view of depth, believable guns, and those stylized textures you prefer... you probably like them because it has realistic shading on em. Even AI is a simulation of real life. Games are still barely doing this enough imeho, but crysis doin a good job

[Belgarion]

maybe your lack of enthusiasm for life-like textures comes from the more disconnected nature of them? you're not involved in drawing it, it's a photo you manipulate, more or less, and is therefore less of a reflection of what you wanted or created. I can't speak authoritatively, since I don't make textures, but that's what it looks like.