[WMCoolmon]

Is there a point (ie photorealisticness) that games can become too real?

[aldo_14]

Nope.

But fun should, of course, still be the most important thing.

[Grug]

Nope.
An RPG, where you can walk around in a world that looks like its from a vid cam would be a bit scarey, more so if you could take a pic, and see your own guts get blown across all over the pavement.
Though I'm partially sadistic, so I'd get a kick out of that

Realistically, I don't think it will be possible to get completely realistic looking ingame rendering effects.
A new technology would be required to handle the sort of operations required.

[Swamp_Thing]

3D games might. Someday. The kind you use a special head gear, that places you in a virtual world, with your body plugged into sensors that apply pain when you are shot or fall down from height. Kinda like the Matrix. But we will have to wait quite afew years for that.

[Fineus]

The pain aspect might be a bad idea, but aside from that...

Of course in the search for absolute realism one does have to think about whether the change should be made from monitors to head-gear with 3D capabilities. They've no real home application at the moment but if properly developed and supported they could become quite popular.

Were one to stick with the monitor route though.. I don't think such a thing as "to much" realism is possible. While gameplay is the key to making most games fun to play - the visuals can be the difference between a game that sells and a game that doesn't.

[aldo_14]

I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes up with a technology that bypasses the whole issue by using the brain itself to generate the images, similar to a controlled dream.  

Who or what could actually be used to test this, of course, I don't know.  Hobos, maybe.

[Fineus]

The potential for abuse of that could be far too great though... and heck, that puts us more towards Matrix like issues. What if some form of virus were developed for it? What if the games created were so realistic that the affected users.. similar to some kind of "Better Than Life" like thing ala Red Dwarf...

[aldo_14]

For some people that's the dream, though.

They're weirdos, but so are many of the most intelligent.......design a head-jack that simulates sex*, and you're made for life.

*er, head as in the thing on top of your neck, sex as in 'with another person who is attractive', simulates as in 'simulates in your brain'.

[Grug]

Originally posted by aldo_14
For some people that's the dream, though.

They're weirdos, but so are many of the most intelligent.......design a head-jack that simulates sex*, and you're made for life.

*er, head as in the thing on top of your neck, sex as in 'with another person who is attractive', simulates as in 'simulates in your brain'.

That just crumbles in on itself to a point where I can't take it seriously just about.

But meh, I'll stick with Hi-Res LCD, or Holograms maybe.

[Swamp_Thing]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
The pain aspect might be a bad idea, but aside from that...

Why? I´m not talking about excrutiating pain, only a little pain. Enough for you to not want to get shot in-game, but less than what it would take for you to give up playing. I for one wouldn´t mind a little pain, if that made my gaming experience more realist.
Besides, some might argue that a little pain is also a form of pleasure... You S&M freaks!!

[Styxx]

The ultimate goal of VR research is exactly to create an environment indistinguishable from, and as convincing as, actual reality. We're getting closer and closer to it on the graphics side of things, but full immersion will only be possible with significant advances on sensory input technology...

[Ford Prefect]

The only thing that would concern me is this: A game that perfectly simulates reality might have much greater potential for desensitizing people to real violence. Now don't get me wrong, I can't stand it when people blame video games for violence, but if your games and reality become literally indistinguishable, who among us would be totally immune to blending the two worlds?

With that said, I certainly don't think the research should be banned or anything. You can't really stop that sort of thing, and lets's face it; a game like that would kick copious amounts of posterior.

[Fineus]

You know, the curious thing is that I'm not sure how I'd react to (lets assume) an FPS with photorealistic qualities.

What I mean is... I couldn't hit a dog with a spade. I just couldn't do it - not only because it's wrong to do it but because the actual sight of the body of the dead dog would utterly revolt me. Similarly I'm not sure I could harm someone - even in a videogame - if the entire event was so photorealistic as to be indistinguishable from real life. Think about it.. not only the gun and the man and the surroundings are realistic - but his facial expressions... the blood... the sound. Everything about that event.

I'm not sure I'd want to put myself through that - not for entertainment. So I find myself asking - even if it is possible to make games photorealistic, do we really want to?

[WMCoolmon]

Yeah, that's sort of what I was thinking. I remember way, way back, when HL was teh new thing!!11 (zomg) that I actually stopped playing the demo because I was sickened by the chunks of meat bouncing around when things 'died'.

I would probably avoid a photorealistic game more out of fear of being desensitized by it than anything else.

However, I noticed something interesting and relevant that just popped up on Slashdot. I don't have a subscription to the Herald, so I haven't read the article itself.

[Scuddie]

About being desensitized, it would be less likely to happen if it weren't for the fact that the nature of the situation is a lower level form of hypnosis.  If everything seems real to a person, including the sight, feel, and maybe even the scent of the area, it would be perceived that way by the subconscious and superconscious mind.  Which in turn will influence the conscious mind over time, and ultimately shape a person's attitude and personality.  It is this situation where you would fear for society, whether it be from desensitivity to violence, or a method of cultural definition from Big Brother.

Scary stuff, really.

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by aldo_14
For some people that's the dream, though.

They're weirdos, but so are many of the most intelligent.......design a head-jack that simulates sex*, and you're made for life.

*er, head as in the thing on top of your neck, sex as in 'with another person who is attractive', simulates as in 'simulates in your brain'.

There was a Dilbert strip that covered this, and also a section of The Dilbert Future:

Holodeck
--------
For those of you who only watched the 'old' Star Trek, the holodeck can create simulated worlds that look and feel just like the real thing. The characters on Star Trek use the holodeck for recreation during breaks from work. This is somewhat unrealistic. If I had a holodeck, I'd close the door and never come out until I died of exhaustion. It would be hard to convince me I should be anywhere but in the holodeck, getting my oil massage from Cindy Crawford and her simulated twin sister.

Holodecks would be very addicting. If there weren't enough holodecks to go around, I'd get the names of all the people who had reservations ahead of me and beam them into concrete walls. I'd feel tense about it, but that's exactly why I'd need a massage.

I'm afraid the holodeck will be society's last invention.

[WMCoolmon]

It'd be funny, except it's true.

[Carl]

I the Star Trek universe there is what they've termed "holodiction". people would stay in there far too long and become overly attached to the characters and environment. It happened to Barclay in TNG, and to a lesser extent, Janeway.

edit: http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/science/article/69266.html

[Unknown Target]

I think what you're really asking is "Would you do the things you do to people and animals and games and real life"

If a game were indistinguishable from life - then wouldn't it almost be life? Therefore, if killing someone in this photrealistic game looked and feeled and smelled like the real thing, in fact, so real that you didn't know the difference - wouldn't you be therefore, subsequently, be able to kill someone in real life?

I know this is hte argument tha the wackjobs make about games making ppl into killers, but that's different, namely because any sane person can tell the difference between the game and reality. But if the game was so real that for all intents and purposes was reality - then when you were able to kill someone in the game world, you would be ready to do it in real life, no?

[phreak]

Originally posted by Carl
I the Star Trek universe there is what they've termed "holodiction". people would stay in there far too long and become overly attached to the characters and environment. It happened to Barclay in TNG, and to a lesser extent, Janeway.

edit: http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/science/article/69266.html

we call them "losers" in the early 21st century.