It's the third week of June, 2013. In the week prior, the video game industry had taken a collective step forward in pushing for a next-gen agenda, with varying levels of enthusiasm. The spectacle known as E3 having since closed shop for another period of hibernation, it's clear that some are facing the uphill battle of their lives, and others are seemingly poised to make a legendary comeback. Others still arouse thoughts of confliction and uncertainty at a time they aught to procure feeling of atonement and stability. Whatever the case may be, at least one constant is still at play: for many, the industry is pushing ever onward to grasp that crown of hyper-photorealism....it's an obsession I personally am not 100% in sync with, however, and I feel I may finally know why.
Let's put things into context for a second. At the dawn of this industry, when games like Pong and Pac-Man were considered entertainment revolutions, processing power (regardless of the field) just wasn't capable of anything near realism, certainly not in terms of three dimensions, but not even so far as allowing Rembrandt-level art in a real-time interactive application ither. Visual complexity and fidelity were sacrifices for transistor limitations, even in arcades which, least for a good decade or two, went above and beyond PCs in pushing for the latest and greatest in tech (the PC has since taken that crown, but such a discussion is worth its own entry). Regardless, many of the industry classics were concocted during these days. As each new generation has approached, processing power has grown exponentially, bringing with it more breathing room to pursue bigger and bolder visual ambitions.
At the turn of 3D entering the console mainstream in 1995 thanks mostly to the Sony PlayStation, however, the pursuit for more complex, more realistic visuals had kicked into overdrive. Suddenly, everyone and their grandmother, regardless if they were working in the industry or just passionate enthusiasts, wanted to push for heavier cinematic experiences. Games such as Resident Evil, Final Fantasy VII and Metal Gear Solid weren't just innovations in terms of game mechanisms and design; they also achieved (by their time standards) "photo realistic visual engrossment". It was also at this point wherein the arcade industry reached its peak in being the leader for graphical amelioration, the scene symbolized perfectly in Sega's monsterous beast of hardware, the Model 3 board; in the generations to follow both the console and especially the PC market would make this sub-industry irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. If any period in gaming history can be pinned as the definitive start of the hyper-realism arms race, it is the 32/64-bit era, hands down.
Since then, the industry has continued to see increases in visual structure and fidelity that were mere pipe dreams only years ago, and by today has reached, some would argue, a fairly damn close grasp of that lifelong fantasy. What was once a mirage in the desert, has now formed into an Arabian palace you can actually walk amongst and appreciate with all five senses. Sure, it may be missing a final coat of paint and gloss in this spot or that, but you'd be none the wiser to know it, and no more ignorant if oblivious of the fact. We can, presumably, come to the conclusion that this achievement of nigh-perfect visual exactitude has come not only from the advancements in technology, but the active push of both players and developers, almost as if in some unspoken oath, to uncover that 9th Wonder of the world. We can also posit that it is not an anonymous effort; there are hold outs on both sides, and as I find myself drawn back into this childhood hobby on a deeper level, I can't say those guys are complete numskulls. In fact, I find myself drifting ever more into their camp, and I have my suspicions as to why.
You see, I have never been totally enamored with the pursuit of hyper realism in video games. It may be because I am a late bloomer; after all, this is coming from a guy who stuck with a Genesis during the PSX/Saturn/N64 era until late 1998 (the year my parents finally purchased me a PlayStation). It may also be due to my artistic sensibilities; being an artist myself I've always found more personal enjoyment from distinctive visual styles that tread away from the pursuits of realism, as, if I really want to see lifelike art, there is photography to cover that yearning. It could also be due to the fact I have never once been on the cutting edge of buying the latest and greatest tech. Call me a poor man's poor man, but I could and still can't see the justification of owning a multi-thousand dollar graphics machine for playing a game. Maybe for creative work, certainly, but if for a game it'd better be a damn good one, and my taste for games is not satisfied by the market at large which supports those premium graphics machines, least at this point in time.
However, the more I think of it, my somewhat indifference to eagerly pushing for hyper realism, comes down to many other factors, some personal and some to the industry at large. I've already touched on some of the former, so let's start up again from the latter.
It's practically everywhere you look. On Youtube. On Facebook. On gaming websites and forums. Tech sites as well. You can't go ten clicks without seeing the prevalent focus from the gaming community on how REALISTIC everything looks, or has to look. Or at least how good and graphically polished it should be. The vexation on my end is not their focus on that: I think games, too--within reason--should be visually impressive or at least competent...in accordance with their thematics and macro design. And that is where the dissonance comes into play. With a vast majority of "these" enthusiasts--I think the term "graphics whores" is condescending so let's just say "unrealistic realists" for now--, those thematics and macro design better damn well include as close to photo realism as possible, or your game is automatically knocked down a peg or two...or several, in their eyes. It's this equating of graphics ^ to the power of Nth realism = P Quality that is such a stinging and stodgy narrative, it borders on insulting.
Obviously, I understand the importance of visual quality to the enjoyment of a game overall, and not all unrealistic realists fall into this hardline camp. Some are willing to contend a game can be of optimal worth even if it's visually not produced like a slick, big budget Hollywood production. But it is my sad actuality to state that the vast majority are not this sensible. You cannot give them a game such as, say, NiGHTS, or No More Heroes, or even a high-quality 2D game like Muramusa and expect them to give it a chance. They will shun these games immediately, on the premise they offer no sense of photo realism, despite the fact the humans still look human, and green is still green. These unrealistic realists are what I'd like to call Visual Extremists, and unlike the threatening extremists of terrorists organizations, these sorts regrettably do not number in the few thousands, they number in the tens of millions.
To be honest, however, I cannot blame most of them for their ways. They have in so many instances, been conditioned to participate in this arms race by the very developers of the industry, and to a lesser extent the gaming media. Many of them were once too just gamers, and they had the same aspirations for photo realism as so many players do now. Developers such as Crytek, Bethesda, SquareEnix, Turn 10, Polyphony, or any number of Microsoft, EA and Sony's 1st and 2nd party studios,..they are direct enablers of this pervasive mentality, and in some ways it's easy to see why. I will be the first to admit that the next-gen offerings from the XB1 and PS4 were, for the most part, quite photo-realistic and sizable improvement over current-gen. Visually arresting games...but what about their new and innovative game mechanics? Be damned if I'm the one to speak on that, because at least to my eyes (and from what I've been reading on), there doesn't seem to be as much to arrest me, and for some of the games shown the innovations are only obvious to niche groups already deeply entrenched in the respective scene (a game like Destiny, for instance, having innovative dynamic mult-iplayer, but to many not deeply in the FPS scene it will come off as just another Halo). Granted, it is difficult to articulate firmly in that manner without hands-on inwardness, but it still speaks volumes to that such innovations are not readily apparent simply from viewing. Developers realize this as well, and if you can't wow the player on game innovations and revolutions,...well just hook them on a visual tour-de force. And the safest visual tour-de force is always the Photo Realism route, explosion of development budget be no worry. The big league development community has become so used to this solution, it plays itself out like a trope, but if gamers don't start demanding for different solutions en mass, these developers will have no incentive to change their practice.
It is an issue that stems even deeper than that however; society at large is a player in this. In this day and age, mainstream corporate has conditioned its consumers to only appreciate the greatest of beauty. "How good is this celebrity's make up?" "How about that bod, huh?" "Oh that new Honda looks so sexy!" Appreciating beauty has always been a staple of humanity; that'll never change, but to see that such a mentality has not only permeated gaming (granted, it's been this way since at least the mid-80s, though that was in the case of objective aesthetic merits), but has doubled-down into this pursuit of realism...it's a numbing sensation to say the least. I suppose that, too, was inevitable; since the invention of the silicon, we've had a desire to see just how well technology can approach organic beauty, and the most immediate measure of that seems to be in the pixels that appear on a computer monitor or television screen. It's this reality that makes me skeptical if the game industry (or any computer focused industry for that matter) will ever break the realism mentality: perhaps many of us subconsciously feel it's required to prove these bits of silicon can be ever as organic as real flesh and stone, and the reality of human nature is much stronger than a few billion annual dollars (corporations will continue trying to disprove that, of course ;).
So that brings it back to me, and to answer the sataible question: why do feel this way? For me, gaming should have a balance. Right now the industry is heavily tipped in the pursuit of even greater photo-realistic immersion, at the expense of more visually artistic games from receiving the time and money needed to bring their own visions to a grand level. There is no logical reason why so many expressive games have to settle for indie status or prayer-on-a-hope Kickstarter endeavors. There should be a mid-tier market sustainable right now to allow more Killer 7s, more Muramusas and more Estacticas to be possible, but the money simply isn't allocated for them. Either they censor themselves and push for that verisimilitude to get a massive budget, or scale down on their technical features to fit the constraints of an indie budget; there is no middle ground here anymore. Indie games have a bit more luck; at least they can actually exist in this climate. Even so, they can never count on the unbridled support of the corporate games industry to give them the room for success in the marketplace the likes of a GTA or COD can see, and it's very much the unrealistic realists who continue to ensure their obscurity along the same melodia. Obviously, the lack of a massive push for these more oddball experiences can't be solely attributed to a cultural appetite for visual exactitude...but it can certainly be specified as a major factor.
Again, let me state that I am not AGAINST the "unrealistic realists" or their developer counterparts in all of this; I can appreciate stunningly lifelike visuals just as much as the next reasonable guy. A lot of games at this year's E3, and PC gaming as a whole for the past 2-3 years, has accomplished realism in a way that was only a dream at the start of the current-gen console cycle. These games deserve their accolades for that. What I am tired of, however, is the constant equating from the unrealists in using a game's visual realism to appraise its overall quality in terms of design, structure, mechanics and player enjoyment, and even moreso tired of so many developers and media enabling this fallacy of an angle. A game does not need to achieve hyper exactitude to be conspicuously enjoyable or of any worth; we whisper this from time to time and speak it boorishly when there's a good opportunity every once and again. Sadly the common, everyday narrative seems to imply the inverse.
ADDENDUM: I seem to make the argument for visual photo-realism being a crux for being a crux for imposing less expression in other, non-visual aspects of a game's design here and there in this piece. They are not 100% mutually exclusive, but there are definitely implications a hyper realistic style will have on the game mechanics and design philosophy of the game itself, lest there is a (usually unintended) jarring disconnect in the user's experience. I will likely attempt to focus on this relationship more in-depth in a thematic follow-up piece, whenever that will be :)
