makingmusic476 said:
Rath said:
windbane said:
Games will just do what movies do. It's not a big deal. I understand the concept, I'm just one that doesn't think it's a real issue. If you've ever seen a CG human face that is perfectly symmetrical, I think it's easy to see the unrealness of it. Generally people look more attractive the more symmetric they are, but no one is perfectly symmetrical, so when you see a fake image of perfection you can tell something isn't quite right. The solution is rather simple, though, so that's not really an issue. I think most of the time that this term comes up is when something is supposed to look realistic but doesn't, and that's just a matter of improving everything...this near-perfetion-but-not isn't a problem, imo. |
Movies use real actors. Games don't realistically have that option. Also the symmetrical face is just one example and an easy to solve one. In many cases it quite simply isn't that simple to improve it past the point of the uncanny valley. Eyes are a huge one, they are hugely important in human interactions and are incredibaly hard to make convincing to a human. Another major one is facial expressions. Edit: What animated movies have extremely realistic graphics? Enough to say that they have definately passed the uncanny valley? Edit2: Heavenly Sword graphics are not that realistic. The characters in it are so clearly non-human that the uncanny valley wouldn't apply. |
Beowulf. 80% of my time watching that movie I was convinced the characters were real. |
Angelina Jolie was certainly real to certain parts of my body...
Also, I obviously didn't mean live-action movies. I thought that was kinda obvious. Games can use that as well, and motion capturing already helps a lot with realistic facial expressions and animations.
It's really not an issue.
