[Aslan]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102086

I've noticed this quite a bit, the more realistic that visuals in video games, the more that I notice flaws and the more effort I put in to try and find flaws, rather than ignoring them and giving myself a jaded perspective.

When a robot becomes 99 percent lifelike—so close that it's almost real—we focus on the missing 1 percent. We notice the slightly slack skin, the absence of a truly human glitter in the eyes. The once-cute robot now looks like an animated corpse. Our warm feelings, which had been rising the more vivid the robot became, abruptly plunge downward. Mori called this plunge "the Uncanny Valley," the paradoxical point at which a simulation of life becomes so good it's bad.

Well, on the plus side, at least we're getting closer to true realism in video games

[El-Scotto]

i dunno i dont think i have any problem like that.....meaning i dont go looking for flaws when graphics are getting better

[Aslan]

I don't really think I purposefully look for them, but I noticed I just tend to point them out to myself more often now, like I playing Farcry for the first time, and I remember thinking to myself how "fake" the plants looked, even though they were undoubtedly the best that I had ever seen at that point in a game.

[gingo]

Exactly, I do this all the time. When games are 2D and objects consists only a few pixels I tend to accept it the way it is. But with developers creating these highly detailed graphics engines I notice little things that dont quite stack up to the rest of the games graphics.

[champdog]

I don't think this "Uncanny Valley" is anything new in games. I mean, if a game prides itself on graphics and things looking real, you start to believe that maybe they are right, but when you actually play the game, you realize that it is not perfect. If you come back to the game a year from now, it will be below the "Uncanny Valley" because you are used to it being like that. We all notice details that aren't perfect of things that seem strange the first time we look at it, but it doesn't always seem strange to us forever.

I think its more of overestimating and giving too much credit to designers who can't possibly think of every little life detail and make things look perfect. Its even hard for an artist to get a still life to look perfect, so you can't expect a game designer to make an entire moving world that is lifelike.

[Veland]

I think boxes is the best example.

In wolfenstein there were no boxes. They were not needed and did not exist. Other objects were all solid and indestructible.

Doom had some things that probably could be described as boxes. Still unmoveable and indestructible. And you couldn't really jump, so not much use for them.

In later games (suddenly the fps rush, so I haven't got the names for the individual games) the boxes became useful. First, you could jump and use the boxes for that. Then they could be destroyed and contain stuff. And eventually they could be moved and thereby unlocking previously unaccessible areas.

Then there is the interaction with water! In the beginning boxes just couldn't be moved into water. Then they could! And different games had different rules about if the box can float or not.

And now, in FarCry, I'm angered by the fact that I can push a box into water, but can't then put a bullet in it and see the water seeping it, making it float lower in the water and eventualy sink. This was never a problem with the unmoveable, indestructible boxes!

Guess it's all about the rules. With simple graphics and simple rules, we accept that this doesn't try to be realistic, and we abide by the rules. But as we approach realisme, we start to expect the same level of freedom as in reality. And THAT is gonna take a lot of code to do!

[Krowa 02]

I do notice flaws but not all to much. I guess I understand its just a game. I dont wanna go into my experiences with a new game that was delayed and is a sequal to a great game but I have to say its pretty real. But I did notice stuff that is flawed and so yea I guess this holds true to some extent with most people.

[mantrogo]

Too right - if the designers make it look real, then - naturally - one expects it to act real. This is nothing more or less than human nature.

In Deus Ex (recently played but old game) I wasn't too fussed about the occasional illogical behaviour of the NPCs. In Far Cry (playing now), it can really bug me, despite it having one of the better AIs in recent times.

Why? Expectation and appearance. From the hype before hand I expect it to be brilliant, and the naturalistic appearance encourages me to suppose that I will see natural behaviour.

It's a variant on the Turing Test - the more it looks real the more we expect it to be real. In the same way, we don't expect intelligent behaviour from a slug, but because primates look (kinda...) like us, we expect more intelligent behaviour from them.

[05virulosity50]

For some reason I hear a lot of people complaing about the ai on Farcry but i have played it twice on veteran and have yet to see the enemies do something stupid. maybe i just do every move as the developers intended?

[mantrogo]

It's the usual thing - bad guys who seem totally unconcerned by the quantities of corpses piling up around them as you snipe at them with a silenced weapon.

On the other hand, make the slightest noise and they're all over you...

By and large the AI is good - and rather better than many others (guys going off to get help, trying to flank you etc.), but because of that when they do do something that isn't realistic it shows up all the more.