EA rebuked

Recently I read an article by EA’s Matthew Jeffery, and I can't just sit by and let this kind of stuff go by. Realistically, the comments I suppose were to get more people interested in working in the Gaming industry. But it's time someone said what needs to be said about why games are not as good today as they could be. What needs to be done, why the tools need to be upgraded. If that's me that has to say it and put his neck on the line so be it. Because understanding film and games puts me in a position to say what needs to be said, loud and clear.

You can read the full article here; http://features.cgsociety.org/story_custom.php?story_id=4243&page=1

I have included questions and responses here saving you from flipping pages, but at the end read the article, and you tell me, are these games titles the best we can do? Personally I think not.

Questions in green, Mr. Jeffery's reply in blue, mine in white.

What other challenges would someone in film considering working in gaming face?

There are many exciting challenges that gaming brings to film industry professionals. We have mentioned the advance in CG and VFX capabilities. I would add bringing their knowledge and experience to tapping into people's emotions. Can a game make you cry? Not yet but its coming.

-------------
A game that makes you cry is coming? No it is not, the management and understanding is not there to even allow it to happen. Why? Because virtually every successful film, has to have what is called a character arc. That is where you learn and see the character that your watching in the film grow as a person.

Games do not have that. Period. Why don't they have that? Take your typical FPS, "Call of duty", what do you ever see of the character your mates with, that's right you see the back of his head. Now tell me how many (including me) have shot him, as they are getting bored. The question Matthew needs to answer is why people do that.

And the answer is simple, and simultaneously complex too. Firstly you have to understand what we as human beings react to, and that's faces. We see talking heads all day, we only care about faces once we know the story behind them. An example, V for Vendetta, did not succeed as well as it could have because research shows that, people didn't identify enough with the character even though all the emotions where there, they just didn't see the expressions, and didn't feel for the character.

Back to "Call of duty", imagine for a moment, if the lip-sync was there, the facial detail was there, and even though the your seeing his back for some of the time, for the mission starts, and intermediate updates, and command calls, you looked directly at him, you make contact, that would invest you in the character, because that would make you feel related to him in an emotional way. Similarly, if ALL of your comrades were designed this way, the emotional impact would be significant.

Imagine you see the pain on the characters face as he is injured, or the look of stress as he see's you injured. Image a battle where that existed, that would be the largest leap that games could take right now, to get you invested in the characters, at a much deeper level than most people would realize possible.

That's realistically why we built PlayBack, because we understand what it takes for you to emotionally connect with real-or-simulated characters - emotional content. That's what I want to see in games, a way get totally immersed in, and a vested interest in, all the characters I interact with. Not just a bunch of polygons, who is when all is said and done just a puppet on a string. For games to grow up, and really move forward, the strings have to be cut. That means characters DON'T always do as you want, or react the way you expect, just like real life.

Technically as well we have to get away from two things;
1) Cut scenes, ALL the game should look this good.
2) Most importantly, low poly faces, it's time to up the ante on the characters the gamers see. So let us get rid of them once and for all.

The really annoying thing here is there is NOTHING from stopping this happening with today's graphic cards. High quality, real-time, subdivision, real-time displacement mapping, is what's needed, and DON'T say you can't do that, it is not possible yet, YES it is.

You are not saying that gaming will replace film as people’s favourite form of entertainment?

It’s already happening. People will always love film for its escapism. Whether they will go to the cinema in the future to view the latest blockbuster is a different matter, with people’s desire for home entertainment in HI-Def insatiably increasing. The games industry is driving forward in what it offers as a form of entertainment. It is critically important to recognize that consumers want to be in control of how and what entertains them.

-------------
It is ridiculous to say "if people will go to the cinema in the future", of course they will, as it is firstly the highest of hi-def, and the amount of content, is without a doubt the largest. He's right in saying the games industry is driving forward, that's true, but there are caveats to this statement that are not said. Those being, that from EA's inception, it has used the "marketing muscle" from its first basketball names, to its current "Harry potter titles".

Realistically games have always "followed on" from film exploring the worlds and experience in greater depth, and they have pretty much been, aside from the dramatic flops, been very good at this. It is crazy to assume, that this will change, as film creates the initial excitement, that games can so readily expand on.

And realistically Matthew even points out "Games like ‘Harry Potter’ give the games player the opportunity to fully explore Hogwarts, seeing every room of the magnificent school at your leisure."

Also he points out, "A sports fan can play as Tiger Woods at Pebble Beach in an online game, with players in the USA, China, Canada and Germany in real time."

Which is nothing short of what I just said that games have and will continue to utilize "characters" and film, to maximize their profit potential, by using a brand that people are already committed to.

The real challenge and great risk and perhaps the greatest reward too, is to create an emotional experience within the game, as outlined above.

When that's done, then you'll see the next-gen of games.

Can gaming produce realistic environments and worlds?

The challenge for gaming is creating real time dynamic effects in worlds and placing interactive environments at the control of the gamer. Gamers demand natural forces at their control and environments that respond.

-------------
There has been immensurable growth in this area, but let's understand one thing hear that hampers the growth of games.

Firstly direct buyouts, i'm talking about the recent purchase by Linden Labs, of a great volumetric solution, someone in the game world, should have been a lot more aware of this company and what they had to offer. Now it is locked out.

Secondly is the DCC tools themselves, that are NOT keeping up with the demands of what is wanted and needed in games today. The DCC creators, understandably have a hard time integrating all of the technologies. But if they don't get smarter, and the use of these technologies does not get easier (cloth is a primary example) then games will not progress as rapidly as they could do. Pixel & Vertex shaders is another area which again is not maximized by DCC tools they do not support all variants of these technologies. Until the tools get significantly better and training becomes more relevant and easy to use / understand / retain, the real-time world will always be behind.

Games graphics are improving but aren’t comparable with film as yet?

The visual difference between live action, CG films and video games is getting perceptibly smaller. The 'wow' moments in film visuals are lessening and marginal as people are now used to the wizards and trickery of the effects houses. Moving forward, gaming has the biggest 'wow' moments still to come. Just consider how far the games industry has come, from the visually simple ‘Pac-Man,’ to today's graphical tour de force ‘Crysis.’

The games industry's advancement is stunning. But interestingly, film CG and VFX are plateauing. We will always love film as it takes us through a controlled linear roller coaster of emotions, as we suspend our disbelief to enjoy the ride that the film director dictates us to see.However, the challenges now lie in gaming for creative talent as they get the chance to work their magic in real time in online worlds, which the audience control what they want to do and what they see, not the film director. That's creative freedom. That’s entertainment.

-------------
Firstly, the 'wow' moments in film are lessening, and people are getting used to it, Oh please, total rubbish.

Let's look at these titles in the film industry, Transformers, Pirates, 300 and SM3, if you look at the box office numbers for these, the above statement is ridiculous. I will admit, that now as ever, vfx can't carry a movie alone, but that's very true for games too, many a game has great graphics but poor game play.

I can't understand how someone can say CG and VFX are at a plateau. Honestly, they have only scratched the surface. But the gaming world has the opportunity to catch up with film, possibly faster than ever before. That's where again DCC tools are vitally important, and so is the market for encouraging people to upgrade the graphics subsystem, just as Intel have done with the duo-core processor. It is no good creating titles that are forced to run on the lowest common denominator, as is happening, it is time for the industry to be more cohesive in its marketing to urge & persuade people to see the benefits of upgrading.

Do games encourage violence?

This boils down to how impressionable someone is. Film has the same challenges. Take ‘SAW III,’ a very violent and graphic film but I can recognize it’s a story at the end of the day. Gaming is the same. Yes there is interactivity with the characters, which some argue make gaming more realistic than film and hence can prey on impressionable minds. There are age limits adhered to by the games industry through the ESRB. If there is a game that is too graphic and violent, then the ESRB won’t classify it, hence effectively banning the game from sale in this territory.

This recently happened with ‘Manhunt 2.’ If a game gets an 18 rating then shops and more critically parents should adhere to this. Parents must take a closer interest into what their children are playing. Younger minds are more impressionable and can be influenced by a game or a film, and that’s why there is an 18 age rating to protect them. The ‘SIMs’ the biggest selling game of all time. Gaming is not about violence; its about entertainment.

-------------
Firstly, I can't believe that you can equate "SAW" with Manhunt. That's such an over simplistic comparison on many levels.

I understand that Manhunt was banned in certain locations, and in by their judgment rightly so. But let us be honest here, "SAW" and its ilk, is just torture porn. No more no less.

It has the flimsiest of scripts (like that's surprising) and the way it "uses" violence is "not" the same way as manhunt does. There "IS" interaction not only in manhunt, but also in SAW too. SAW being much more in the mind, than Manhunt is, and that I think ends up being much more dangerous.

I agree that Gaming "should" be about entertainment. And the rating system is a way forward, but let's also understand something, we can throw it back and say parents need to be responsible, and they do. But so do retailers, after all they won't sell cigarettes to underage, there should be and education plan aimed at the retailers, to check who is buying what.

Here is my final thought, ironically some of the best games to play are on mobiles. Because in some ways they have gone back to understanding what the Atari in the old days understood, it's not always about high-end graphics, it's not always about 5.1 surround, but it should ALWAYS be about game play.

Steven