Everquest 2 has Dark Elves, along with High Elves and Half-Elves.
World of Warcraft has Blood Elves(used to be High Elves I beleive) and Night Elves (which you have a picture are). Night Elves aren't the same as Dark Elves since Night Elves are a good race while Dark Elves are usually a evil race.
Again, not really fair comparissions. Isn't the EQ2 image you put up not an ingame shot(but something from the character creation section just put toether?) while the WoW is?
DnL looks soooooo sweet. But also WoW and D&DOnline. But you must pay attention to a important factor. Wish, DnL and DnD are in more earlyer stages of development than WoW, GW or EQ2. And, of course, Wish and DnL devs have put more effort in making a good gameplay, and after that they had begun working in graphics, that aren´t already finished.
Originally posted by iceseraph The "uncanny valley" of Doctor Moris thesis on robotic creations in movies - represents the point at which a person observing the creature or object in question sees something that is nearly human, but just enough off-kilter to seem frightening or disturbing.
With this in mind, please observe the following sets of graphics and see if either sends you plunging into the chasm of terror!!
(Where is that tongue-in-cheek smiley??)
This theory translate perfectly from its original context to the appearance of charcters in computer games. The more something tries to look realistic in a game, the more you are likely to notice small details that make it look less realistic and it achieves the opposite, EQ2 being an example.
On a sidenote concerning my on-going war with the forum software: I can't see my own posts in this thread when browsing with Opera, IE displays them fine. Can somebody help me?
Originally posted by Effect Everquest 2 has Dark Elves, along with High Elves and Half-Elves. World of Warcraft has Blood Elves(used to be High Elves I beleive) and Night Elves (which you have a picture are). Night Elves aren't the same as Dark Elves since Night Elves are a good race while Dark Elves are usually a evil race. *Look of utter horror!!!* OMG...you're right - night/dark...how could I have been so confused?? And...the Wow 'night elves' indeed look so angelic and good, a thousand pardons for misconstruing them to the public as evil "dark elves." Again, not really fair comparissions. Isn't the EQ2 image you put up not an ingame shot(but something from the character creation section just put toether?) while the WoW is? C'mon now...if you played the stress test beta for Wow - you know very well that the WoW screen shot is exactly what they look like on both creation and in-game.
Dungeons and Dragons Online looks like AC2. Even some characters seem to be same.
WoW's graphics really look different compared to others - not sure how well they are working, until I can test real game. Maybe it is good thing - maybe it is catastrophe.
And others are not really much more different from AC2, SWG or CoH. I am not going to buy them because of "better" graphics.
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." -Shakespeare, King Henry VI
"I know I said this was my last post, but you my friend are a idiotic moron." -Shadow4482
Originally posted by iceseraph The "uncanny valley" of Doctor Moris thesis on robotic creations in movies - represents the point at which a person observing the creature or object in question sees something that is nearly human, but just enough off-kilter to seem frightening or disturbing.
With this in mind, please observe the following sets of graphics and see if either sends you plunging into the chasm of terror!!
(Where is that tongue-in-cheek smiley??)
This theory translate perfectly from its original context to the appearance of charcters in computer games. The more something tries to look realistic in a game, the more you are likely to notice small details that make it look less realistic and it achieves the opposite, EQ2 being an example.
If someone finds these game graphics just enough off-kilter to seem frightening or disturbing I'm afraid they have a much bigger problem and should refrain from all further gameplay and seek psychiatric help immediately!!!!
Originally posted by Mad-E-Fact This theory translate perfectly from its original context to the appearance of charcters in computer games. The more something tries to look realistic in a game, the more you are likely to notice small details that make it look less realistic and it achieves the opposite, EQ2 being an example.
I believe the theory applies to feelings of disturbing or frightening: not realism.
The response examined was positive-negative not realistic-unrealistic.
Originally posted by jimhus The response examined was positive-negative not realistic-unrealistic.
Exactly. Thus when the graphics aim to be realistic, but fail to do so by falling into the uncanny valley, they are perceived negatively by the audience. That doesn't mean people "run away in terror" from them, just think they are... bad.
Originally posted by Mad-E-Fact Exactly. Thus when the graphics aim to be realistic, but fail to do so by falling into the uncanny valley, they are perceived negatively by the audience. That doesn't mean people "run away in terror" from them, just think they are... bad.
You were right on til the last part. You can't change the hypothesis of the entire experiment by adding your own terminology at the end.
Bad graphics had nothing to do with the evaluation - it was a look at emotional responses only.
"The principle states that as a robot is made more humanlike in its appearance and motion, the emotional response from a human being to robot will become increasingly positive and empathetic until a point is reached at which the response suddenly becomes strongly repulsive. Thenceforth, as the appearance and motion are made to be indistinguishable to that of human being, the emotional response becomes positive once more and approaches human-human empathy levels."
It was a measure on how viewers related emotionally to the portrayal. And no, the emotional response they measured was not "Those graphics suk!"
I would think a creative artist making an evil Troll Warlock would want negative emotions attached to it. If everyone is empathetic with your evil Troll - you kinda failed the task at hand. Fear, revulsion, and terror would be better responses.
Further - there is no only strong argument against the theory applying to movie and computer graphics - it's being rejected in the field of robotics as well.
"Critics argue, however, that there has been no evidence in animation or filmmaking for the existence of the Uncanny Valley, even though movie effects have gradually developed to the point when humans are digitally rendered realistically and without evoking negative emotions from the viewers. Proponents of this view argue that nowhere between 1970s and 2000s have moviemakers actually faced the challenge of the Valley.
Some roboticists have heavily criticized the theory as well, arguing that Mori had no basis for the right part of his chart, as human-like robots are only now technically possible (and still only partially). David Hanson, a roboticist who developed a realistic robotic copy of his girlfriend's head, called the idea of the Uncanny Valley pseudoscientific. Sara Kiesler, a human-robot interaction researcher at Carnegie Mellon University questioned Uncanny Valley's status as a dogma, noting that very little scientific evidence for it or against it is accumulated."
I am somewhat concerned about the roboticist who made a realistic copy of his girlfriend's head. Wait... no, I see his reasoning now.
My point is that, while the original thesis was about robots and the emotional reaction from people towards them that may result in horror/fear when the robot becomes too realistic but just not realistic enough to be seen as equal human, it can easily be translated to describe how modern pc game characters are perceived by the viewer.
While i am taking the liberty to change some aspects of the theory to better fit the topic at hand (you see, this thesis is originally from the 1970's, much has changed since then) it still remains true in its core:
That graphics in a game are generally perceived as "better" the more realistic they get (for example, take the steps from C64 blocky pixels to 16bit computers' more detailed images to the 3d goodness we have now) but as the realism progresses, there comes a point where you would have to reach a perfect degree of realism, else the characters you create are perceived as "unrealistic" due to minor flaws, although they are technically more realistic than the blocky C64 graphics.
I think this interpretation of the uncanny valley fits very well to the design of EQ2 and WoW. While the first tries to achieve high realism in its character models, the latter intentionally circumvents the uncanny valley by having a cartoonish style, but while the characters in EQ2 sure look closer to a real human than those in WoW, they also appear "odd" or "weird" while WoW achieves exactly what it's supposed to.
Now that doesn't mean that you have to like WoW's graphics better than EQ2's, it's still a matter of taste, I was just trying to explain why some perceive EQ2's graphics as "odd" like a user in the beginning of this thread did.
I would explain the movie industry 's lack of running into the 'uncanny vally' problem as a simple phenonomonem of them useing the best technology at the time. Many of the early humi-realistic CGI studios probaly did run into the uncanny vally problem....And so the technology just went unused until such time as it was good enough to produce true human realistic 3d images.
Really the first use of human-realistic CGI was FFX11 the movie. It's very good in that movie, but you can really sense the odd moment of misinterperation...You are watching it and takeing the charecters as real...But then a CGI imperfection is noticed and suddenly you are in shock, "I was just takeing these CGI's as real!"
If you want to see what the uncanny vally REALLY is...Go download CGI porn(Please note mods: that's legal now:P). They are people useing behind-the-curve technology on non-supercomputers to produce those images, and it shows all the elements of cognitave misinterpertation that is the uncanny vally phenomonem.
Synoposis: Never a problem with movies because it just wasn't used until it was good enough. Now other types of media are moveing into that range, and it's becomeing a problem. CGI pr0n and now Video Games.
Originally posted by Mad-E-Fact I think this interpretation of the uncanny valley fits very well to the design of EQ2 and WoW. While the first tries to achieve high realism in its character models, the latter intentionally circumvents the uncanny valley by having a cartoonish style, but while the characters in EQ2 sure look closer to a real human than those in WoW, they also appear "odd" or "weird" while WoW achieves exactly what it's supposed to. Now that doesn't mean that you have to like WoW's graphics better than EQ2's, it's still a matter of taste, I was just trying to explain why some perceive EQ2's graphics as "odd" like a user in the beginning of this thread did.
I dont think the the description was 'odd'. As a matter a fact it was :
Originally posted by Xira
"They look like real pictures but they aren't perfect, and the imperfections in reality bother you.
EQ's graphics(At max settings) are so real that your brain is fooled into trying to treat them as real...But there's those ever-so-subtle imperfections that your brain just can't accept. The result is that they look subconciously "ghost-like"."
And again I say...if you are truly this disturbed by those "ever-so-subtle imperfections " in computer graphics to the point where "your brain just can't accept" the EQ character graphics but yet has no problem with acccepting overgrown cow characters and elves with ten inch eyebrows and glowing white holes for eyes as an immersive substitute - then you definitely have already fallen off the edge of reality!
EQ2 does not nearly have good enough graphics to even simulate the slightest bit of the Uncanny Valley crap.
I'd say a movie like maybe Sky Captain, but the CGI in that was obviously fake so that was my reason for disliking it. So i'd say that the best example of something that could induce the Uncanny Valley effect would be the character Gollum on LoTR. He had human like movements, (Andy Serkis I believe played both the voice and was the movements of gollum.) and a near perfect look of realism. Although there were just those times, very few, and rare, that you could tell that it was fake.
Personally I think that the character Gollum was about the only thing so far that could induce the Uncanny Valley effect.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
Originally posted by iceseraph And again I say...if you are truly this disturbed by those "ever-so-subtle imperfections " in computer graphics to the point where "your brain just can't accept" the EQ character graphics but yet has no problem with acccepting overgrown cow characters and elves with ten inch eyebrows and glowing white holes for eyes as an immersive substitute - then you definitely have already fallen off the edge of reality!
Yeah, "can't accept" as in "can't accept as real", but no problem accepting comic style characters as what they are, comic style.
There is another thread around that goes more into detail about the technical aspect of art in both games, maybe you can agree more with the points made in there than with this.
Comments
Everquest 2 has Dark Elves, along with High Elves and Half-Elves.
World of Warcraft has Blood Elves(used to be High Elves I beleive) and Night Elves (which you have a picture are). Night Elves aren't the same as Dark Elves since Night Elves are a good race while Dark Elves are usually a evil race.
Again, not really fair comparissions. Isn't the EQ2 image you put up not an ingame shot(but something from the character creation section just put toether?) while the WoW is?
LOL! Agreed.
Wait... which one? The one with the 8" eyebrows?
No not that one... too intimidating
EDIT: She's a better dancer tho
DnL looks soooooo sweet. But also WoW and D&DOnline.
But you must pay attention to a important factor.
Wish, DnL and DnD are in more earlyer stages of development than WoW, GW or EQ2.
And, of course, Wish and DnL devs have put more effort in making a good gameplay, and after that they had begun working in graphics, that aren´t already finished.
With this in mind, please observe the following sets of graphics and see if either sends you plunging into the chasm of terror!!
This theory translate perfectly from its original context to the appearance of charcters in computer games. The more something tries to look realistic in a game, the more you are likely to notice small details that make it look less realistic and it achieves the opposite, EQ2 being an example.
On a sidenote concerning my on-going war with the forum software: I can't see my own posts in this thread when browsing with Opera, IE displays them fine. Can somebody help me?
Dungeons and Dragons Online looks like AC2. Even some characters seem to be same.
WoW's graphics really look different compared to others - not sure how well they are working, until I can test real game. Maybe it is good thing - maybe it is catastrophe.
And others are not really much more different from AC2, SWG or CoH. I am not going to buy them because of "better" graphics.
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." -Shakespeare, King Henry VI
"I know I said this was my last post, but you my friend are a idiotic moron." -Shadow4482
With this in mind, please observe the following sets of graphics and see if either sends you plunging into the chasm of terror!!
This theory translate perfectly from its original context to the appearance of charcters in computer games. The more something tries to look realistic in a game, the more you are likely to notice small details that make it look less realistic and it achieves the opposite, EQ2 being an example.
If someone finds these game graphics just enough off-kilter to seem frightening or disturbing I'm afraid they have a much bigger problem and should refrain from all further gameplay and seek psychiatric help immediately!!!!
I believe the theory applies to feelings of disturbing or frightening: not realism.
The response examined was positive-negative not realistic-unrealistic.
You were right on til the last part. You can't change the hypothesis of the entire experiment by adding your own terminology at the end.
Bad graphics had nothing to do with the evaluation - it was a look at emotional responses only.
"The principle states that as a robot is made more humanlike in its appearance and motion, the emotional response from a human being to robot will become increasingly positive and empathetic until a point is reached at which the response suddenly becomes strongly repulsive. Thenceforth, as the appearance and motion are made to be indistinguishable to that of human being, the emotional response becomes positive once more and approaches human-human empathy levels."
It was a measure on how viewers related emotionally to the portrayal. And no, the emotional response they measured was not "Those graphics suk!"
I would think a creative artist making an evil Troll Warlock would want negative emotions attached to it. If everyone is empathetic with your evil Troll - you kinda failed the task at hand. Fear, revulsion, and terror would be better responses.
Further - there is no only strong argument against the theory applying to movie and computer graphics - it's being rejected in the field of robotics as well.
"Critics argue, however, that there has been no evidence in animation or filmmaking for the existence of the Uncanny Valley, even though movie effects have gradually developed to the point when humans are digitally rendered realistically and without evoking negative emotions from the viewers. Proponents of this view argue that nowhere between 1970s and 2000s have moviemakers actually faced the challenge of the Valley.
Some roboticists have heavily criticized the theory as well, arguing that Mori had no basis for the right part of his chart, as human-like robots are only now technically possible (and still only partially). David Hanson, a roboticist who developed a realistic robotic copy of his girlfriend's head, called the idea of the Uncanny Valley pseudoscientific. Sara Kiesler, a human-robot interaction researcher at Carnegie Mellon University questioned Uncanny Valley's status as a dogma, noting that very little scientific evidence for it or against it is accumulated."
I am somewhat concerned about the roboticist who made a realistic copy of his girlfriend's head. Wait... no, I see his reasoning now.
Heh, you don't give up easily, hm?
My point is that, while the original thesis was about robots and the emotional reaction from people towards them that may result in horror/fear when the robot becomes too realistic but just not realistic enough to be seen as equal human, it can easily be translated to describe how modern pc game characters are perceived by the viewer.
While i am taking the liberty to change some aspects of the theory to better fit the topic at hand (you see, this thesis is originally from the 1970's, much has changed since then) it still remains true in its core:
That graphics in a game are generally perceived as "better" the more realistic they get (for example, take the steps from C64 blocky pixels to 16bit computers' more detailed images to the 3d goodness we have now) but as the realism progresses, there comes a point where you would have to reach a perfect degree of realism, else the characters you create are perceived as "unrealistic" due to minor flaws, although they are technically more realistic than the blocky C64 graphics.
I think this interpretation of the uncanny valley fits very well to the design of EQ2 and WoW. While the first tries to achieve high realism in its character models, the latter intentionally circumvents the uncanny valley by having a cartoonish style, but while the characters in EQ2 sure look closer to a real human than those in WoW, they also appear "odd" or "weird" while WoW achieves exactly what it's supposed to.
Now that doesn't mean that you have to like WoW's graphics better than EQ2's, it's still a matter of taste, I was just trying to explain why some perceive EQ2's graphics as "odd" like a user in the beginning of this thread did.
I would explain the movie industry 's lack of running into the 'uncanny vally' problem as a simple phenonomonem of them useing the best technology at the time. Many of the early humi-realistic CGI studios probaly did run into the uncanny vally problem....And so the technology just went unused until such time as it was good enough to produce true human realistic 3d images.
Really the first use of human-realistic CGI was FFX11 the movie. It's very good in that movie, but you can really sense the odd moment of misinterperation...You are watching it and takeing the charecters as real...But then a CGI imperfection is noticed and suddenly you are in shock, "I was just takeing these CGI's as real!"
If you want to see what the uncanny vally REALLY is...Go download CGI porn(Please note mods: that's legal now:P). They are people useing behind-the-curve technology on non-supercomputers to produce those images, and it shows all the elements of cognitave misinterpertation that is the uncanny vally phenomonem.
Synoposis: Never a problem with movies because it just wasn't used until it was good enough. Now other types of media are moveing into that range, and it's becomeing a problem. CGI pr0n and now Video Games.
I dont think the the description was 'odd'. As a matter a fact it was :
Originally posted by Xira
"They look like real pictures but they aren't perfect, and the imperfections in reality bother you.
EQ's graphics(At max settings) are so real that your brain is fooled into trying to treat them as real...But there's those ever-so-subtle imperfections that your brain just can't accept. The result is that they look subconciously "ghost-like"."
And again I say...if you are truly this disturbed by those "ever-so-subtle imperfections " in computer graphics to the point where "your brain just can't accept" the EQ character graphics but yet has no problem with acccepting overgrown cow characters and elves with ten inch eyebrows and glowing white holes for eyes as an immersive substitute - then you definitely have already fallen off the edge of reality!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!1!!!1!1!!1one!!1oneone!
*splat*
*rolls around in 'off the edge of reality goo'*
*Waves to his mom*
EQ2 does not nearly have good enough graphics to even simulate the slightest bit of the Uncanny Valley crap.
I'd say a movie like maybe Sky Captain, but the CGI in that was obviously fake so that was my reason for disliking it. So i'd say that the best example of something that could induce the Uncanny Valley effect would be the character Gollum on LoTR. He had human like movements, (Andy Serkis I believe played both the voice and was the movements of gollum.) and a near perfect look of realism. Although there were just those times, very few, and rare, that you could tell that it was fake.
Personally I think that the character Gollum was about the only thing so far that could induce the Uncanny Valley effect.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
Yeah, "can't accept" as in "can't accept as real", but no problem accepting comic style characters as what they are, comic style.
There is another thread around that goes more into detail about the technical aspect of art in both games, maybe you can agree more with the points made in there than with this.
Forum still sucks on Opera. Time for a coffee...