This is an issue that was resolved long ago in the film industry and they resolved by realing a concept known as "The suspension of disbelief" The idea is that audience knows for the most part that things your presenting them can''t happend and are unbeliavable. But that doesn''t matter as long as you can present it to them in such away as that they ignore this fact.

Realisim depends on the context, some times it has do with graphics in trying to make them as life like as possible. Other times its an attempt to make the context either belivable or as close to real life as possible.

-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

Tangent relocated to the lounge. Apologies for the sidetrack.

ld

When I was younger I always thought that the industry would end up split between two visual styles, Cartoony and ''realistic''.

In the cartoony section I included a wide variety of visual styles (and associated subject matters), ie. manga-esque, Pixar-like, Disney-esque, studio Ghibli etc). In other words, just because the graphics were not aiming for photo-realism doesn''t mean that the games need to be sugar-coated and for ''only'' for kids.
My view was that with the limits of technology it would be a lot easier to make games like cartoons.

tecnogoth: yeah i know it''s just tha i realize that i have no acess to seome concept while thinking in english, quite boring in discussion it was a remembering to those which keep talking about realism

it''s not about cartoon or photo realistic, ketchaval, look at painting as exampl, some are realistic but in fact it was a false realism there is bit of exageration with the composition that you can''t see, realism as be help in art to be believable even photo can be not believable, then that''s mean the matter is not realistim but how to make something credible cartoon or not (look at grave of the fireflies vs kill bill)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be good
be evil
but do it WELL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Have we forgotten the purpose of realism?

a) to give users/gamers/the audience a frame of reference to grasp and understand the subject matter from - the alternative being misunderstanding EVERYTHING. Imagine looking at pages written in a language you dont understand. With no tools to grasp the content, you''d simply shut the book.

b) to have users see their lives in your work and be able to relate to it more deeply. Shakespeare is a prime example of "verisimilitude" - or univeral realism. Simply put, his plots seem a lot like our real life problems (greed, deceit, love, ambition betrayal...etc).

Of course we can imagine ourselves in situations that we have never been in...take the hero''s journey in a real life setting or in a fantastical one.

The distinction between realism and believability is an important one. Once you give the reader/player rules to work by, dont deviate from them or the self-contained story logic wont work and readers will begin to doubt the "truth" behind your message on a basic level. One can have a believable world that isnt realistic from a present earth point of view.

Realism in terms of graphics (i.e. looking like a photorealistic present time world) isnt necessary. In fact many people are more inspired by taking themselves out of "the real" and being a hero against unreal odds.

So to sum up...you can take me to the moon, but once we get their make sure we all have the same gravitational effects on us.

quote:

---

Original post by Vanquish
Have we forgotten the purpose of realism?

a) to give users/gamers/the audience a frame of reference to grasp and understand the subject matter from - the alternative being misunderstanding EVERYTHING. Imagine looking at pages written in a language you dont understand. With no tools to grasp the content, you''d simply shut the book.

b) to have users see their lives in your work and be able to relate to it more deeply. Shakespeare is a prime example of "verisimilitude" - or univeral realism. Simply put, his plots seem a lot like our real life problems (greed, deceit, love, ambition betrayal...etc).

---

a smiley is beleivable and is not realist, but everyone can understand it, realism as no purpose but to mimic reality, however non realistic can mimic reality as well (don''t argue that a smiley is not a face ), then realism is only a style not a content by itself

style has meaning however, realism refer to reality, but still has to be believable in order to succeed, wallace and groomit is anther great example or believity, everybody know how a dog look like and we know that dog don''t have hand and read paper, but in wallace we have no doubt about seeing wallace doing so
while in some movie with real character, doing real thing, the movie is bad if you can''t believe about it (and that''s happen, film maker use trick over reality to make thing believable)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be good
be evil
but do it WELL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

quote:

---

Original post by liquiddark
... Hence the old saying about 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration. If you have the focus to do something, it matters not whether you have the passion.

ld

---

Matters for what? Development time, quantity or quality? On the whole I agree with you, but it''s hard to have focus w/o the passion.

printf( char *MD.LeadG->GetSignature()); //moc.scptnirps@gdael

quote:

---

Original post by MdLeadG
Matters for what? Development time, quantity or quality? On the whole I agree with you, but it's hard to have focus w/o the passion.

---

Matters for the fact of production. Focus with passion can be equally difficult. Focus, in my experience, is the mark of a dedicated professional. I use the word "professional" here to describe a state of existence, not a class of monetary compensation. A true professional has focus, full stop. Given that focus, just about anything said professional chooses to tackle will succumb with a little time.

I like to look at the x-men flicks as an example: From what I understand, the director wasn't really obsessed with the subject matter prior to making the first movie, so he made some interesting choices, ones which made more sense from a film perspective than those which might have been made by a comics buff. In my opinion, his outside perspective actually works in his favour. And his focus on the craft of filmmaking gets him through the project on par with or even above Kevin Smith, who's much more passionate about the material, but is seemingly so familiar that he ends up making self-concious jibes at the material.

ld

[edited by - liquiddark on December 13, 2003 7:57:10 PM]

quote:

---

Original post by liquiddark

quote:

---

Original post by MdLeadG
Matters for what? Development time, quantity or quality? On the whole I agree with you, but it''s hard to have focus w/o the passion.

---

Matters for the fact of production. Focus with passion can be equally difficult. Focus, in my experience, is the mark of a dedicated professional. I use the word "professional" here to describe a state of existence, not a class of monetary compensation. A true professional has focus, full stop. Given that focus, just about anything said professional chooses to tackle will succumb with a little time.

I like to look at the x-men flicks as an example: From what I understand, the director wasn''t really obsessed with the subject matter prior to making the first movie, so he made some interesting choices, ones which made more sense from a film perspective than those which might have been made by a comics buff. In my opinion, his outside perspective actually works in his favour. And his focus on the craft of filmmaking gets him through the project on par with or even above Kevin Smith, who''s much more passionate about the material, but is seemingly so familiar that he ends up making self-concious jibes at the material.

ld

[edited by - liquiddark on December 13, 2003 7:57:10 PM]

---

however the in X-men2 i was catch by the passion of his subject >>> then the 2 is far better than the first

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be good
be evil
but do it WELL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

quote:

---

Original post by Neoshaman
however the in X-men2 i was catch by the passion of his subject then the 2 is far better than the first

---

I agree that the second was better, tho I thought the first was extremely strong and that the second gained primarily in terms of the experience of all involved. To some extent, I believe the generalization is also true - if you have the focus and dedication AND you have a strong interest or passion for a subject, then you''re better off for it.

My point is simply that this isn''t at all the same as "requiring" passion to create a work of consequence.

ld