Riven (1997).
Kyle Chayka over at Kill Screen discusses photorealism in videogames:
…what happens after [photorealism] is achieved? The photorealistic approach seems to me to be a dead-end street, an aspiration that, once perfectly achieved, leads to a death of possibility.
According to Chayka, photorealism in videogames is a limiting factor that stifles artistic innovation and when videogames reach their zenith we will be left with a world already explored by other art forms. Chayka paints a romantic and convincing picture, that we shouldn’t settle for the cold, hard structures of realism, instead gamers should demand, and developers should deliver, new worlds in new ways, not just facsimiles of our own world, no matter how pretty they may be. Chayka prompts the reader to look at Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2 as examples of videogames striving for photorealism.
I don’t think photorealism in videogames is a dead-end, and I think it’s unfair to label it as such. In traditional art, photorealism is one of a number of artistic movements throughout history that have contributed to new ways of seeing. While a movement is easy to label, it’s not so easy to understand, especially when trying to understand it’s effects on the larger movement of art. Labelling one of these individual movements within the continuous exploration of art a “dead-end” doesn’t seem to make sense.
Battlefield 3 (2011 TBA).
Take a look at Battlefield 3, one of a number of videogames that use radiosity engines to create photorealistic lighting. Rather beautifully, radiosity has it’s basis in the theory of thermal radiation. The highly realistic visuals that videogamers enjoy are not just surface details but dynamic effects based on our understanding and simulation of natural laws. A videogame isn’t a picture, it’s not film or a work of literature. A videogame is a dynamic, changing thing with rudimentary laws and intelligence.
If we’re treading in the territories of art and wanted to talk about Battlefield 3, what could we say? Maybe that the soldiers, the weapons, the environments are all figurative, representations of objects from the world. Since we’re dealing squarely with representations of our world, surely it makes sense that we try and represent these things as accurately and realistically as we can? I’m not saying photorealism is the only route, just that it’s a route, and a perfectly understandable route given the subject and subject matter of many videogames.
But it’s here that the language we use begins to breakdown. The language and terminology we use to discuss art doesn’t seem to apply to videogames. Do the terms we use for art mean anything to a videogame? Chayka asks the reader what an abstract-expressionist videogame would look like. An interesting proposition, but I’d argue that this term doesn’t apply, especially to a figurative title like Battlefield 3. Does it even make sense to ask what an abstract-expressionist videogame would look like?
Crysis 2 (2011).
Chayka paints a romantic picture of videogames decoupled from photorealism. Here’s mine: in a sense, a videogame is more similar to our own world than other more accepted art forms. Step away from a videogame and it continues; characters move on, time passes, variables increment. Instead of photorealism being a dead-end, I see it as a door, a visual expression of simulation and scientific understanding. Videogames and science are like two galaxies slowly colliding. We’ll be dead long before it’s over.
Let’s not label things, let’s see where the path takes us.
