Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

Gaming Realism vs. Marketing Realism

By aether in News
Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 11:29:48 AM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)

The ever present goal of making video games feel real is running into a snafu. Now that hardware enables true to life texture mapping, fog, rain, and more, the true physics of crashing a car is not a condoned behavior by car manufacturers.

This article on SiliconValley.com discusses the game developers' desire to make games realistic with dings, bumps, and fires met with opposition by owners of real products who want their products in perfect condition.


Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure


Related Links
o article
o SiliconVal ley.com
o Also by aether

Display: Sort:
Gaming Realism vs. Marketing Realism | 25 comments (14 topical, 11 editorial, 0 hidden)
this cracks me up! (none / 0) (#6)
by thelaw on Sun Jul 09, 2000 at 10:42:25 PM EST

isn't this great? 3d technology is *so good* that brand names want to gain a foothold into this new, perfectly modelled world. i think the game manufacturers should charge companies to make their stuff perfect if it doesn't fit into the storyline.

even better: the companies that want perfection should pay me whenever they want to make something perfect. :)


Why do you need licences for cars? (3.00 / 1) (#7)
by tjansen on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 04:32:33 AM EST

Why is it neccessary to get a licence to show a car in your game? If you make a movie and show a car in there, you dont need a licence from the manufacturer, so what's the difference between a game and a movie?

Re: Why do you need licences for cars? (none / 0) (#16)
by freakazoid on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 06:16:43 PM EST

You don't have to buy the car to show it in your game.

I mean really, companies *pay* to have their products show up in movies. It's called product placement. There are entire firms that do nothing but negotiate these deals. Let's do the same with video games. If a company doesn't want their product to show up less than perfect in the game and they don't want to pay to have their "perfect" product placed in the game, show someone else's product or make something up!

[ Parent ]
Why video games? (4.50 / 2) (#10)
by Stargazer on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 11:58:41 AM EST

Other forms of art -- movies certainly come to mind -- are allowed to have more realistic uses of "licensed" products. After all, that nice car in The X-Files not only was completely eradicated by explosion; the good upholstery was ruined, too. :) I'd be interested in insight as to why video games are given different treatment, because I fail to see why there should be such a discretion.

-- Stargazer

Re: Why video games? (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous Hero on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 02:10:09 PM EST

While I have no clue what I'm talking about, I'd imagine that it might have something to do with a bit of a stigma about video games. Few people consider games to be art. Also, for some reason people believe that being able to choose to wreck the car is much worse than simply watching it being wrecked.

[ Parent ]
Re: Why video games? (4.00 / 1) (#23)
by Anonymous Hero on Tue Jul 11, 2000 at 02:30:12 PM EST

Not to mention the Bond movies. He regularly trashes very nice cars. What's the difference?

[ Parent ]
not just skin & bones (none / 0) (#11)
by toh on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 01:52:14 PM EST

"true to life texture mapping"
Er, what life is texture mapping true to? It's a fairly nasty hack when you think about it, constructing animated skeletons with weird flat images stretched all over them. Personally I find pretty much all texture mapping to be cheap looking and vaguely disturbing no matter how many neat hacks attempt to improve it (yes, including bump mapping et al, these miss the point). A kabuki play has more depth. I wouldn't even worry about video games becoming too realistic until the things in them are being modelled from the inside out in some kind of real way, which is going to require a lot more processing and memory than most hardware currently has.

[OT - a bit] Escaping from Reality, or Consequenc (none / 0) (#12)
by dvicci on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 02:03:31 PM EST

The author makes the distinction between playing video games to escape reality vs. playing to avoid the consequences. I'm not so sure there is that big a dintinction. Perhaps it is escapism to play video games... but what is it about reality that you're trying to escape from, if not the consequenses?

I play at least a little Q3 every day... those of you who play would know me as "meaty fetus". I'm not above admitting that it may be the expression of some desire to "escape reality" on some level. I certainly don't have a hard life, but it's nice to unwind in a game of "disintegrate thy friends and co-workers" on occassion. But, given that, what am I escaping from? What is it about REALLY shooting someone in the face with a near-light-speed projectile that is true in the game, but isn't true in real life? The CONSEQUENCES! That's IT. We can "shake hands" and say "gg" in Q3 after watching our faces bounce off the surfaces, but watch your face bounce off a wall in real life, and "gg" is most certainly NOT what's on your mind... unless your mind is on PCP, that is. So, my point is that by escaping reality, I'm escaping the CONSEQUENCES!

They're one and the same! Escaping reality is different from escaping the consequences of one's actions ONLY in that one uses the word "reality" and the other "consequences.

Anyway, that's my bit... anyone have any thoughts?

Ok but they have to do this (none / 0) (#14)
by gelfling on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 03:49:22 PM EST

Make every representation of a corporation or corporate facility the concentration camp or gulag that they are

Ok but they have to do this (3.00 / 2) (#15)
by gelfling on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 03:49:30 PM EST

Make every representation of a corporation or corporate facility the concentration camp or gulag that they are

555 (none / 0) (#17)
by Dust Puppy on Mon Jul 10, 2000 at 06:40:38 PM EST

Films differ from real life in the phone numbers used - they nearly always start with "555", so they never correspond with a real person's phone number. This is so well accepted that it doesn't seem strange - you just stop noticing it.

Computer games differ from reality for a different reason, but perhaps a similar solution is in order. Computer game manufacturers could make up some fake brands which don't have these sort of limitations. It would be nice if these brands could be used in any games.

Re: 555 (none / 0) (#19)
by squigly on Tue Jul 11, 2000 at 03:41:29 AM EST

I've always found the 555 was a little bit too regular to be inconspicuous. KL5 works better. (In England, a fake area code that mapped onto TIM - the talking clack - was used.), but that was more because of the very tangible problem of people thinking "Gosh, I wonder if thats a real phone number".

I like hte fake brands idea. It worked in GTA. And its fun stealing a porka!

People who sig other people have nothing intelligent to say for themselves - anonimouse
[ Parent ]
(none / 0) (#18)
by Chris Andreasen on Tue Jul 11, 2000 at 02:07:51 AM EST

In the case of the NASCAR simulation (or any real-life simulation for that matter)... so long as everything is being portrayed in a realistic fashion (or as realistic as possible), what's the problem? If the car manufacturers want to bring the game developers to court, I'd like to see them prove that the sides of the car don't dent under the conditions portrayed in the simulation. If you're presenting a situation just as it would happen in real life, you should only be held accountable for what is blatently being portrayed innaccurately.
Is public worship then, a sin,
That for devotions paid to Bacchus
The lictors dare to run us in,
and resolutely thump and whack us?

Fair use? (none / 0) (#20)
by squigly on Tue Jul 11, 2000 at 03:54:31 AM EST

Is anyone absolutely certain that they NEED a licence to use these cars? It would be very difficult to demonstrate that Aston Martin lost a sale because someone bought a copy of a computer game instead. If the representation was inaccurate, and always lost because of this, then they might have a case. Come to think of it, its possible to buy kit cars that are very close replicas of popular sports cars.

Of course they do own the original designs, but a computer model is very different from a car blueprint. The car companies don't own anything like the computer model (At least not one suitable for use in a game), and then - as someone else pointed out - there's the obvious parallels between getting permission for a film, and getting permission for a game.

People who sig other people have nothing intelligent to say for themselves - anonimouse
Gaming Realism vs. Marketing Realism | 25 comments (14 topical, 11 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!