Uncanny Valley (In regards to character models)

[lordpalandus]

I've been thinking lately about this and the benefit (yes I did say benefit) that this has for the industry and the dangers of trying to eliminate it.

For those that don't know what I'm talking about, Uncanny Valley occurs when a human player observes an Actor in a game and feels that there is something wrong with it, and thus doesn't feel it is real or feels a sense of revulsion, and the more humanlike the Actor appears, the farther you get from the uncanny valley.

There was a certain infamous and much hated lawyer by the name of Jack Thompson. For those that don't know who he is, he is the lawyer who tried to ban/censor violent video games and failed terribly. However, the reason he was trying to get rid of games (one of the reasons at least) is because he was afraid that gamers couldn't tell the difference between fantasy and reality and thus take their violent fantasies into the real world.

Why do I bring him up? Uncanny Valley is why. The more the industry tries to make Actors in a video game more humanlike, the harder it will be for gamers to tell the difference between fantasy and reality. It is like Lucid Dreaming; if you do not have control of your Lucid Dreaming, eventually you won't be able to tell the difference between a dream and reality. The same will apply to video games; the farther we get from the Uncanny Valley, the more likely people won't be able to tell the difference between what happens in a game, and what happens in reality, and thus what actions they perform in their game will bleed into real life as they can no longer tell the difference between game and reality.

I bring up uncanny valley, as I was recently reading an article on the new Lara Croft in Rise of the Tomb Raider, and how humanlike she looks to the point where you couldn't tell the difference between a real person and Lara Croft, and thus I fear for the industry as a whole as it is moving in the direction of having realistic fantasies that cannot be distinguished from reality and fantasy.

Please Discuss!

PS: I am still working on the project, but I've found trying to constantly change the Design Document to be a chore. So I'm working on individual files first, on a specific topic, and then I'll recombine all of it later once I've settled on what I want to say.

[Hooman]

TV uses real people as actors, but you still know they are acting.

By the very nature of using a computer to interact with the fantasy world, you know it is a fantasy world.

Unless perhaps the US Department of Defence makes an interface for their killer drones, and releases it to the public as a "game", so as to cut down on operator costs.

[lordpalandus]

I bring it up because a lot of game critics, reviewers, and even upper level management of major corporations cannot tell the difference between a real flesh and blood person and a fantasy character made of a mesh and a UV-mapped texture. And I worry that the closer we get to realistic people, the harder people will be able to tell the difference. The reason I see this as a problem is because in order for the games industry to mature, people need to realize that the things on the screen are not real and thus real-life rules shouldn't be applied to them.

Take Anita Sarkeesian, with her Tropes against Women. This is problematic, because the actors in games are not Real women and therefore, they shouldn't be seen in the industry as women. They are merely meshes and textures, and code. They are not flesh and blood people. People who readily support her arguments, also clearly cannot see that the things on the computer screen are in fact fantasy and not reality. If you shoot a mesh, with a fantasy gun, they do not die. You cannot rape a mesh, as rape only applies to human beings; it doesn't matter that it looks like a human being, it isn't a human being. People that don't play games do not realize the difference between a human and a fantasy character, and the more they try to make fantasy characters realistically human, the harder it is for non-gamers (and even some gamers) to tell the difference between reality and fantasy. When the big-wigs of the industry cannot tell the difference between a real human and an illusion that looks like a human, I'd say that's a pretty big problem.

And what happens, if the actors on the screen of the TV are not in fact real people; how will the viewer be able to know that they aren't real, if they look, act, and move like real people? (The uncanny valley also applies to CGI in the movie/tv industry)

I can tell the difference between reality and fantasy by playing a game because of uncanny valley, and because of game logic (ie stuff that wouldn't work in reality). If characters acted like humans, reacted like humans, had humanlike facial expressions, etc... would you be able to tell fantasy from reality, even IF you were at a computer. There is afterall, talk about VR, Oculus Rift, etc... that will allow players to interact in games, without necessarily looking at a monitor or using a keyboard and mouse; what about then? And of course, the fact that you can also watch TV on computers, or play games on TV screens.

[leeor_net]

You are assuming that people are incapable of telling the difference between reality and fantasy just by the way things look.

If someone can't do that they are either not human or have serious underlying issues. It doesn't matter how real the visuals are, anybody who's playing a game or watching a tv show or movies KNOWS that it's fantasy. Just because it looks real doesn't mean users will be unable to distinguish between the two.

Besides, having a fantasy and acting on it are two totally different things. Most people if they acted on a fantasy would feel very unsatisfied and possibly even very, very upset. Fantasies are just that, fantasies and fantasy worlds are obvious fantasy worlds regardless of how real it looks.

I think this is a moot point and not worth discussing unless you have actual evidence and studies that show any sort of link between the realism of a game and a trend toward violence. The actual data seems to show exactly the opposite -- with the rise of violent video games there has been a distinct drop in violence. Still though -- correlation is not causation. We don't have enough empirical data to make any sort of real determinations at this time.

[Hooman]

Agreed. I simply don't see how people can not tell the difference, no matter how real the visuals get.

Here's a question though, how real are "reality" TV shows? Are they really just people off the street who were picked up and placed in a game environment, or are they scripted TV shows, just like any other? There's far too much drama in many of them for it to all be real. Are they just really good at selecting drama queens, or do they try to add drama in artificially through some sort of planning, scripting, or hiring of actors? Would it be illegal to host a "reality" show that hired only paid actors and scripted all the events? Would that be too misleading to be allowed, or is it all just another valid form of entertainment?

[lordpalandus]

I should possibly say that I don't believe seasoned, veteran gamers who have been playing "violent or sexual" video games for 10+ years have really anything to concern ourselves about with making games more real; we can tell reality from fiction from experience. I'm more concerned with new gamers, such as Children, being unable to tell the difference. And as it seems the entire games industry is held back by children and making games friendly for children, it is important to ensure that new gamers can tell the difference.

@leeor_net;

Yes I am assuming that people cannot tell the difference between reality and fantasy by simply the way the look. After all, mirages, tricks of the eye, or hallucinations would not be effective at all, if you could easily tell the difference between reality and fantasy. Or a dream can be so vivid, that the person thinks that they are in real life. Perception is a weird thing.

So then explain why people are so up in arms over nudity (or extreme, extreme depictions of violence) in video games? Since they aren't real women, and no real women are hurt by them being nude, why is there so much regulation from the ESRB, restrictions from publishers, and so much arguing among game critics and news outlets, over meshes that look like women but aren't women? If you say, "oh its because of the children", then I have to ask, are they are able to tell the difference between reality and fantasy, because if they are, then they shouldn't be affected by nudity in video games. If it isn't because of "the children", then why is nudity restricted, when technically it isn't nudity at all. In order to be nude, it needs to have a flesh and blood body, like a human or animal.

If something acts real, sounds real, and smells real, people will assume it is real. When someone watches the news, they assume that all the people present are real people. What if they weren't and were all computer simulations? Could people tell the difference then?

There is also discussion these days of "sex-bots". What happens when they look, feel, smell, and act like real humans? How will we be able to tell the difference between a robot and a real human?

Yes I do agree that having a fantasy and acting upon that fantasy are two different things entirely. I would disagree that people would feel upset over indulging in a fantasy; you clearly haven't heard of the BDSM crowd who indulge in fantasies all the time.

The Matrix (movie) was a fantasy world. Why were people unable to realize that they were in a fantasy world? Maybe because it was so far away from the uncanny valley that it seemed like real life. Games are approaching that point, where reality and fantasy would be indistinguishable from eachother.

Another point I hadn't considered: Why do nude meshes arouse us sexually? We can tell that they are not real, and are fantasy, but yet, if you look at a jiggly mesh, why does one get aroused, as if they were a real flesh and blood human being? A fantasy, I'd assume shouldn't result in real-world consequences if we were to keep our fantasies within the game, but yet we do get aroused. Are we actually able to tell a nude female from a mesh that depicts a nude female, for our arousal?

Finally take people on drugs. They feel something is real, based exactly on how it looks, even though it isn't real, but it looks real.

So I overall disagree that people are always able to tell the difference between reality and fantasy.

There wouldn't be any evidence right now for that, as we are just recently started to get out of the Uncanny Valley and closer to human realism. Give is 5-10 years. Evidence has shown that there is no correlation, but that was when we were on the left-hand side of the Uncanny Valley. It is not safe to assume that as we are now on the Right-Hand side of the Uncanny Valley that the results will be the same. The rise of violent video games over the past 10-20 years, has been on the left-hand side of the Uncanny Valley where enemies do NOT look like humans but are human-like; we have no information on what will happen on the right-hand side when enemies DO look like humans and aren't human-like anymore.

@Hooman;

Gave plenty examples of people in different situations that may view something as real without it being real, above.

That is a difficult question. I know for something like Bachelor, they are specifically picked based on compatibility, through a vigorous questionnaire and interviewing process. I believe the same goes for Survivor or Big Brother as well. I think that reality shows, like "wrestling" has a script, and they pick people according to that script. So they might pick people that they think will create the most drama, such as a rigid/inflexible Christian and sexually active Atheist, and pick people that would go along nicely with their script.

Would it be illegal? Doubtful. For the longest time I had thought that Wrestling (ie back in the days of WWF) was not scripted but spontaneous and thus what was going on was entirely real. Imagine my surprise when I found out it was entirely scripted. So, its possible that these reality tv shows that we watch are entirely scripted, with paid actors, and we wouldn't be able to tell the difference. 

----
EDIT: On that topic, how can games be violent, or even sexist anyway? No real people are harmed by it, and thus they aren't real violence or real sexism, but yet some people think it is real. Heres two examples: 1) If there was a mesh with textures that looked like a child of age 6, would you have problems shooting it "dead" with a fictional gun? If it was a real child, it would be infanticide, murder, or an atrocity, but it isn't a real child, and therefore if it were to "die" then people who can tell fiction from reality should be able to do it, as that mesh is just like the meshes of "Islamic" terrorists in Call of Duty, right? and 2) If there was a mesh with textures, and you had "forced" sex with it, would you consider it rape and you are raping them? (Ignoring of course that even if they were able to give consent, it would be code created by a programmer that gives them no choice other than the choices they give them) So if it was a depiction of a woman, even though it isn't a real woman, would you be able to "rape" it? Or in both situations you couldn't do these things because you are applying real-world values to a fantasy world, but yet have no problems killing or have sex with others in fantasy worlds because you know it is fantasy?

By this I mean, would you feel that you morally and ethically did something wrong by killing a mesh that looks like a child, or morally / ethically wrong by raping a mesh that looks like a man or woman? If you would say that you find it morally and ethically wrong to do these things to meshes in a fantasy world, then my question then is, why do you not feel like a murderer when you kill a terrorist in a game like Call of Duty, or a murderer when you kill a cop in Grand Theft Auto, or that you are a rapist when you have sex with prostitutes in Grand Theft Auto, etc...?

If you perceive children and women in games to be treated like children and women in real life, then why would it not be inconceivable that people won't be able to tell the difference between reality and fantasy? If they see fantasy children and women like real people, then why would it be so hard to believe that making all things extremely humanlike wouldn't have the same effect on all meshes depicting humans, such that those fantasies bleed into real life?

[leeor_net]

So then explain why people are so up in arms over nudity (or extreme, extreme depictions of violence) in video games?

Easy. Because people are butthurt, entitled little bitches that think their opinion matters.

Don't like nudity in video games? Don't play video games with nudity in them.

Don't like violence in video games? Don't play violent video games.

We live in a world where too many people think that their being offended has any meaning to anybody else. "I'm offended!" Great. Go be offended somewhere else then.

I'm more concerned with new gamers, such as Children, being unable to tell the difference.

You are presupposing that children are incapable of knowing the difference between reality and fantasy. Do you have any evidence of this? Because I personally have experienced exactly the opposite with all of my nephews and nieces that I've interacted with them from the time they were only a few years old to now where some of them are almost 20. Violent video games have done absolutely nothing to influence violent tendencies in them and if it did at all, it was to make them LESS violent, not MORE. This flies in the face of the assumptions that you're making which tells me that you're just jumping on the bandwagon of what other people are saying because it feels warm and fuzzy. There is ZERO evidence to suggest that violence in movies, television and video games has any real effect on anybody in the real world in terms of making them more violent.

You're also being very insulting to children assuming that they have no ability to know or understand anything. I've also experienced quite the opposite of this. While they may not have complex adult thinking or have a full grasp of a complex subject or be able to fully articulate what they are thinking and feeling, they're just as able to determine fact from fiction, fantasy from reality as any full grown adult. Sometimes more so.

There is also discussion these days of "sex-bots". What happens when they look, feel, smell, and act like real humans? How will we be able to tell the difference between a robot and a real human?

Who cares? We don't have such things today so why bother speculating about what kinds of effects it may have.

Besides, even if someone were to 'fall in love' with such a sex bot, who cares? Their feelings are real to them and that's all that matters.

Finally take people on drugs.

Straw man argument.

So I overall disagree that people are always able to tell the difference between reality and fantasy.

So do I. I never said people can always tell the difference.

we have no information on what will happen on the right-hand side when enemies DO look like humans and aren't human-like anymore.

No, but I think it's safe to say that we're still going to be very well aware of the fact that we're PLAYING A GAME AND THAT IT'S NOT REAL NO MATTER HOW REAL IT LOOKS. So I find this to be a moot point -- just because it looks real doesn't mean people are going to forget that they're just playing a game.

The real question here is why are we speculating on something we have no evidence of and no ability to truly predict? Let's cross that bridge when we get there instead of speculating about it and possibly starting the whole fear mongering thing that these sorts of people try to do in order to restrict things that they themselves do not like?

On that topic, how can games be violent, or even sexist anyway? No real people are harmed by it, and thus they aren't real violence or real sexism, but yet some people think it is real.

Hit the nail on the head. This is pointless rhetoric from butthurt, annoying people who just want to exert control over other people. It's why I generally stop this sort of discussion before it even starts because it's almost always brought up by someone with an agenda.

[lordpalandus]

Many good points I hadn't considered. Thanks for taking the time to reply, Leeor_net.

The problem is that those entitled little bitches is what the heads of the industry listens to. Afterall, Anita Sarkeesian herself has been made an ambassador to video games and is listed in the top 100 most influential people in the world, up there with Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin. How do we as a gamers, ensure that the industry heads don't listen to people like those entitled and offended policatically correct retards? Do we make more noise then those bitches? Do nothing? Or remove the problem (just listing it as an option; more likely this would make things worse rather than better)?

Good point on children. So, if Children can tell the difference, why can't those entitled people tell the difference also? Or do you believe that they do tell the difference, but don't care, and instead want to push an agenda of censorship in the disguise of criticism?

Fair point on sex-bots.

I don't see how discussing people on drugs being unable to tell fantasy from reality is a straw man argument, but whatever.

For me, from my own experience, I've had dreams wherein I would play as the character from a video game, within my dream. So my dream would produce a level with the graphics of doom, with the enemies from doom, and I go around shooting things with the weapons from doom. When I'm having a dream like this, I cannot tell if I'm dreaming or playing a game, and being so focused on the game that I ignore my environment. I suppose you could say that as a dream is fantasy, and a game is fantasy, that being able to tell the difference between one fantasy and another may be a pointless discussion, but there it is.

I'd like to point out that I have no specific agenda with this discussion, I just wanted to spur on some discussion on this topic.

[leeor_net]

How do we as a gamers, ensure that the industry heads don't listen to people like those entitled and offended policatically correct retards?

It's simple economics. We tell them with our money. If we don't buy games in a particular genre, say violent FPS's, they won't be made or at least they won't be made nearly as often.

If we didn't buy games with girls that had big bouncy tits and ass and sexual themes, they wouldn't be made.

So the industry heads aren't really listening to these mouth breathers. They're listening to the money.

They do know the difference, they just think kids are stupid and are fragile little flowers that need to be protected.

No. No they aren't fragile little flowers. They're poorly evolved apes just barely out of the jungle like the rest of us. They're just younger and less experienced and have some brain development to do before they can reasonably be called adults. So stop treating them like idiots and treat them like humans.

For me, fantasies and dreams often don't look like video games. I fantasize sometimes about absolutely brutal violence against real people and sometimes people that I know. And you know what? I often enjoy those fantasies. It's part of my nature as a human -- we are inherently violent.

However, we also have this little part of our brain called the frontal lobe which is what puts on the emotional and impulse breaks and is the reason that I don't go out and commit heinous crimes of obscene violence. I ALSO know that if I ever acted out on that fantasy violence, it wouldn't be anywhere near the same as what it;s like in my mind., It wouldn't be fun, it wouldn't be pleasurable. In fact I'd be pretty destroyed. Might be why a lot of these mass shooters shoot themselves afterward, I dunno.

I also realize you have no agenda, you're bringing it up for the sake of discussion which is totally different.

I don't see how discussing people on drugs being unable to tell fantasy from reality is a straw man argument, but whatever.

Because we're talking about people who don't have anything influencing their mind. E.g., 'normal' minds, not minds affected by drugs or alcohol so what someone experiences while under the influence of drugs or alcohol is not relevant to the point. Hence, straw man. Well, may not a straw man argument but irrelevant to the point either way.

[lordpalandus]

Fair Points. I only wish people would learn that for DLC and microtransactions that they would go away if people stopped buying into them. But oh well.

The problem is that people will often buy a game regardless of bouncy tits or not and thus a change to less so may make the industry think that they like it smaller, when in fact its just people buying the new game. Ie the New Tomb Raider game or the new Mortal Kombat game, where people bought it for the game rather than the changed character and thus they think that people liked the new characters when many did not.

What about games that offer extreme nudity or sexuality? These kinds of games are prohibited from being sold in North America, ala, the ESRB's AO rating. So how would we convince the industry with our money to develop and sell these kinds of games when no one in NA really sells them.

Not sure I understand the fragile little flowers sideline? Straw man? I dunno...

If it is because of my "retard" comment, by this I mean intellectually stunted individuals rather than sub-humans that I suppose many might assume with that statement. Someone who lacks intelligence or is unwilling to learn and become intelligent are people I define as retards.

Well, my dreams and fantasies are often very similar to the games I play and the fantasies I play out in them, so I might be just different.

Here is the thing though... if we find pleasure in our fantasies, why would we not also find pleasure in indulging them in real life? Yes, our conscience would play a large role (ie guilt and shame in what we did) in the first attempt, but after you got used to it and overrode your guilt and shame, I think people do find the real thing just as pleasurable if not more so. Otherwise, why would serial killers, keep killing after their first kill? Why would serial rapists, keep raping? Clearly they are indulging in their fantasies and greatly enjoying them. I'm not saying that I have the capacity to do these things nor do I want to find out, but as we are able to enjoy our fantasies in games, its not to say we wouldn't be able "learn" how to enjoy indulging them in real life.

I wouldn't say our frontal lobe is the primary reason why we avoid indulging in fantasies. I'd say it has more to do with our own sense of ethics and morality that prevents us from doing it; in other words how we are raised and mature as children is the greater factor in what controls our impulses than just the brain itself. If our ethics is such that we feel it is ethically okay to murder, then murdering is no problem for us. If we feel that eating chocolate is okay, then we will indulge in a chocolate bar. The same impulses we have for indulging in food, drink, activities, sports, etc... are controlled in the same manner as ethically "wrong" activities like murder, rape, etc... Its just that these indulgences are held in check by our ethics and morality, while indulging in something that isn't seen as morally or ethically wrong, like binging on chocolate while dieting is MUCH MUCH MUCH harder to prevent those impulses from happening. Also the threat of extreme punishment is a great demotivator as well to keep us from doing heinous things.

The only reason I mention drugs is because when we play games, the brain produces various neurochemicals when we feel things such as fear or rage, and drugs mimic or provide an overabundance of those same neurochemicals. Thus drug addicts who have altered perception due to a chemical in their blood stream, could create the same overall results as the chemicals produced naturally while playing a game. If a druggie perceives something as hostile, they attack it or defend themselves. If a player perceives an enemy in a game, they attack or defend themselves. All I'm trying to say is that the two things could be more alike than you might think.

[leeor_net]

These kinds of games are prohibited from being sold in North America, ala, the ESRB's AO rating

Pretty sure not every developer uses the ESRB. I don't. And even if I have a game big enough, I probably STILL won't. As far as I know there's no requirement for an ESRB rating and I think only large retail outlets will require that vs actual law of the land.

There are many other ways to get games to from perfectly legitimate digital distribution vendors.

If there was such a demand for sexual and pornographic games, we'd see a lot more of them. Fact is, there isn't a demand as far as I know.

thus they think that people liked the new characters when many did not.

You're assuming the people making the decisions are idiots and don't know the bigger picture. Tomb Raider wasn't a hit because the new lara croft was different. It was a hit because it was actually a good game unlike much of the shovelware sold on store shelves today.

Pretty sure the people making the big decisions about these things are a little smarter than that. Not always... but usually.

Well, my dreams and fantasies are often very similar to the games I play and the fantasies I play out in them, so I might be just different.

Key words here... your dreams. Your fantasies. That's your experience of the world. I have mine. And John Nobody has his own. Thing is, a lot of people do have similar fantasies that play out in their mind. It's a psychological thing built into most of us. That doesn't mean all day long I'm thinking about doing horrible things to people but as a psychologist once told me, violent fantasies are normal and healthy. It only becomes unhealthy if they turn into obsessions and/or you start to act on those fantasies.

why would we not also find pleasure in indulging them in real life?

When a customer decides they're going to pissy and start saying stupid shit and yelling at me because they dropped their phone and it broke again but that's somehow my fault, I often fantasize about slapping them across the face just before I send them flying over the railing of our second floor location. Yes, I get a great deal of pleasure thinking about that. So why do I not actually commit such an act? Because I know the consequences of said act. And I don't just mean the legal consequences of very likely being in prison for murder. I mean the psychological consequences. I would have to deal with the fact that I threw someone over the railing quite likely to their death just because they were being an ignorant douche bag. For however long I lived, I'd be thinking about how I harmed someone to the point of taking their life. And that I harmed their loved ones because I deprived them of the company of their loved one.

This is why we don't go around committing horrible acts of violence. Because we know the repercussions of committing these sorts of acts are far worse. Any sane, semi adjusted person can tell you that actually striking out at someone feels good when you think about it and in the moment may even feel good but afterward you just feel like a dick.

I remember a case where I attacked someone at school. I didn't like this kid and he occasionally made fun of me. Whatever, right? He wasn't that much of a nuisance. But no, I had to just go and instigate a problem with him just so I could have the pleasure of breaking his nose. Which I did. In the moment it felt great. It wasn't until the adrenaline had worn off that I realized I instigated a fight and then broke this kid's nose... for what? To prove that I was tough? That I would attack someone if they were never physically threatening to me ever? That was... 20 years ago now. It still occasionally comes to mind and I feel bad about it.

I wouldn't say our frontal lobe is the primary reason why we avoid indulging in fantasies.

Then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how we work. The frontal lobes are what put up the emotional and impulsive brakes in primates. Cultural and environmental pressures can affect what we see as 'good' or 'bad' but it's the frontal lobes that provide that function. Sociopaths do not have properly functioning frontal lobes which is why they can hurt people and not even think twice about it. I'd recommend you do some research on the studies of primate brains including human brains. We've made a lot of headway (no pun intended) into these fields of study.

All I'm trying to say is that the two things could be more alike than you might think.

And you would be wrong. Someone under the influence has an IMPAIRED sense of self. Their judgement, reaction and thinking are all IMPAIRED by the use of whatever substance they choose to use or abuse. Impairment means that whatever substance is being used changes the way the brain reacts to things through various different mechanisms, most notably in what hormones (those chemicals you were mentioning) neurons are able to respond to. That a game can produce emotional results due to hormonal changes in the brain simply means that someone playing that game is reacting to external stimuli, something that all normal people do. But that person is not having the same experience as an impaired person because the game is not impairing their normal ability to function. The game is not altering the way their neurons can or can't respond to hormones. So no, these aren't even remotely similar. Just because an addict who feels threatened may choose to fight and that a gamer who is threatened in the game may choose to fight doesn't mean they're having the same experience.

And ultimately, as stated, it's totally irrelevant. We're talking about normal, functioning people. Not addicts who are impaired by whatever substance or people who have psychological abnormalities (sociopathic, schizophrenic, etc.)