the best way to explain this is by linking to a webpage explaining the uncanny valley,( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley ) and use an example.

The best example i can think of is the mass effect sires, mass effect 1 had many flaws and imperfections from the combat mechanics being terrible, to the graphics/visuals and the abomination known as the mako, but did allot good like the writing and and most people I know and I gave it the industrial machine response (although i think the escapist thinks differently)

mass effect 2 had very few problems, it did allot right but there were also afew things off about it, the main story and RPG elements were not the best and combat was largely lack-luster and repetitive but it also did allot right, like the interaction with your squad that people focus on making it get the humanoid robot response

mass effect 3 from what i've gathered got 99% of everything right, the first few days after it came out people were throwing around the best game ever and game of the year descriptions and it was seen as the best thing since bacon, then the ending sucked and everyone focused on the negative and disregarded the positive (as opposed to ME2 were people focused on the positive and disregarded the negative) giving it the "fear" reaction

to summaries: recently games have got so close to perfect that there faults stand out and are what people focus on whereas in the past games were not close to perfection and so there merits stood out and were focused on

so what do you think? are games in an uncanny-valley like situation? why/why not?

note: please dont make this a mass effect 3 thread, i used as an example to illustrate my point and dont want a thread based around discussing how good the game was and how bad its ending was, by all means talk about it in the context of the uncanny-valley but dont derail the thread by simply discussing how good mass effect 3 was

edit: this thread isnt about the literal uncanny-valley, more the basic theory that as something gets closer to perfection its flaws stand out more and if the uncanny-valley graph relates to game quality

Interesting way of looking at it.

I think it's more that if a game is otherwise very very good, we'll unduly resent any part of it that spoils the overall experience. ME3's infamous ending(s?) would not have drawn anywhere near the flack they did had they not been the conclusion of a much loved series.

Similarly, Crysis is one of my favourite FPSs of the last few years, and as a result the VTOL level near the end is one of my most hated gaming experiences ever - something I'd shrug off in an 'okay' game, but I resent it for tarnishing if not a perfect 10, then at least a high 9.

HarryScull:
to summaries: recently games have got so close to perfect that there faults stand out and are what people focus on whereas in the past games were not close to perfection and so there merits stood out and were focused on

I don't think we have to worry about games getting close to perfection any time soon.

OT: I actually don't think this is the case - I think it's about how well a game works as a whole. People seem to be much more forgiving of clunky mechanics in a plot-driven game than they are of gaping plot holes in a plot-driven game, for instance.

Sixcess:
Interesting way of looking at it.

I think it's more that if a game is otherwise very very good, we'll unduly resent any part of it that spoils the overall experience. ME3's infamous ending(s?) would not have drawn anywhere near the flack they did had they not been the conclusion of a much loved series.

Similarly, Crysis is one of my favourite FPSs of the last few years, and as a result the VTOL level near the end is one of my most hated gaming experiences ever - something I'd shrug off in an 'okay' game, but I resent it for tarnishing if not a perfect 10, then at least a high 9.

I didn't even find the VTOL mission that bad. Escorting Prophet around the frozen wasteland though. no thanks.

endtherapture:
I didn't even find the VTOL mission that bad. Escorting Prophet around the frozen wasteland though. no thanks.

Heh. You've just made me realise my hatred of the VTOL mission is so great it actually obscures my recollection of the other bad moments of the game... like that one.

Zhukov:
I don't think the uncanny valley curve applies to quality.

Also, loads of people are going to take issue with your assessment of the three ME games.

He is correct. Those words you're using, they don't mean what you think they mean. The Uncanny valley will only apply to visuals. I opened the thread and expected a talk about character models, animations and maybe speech but I got the Mako, writing and combat mechanics.

The quality doesn't have an Uncanny valley curve. Perfection isn't an objective state of being nor is it measurable. You think ME was close to perfection? I don't. I would never make that claim. I can point out other games I thought were and you can disagree with those. That's because it is a subjective quality.

HarryScull:
the best way to explain this is by linking to a webpage explaining the uncanny valley,( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley ) and use an example.

The best example i can think of is the mass effect sires, mass effect 1 had many flaws and imperfections from the combat mechanics being terrible, to the graphics/visuals and the abomination known as the mako, but did allot good like the writing and and most people I know and I gave it the industrial machine response (although i think the escapist thinks differently)

mass effect 2 had very few problems, it did allot right but there were also afew things off about it, the main story and RPG elements were not the best and combat was largely lack-luster and repetitive but it also did allot right, like the interaction with your squad that people focus on making it get the humanoid robot response

mass effect 3 from what i've gathered got 99% of everything right, the first few days after it came out people were throwing around the best game ever and game of the year descriptions and it was seen as the best thing since bacon, then the ending sucked and everyone focused on the negative and disregarded the positive (as opposed to ME2 were people focused on the positive and disregarded the negative) giving it the "fear" reaction

to summaries: recently games have got so close to perfect that there faults stand out and are what people focus on whereas in the past games were not close to perfection and so there merits stood out and were focused on

so what do you think? are games in an uncanny-valley like situation? why/why not?

note: please dont make this a mass effect 3 thread, i used as an example to illustrate my point and dont want a thread based around discussing how good the game was and how bad its ending was, by all means talk about it in the context of the uncanny-valley but dont derail the thread by simply discussing how good mass effect 3 was

You need to watch Extra Credits, they have a pretty good explanation of where the uncanny valley fits into games.

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-uncanny-valley

I feel the way you are interpreting the uncanny valley effect is a little...off. The uncanny valley has nothing to do with specifically how the game works, but rather how the characters feel overall. If Mass Effect does fall into the uncanny valley, it's because the models and animation are not successful at looking totally human, but are close enough that they aren't caricatured. So the result is unsettling--almost human, but not quite. The RPG elements and how the choice mechanics work have nothing to do with it. The uncanny valley deals specifically in how a human reacts to seeing another artificial thing with human characteristics. Not moral choices and narrative structure.

Kahunaburger:

HarryScull:
to summaries: recently games have got so close to perfect that there faults stand out and are what people focus on whereas in the past games were not close to perfection and so there merits stood out and were focused on

I don't think we have to worry about games getting close to perfection any time soon.

i have to disagree and say that some perfect games do exist, in my opinion minecraft is a perfect game and so is trials HD but the problem comes in with it being so hard to define what makes a game perfect, like whether its like absence of faults or the abundance of good design, or whether it's in being widely accepted or hitting a niche audience, and whether it is subjective to the individual consumer or something that is measurable, or decided by the industry

Zhukov:

He is correct. Those words you're using, they don't mean what you think they mean. The Uncanny valley will only apply to visuals. I opened the thread and expected a talk about character models, animations and maybe speech but I got the Mako, writing and combat mechanics.

The quality doesn't have an Uncanny valley curve. Perfection isn't an objective state of being nor is it measurable. You think ME was close to perfection? I don't. I would never make that claim. I can point out other games I thought were and you can disagree with those. That's because it is a subjective quality.

1. in a pure, logical form games don't conform to the uncanny-valley but in terms of the theory of as something gets closer to perfection its flaws stand out more it's arguable that it is true

2. see above, the biggest problem with this theory is that perfection is such a hard thing to define, let alone measure

Lilani:

HarryScull:
-snip-

You need to watch Extra Credits, they have a pretty good explanation of where the uncanny valley fits into games.

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-uncanny-valley

I feel the way you are interpreting the uncanny valley effect is a little...off. The uncanny valley has nothing to do with specifically how the game works, but rather how the characters feel overall. If Mass Effect does fall into the uncanny valley, it's because the models and animation are not successful at looking totally human, but are close enough that they aren't caricatured. So the result is unsettling--almost human, but not quite. The RPG elements and how the choice mechanics work have nothing to do with it. The uncanny valley deals specifically in how a human reacts to seeing another artificial thing with human characteristics. Not moral choices and narrative structure.

in a pure, logical form games don't conform to the uncanny-valley but in terms of the theory of as something gets closer to perfection its flaws stand out more it's arguable that it is true, and that is the conversation, are we in an uncanny-valley like situation, not "are we in the uncanny-valley

HarryScull:
1. in a pure, logical form games don't conform to the uncanny-valley but in terms of the theory of as something gets closer to perfection its flaws stand out more it's arguable that it is true

You are correct - it is arguable. And I argue that it isn't true.

HarryScull:
2. see above, the biggest problem with this theory is that perfection is such a hard thing to define, let alone measure

So, you're just going to pretend perfection is objective measurable finite state? See above I said it isn't.

HarryScull:

i have to disagree and say that some perfect games do exist, in my opinion minecraft is a perfect game and so is trials HD but the problem comes in with it being so hard to define what makes a game perfect, like whether its like absence of faults or the abundance of good design, or whether it's in being widely accepted or hitting a niche audience, and whether it is subjective to the individual consumer or something that is measurable, or decided by the industry

The thing with Minecraft is that it's nowhere near perfection - the game isn't remotely optimized, the visuals are ugly and glitchy, there's no modding API, and the "game" elements are pretty simplistic. Despite that, it's a good game, because the core elements work very well as a cohesive whole. It's actually the perfect example of how it's easy to forgive a game for its imperfections if you like how the core mechanics mesh.

I would disagree. Take, for example Skyrim. The vast majority of people who played Skyrim enjoyed it despite its bugs.

The thing different about Mass Effect 3 was that the part that sucked was arguably the most important part, the part that wrapped up an epic trilogy that we spent hundreds of hours in.

Sure, the Skyrim main quest ending kinda sucked but I don't think anyone was much involved in the main storyline of Skyrim as much as the faffing about so it didn't matter as much.

So, basically, it's usually an opposite effect to the uncanny valley. The better a game is, the less its flaws matter in overall appreciation of the game.

However, a flaw that casts the entire game or series in a bad light is a different story entirely.

I'd say it's getting close to a real human's facial expressions, etc. with games like L.A. Noire.

But looking at the rest of the game, and don't see the entire thing being plunged into the Uncanny Valley if people are walking around with a laser gun and whatnot.

HarryScull:
Snip.

There are only two games, to me, that have that Uncanny Valley effect. The Alan Wake series (Honestly, it was a good game, albeit only horrifying to three year olds, but those damned Face Animations, good god!) and Miranda from the Mass Effect series.

mass effect 3.. whats her face who joins your crew as a reporter. that was a damn good example of uncanny valley she looked really.. off

nikki191:
mass effect 3.. whats her face who joins your crew as a reporter. that was a damn good example of uncanny valley she looked really.. off

That's exactly what I was thinking when I saw the title.

Diana Allers, based on Jessica Chobat. Just doesn't look right.

HarryScull:

Lilani:

HarryScull:
-snip-

You need to watch Extra Credits, they have a pretty good explanation of where the uncanny valley fits into games.

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-uncanny-valley

I feel the way you are interpreting the uncanny valley effect is a little...off. The uncanny valley has nothing to do with specifically how the game works, but rather how the characters feel overall. If Mass Effect does fall into the uncanny valley, it's because the models and animation are not successful at looking totally human, but are close enough that they aren't caricatured. So the result is unsettling--almost human, but not quite. The RPG elements and how the choice mechanics work have nothing to do with it. The uncanny valley deals specifically in how a human reacts to seeing another artificial thing with human characteristics. Not moral choices and narrative structure.

in a pure, logical form games don't conform to the uncanny-valley but in terms of the theory of as something gets closer to perfection its flaws stand out more it's arguable that it is true, and that is the conversation, are we in an uncanny-valley like situation, not "are we in the uncanny-valley

The Uncanny Valley has nothing to do with perfection, and thus is not triggered by something being slightly flawed.

The Uncanny Valley phenomenon occurs because of a mismatch between the way something behaves and the way we expect it to behave. For something that doesn't exist in the real world or else is extremely rare and thus not a part of everyday life, there is no basis for comparison, and thus no possibility for Uncanniness.

The basis of your theory, the reaction to ME3, has nothing to with any Uncanny Valley-like phenomenon. The reaction to ME3 is based on one simple truism of narrative construction - the most important parts of a narrative, as far as audience reaction goes, are the beginning and the ending.

And let's say nothing of the fact that fear-uneasiness and hatred not the same emotion. And I seem to recall a lot of grumbling about certain elements of the ME2 ending - particularly the final boss - back in the day, as well.