So when do you think we'll achieve photo-realism in games?
>>52401603
Not until consoles die
>>52401603
When the creative people will focus on the visual more. Seriously any PC can give interesting scenery and whatnot, it's all about the motivation, coming up with the mindset to make something great, that's the essential; i think!
look, i've been fucking with graphics software for 20 years, and the thing is, it's like everything has been done and done since the nineties, visually.
in CGI movies and gaming, etc. it's easy to say "GPUs can do this" because they can. The average gaming PC is more powerful than the big SGi machines that have been used to make Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park scenes now. even Toy Story, i think it came out 20 years ago or something. that's giving you an order of idea.
no, it's just that they don't care about making something fussed.
Indie games are stuck in the 90's SNES era.
FARCRY was the perfect example of a visually fussed game, also a lot of racing games really have photo-realistic details since years.
>>52401764
This anon is pretty much correct. I have a feeling we'll start seeing a lot more photoreal games once, consoles catch up (or die).
When real-time ray tracing at 4K becomes possible at least on a ~$1,000 desktop PC.
Currently only CPUs can provide accurate ray tracing renders AFAIK.
>>52401764
>also a lot of racing games really have photo-realistic details since years.
that's because racing games only have to load a small amount of shit
also games are a lot different than pre-rendered movie graphics, since you can take days to render graphics for a movie and then you're done. games have to be done in real time and be interactive.
>>52401603
It will be too expensive. You'd need too many artists. And because artists would be making it, it'd be poorly optimized and run slow.
>>52401830
this. Though even servers have difficulty ray tracing in real time right now.
>>52401830
>rt ray tracing
>at 4k
that frame alone would render for about 2 hours on a average desktop.
i'd be glad to have a game that looks like that in 1024x768 at 40 fps
I remember seeing on Plebbit a few months ago a game engine that was very close to realism. They showed demos of moving water and hanging drapes moving in the wind and being tugged/pulled and shot. Looked pretty nice, but I would assume it'd be glitchy as hell because video game developers are underpaid and don't even try. Take a look at EA Sports.
I'd say at least 15-20 years more
>>52401923
>Take a look at EA Sports.
Fifa 16 is the best Football game to date m8 desu senpai
>>52401923
>plebbit
Slick source, lad.
>>52401913
Yeah now at 2 fps, but in 10 years probably real time. I think some games already use it in some parts.
>>52401848
>You'd need too many artists.
false. a lot of commercial software these days have good procedural tools.
>And because artists would be making it, it'd be poorly optimized and run slow.
how does that make any sense? you don't build games with just artists.
>>52401923
What, the 'unlimited detail' engine? Its been around for a decade.
>>52401952
real time ray tracing isn't that far away you pleb. i7s can already ray trace a room full of objects at 30 fps at 360p i think. We just need better CPUs.
>>52401923
>demos of moving water and hanging drapes moving in the wind and being tugged/pulled and shot
None of those things are really _that_ hard when they're only thing the engine has to run and professional devs had plenty of time to hand tweak the smoke and mirrors to look good in that one situation.
Maybe AAA projects could afford to do that everywhere in a game, maybe not, but for stuff like that to be convincing it's also going to have to affect gameplay in various ways. No designer's going to bet their project on such simulationism when the whole fucking industry has a raging hardon for over-streamlined "press X now for canned badassery" game mechanics.
>>52401830
pretty much this. real time ray tracing or go bust.
Photorealism is lame and boring.
Probably never. Making navigable photo realistic 3d environments uses a lot of resources. It's probably going to require better algorithms above all else, but everyone is focusing on making stronger GPUs and CPUs. We'll probably just crawl in the direction but never exactly hit it.
I'd say that this is pretty good looking
https://youtu.be/MGyaR2sSBkA
>>52402108
Yes, it is. The local lighting/shading looks a bit too rough (especially in the snow scenes), the water reflections are an obvious screen space raymarch trick and something about the character animations is just a bit off, like they weren't running at the same framerate as the rest of the game (authored for consoles?). But it still looks breddy damn good.
>>52402091
i agree, and tryhards are overdone in modern vidya.
WHY trying to make things realistic? I enjoyed the Portal series because the physics and the places are quite, unusual, but even if a lot of things loosk real, there is a research on the design of all kind of stuff.
The idea would be to take the gamers away from the concepts they define as real, and make something... trippy. something surreal, even abstract but beautiful.
>>52402079
any modern nvidia / ATI can render amazing stuff even at 60fps, the rest is just software
>>52401842
then optimize what the game loads around the characters' visible universe / depth of view.
if it doesn't need polygons, go with fussed textures. now the average gayman GPU has 1GB of vieo RAM. That's insane but still doesn't make me envious enough for gaming.
ah yeah one thing : games are bloated; especially EA, that's why they want gamers to believe they need a new GPU every two years. this is wasting people''s money to feed the jew; here's the problem.
>>52401603
Never.
There aren't even any photorealistic prerendered films yet.
When Crysis 4 comes out
>>52401923
idk demos are misleading, remember all those latest unreal tech demos? Look amazing, and yet no game takes advantage and does the same...
>>52401603
Better shadows, Better lighting, Better AA. That is the problem.
