Not if they still have shit gameplay. I'd rather sacrifice graffix for AI and gameplay.
We won't get either, obviously.

>>319882408
>Imagine Grand Theft Auto with graphics like pic related
I'd rather imagine GTA with something interesting to do

>>319882487
>>319882503

I know it's a meme to hate video games but I honestly think the medium has progressed incredibly well over the last ten years. As technology gets better games get better imo 2bqh.

>>319882659
As much as /v/ hates them, a lot of Indie titles have been great. But they all lack graphics (which is fine). Everything else has been stale as staleness can be stale.

Why don't you just browse google maps street view?

>>319882913

Nah. Games get better as physics/visuals get better. Quality over quantity bruh, games today feel better to play than ever before and that's why the industry has gotten so huge

>>319882408
Just go outside and run people over with a car

>somewhere in the future photorealistic graphics are achieved
>still can't enter 99% of the buildings
>weather is still purely aesthetical
>nonscripted NPCs are still limited to wandering aimlessly until the player interacts with them
>money is still useless

I'd rather have realistic animations than realistic textures

I can't think of a single game that had amazing animations

>>319882408
100% photorealistic? Not in this century.
Pseudo-photorealism?
It'll take at least 30 years to do so.
The consoles now can't run previous-gen games in 1080p and 60fps.
Dynamic global illumination is impossible on any current hardware and without it there's no way of achieving any pseudo-photorealism.
Most of the realism comes from simulating environments, like water, wind, weather effects, particle effects. Volumetric clouds are still very difficult to render.
To make a realistic human character you'd need a pseudo-SSS shaders for skin and a very good hair simulation (along with other gimmicks). Proper SSS is a fucking beast to make now and pseudo-sss doesn't look too realistic.