Have we finally reached photo realism?

[Stocka]

Lighting is superb

 

But what good is photo realistic graphics?

 

Well the shed is fully destructable, trees can be shot down, now you have photo realism WITH realistic environment behaviour. that is NEXT gen.

EXACTLY. QFT ETC

[Zakatu]

Surely the limit to graphics is not the means to display them (the computer hardware) but the time and effort needed to create a world in the level of detail?

 

Think about creating a game world not distinquishable from real life, its just not possible to make a game in that detail, without taking 10 years or something.

 

I think we are a long way away yet, we will only get there when we can say, scan a real world environment and "record" all the positions of everything in it, which could then be displayed ona screen, i think.

[Gaijin von Snikbah]

If you put a photo in a game do you have photorealism then?

[Charlie]

I'm sure I read somewhere that the guys developing Crysis weren't going for photorealism, but something else? It was in one of the latest EDGE issues...

[Konfucius]

It comes damn close to photorealism indeed but in motion there are still some edges here and there and some shader typical lightning is also visible but I get what you mean.

I think at some point, maybe a generation ahead we will achieve something that really isn't destinguishable from real life anymore. If you look at the Makings Of of Matrix Revolution you realize what I mean. They did a software so you could apply any face texture to a model of an Agent. Sure that was in a film and this is a game.

However we eventually will reach a point when we have photorealism and I'm really hoping to get to this point because especially PC games are often mainly judged by the graphics and this could lead to a new era of innovation... or physics simulation.

[Supergrunch]

Surely the limit to graphics is not the means to display them (the computer hardware) but the time and effort needed to create a world in the level of detail?

 

Think about creating a game world not distinquishable from real life, its just not possible to make a game in that detail, without taking 10 years or something.

 

I think we are a long way away yet, we will only get there when we can say, scan a real world environment and "record" all the positions of everything in it, which could then be displayed ona screen, i think.

I think it will always be impossible to achieve perfect realism; we don't understand many of the things that make our own world appear "real".

[Jav_NE]

As you can see from the Crysis picture also, the mountains in the background are actually quite different. It's incredibly difficult to generate terrain that looks precisely like its real life couterparts. I think they use random algorithms, or stochastics that generate random faces based on set parameters that make things like mountains, trees, snowflakes, water, fire... any natural phenomenon so, without as someone said spending countless ours/days/weeks/years going into minute detail, were a long way off actual realism, but it looks pretty damn close and thats certainly something.

[dabookerman]

I dont understand why a lot of people are dismissing the game, it will be the most important game since half life 2, and who doesnt like half life 2?

[Adrian DX]

I dont understand why a lot of people are dismissing the game, it will be the most important game since half life 2, and who doesnt like half life 2?

I like Half Life 2, but its not important. If you're talking about important because of the graphics, you know some other game would come around to take its place, Half Life 2 was just first in "the new graphics generation".

[dabookerman]

I like Half Life 2, but its not important. If you're talking about important because of the graphics, you know some other game would come around to take its place, Half Life 2 was just first in "the new graphics generation".

 

I myself thought it was the physics of the game

[Pestneb]

while being "graphic whores" may be considered a bad thing, improved graphics are good.

why is photorealism important? we can see reality, its something we can all compare and judge. if we can recreate what we can see, the only graphical limit from then is ourselves - if we can imagine it, we can recreate it.

 

once we have the detail nailed we just need to go for how large environments are etc.

 

and for the realism is impossible - largely yes. but we only need to simulate noticeable effects.

there are a lot of "real" processes that don't need to be incorporated into games. for example, air. as far as I am aware, most (if not all) games treat air as a standard, air pressure isn't factored in at all, so it may as well just be a vacuum (without people bursting and liquids evaporating etc.)

[Bowser57]

The thing is, none of my fave games look in anyway "real".

[Marshmellow]

wow that is amazing shame bout the grass though... we'll get there someday, i actually hadnt noticed the bad grass till somebody mentioned it, so fooled me:D

[gorrit]

Surely the limit to graphics is not the means to display them (the computer hardware) but the time and effort needed to create a world in the level of detail?

 

Think about creating a game world not distinquishable from real life, its just not possible to make a game in that detail, without taking 10 years or something.

 

I think we are a long way away yet, we will only get there when we can say, scan a real world environment and "record" all the positions of everything in it, which could then be displayed ona screen, i think.

 

The tools get better and better, so I doubt future game developers will use a real world scanner (altought a few will certainly do it, it has already been done albeit in a limited way) but much more advanced tools which will help them achieve something that looks rather real.

[Jamba]

 

I get tired of photo realism. No actually I get bored of it. It is a holy grail like pursuit after something exponentially unatainable and while everyone is having their time consumed by this quest, millions of really interesting styles of visual graphics could have been born. Just because games can be escapist doesn't mean that they have to realistic to be immersive. For instance, I don't think that the graphical difference between MGS and MGS3 made me feel any more immersed. And frankly the game design and story did a lot better version of that.

[JimmyPage]

Well that's Direct X 10, Windows Vista and an uber-l33t PC for you.... shame it would be cheaper to buy ALL next gen consoles. But those graphics are unparalelled, absolutely stunning, the E3 video is very impressive too.

[Pestneb]

 

I get tired of photo realism. No actually I get bored of it. It is a holy grail like pursuit after something exponentially unatainable and while everyone is having their time consumed by this quest, millions of really interesting styles of visual graphics could have been born. Just because games can be escapist doesn't mean that they have to realistic to be immersive. For instance, I don't think that the graphical difference between MGS and MGS3 made me feel any more immersed. And frankly the game design and story did a lot better version of that.

 

 

Photo realism itself isn't exciting to me, but the ability to produce something in realtime like that is - because we can see thats how they want it to look.

Currently with different visual styles we don't know if its purely what they wanted to display, of if its due to hardware limitation.

 

at the moment there are three things that govern graphics

 

1)Hardware

2)technical abilities of the artists

3)imagination of the artists.

 

improved hardware reduces one inhibition of artistry, its a barrier that I don't believe will be removed in our life times, but reducing it as much as possible is a good thing.

 

the more it is removed the more artists can focus on imagination and less on overcoming technical hurdles.

[Jamba]

Yeah, I know what you mean but isn't photorealism a bit of a bollocks term? The final goal of this quest keeps backing away, because the closer we get the more we examine and the more differences we see. It will never be achieved without simulating the real physics of the real universe right down to the cell structure of everything a virtual universe. So we are also limited by scientific understanding too. The computer power and artistic input to be able to achieve this is proposterous.

[Pestneb]

Yeah, I know what you mean but isn't photorealism a bit of a bollocks term? The final goal of this quest keeps backing away, because the closer we get the more we examine and the more differences we see. It will never be achieved without simulating the real physics of the real universe right down to the cell structure of everything a virtual universe. So we are also limited by scientific understanding too. The computer power and artistic input to be able to achieve this is proposterous.

 

not really, the game only needs realism in what it touches.

take a painting of a persons face, the painting completely lacks the information of the back of that persons head, and if it is literally just their face, we are left without a clue about their feet - do they have 16 toes?

 

if that persons mouth is shut, do they have a tongue??

 

in the same way, games only show and allow us to interact directly with what they concern

[Fierce_LiNk]

The thing is, none of my fave games look in anyway "real".

 

Same here, dude.

 

I'm not really one for photo realistic graphics. I prefer my games to have a 'different' art style. Games like Killer7 and Cel Damage describe the sort of style that really appeals to me. I guess you could say that i prefer unrealism in terms of visuals to photo realism.

 

But, then we get onto the argument of physics and fludity. I think that would be a different argument, imo.

[Jamba]

You can have realistic movement (or should I say representative?) whithout needing realistic graphics. I'm quite a fan of unrealistic movement too. It would be silly if you weren't allowed to hammer Mario's skull into the floor like a dart when using the cape in Mario World wouldn't it?

[somme]

I think the real point is, the generation after photo-realistic graphics are achieved it'll be Nintendo who shine.

[Cube]

It on the way to "photorealism", but its still a few billion miles away.