Do you think games can ever be photo realistic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lbsf1
  • 27 comments
  • 2,443 views

Do you ever think games will be photo realistic

  • yes

    Votes: 21 72.4%

  • no

    Votes: 8 27.6%
  • Total voters
    29
lbsf1

lbsf1

Messages
3,679
United Kingdom
Warwick Uni
Messages
lbsf1 GTP_lbsf1
Messages
obsmu (my brothers acount)
I was wondering what everyones personal opinions on this are. Whether in the future we could lay games and reality together and not be able to see a difference or whether there will always be tell tale signs and that gaming will compare to the real thing.
 
look at the evolution of games. What way they come alone the last 10 years....

Now i don´t think that all games will be photorealistic due to choice


Consoles and engines slow the process a bit down. In this state i give it 5-7 years. Consoles could be their next gen., or worse case the 2 gens after this one. PC could do it in 2 years if they would really want to do it. In this state 5 years...

With all the new techs : 3D, tesselation, cuda processing,.... And all the tech release inbetween the spaceframe will be huge.
I installed old games on my Pc just for fun.
When you look at games like Zork, Blade Runner, Populus, Carmageddon, HalfLife, ... Look at the 1st metal gear (not the one on ps1 and now look mgs4). We´d come along way, but it all happend during the 20 last years.... And evolution is expondential so.....
 
Last edited:
Surely it's simply a matter of time? Even photographs have a certain (rather high) resolution, and then it's just getting accurate enough models for the objects, lighting and so on. Lots of work, sure, but people will do it eventually.
 
Look at any DirectX 10 or 11 era game at the best possible settings, or look at Quake 4 when it was ray-traced using DX9. Photo-realism is already there, it's just a matter of the hardware being able to constantly render these images without any known artifacts of some kind.

Ray-tracing is still a long way off, but as support for GP² increases, you'll see games (and image stills) that will look drastically better than reality ever could to be quite honest.
 
Wait 10 years and we won't be playing on a monitor anymore. We'll have a holograms projected around us. A primitive Star Trek holodeck.
 
kikie
Wait 10 years and we won't be playing on a monitor anymore. We'll have a holograms projected around us. A primitive Star Trek holodeck.
Click to expand...

That'd be awesome. :p

Seriously though, that's highly unlikely as TVs won't be surpassed anytime soon. Although thinking about it...it's far from impossible, but the money involved in funding such wouldn't give much headway (even though the tech is already there). I'd say 20-30 years, give or take.
 
gtracedriver
GT5 is not good enough for you ?
http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/8264/94110320091012screen008.jpg
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/1545/f2007.jpg
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/5179/fujigt.gif

I know some people cannot tell difference between games and reality haha but games will always look little artificial or stylized than real thing. Some games already have very realistic look animations, faces and so on ...
Click to expand...

yeah i was going to post the same thing, GT5 is realistic as anything, it is photo realistic.
 
GTP_V8SuperCars
yeah i was going to post the same thing, GT5 is realistic as anything, it is photo realistic.
Click to expand...

You must be blind then. It would be impossible for a machine to calculate how light falls and the hundreds of other variables that go into how a photograph is produced for every frame in a video game. We may even have the computing power in the future but will anyone ever make something that can calculate all those variables, I doubt.
 
Theres a possibility of reaching Photo Realism in Video Games, BUT, I believe that point wont be reached due to Morality and Skepticsm?

I cant Imagine playing something like GTA being Photo Realistic, you know, Killing people, Crashing cars and all that stuff Involved, and all of those things completely Photo Realistic (Including the whole Gore it Involves :( )
 
SweetshopUnion
You must be blind then. It would be impossible for a machine to calculate how light falls and the hundreds of other variables that go into how a photograph is produced for every frame in a video game. We may even have the computing power in the future but will anyone ever make something that can calculate all those variables, I doubt.
Click to expand...

If GT5 replays, photomode is not realistic for you then nothing can :confused:

When I first saw this in HD I was like OMG. When you see something new in GT5 or even after some time you just watch it again you have to admit it looks photo-realistic :cool:

[YOUTUBEHD]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GoBctkPH1jM&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GoBctkPH1jM&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBEHD]
 
Kaz already said that GT5 is already better than real life so how much better do you want it to be? The problem is with games like GT it looks to perfect so now they have to put in some imperfections like washing out some highlights or putting haze in the atmosphere, even messing up the grass to show some dirt or weeds. So being photo realistic will only depend on how meticulous the creator is to the details and what platform they are using to represent it. But I think the tecnology is pretty much close to realistic.
 
gtracedriver
If GT5 replays, photomode is not realistic for you then nothing can :confused:

When I first saw this in HD I was like OMG. When you see something new in GT5 or even after some time you just watch it again you have to admit it looks photo-realistic :cool:
Click to expand...

GT5P looks to sterile though to be photorealistic. I also wouldn't call it anywhere near photorealistc as there is more to being photorealistic than just the cars(like dust, smoke, damage, track changes like rubber and debris, dust building on the car, etc.). Perhaps in a generation or two the systems will be powerful enough to have photorealistic games, but it's not going to be this generation.
 
I think GT5 on replay and photomode look as realistic as it gets but of course there is always a limit to what can be achieved. With better tech things will obviously get better :)
 
If a holodeck is out of the question, maybe it's going to be possible to manipulate real photo or film footage so we will be able to control these car photos ingame instead of programmed cars. Wouldn't that be a nice change?
 
I don't know.

It's true that there still has to be a programme that makes the cars (photos or real films footage) react to the inputs of a controller. Is this possible, who knows what they will come up with in the future.

I was dreaming out loud. Letting my imagination go free.
 
Does anyone even know what photo realistic means? It does not mean real at all. Its an art form. As an artist the goal is to recreate somehting as "realistic" to the source as possible, its impossible to recreate the source 1:1 by hand. Digitally its closer but real time is impossible.

Here is my drawing of the Ford F-100, its not real, you know its not real. But it has all the "elements" of the source recreated. Thats what Photo-realism is, a recreation of something real or of realistic nature.




Many games are photo realistic and have been for years.
 
LaBounti
*snip*

Here is my drawing of the Ford F-100, its not real, you know its not real. But it has all the "elements" of the source recreated. Thats what Photo-realism is, a recreation of something real or of realistic nature.




Many games are photo realistic and have been for years.
Click to expand...
That's not a drawing, that's art.👍


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorealism
 
Last edited:
graphics will never be photo realistic, physics will never be physically realistic and in gt's case sounds will certainly never sound realistic.
 
JosVerstappen
graphics will never be photo realistic, physics will never be physically realistic and in gt's case sounds will certainly never sound realistic.
Click to expand...

Again photo realistic does not mean real. But having elements of a photo, lighting, shadow reflections, color depth etc.

kiki, its still a drawing, markers or pencils are used when drawing. the F100 is marker, you draw with markers like you draw with pencils. Cant take one wikipedia reference and run with it. I said its art, did you not real my post? The Wiki post is basically what I said, its an art form. In Video games it an art style.
 
It is nigh impossible for games to be truly photo realistic. The resolution in photographs is just too high for games to replicate with in-game graphics. You will only be able to get best results with pre-rendered CGI cutscenes. The best I have seen to date are the ones in FF13.
But even CGI, no matter how good it is, wouldn't cut it. Remember the movie Final Fantasy: Spirits Within? Awful story. And was hyped by Square to be so photo realistic that you couldn't be able to tell the difference between it and real-life. Big fail. They lost millions, and were only saved when they joined up with Enix(now SquarEnix) to continue the Final Fantasy series of games.
Heavy Rain on the PS3. The developer's tried to make the visuals as close as possible to real-life. But even with the power of PS3, it couldn't be done. I don't think we will ever be able to see truly photorealistic games on any home systems for at least until the time when we are all travelling around in hover-cars and 'boldly going where no man has gone before' etc......
 
Golfman, did you miss my post? Photo-realistic does not mean real or exact.

thanks Kiki i just thought you were saying it wasn't a drawing.
 
LaBounti
Golfman, did you miss my post? Photo-realistic does not mean real or exact.

thanks Kiki i just thought you were saying it wasn't a drawing.
Click to expand...

Since when is a photo not a picture of something real? THAT is what I was on about - games could never properly replicate real-life objects with in-game graphics to the degree that they would never be told apart. I know that the above picture of that blue pickup could be replicated by in-game graphics because it is just a drawing. Even the PS1 could have done it, albeit with a lower resolution.
 
Thats why the term "photo" realistic came about. Not about the real thing but about recreating something with elements of a Photo, shadows, reflection, etc. If you were into art you may understand better. Photo-realism does not mean real, the term photo would not even be part of the term. Everything I have dawn came from a picture, not the actual thing.

What you just described about my drawing is what Photo-realism is. Having elements of the source. Many people misunderstand the meaning of photo-realistic.
 

Latest Posts

Back