Graphical realism? Whats your thoughts?

Main > Everything Else

<< < (4/10) > >>

Howard_Casto:
Again, no, they aren't almost photorealistic at all. They are WAAAAAAAAAY off. The fact that they look better than an old Atari game by a factor of one million doesn't change that. Even in Hollywood movies, I've yet to be fooled by a cgi character.... perhaps digital manipulation (removal of wires or blemishes, ect.) but nope.... cgi is still pretty darn fake when it comes to real flesh and blood creatures. It isn't even a knock on games either. Going back to the movies example, practical effects have never once fooled me either.

Our brains are hard-wired to know what a real person looks like compared to a fake person and the same with other familiar animals. It's a survival mechanism. You can be fooled by a still image or a quick glance, but nope... if you are interacting with a character on a more intimate level you'll know. They might figure it out one day, but it would probably be logn after our bones have turned to dust.... especially now that Moore's law seems to be stagnating.

Titchgamer:
We are not talking about having a meaningful conversation with the game here Howard.
Not yet atleast.

The fact we have gone from Atari GFX as you put it to where we are now in say 30 years where do you think we will be in another 30?

That is very much in our lifetime.

Howard_Casto:
I'm not talking about a meaningful conversation either.... I'm just talking about interacting with characters on any level greater than seeing a glimpse of the back of a guy 30 yards away in your peripheral vision.

Honestly, I haven't seen a huge change in graphical fidelity in the past 10 years or so. Like I said, Moore's law is starting to grow stagnant. Processors aren't gaining raw clock speed by leaps and bounds anymore, rather they are squeezing a bit more horsepower out of chips by doing stuff like multiple cores and larger cache sizes and stuff. I'm not smart enough to fully understand the problem, but word on the street is that we are quickly approaching the point to where the laws of physics as we currently know them won't allow chips to be made any faster. There was a huge leap from pong to the 2600 and again from the 2600 to the nes and then again from the nes to snes, and finally from the snes to the n64.... but after that.... eh it gets ever so slightly better with each hardware revision, but it isn't moving nearly as fast. I mean yeah I can see a difference between the xbox 360 and the xbox one, but it isn't like in previous generations where you looked back and it looked like a steaming dog turd in comparison. This generation does 1080p at 60 fps and is nearing true 4k with the one x. Sure draw distances and shading and such is going to get a little better with each generation, but I doubt the animation or the mocap or the ai is.

Ignoring the tech problems for a second there is also the limitation that people have to actually write the games and sell them. You take a game like Assasin's Creed, which has over 200 people working on the games and the characters still look cartoonish, not because they aren't capable of making them look better, but that there is a 60 dollar price point the game has to sell at and they can only hire so many people.... so they focus on, you know, the "game part" of the game, and not how realistic everything is. Would people be willing to pay 120 dollars or potentially much more for a single game? Perhaps, but the experience would probably have to be leaps and bounds more impressive than it is now and still be a fun game to play.

The only way I see games get even close to realism in terms of portraying living creatures is if some sort of technological breakthrough makes it possible to just insert actors into games, without the need to have an artist cleanup the rig or create the animations or manipulate the performance in any way. I'm not talking about mocap either..... that's a static performance and in games you need to be able to interact with the character and have it adjust itself accordingly.

Titchgamer:

--- Quote from: Howard_Casto on January 25, 2018, 02:51:28 pm ---I'm not talking about a meaningful conversation either.... I'm just talking about interacting with characters on any level greater than seeing a glimpse of the back of a guy 30 yards away in your peripheral vision.

Honestly, I haven't seen a huge change in graphical fidelity in the past 10 years or so. Like I said, Moore's law is starting to grow stagnant. Processors aren't gaining raw clock speed by leaps and bounds anymore, rather they are squeezing a bit more horsepower out of chips by doing stuff like multiple cores and larger cache sizes and stuff. I'm not smart enough to fully understand the problem, but word on the street is that we are quickly approaching the point to where the laws of physics as we currently know them won't allow chips to be made any faster. There was a huge leap from pong to the 2600 and again from the 2600 to the nes and then again from the nes to snes, and finally from the snes to the n64.... but after that.... eh it gets ever so slightly better with each hardware revision, but it isn't moving nearly as fast. I mean yeah I can see a difference between the xbox 360 and the xbox one, but it isn't like in previous generations where you looked back and it looked like a steaming dog turd in comparison. This generation does 1080p at 60 fps and is nearing true 4k with the one x. Sure draw distances and shading and such is going to get a little better with each generation, but I doubt the animation or the mocap or the ai is.

Ignoring the tech problems for a second there is also the limitation that people have to actually write the games and sell them. You take a game like Assasin's Creed, which has over 200 people working on the games and the characters still look cartoonish, not because they aren't capable of making them look better, but that there is a 60 dollar price point the game has to sell at and they can only hire so many people.... so they focus on, you know, the "game part" of the game, and not how realistic everything is. Would people be willing to pay 120 dollars or potentially much more for a single game? Perhaps, but the experience would probably have to be leaps and bounds more impressive than it is now and still be a fun game to play.

The only way I see games get even close to realism in terms of portraying living creatures is if some sort of technological breakthrough makes it possible to just insert actors into games, without the need to have an artist cleanup the rig or create the animations or manipulate the performance in any way. I'm not talking about mocap either..... that's a static performance and in games you need to be able to interact with the character and have it adjust itself accordingly.

--- End quote ---

If you could see major changes between 8 bit games and 16 bit games, But Can not see a major difference between ps2 and ps3 then your eyesight is beginning to fail you my friend.

Should of gone to specsavers!
(Is that a thing over there!?)

Howard_Casto:
It's not a major difference, not at all. I think your eyes are failing you. It looks incrementally better. The xbox/gc/ps2 era games were played on 480p at best displays, and for that resolution, the graphics looked about the same as the next generation of consoles. In other words things are just at a higher resolution, they don't particularly look dramatically better if you keep them in context.

Look at it this way: If you watch an old episode of TNG on an old crt tv and then watch one of the hd restored editions on your current tv, yes, Patrick Stewart is displayed at a higher resolution, but he still looks the same. It doesn't suddenly make him look better, only the resolution of the overall picture is better. He's now crisp and with more detail, but it isn't such a dramatic leap that the sd version looks like some sort of abstract interpretation of the captain as opposed to the hd version that actually looks like him.

Even ignoring that, are you seriously going to tell me that you think the difference between 360 and xbox one games are THAT much better. (You need to read what I said btw... I said the last 10 years and I also specifically compared the 360 to the xbox one.... we aren't talking about the same things).

I'm done with this conversation anyway... you asked for our thoughts, so I gave mine and because it doesn't align with yours you keep arguing.... if you wanted people to agree with you that was probably what you should have asked for.

Navigation

 Message Index

Go to full version