Graphical realism? Whats your thoughts?

[Titchgamer]

So the VR thread has had me thinking a bit the last few days about a conversation I had with a guy a few years back.

So to set the scene the guy I was talki g to was a elderly chap in his 80’s who was a very level headed and forward thinking kind of guy.

He had no interest in gaming but had obviously seen it evolve and liked to discuss the modern world and tech as much as the past even though he had no technical knowledge or capability.

Anywho ime playing COD (I think it was) with my bro when he pops in for a chat and decides to debate gaming with us.

Now the thing I remember clearly was him looking at the screen for a few mins and then exclaiming “christ it almost looks real doesnt it!?”

He then went on to tell us some war stories and how he found it kind of wierd that he remembers seeing sights of battle complete with crys and bad smells etc that were now made into computer games.
But also could understand the excitement and entertainment side of it.

Now like I said this was a few years ago now and sadly he is no longer with us but I would of been interested to get his opinion if modern day GFX.

As lets be honest some games could be seen as “real” if it were not for the fact we are looking at TV’s.

I never really considered how real a game looked in the past, It was always just a game.
But his comments and the dawn if VR are starting to change my perspective.
Combined with that Episode of black sheep!

I know they always have been and always will be games.
But with taking a older persons view it makes me wonder about future generations having lines blured.
Almost matrix style.

Scary possibilities really....

Thoughts?

And discuss......

[Howard_Casto]

Eh, unless there is a dramatic leap in tech, games aren't going to look real anytime soon.  Currently they look fake as hell.... the animations aren't quite right, facial expressions are wrong, the texturing isn't realistic enough, ect.  The only people that think it looks real are people with either poor eyesight or poor perception of the uncanny valley.  Faking a landscape or some sort of static setting might be possible, but you can't fake living creatures that people are familiar with.  Our brains are just hard-wired to recognize them and when something is artificial the "soul" is missing for lack of a better term.  We just know something is off. 

That isn't to say that the amount of fidelity that games are doing these days isn't impressive, but it's kind of like a wax figure or a life cast of a person..... it might fool you for a split second, but you know almost instantly it's fake, lack of movement aside. 

My point is that I don't think we have to worry about the implications of an artificial world that looks real because we are never going to get an artificial world that looks real.

[pixel]

Graphics can be rendered at such a level,  as to be able to fool the best of em.   The problem is that to do this... it takes  Hours upon Hours,  of Light-Ray Tracing.

 To make a believable object / animal...  a single frame might take 1 week of processing time,  for the render to be output.

 Animation can be flawless as well... if someone actually uses motion capture at high resolutions... and or great frame-analyzers (with a little help from
humans.. when the thing gets confused)    The problem here... is that many studios Cheap-Out.   Like Lucus,  and his Brainiac CGI-Modelers... whom had
Zero business even Trying their hand at animation... let alone putting it to film!  >__<

 Animation by real talented Artists,  can be stunning,  and potentially flawless.   The thing is... Such artists can not stand to work with the WRETCHED CLUNKY
interfaces of all of those 3d moderling  +  animation  programs.   They get Infuriated,  as it takes them 10x longer to come close to something workable... and
its so clunky... that even the best efforts,  tend to be stifled by the process and interfacing.   They could do a whole flip book worth of an animation,  in the time it takes to get a single thing rolling in a 3d editor.


 Also, what people will eventually realize,  if and when things get to a point of realtime-photorealism...  is that real life can be quite boring.
Thats why we tend to like and value paintings and artworks,  that are not based on photorealism.   Such as a Comic Book cover,  an old CRT video
game like OutRun,  a vector world that has a sort of MC Escher look to it.  Animae characters huge emotion conveying eyes,  and different proportions,
creatures such as Dragons... that do not exist in this reality... and much more.

 Its the reason why Starry Night,  will be worth 1 million times in value... than someones photograph of an actual star lit night sky.

 Sure... people will initially be all about it... but eventually,  the hype would fade...  and they may look for something more
artistic / interpretive  and fantasy based.

 As an artist myself...  I can tell you... that there are a lot of ways to make an image look far more awesome,  with some unrealistic.. but
effective uses of color and shading.   You can make things really Pop out, and Zing.

 I certainly can also appreciate hyper-realistic artists,  that can make their images look at real as a photo... but at the same time,
its fairly meaningless to me... because a photograph would have done the exact same thing... with far less effort / time wasted.

 At least with an interpretive approach,  you are getting an artistic / creative representation.


 Anyway... The biggest thing people are going to eventually wake up to... is that no matter how real the games look...  if they play like
crap,  are not challenging, fun, interesting ... then they are not going to be worth a damn anyway.   Which is why a game like Robotron,
despite its cheesy look.. is a far more addictive and intense experience... than any FPS that has ever been developed.

 Only VR has a chance to potentially change things a bit better on the gameplay end...  IF their controllers are far better at analog
precision and depth of range in interactions.  (Thumbsticks just dont cut it)

[pbj]

As soon as they make a convincing BJ9000 with Cindy Crawford you'll never hear from me again.

[fallacy]

How real will always be subjective, when it comes to living things a lot of it has to do with the animation and facial expressions. Nice thing about VR as it keeps progressing with all the motion capturing, pretty soon we will have are fingers in the VR world, than leg capture points and after that eye ball capture.
There is this one VR game called Elevn – Table Tennis, when you start off you are in a room and an NPC is on the other side of the table moving around doing random small things and I swear I thought it was a real person behind that avatar and I started talking to him. VR right now only captures 3 points your head and its orientation and your hands,  even with that your brain puts it  all together that this movement is coming from a real body.

[Titchgamer]

How real will always be subjective, when it comes to living things a lot of it has to do with the animation and facial expressions. Nice thing about VR as it keeps progressing with all the motion capturing, pretty soon we will have are fingers in the VR world, than leg capture points and after that eye ball capture.
There is this one VR game called Elevn – Table Tennis, when you start off you are in a room and an NPC is on the other side of the table moving around doing random small things and I swear I thought it was a real person behind that avatar and I started talking to him. VR right now only captures 3 points your head and its orientation and your hands,  even with that your brain puts it  all together that this movement is coming from a real body.

Ime kind of suprised they have not done a system kind of like the old eye toy for PS2 (unless for safety lol)

Not sure if you ever played it but there was a street fighter game that put you in the game and allowed you to beat up the enemy.

I used to practice techniques with it when I did martial arts lol

[pixel]

 I cant argue with Photo-realistic porn...  but then again... you can just film that stuff in 3d,  not needing it to be interactive.

 (Though..a Physically real Bot, would be 1 Billion times the better option... obviously)

 But that does bring an important topic up... and that is  "Feel".

 Its one thing to visually see something... but,  if you cant actually feel what you are doing...
a lot of the experience can be missing / lost / dull.


 Here are some things to think about...


 If you have a low quality VHS video... but high-quality Bluray level Audio ... that can still be a great experience.

 However... The same film in 4k,  with distorted audio similar to that found at a fast-food  Drive-Thru  speaker...  and you might go madd.


 So, Visuals really are not as important as good Audio...

 And in the same vein,  great force feedback controls... can make a low-poly / low-def  game,  phenomenal.


 Look at Hard Drivin,  and  Race Drivin.   The sitdown cockpit controls are so realistic in gate, feel, and
in dynamic range analog output depth ... that the Low-Poly game,  turns into a very realistically feeling
driving experience.   One that many more graphically intense games,  completely fail to come even close too.


 This is where VR could become the best thing ever... or... turn into the biggest Flop ever...


 If there are really good physical controls,  with realistic feedback systems... (not simple vibration),  then
the experience, will be an unforgettable one.   One that people become addicted to... and keep coming back
to play, over and over again,  every so often,  ... even decades later.


 This can also be applied to PC games.  The poor mechanical design of the analog thumbstick,  could be the death of
the gaming industry.  Its not suited for a good level of precision..  and as such,  games using it.. will lack
depth of challenge.   No challenge = No excitement = No emotion = Boring experience = No more play & no more pay.

 A higher bar has to be set,  and,  it has to become a universal standard.  (Not a proprietary device)

[pbj]

Eyeball tracking is coming next.  Last year Apple scooped up a company that made a device that did it.  I’ve messed around with a competitor device and it’s no more obtrusive than a pair of reading glasses.   That functionally will have many repercussions in game design.

[Titchgamer]

You are basicly talking about 4D VR there pixel.
It was being worked on many years ago (as was VR) but its not happened yet.

But I do agree, a immersive experience will always do well and set the bar.

Ime interested to see where they go with eye tracking tbh PBJ.

[RandyT]

Every generation of film and video games sees a spike in realism.  Not in all titles, of course, but there are always stand-outs.  One of a couple of relevant examples I have seen is the opening sequence of COD:WWII.  If you aren't gritting your teeth in apprehension for the characters on that boat,  and then again as they try to make it across the beach, then your standards for realism are impossibly high.  Comparing something like this to, say, Commando, is kooky at best.  But it does demonstrate the stark differences in realism which technology has fostered over the last 35 years.  In another 35, you'll likely not be watching it, but it will be happening around you.  Even if you can't feel the spray of goo striking you from a just fallen brother, you will be terrified.  But there will be implications to this.  Over time, players will become desensitized to this type of extreme experience, more so than the obvious disconnect from participating in such activities through a flat panel.  How that affects future society remains to be seen.

Obviously, there will be a higher bar when it comes to film, and characters which you know should be aged or deceased.  You approach the situation with that knowledge, so your perception of the event is already biased.  This makes it much easier to focus your attention on that character and start analyzing it for defects.  The other example I mentioned is Sean Young's character in Blade Runner:2049.  I actually did exactly that and was impressed because I could find no obvious indications that the character was CG.  I.e. if 2049 was my first exposure to the Blade Runner films, I would not have known.

 



In short, the lines are already blurring, and things will continue to progress in this direction.

[shponglefan]

As lets be honest some games could be seen as “real” if it were not for the fact we are looking at TV’s.

This to me stands out why VR is such a dramatic leap forward.  As good as graphics have improved or as screen resolutions continue to climb, traditional monitors/TVs are limited by the fact its just a 2D surface.  Our brain instinctively knows that whatever we are looking at is just a flat, 2D image.

Whereas my experience with VR is that it removes that limitation and puts one inside the game world.  Even though the visual fidelity of current VR displays are less, the addition of an isolated visual environment, 3D stereoscopic display, and motion tracking more than makes up for the difference.  Consequently even a graphically simple VR game can be far more immersive than the most graphically lush monitor-based game.

[shponglefan]

Eh, unless there is a dramatic leap in tech, games aren't going to look real anytime soon.  Currently they look fake as hell....

The one exception to this is racing games.  I saw a GIF that someone posted on Imgur recently of an F1 race.  It took watching it a couple times before I suddenly realized I was watching a video game and not a real race.  Blew my mind.

Screenshots too have a photo-realistic quality to them.  Just looking at some of the Project Cars 2 screenshots and one might mistake them for a real image.  It's amazing how far the lighting in those games has come.

[Howard_Casto]

Well if you'd read the whole post I mention specifically that living things can't be faked and that you can sometimes get away with landscapes and backgrounds, you know... in-animate objects.  Cars only have limited moving parts and the motion of those parts can be easily calculated to near perfection.  I agree completely that racing games look pretty darn close atm. 

[pbj]

Racing games in VR are borderline spooky.  It's getting very convincing.

[Titchgamer]

Eh, unless there is a dramatic leap in tech, games aren't going to look real anytime soon.  Currently they look fake as hell....

But think how far they have come.

Go back to half life, By todays standard the GFX are poor but at the time they were pretty amazing with the ability to talk to characters and see some basic facial expressions.

Jump to modern COD and as Randy has pointed out they are almost photo realistic.

If current VR had the same graphical ability you could be forgiven for thinking what you were seeing was real.

I know I have said this before but hell there will probably be a star trek hollo deck in the not so distant future!

Prob not in our life time but I reckon it wont be long the speed which the industry moves at.

[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]

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.

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. 

[Titchgamer]

Ermm thats how things are discussed howard no need to be butt hurt about it!

And yeah there is a massive difference.
Yes a big part of that is the resolution but that is still a part of the equation of modern graphics.

But as you said before things are slowing down.
As well as there being technical reasons for that we need to think about what more can be done that we will notice.

If you watch a modern tv program with a real man you can see the individual hairs of his stubbly beard.
Do we really need to up graphical capabilities that much more?

Which was kind of what I was driving at with my original post.

If we only gauged what is real with just our eyes (ignore other senses) I think we could easily be fooled.

Infact its been proven several times that we can be easily fooled by modern displays!

[shponglefan]

Racing games in VR are borderline spooky.  It's getting very convincing.

Oh, definitely.  I had a psychosomatic response while racing go-karts in Project CARS in VR.  I had the weather set to rain and started feeling raindrops hitting my arm.  It's freaky how much VR can trick the senses.

[Loafmeister]

I sort of agree with Howard when it comes to human beings but I do HOPE we break that uncanny valley during our lifetime. Will require different computing specs I guess

Where I started to see the stagnation was the generation after the PS2.  The jump from n64/ps1/Saturn and the next gen (PS2/Dreamcast/Xbox/voodoo pc) was huge. I mean There’s a huge difference between madden psx and madden PS2, totally blew me away.  Since then it seems definitely incremental

Edit:  previous version read totally wrong, like the poster took one pain pill too many

[pbj]

Yeah, I used to think the same.  When ps4 came out, you kept seeing comparison photos everywhere of the ps3 vs ps4 versions of the same game.  And in still pictures, it frequently looked like a small difference.  Actually play them, though, and it’s no comparison.  Even within the same console there’s a huge evolution in graphics over the years.  Compare Super Mario Bros to Little Samson.  Kameo versus Halo 3.

[Titchgamer]

Yeah, I used to think the same.  When ps4 came out, you kept seeing comparison photos everywhere of the ps4 vs ps4 versions of the same game.  And in still pictures, it frequently looked like a small difference.  Actually play them, though, and it’s no comparison.  Even within the same console there’s a huge evolution in graphics over the years.  Compare Super Mario Bros to Little Samson.  Kameo versus Halo 3.

This is true.

The devs work out extra little tricks and ways to use the hardware they have available.

But even in stills there are noticeable differences.





Resolution and lighting play a massive part in  it really.

[RandyT]

Also keep in mind when comparing a previous gen game to the next, that those games are often the first titles for that generation.  So an incremental upgrade should be expected.  If you compare those titles to ones made a few years into that generation, they pale in comparison.

Again, using the COD franchise as an example, compare Ghosts with WWII on the PS4.  Huge difference.

What Howard is partially talking about isn't related to graphics really at all.  He's looking for physical AI.  Physical movement is possibly more nuanced than even normal AI, so you are talking about something which is just as challenging. Once AI is cracked, the physical part will be another hurdle which needs to be overcome. Movement is emotive, and varied.  So even if a set of motions is attached to specific situations, as indicated by the AI algorithm, it would be predictable and something easily identified by the human observer. 

Realism has absolutely increased by leaps and bounds, but mainly in scenery, inanimate objects, and in characters with which there is no meaningful interaction.  Motion capture has facilitated this, but it has it's limits where dynamic presentations are concerned.

I'll edit this post with another VR observation .  In a game like VRChat, with a decent avatar, you can absolutely tell when the person you see in that environment is using a good VR setup.  The avatar doesn't even have to be graphically impressive to know that there is a human behind it.  Seeing some of those oddball characters exhibit human responsiveness in movement, coupled with the 3D spatial aspects, is incredibly convincing.

[Titchgamer]

Also keep in mind when comparing a previous gen game to the next, that those games are often the first titles for that generation.  So an incremental upgrade should be expected.  If you compare those titles to ones made a few years into that generation, they pale in comparison.

Again, using the COD franchise as an example, compare Ghosts with WWII on the PS4.  Huge difference.

What Howard is partially talking about isn't related to graphics really at all.  He's looking for physical AI.  Physical movement is possibly more nuanced than even normal AI, so you are talking about something which is just as challenging. Once AI is cracked, the physical part will be another hurdle which needs to be overcome. Movement is emotive, and varied.  So even if a set of motions is attached to specific situations, as indicated by the AI algorithm, it would be predictable and something easily identified by the human observer. 

Realism has absolutely increased by leaps and bounds, but mainly in scenery, inanimate objects, and in characters with which there is no meaningful interaction.  Motion capture has facilitated this, but it has it's limits where dynamic presentations are concerned.

I'll edit this post with another VR observation .  In a game like VRChat, with a decent avatar, you can absolutely tell when the person you see in that environment is using a good VR setup.  The avatar doesn't even have to be graphically impressive to know that there is a human behind it.  Seeing some of those oddball characters exhibit human responsiveness in movement, coupled with the 3D spatial aspects, is incredibly convincing.

Agreed, I think Howard is basing to much on AI which will never come close to a real person.

As for the graphical aspect I was really amazed by the difference between Battlefield on the PS3/4. When the PS4 came out and I started playing the difference was very significant.

Also games like metal gear are pretty damn impressive

 

[pbj]

Metal Gear is ---smurfing--- weird.  The controls are super complicated, but I survived a couple of missions.  Then I spent an hour playing through some "kidnap enemies and arrange the furniture on your floating island base" tutorial and threw that game in the shoebox.

[Titchgamer]

Metal Gear is ---smurfing--- weird.  The controls are super complicated, but I survived a couple of missions.  Then I spent an hour playing through some "kidnap enemies and arrange the furniture on your floating island base" tutorial and threw that game in the shoebox.

MGS is amazing!
Easily one of my fave games on PS4.

Quiet is the shiz!

[pbj]

It was the pinnacle of "ain't nobody got time for this" to me, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

[Titchgamer]

It was the pinnacle of "ain't nobody got time for this" to me, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Ime guessing you never went far in it?

The MGS series are all slow burners but really amazing once you get into the meat of them.

[Howard_Casto]

Also keep in mind when comparing a previous gen game to the next, that those games are often the first titles for that generation.  So an incremental upgrade should be expected.  If you compare those titles to ones made a few years into that generation, they pale in comparison.

Again, using the COD franchise as an example, compare Ghosts with WWII on the PS4.  Huge difference.

What Howard is partially talking about isn't related to graphics really at all.  He's looking for physical AI.  Physical movement is possibly more nuanced than even normal AI, so you are talking about something which is just as challenging. Once AI is cracked, the physical part will be another hurdle which needs to be overcome. Movement is emotive, and varied.  So even if a set of motions is attached to specific situations, as indicated by the AI algorithm, it would be predictable and something easily identified by the human observer. 

Realism has absolutely increased by leaps and bounds, but mainly in scenery, inanimate objects, and in characters with which there is no meaningful interaction.  Motion capture has facilitated this, but it has it's limits where dynamic presentations are concerned.

I'll edit this post with another VR observation .  In a game like VRChat, with a decent avatar, you can absolutely tell when the person you see in that environment is using a good VR setup.  The avatar doesn't even have to be graphically impressive to know that there is a human behind it.  Seeing some of those oddball characters exhibit human responsiveness in movement, coupled with the 3D spatial aspects, is incredibly convincing.

Agreed, I think Howard is basing to much on AI which will never come close to a real person.

As for the graphical aspect I was really amazed by the difference between Battlefield on the PS3/4. When the PS4 came out and I started playing the difference was very significant.

Also games like metal gear are pretty damn impressive

 

Pics like this are kind of my point.  Snake looks fake as hell.... his skin looks like wax.  I don't find that impressive at all.  It looks like graphics that the pc has been able to pull off for years now.  Graphics are improving every day, but improving doesn't equate to realism.

[shponglefan]

Speaking of graphical realism, supposedly this is being rendered with the Unreal Engine... 

[pbj]

What a time to be alive

[Titchgamer]

Looks ok but the leafs look a bit soft imo.

[Howard_Casto]

It's pretty close, but it doesn't matter as you won't see a game with that level of detail for quite some time.  It takes one hell of a machine to render something like that in real time and a butt load of man hours to create all the models, textures and ect for those two very small scenes.  There's a reason you'll see the same tree/leaves/ect used again and again in most games.... somebody has to make all of that stuff.  The only practical way I could see it happening is if someone designs an AI that can be taught to create trees and leaves form scratch based on sample models and textures.... I don't see that happening any time soon despite the impressive algorithms that are out in the wild today.   

[RandyT]

It's pretty close, but it doesn't matter as you won't see a game with that level of detail for quite some time.  It takes one hell of a machine to render something like that in real time and a butt load of man hours to create all the models, textures and ect for those two very small scenes.  There's a reason you'll see the same tree/leaves/ect used again and again in most games.... somebody has to make all of that stuff.  The only practical way I could see it happening is if someone designs an AI that can be taught to create trees and leaves form scratch based on sample models and textures.... I don't see that happening any time soon despite the impressive algorithms that are out in the wild today.

According to some of the comments, that code can be run from a laptop.  So the system requirements might not be as high as you think.  As for the assets, they are just that.  How many times would one need to create a forest for use in a game?  Especially considering that these things are rendered in real-time, and procedural variations can be applied as needed.  Nvidia, I believe, has demoed technology which can turn day into night and alter the seasons of a scene, making what looks like a summer day, appear to be a winter scene.  If these types of procedural effects are perfected and made part of the graphics hardware, this would greatly reduce the burden on asset creation.

[Howard_Casto]

It's pretty close, but it doesn't matter as you won't see a game with that level of detail for quite some time.  It takes one hell of a machine to render something like that in real time and a butt load of man hours to create all the models, textures and ect for those two very small scenes.  There's a reason you'll see the same tree/leaves/ect used again and again in most games.... somebody has to make all of that stuff.  The only practical way I could see it happening is if someone designs an AI that can be taught to create trees and leaves form scratch based on sample models and textures.... I don't see that happening any time soon despite the impressive algorithms that are out in the wild today.

According to some of the comments, that code can be run from a laptop.  So the system requirements might not be as high as you think.  As for the assets, they are just that.  How many times would one need to create a forest for use in a game?  Especially considering that these things are rendered in real-time, and procedural variations can be applied as needed.  Nvidia, I believe, has demoed technology which can turn day into night and alter the seasons of a scene, making what looks like a summer day, appear to be a winter scene.  If these types of procedural effects are perfected and made part of the graphics hardware, this would greatly reduce the burden on asset creation.

I hate to keep using the Assassin's Creed example, but that's what I'm playing right now so.....

You would think you would only need to create the assets for a forest once, but you would be wrong.  The AC series recycles assets from previous games so much that it isn't even funny, and every time they do it, I recognize the old models and it takes me out of the experience.  I've been running down the same tree branch for a leap of faith since ACIII.... some of the Egyptian buildings and architecture are actually recycled and reskinned structures from AC II, ect.   Understand that they are extensively modified and in theory I shouldn't be able to recognize them.... and yet my brain recognizes that something is familiar and after a few minutes it'll dawn on me where I've seen it before.

My point is, you can't recycle assets.  Maybe small stuff like leaves and blades of grass, but the overall structure can't be salvaged.  I believe the procedural stuff you mentioned are just some fancy shaders, and thus what they can alter is limited, but it is still impressive.  It doesn't help the asset problem though.

[RandyT]

Within 10 years, most of the hard work will be handled by AI and procedural effects anyway.  It'll still be handed off to human artists to make sure everything is pretty, but reality is too time consuming for humans to re-create.

Think a site like Mixamo, which already does a very good job at automatically rigging humanoid models, which is normally a very time consuming task.  At some point, developers will be able to describe to an AI what they want, pick from a number of results which comes close, and the machine will spit out fully rigged models and complex scenery after a few iterations.  The Internet will continue to grow as the repository of human knowledge and experiences, including all of the photographs people upload to the hive, and this will be from where the AI draws it's resources. 

If this isn't the approach of the future, a holodeck won't be possible

[Titchgamer]

I totally want to play DOOM on a holodeck... That’s like my life’s dream lol