Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
How many Decades until we see "photo realistic" games?
Axum
Member Posts: 891
What warhammer should have looked like Below
I know a few games have come close to this (Mass Effect)
But how long do you think it will take for this to quality to hit the MMO market?
Comments
It's possible now to make a game of that quality. But the reason more games are not made like that is because not that many people can afford systems to run CG quality type games. Investors won't spend cash on a game only a small number of people can enjoy. It's just not profitable, even if they say there not after profit. So my guess would be 10+years depending on the price of computer tech at that time.
I would just like to point out that CG stands for Computer Generated. Technically every game that has graphics has CG quality graphics.
Anyway, graphics don't make the game at all. If you're concerned with graphics primarily than you may as well watch a CG movie.
- Theguruofreason
Ah, my bad.
It's just everytime i see CG next to a picture it is usually a very very clean, high-quality landscape or character.
When PC leaves graphic APIs behind and raytracing becomes a standard, we will see these kind of "photo realistic" graphics (i think thats what you meant by CG) on various games. I don't think it will be that long, probably less then 10 years.
Edit: When you look at Crysis Warhead at Ultra High settings, you'll see it is very close (perhaps better, in some cases) than those 2 pictures.
You do realize that a whole scene of something like that is sent to a renderfarm... Which can be anything from one to a hundred computers and the time to make it takes a while.
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
Eve's "walking in station" to come expansion/upgrade will get fairly close tho..
Combined whit there new "dynamic light "stuff that should release same time it be a jewel in the mmo industrie.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/crazykinux/3010760713/
I think he may be referring to CGI.
Video games usually use real-time computer graphics (rarely referred to as CGI), but may also include pre-rendered "cut scenes" and intro movies that would be typical CGI applications. These are sometimes referred to as FMV (Full motion video).taken from> wiki
I think the next generation of consoles and PC will be the start of seeing close to CGI type of games, I would consider lets say the Warhammer online intro movie to be a CGI movie and we are some what years away from seeing a game of that quality, not one game even if its a single player I know of even when seen on the best system will not be close to something as a CGI movie, not to the extend of characters, true that certain games can achieve a form of photo realism with environment's in a game....atleast for not now, technology is not available yet, but we are getting there (AMD Cinema 2.0.) Like I said I expect the when the next gen. consoles both PC and the game for both will be getting very close to CGI quality.
Unreal Engine 4 Due Next Console Generation; Estimated by Epic as 2012 to 2018, PC Coming Last
Next Xbox 720 to launch in 2011-2012 according to Microsoft
Crytek: Next engine to debut in 2012
I don't really understand why games need to be so realistic. Are you not trying to escape realism?
If they make it so realistic that I compare it to RL, what is the point of a game then? Why not experience RL then.
When it comes to computer games the graphics are really only limited by what the average consumer's computer can handle. AoC went against this and made a game requiring a very good computer to run the game without crashing. Alot of the 'Bugs' people were having when AoC launch was because their computer couldn't handle all the information. Alot of people compared and said "My computer runs WoW perfect on high settings, I can't run AoC on low settings!" I personally never had a single bug that crashed AoC, then again I have a very high-end computer also. Alot of companies will steer clear of high end graphics since they cost alot more to maintain and update, while the playerbase is shrunken by the limits of the player's computers.
I personally like better graphics but not photo realism... I would rather still see games w/ "art styles" or the artists vision of the world in an mmo... it's all about art style and the art direction... let's keep photo realism out... if you want that may i suggest pen and paper roll playing games of D&D and just act it out irl
I agree, I'm not a graphics-monger. As long as I'm having fun I'll play a game. Once the fun is gone, usually when it comes to end game content in almost every MMO (why can't you devs get this done right jeez) I'm gone as well.
DAoC, FFXI, and EQ are the only games that after I got to maximum level I actually stayed for more than a month. It seems since then noone in the development community can get end game content right. Although I can't blame them completely, another reason I stayed is that in all 3 of these games the communities were excellent. I guess playing with 12 year olds when you're over double thier age isn't very fun.
Never. The closer you get to reality, the more mistakes people find.
The top guy's skin is much to clear and smooth. The Witch Hunter's face simply doesn't fit, there's no shadow on the face either as there should be.
And once do you hit that 'reality barrier' as it's been called, it gets a little bit freaky, seeing the exact replica of a human on your screen.
Games are meant to escape reality anyways, not recreate it. They need their own art-style.
Plus, you know what kind of processing power THAT would take with only a few moving models and a photo-realistic environment, might as well a full MMO?
@Eladi: Dynamic lighting is very far from new, even in MMOs. And although the video you posted looks good, it's not really 'photo realistic'. If you notice he skin is much too smooth, his head isn't round (at least not perfectly, I see edges) and his walking is way too stiff (being with photo-realistic graphics come photo-realistic animations, right?). Not to mention his jacket stays still as a rock, as does his hair and his arm goes through a wall at one point. I'm being extremely picky about this because reality is picky business. Not saying that doesn't look great, especially better than I expected, but not photo-realistic.
The only video I ever saw and didn't immediately know it was CG was Beowulf. His skin was porous and not perfect, his eyes moved, his beard blew in the wind. But you can still tell that it wasn't real. His hand may not move right, his foot might hit the floor and stay a bit too still. Or he may grab onto a dragon or a large sea beast. But reality has far too many intricacies to replicate.
____________________________
Telthalion Rohircil - Guardian - Elemandir - Lord of The Rings Online
---
== RIP == Torey - Commando - Orion - Tabula Rasa == RIP ==
---
Jordaniel Torey - Navy Megathron, Active Armor Tank - Tranquility - EVE Online
---
Torey Scott - Rifleman - Fallen Earth
____________________________
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but I know World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein
Part of the reason why the 'Final Fantasy - Spirits Within' movie didn't do that well was that people thought the ultra realistic characters looked like animated corpses.
Using CGI for vehicles, buildings etc is fine, but the human eye is far too good at detecting when there is something wrong with realistic attempts at living creatures. Even in the pictures attached by the OP, the first image looks like a waxwork from 'Madame Tussauds' rather than a real person.
Conversely, provided it is obvious that an animated figure isn't supposed to be realistic, people can fairly easily imagine that it is alive without constantly feeling they are watching 'Dawn of the Dead'.
I think it will be an extremely long time indeed before it is possible to create human avatars that would look truly realistic. It would be a much better use of time & effort to create games with less realism but more detail, where it wasn't quite so obvious that everything came out of a 'Cookie Cutter.
If you can't "Have your cake & eat it too", then how can "The proof of the pudding be in the eating"?
Take the Hecatomb? TCG What Is Your Doom? quiz.
4 decades.
Photorealism in games will be common once we have revisited the virtual reality concepts of the past (headgear, 360 degree vision etc). The games will be ultra-realistic putting one right into a live-feeling situation with sensory perception and all...the photorealism will be secondary as the rest of the senses fill in the experience, providing a "life-realistic" experience.
That's what I think anyway
ugh count me out, because what you're saying is true the i'd step into a holodeck and play a photo realistic game that looks just like the world i'm trying to escape from... it would be kewl to step into a holodeck game w/ an artist style program like Vangoh or a Picasso, or MC Escher inspired world that would funky
new technology is pretty much established every 10 years and put into comunities for use. Id say 20 years considering how far weve come allready since nentindo and portable game systems. Hell we can allready make interactive holograms, so 20 years is my bet.
After seeing those videos about Lightstage and Cinema 2.0 I am betting 15 years or so now.
Being realistic does not mean they have to ditch their art styles.
It just has to be portrayed through the clothing, the movement, the accents of the voices, and the architecture.
It is possible to have those graphics in realtime now using more advanced texturing techniques. A simple normal map will do most of that detail. The only question is how big can you make the map. With a limited size scene using DX10, 4096 is possible compared to 512 that typically is used in games. With a 5k poly model, the typical poly limit for single player games; and the 4096 map its completely possible to achieve the same detail as the model on the bottom. One thing to remember is game artists make alot better textures then movie cgi artists. So you can usually skip out on a few lighting passes as a result of the better texture work.
However, Game development isn't movie development. There is a tremendous amount of additional work that goes into a game compared to a movie. A model like the one of the bottom will take 2~4 weeks to complete after refining steps. A character model going into a game is usually only given 2 days because there needs to be 30~1000 character models done for release.
Like someone mentioned earlier. I believe never. The more these companies push for realism the more people will feel disconnected with the characters. I've mentioned this ad nauseum before...uncanny valley!
I think that we will be getting more and more titles that are more artistically inclined BUT with next-gen stuff to back it up. I'm thinking Street Fighter IV. Something in that area
Avoids the uncanny valley effect but adds serious eye candy to the gameplay.
Note that its Alfa stage. far from ready ( about 6 months ) and this demo i seen already about a year ago (tho this one is from eve fan fest 08)
The lightning system they will use is new, it does not exsiste in ANY game yet, not even single player games, cambrige (spelling!) and nvidia are building the engine as we speak.
would advice to find some more of the movies and check it out, its realy good.
Light in games curently does not reflect. we got layers and shaders and more crap to emulate it a bit but it does not bounce. if you place a mirror in any current game the light will not hit the point were the mirrow is aimed at. this new system does just that, Incleuding light collission detection adn rebounce the light depending on material ist hitting
Disclaimer:, I have no spelling check tool and am a medium eve fan so my post always be alittle on the bright side
If this is what you mean by photo realistic then the technology is already out. DX10 offers wind flowing through the hair and sweat, and what not. Fluid animations and such. AoC is going to be the first to utilize this technology and from the videos I've seen, I can't wait to see what my computer can really do.
That was realistic to me before i saw the videos about cinema 2.0 posted earlier >.<
The whole using having a webcam pointed at you and then when you smile your character smiles in game is amazing to me.
In 10 years we will be seeing games which are at the very border of the uncanny valley, where they look almost realistic but not quite.
1988: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/Contra_(arcade_game).png
1998: http://pcmedia.ign.com/media/previews/image/halflife9_640w.jpg
2008: http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2008/307/938611_20081104_screen009.jpg
Each decade has been a extreme jump in graphics. But we are already nearing the uncanny valley at times, where things look good, but you can obviously tell they aren't real. We won't be experienecing another jump in game graphics on par as the previous 2 jumps. BUT it's going ot be a jump.
in 2018, i'd see us stuck in the uncanny valley, where things are absolutely amazing, and unbelievable, but it's so fake at the same time. I'd actually expect a large resurgence of cartoonish/stylized graphics becoming the mainstream simply because you can do more with it. Right now we are still stuck in the newly introduced realistic style which is a big difference to the previous generations
In 2028, I'd say virtual reality will be beginning to emerge. There are already programs out there trying to create it, but really beyond just processing power this is the next real step in graphics.
In 2038. i'd say we are going to either have destroyed outselves or outgrown/destroyed our game/cg technology. You may wonder why i think this. But look at the advancement in everything else besides just games, phones, cars, computer technology, weapons, everything.
People seem to hav grown accustomed ot our current situation as far as technology goes, but they seem to forget that if they were to go back 30 years, they'd be in a severe culture shock. 30 years is a big thing.
Near-photorealistic real-time rendering has been possible for quite a while now - Gran Turismo on the PS1 was pretty damn close and that game's ten years old.
But such things come at a cost - extremely realistic graphics means smaller scenes with less stuff in them. Given that MMOs are *very* expansive I think stylized graphics that arer easy to render and age gracefully (see: WoW) will remain the way to go for quite a few more years.
Photos keep getting more realistic, too. A lot of games today look better than the photos of a century ago. It will never be possible to render stuff in real time that looks as good as what you can do if all you need is a single still shot.