Support NeoGAF

[64bitmodels]

and then i look towards the "graphical fidelity i expect this gen" thread, and all i see are replies like this

You're posting a screenshot when in reality that CGI is a generation ahead of TLOU P1 when actually viewing it in motion.

We all want games to be able to do photorealism. Let's not start lying to ourself and pretending they already do when we are still a decade away.

When we reach photorealism you will know.

We have a ways to go

No, console are not near cg quality.

Am i out of the loop here? what's the issue? how does Horizon not literally look like CG?
Can anyone point out to me how visuals like Sony's first party doesn't literally look like CG made by gigantic renderbeasts in pixar's office?

At this point, i'm getting a bit tired of this constant chase for photorealism... These are some of the most realistic video game images you guys could ever ask for. Visuals that look better than the stuff you see looking out your window.

People keep wanting more, though, stuff like Raytracing which still is being assisted by AI tools to make something as ancient as portal run at a decent framerate, which has a setting in many AAA games but feels less like an actual lighting effect and more like placebo.
What is the endgame for you guys? How is this not satisfying to you already?

I'm typing this because i feel that it's a bit silly that something as beautiful as Horizon Forbidden West is somehow "not close to CGI" and that "we're not there yet" even though the images on my screen clearly suggest that we are. You're gonna be seeing more of this stuff in the future too so why do we need all of these new graphical features? Everything looks great today. Why can't we invest all of that budget and time into developing something like VR or game physics, which would have more of an effect on our games than something silly like Raytracing?

 

[kanjobazooie]

But have we reached toy story graphics??? /s

 

[Lethal01]

This isn't even from the game.

Am i out of the loop here? what's the issue? how does Horizon not literally look like CG?

Define "Like CG" technically even ps1 games are CG since they are computer generated, but if you mean how Horizon doesn't look like prerendered graphics done on computers 100x more powerful than the PS5 at a minute per frame....
I suppose I'd point to the Shadows, reflections, subsurface scattering, Bounced lighting, ambient occlusion, etc etc all being totally off.

What is the endgame for you guys? How is this not satisfying to you already?

Who says I need photorealism to be satisfied? I prefer stylized visuals, I'm just saying the truth, that these video games are not photorealistic.

I'm typing this because i feel that it's a bit silly that something as beautiful as Horizon Forbidden West is somehow "not close to CGI"

Being beautiful does not equal looking close to real

and that "we're not there yet" even though the images on my screen clearly suggest that we are.

The images that are clearly video games only make it clear we are a decade away

You're gonna be seeing more of this stuff in the future too

Yes, more stuff that is far from photorealistic.

so why do we need all of these new graphical features? Everything looks great today. Why can't we invest all of that budget and time into developing something like VR or game physics, which would have more of an effect on our games than something silly like Raytracing?

It wouldn't, since we are still so far from even being close. We are still at the point where a bunch of the things on screen aren't even casting shadows.
Also VR is lame.

Visuals that look better than the stuff you see looking out your window.

touch better grass

 

[NightmareFarm]

The tech demo stuff you showed isn't the norm yet. Games like Horizon Forbidden West and TLOU 2 are still far from photorealistic. We won't reach photorealism until like 10th gen at the earliest.

 

[tommycronin]

Photorealism has become less and less of an indicator of a games quality these days. In that way it means people don't really care about that kind of stuff anymore. Photorealism these days usually means the cost of excellent gameplay to the player.

 

[tusharngf]

forza horizon 5 and GT got some good graphics. There is still some work that can be done.

from unbound thread

 

[Lethal01]

de

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

Photorealism has become less and less of an indicator of a games quality these days. In that way it means people don't really care about that kind of stuff anymore. Photorealism these days usually means the cost of excellent gameplay to the player.

Yep. The issue is the number of artists you need to hire would overwhelm the production. it costs too much, and story suffers because everything takes longer to finish.,
That was why I actually cheered when I saw that FF16 wouldn't be chasing graphics anymore.

I mentioned this long ago. But back in the old days videogame graphics was all about squeezing the maximum out of the game engine and storage. Game developers know when to stop when the game is essentially "full". However now there is more space and rendering power than most know what to do with it. Sure there is still no real reflections, but everything else can be done. But just because you CAN, doesn't mean you "should".

That is why FF15 ended up being half a game with the other half being an animated film. Don't go there again.

 

[Lethal01]

Yep. The issue is the number of artists you need to hire would overwhelm the production. it costs too much, and story suffers because everything takes longer to finish.,

Not necessarily, when it comes to asset creation sure, but having the power to render with accurate shadows and global illumination doesn't really require more work from the artists.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

None of your examples that are taken directly from game running in real time would be mistaken for real life.

 

[GymWolf]

One single face/tech demo/cutscene that are not even in actual games or playable hardly means that we reached photorealism.

Photorealism is when everything is on the same excellent level, not only one part of the graphic.

Start talking about photorealism when gta8 is gonna have even the most unimportant npc on the street with callisto protagonist details, when the cars are gonna be as detailed as gt7 with a real damage system and when the city is gonna look exactly like the on-rail part of matrix demo.


Now imagine how many gen away are from that results and consider that even that is not gonna be really close to perfect photorealism like going outside your house and watching a real breathing city.

Now you know why we are nowhere near close photorealism.

And that is without considering physics and interactions that are way behind graphical fidelity right now.

Also until the majority of devs don't get on ND/rockstar level of animations or better you can forget photorealism because the whole facade would crumble the moment things start moving.

Racing games are the closest thing to photorealism and you still have to cherry pick between god tier photomode skills, right light conditions and replay because they look better than in-game.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Photorealism is easy in snapshots and darker images (the above tweet or Ride 4 rainy setting).

But asking a game to look photo-realistic in all visuals including: in motion, animations, teeth (often weird looking), eyes (zombie eyes), lip synching, sunny daylight etc.... and it'll look nothing like real life.

 

[Kamina]

We are certainly close. However, as with most things, the last few percent take the most resources and power.

 

[existensmaximum]

Photorealism is easy in snapshots and darker images (the above tweet or Ride 4 rainy setting).

But asking a game to look photo-realistic in all visuals including: in motion, animations, teeth (often weird looking), eyes (zombie eyes), lip synching, sunny daylight etc.... and it'll look nothing like real life.

Exactly this. I'd also like to add hair and fur to your list. Even the games that look the best in these departments (The Last of Us part 1 for example) are far from photo realistic or perfect, even if they look absolutely amazing.

 

[Myths]

It’s pointless in asking as everyone’s eye (or perception) of photorealistic will be different. Some will say this there are games that are close, others will say nothing is even remotely close.

The biggest giveaways tend to be motion, skin lighting and maps, physics, and shadows.

 

[PSYGN]

I think we've hit photorealism where humans aren't really shown, but there are so many subtleties that go into making a human a human that we get an uncanny valley effect.

This is a mod but you can be fooled into thinking it's real at times

 

[k_trout]

not even close

 

[Denton]

 

[MidGenRefresh]

Kingdom Come: Deliverance is a great attempt at photo-realistic graphics. I wish more games would take that approach.

 

[Orta]

 

[Lumpyoatmeal]

But have we reached toy story graphics??? /s

I’m still waiting for a retail video game on the market to surpass the geometry in the original Toy Story, and this is from 1995.

Even in a still photo without any motion retail videogames look fucking horrible compared to modern day cgi -

There is no retail videogame anywhere close to this man, and this just a single god damn frame; When this movie animates in motion forget it.

This 64 bit m’fer is just ridiculous. Our chances were better with closing the gap with offline CG when we had developers like Crytek actually pushing graphics technology on the PC, but now that we’re stuck with these shitty ass console developers, it’s going to be a long wait my man.

 

[Lumpyoatmeal]

I think we've hit photorealism where humans aren't really shown, but there are so many subtleties that go into making a human a human that we get an uncanny valley effect.

This is a mod but you can be fooled into thinking it's real at times

Not once did I mistake anything for looking real in that video. The physics are unbelievably ass, there’s literally nothing moving in the frames, straight claydoh in motion.

 

[Haggard]

OP needs new glasses and should leave his room more.
Horrible nonsense.

 

[Kuranghi]

Some of the people I see day to day I never want to see rendered realistically, terrifying.

This one guy looked like Doc Brown had escaped from the Event Horizon hell dimension.

 

[hinch7]

I think we've hit photorealism where humans aren't really shown, but there are so many subtleties that go into making a human a human that we get an uncanny valley effect.

This is a mod but you can be fooled into thinking it's real at times

Jesus.. The use of depth of field here that is so obnoxious. I don't get it.

Why anyone would play like that on a FPS baffles me. That in conjuntion with that awful motion blur, erratic aiming, constant zooming and moving.. actually me feel nautious watching it.

 

[tommib]

This isn't even from the game.

This is:

 

[baphomet]

This is:

And no one would ever mistake those for real people.

 

[tommib]

And no one would ever mistake those for real people.

My mum would.

 

[baphomet]

My mum would.

At full resolution I highly doubt it. Even my mom wouldn't be fooled and I constantly have to tell her the things she sees online aren't real.

 

[Xeaker]

I don't want photorealism. Reminds me too much of real life, no thanks.

 

[FunkMiller]

Not a single game created looks photoreal in action.

Even movie CG hardly ever reaches it.

Calm down. It’s years and years away.

 

[feynoob]

Photorealism isn't just a picture alone.
You need games to match from clothes to the way they interact with the environment.

Best way I can describe this is the fight from hell blade 2. The fire effects and the movement of the clothes senua was wearing. It's close to a real effects.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

Visuals that look better than the stuff you see looking out your window.

You can't be serious; you might actually have terrible eyesight without realising it, go do a free eye test.

Even movie cgi looks nothing like real life, it can get decently close in stills, but completely breaks down in motion.
Videogames are not even remotely close.

 

[Gamerdude123]

games are still far from being photorealistic. Especially character faces still look fake as hell. Maybe in another 20 - 30 years we will achieve something close to photorealism.

 

[LazyParrot]

These "How could graphics possibly get any more realistic?" takes have been around for as long as I can remember, going all the way back to the PS1 days.

 

[RoadHazard]

Because we haven't. There is literally no photorealistic game yet. That first character render example is very close, yes, as is the Matrix demo (in the on-rails part), but stuff like Horizon? Lol. It looks great, but nowhere near actual photorealism (which means you cannot tell it apart from a real photo or video). Same with TLOU etc.

Edit: Your thread title asks about photorealism, but then you start talking about stuff that "looks like CG". Yes, a lot of games now look better than CG did 15-20 years ago, but that has nothing to do with photorealism. CG can be photorealistic or completely unrealistic.

 

[Lumpyoatmeal]

This is:

What is that stuff suppose to be on his face? The shading looks OD basic compared to the Unreal render. I can still see polys in the character model.

This is child's play compared to what is being done in modern day CGI.

 

[supernova8]

We're nowhere near photorealism when it's including:

1) running in a real-time at the maximum "framerate" (motion, not the same as light flicker) our eyes can see (which is well above 60fps, seems to be between 120 and 180hz depending on who it is) inside an actual game (not a tech demo)
2) everything in the scene needs to be photorealistic and there cannot be any "pop-in" because that (obviously) breaks the photorealism. We don't have "pop-in" in real life.
3) all the physics in the scene/environment react as they would in real life otherwise that is another hit to photorealism in terms of believability.

The reason I add #3 is that the idea of photorealism is that we literally cannot tell the difference. Having dodgy physics that don't react as they would in real life immediately breaks the immersion and therefore it is no longer photorealistic.

So........ no we are absolutely nowhere near.

 

[Benniewise de Clown]

Technical analysis vs perception: the thread.

Agree with OP though, but the bar raises everytime so it's an endless discussion.

 

[zcaa0g]

There is still lots to do in terms of lighting, shadows, and poly counts.

 

[64bitmodels]

3) all the physics in the scene/environment react as they would in real life otherwise that is another hit to photorealism in terms of believability.

Why can't we invest all of that budget and time into developing something like VR or game physics, which would have more of an effect on our games than something silly like Raytracing?

i agree that game physics would go a long way to making the game worlds more realistic

 

[The Cockatrice]

You are out of the loop.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Doesn't look photorealistic to me...

 

[Deerock71]

Where will our eyes find mistakes? Animation, clipping, LOD loading in. Unless you see shit like that happening in the real world, uncanny valley will persist.

 

[ANDS]

Why would you use an "Unreal Render" example that has no chance of ever being in a game? Of course Unreal can recreate static images. It can also create really stylistic and impressive renders of fake characters, but you will never get photorealistic fake characters moving in real time as a response to user input. . .at least in our time.

. . .and thank Christopher for that.

 

[Skifi28]

For me, the first time I felt I experienced photorealism was RE1 on the GC. Now, we can debate for all eternity, but in the end it's quite subjective what is or isn't photorealistic.

 

[saintjules]

 

[alabtrosMyster]

You can't be serious; you might actually have terrible eyesight without realising it, go do a free eye test.

Even movie cgi looks nothing like real life, it can get decently close in stills, but completely breaks down in motion.
Videogames are not even remotely close.

Movie CGI is often pretty disappointing these days, especially in the big titles (like all Marvel movies ever made).

 

[genesisblock]

Games, have been looking good since Battlefield 3. But we need more interactions and physics because they do stand out and takes away the illusion.

 

[PumpkinPie]

Nothing I've played looks remotely real. Maybe in screenshots games could possibly pass for real life, but in motion they're worlds apart. Play Gran Turismo and it's like the cars aren't connected to the track, they glide along as if on glass. Compare it to onboard footage of a real race, the car will be constantly bobbing up and down with the texture of the road.