Discussion Do you think real-life game graphics will ever be done?

[WindexIsBack]

If this topic is considered a debate, just delete it.

I fully believe games will be possible of real-life graphics eventually, but will we really want them?

Take this place for example, curtosy of Google Images. Rather...boring don't you think? The ground is flat, it's plain, nothing is casting enormous shadows, ect. Everything is in focus, nothing is shooting back light. The trees look boring.

Look outside a window - Most of us probably won't have anything amazing, where if you saw that in a game engine, you'd just look over it.

But add effects to it (bloom, hdr, large terrain differences, loads of trees/image blockers, shadows, blur, ssao, ect) the image from the game engine would be a lot more interesting.

Has anyone really thought about it? I was thinking of ideas for modeling scenes while driving one day, and I realized how boring real-life graphics in a game would be.

 

[Ozzdog]

Well it depends where the game is set.

Real graphics or not, a game set beside a lame house will be boring.

However, if you set the game in New York city with "real graphics", it would look stunning.

 

[DDRtists]

I'mma have to agree with Windex here. I enjoy games because it's not real life.

 

[sqrage]

It already exists.

Watch this with HD on. xD

 

[Extremedesyr]

I dont think people would even want this, it would make the size of the game HUGE, which doesnt matter in the future, but the graphics are one of the things that sepperates a game from another, take Fallout3 for example, with photo realistic graphics it wouldnt even be fun, would it?

but if there would be a poll, i'd say yes

It already exists.

Watch this with HD on. xD

Not sure, but I believe ive seem it. on big widescreen it looks sick but on most people's 'random' pc's it wouldnt even be fun. some games u just play for the graphics and to be able to say: my pc can play this game!

 

[Faust]

Some time in the future.

 

[Bloodcount]

I like the graphics of this game a lot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPf_MHqWupY

It is good looking, but not too real. just the way I like it.

 

[WindexIsBack]

Cryengine is one of the best looking engines out there, but it's way too flashy.

 

[Samael88]

That Cry-engine 2 video was awesome, that is almost like it was a filmed enviroment:thup:

The devil may cry 4 videos graphics looked to me a lot like the graphics in the final fantasy advent children

This Thread make an add campaign pop up in my head

"51'st life the game that has better graphics than real life, players who have the 51'st life gloves and hemlet can even feel things in the game

Warning, some areas are of the game can cause your eyes to melt"

 

[Wiseman_2]

It largely depends on the game as to whether or not I would want real-life levels of graphics. In a FPS, such as CoD or Far Cry then the more realistic the graphics the better. But with some games, such as Ratchet and Clank, they have to be a little more far out to have the effect I like

To be honest I think graphic levels we have now are fine (and I play a PS3 on a 12 year old tv) and I would instead prefer games companies to focus more on acheiving a higher level of destructability in games... though I know that's an unrealistic expectation

 

[BANANAMAN]

Remember Fancy graphics doesn't mean it's an awesome game.

>I would instead prefer games companies to focus more on acheiving a higher level of destructability in games... though I know that's an unrealistic expectation

Mercenaries Playground of Destruction (and the latest one most likely) offers gameplay with enough stuff to blow up (cities,cars,large groups of enemy armor) with a variety of weapons like airstrikes,Tanks and bazookas.

 

[Jimpy]

I think 'real' graphics would be great for sports games.

I also think they would help make more movies do things that wouldn't normally be do-able without looking tackey.

Plus you could use 'real' graphics for things like simulated surgery, where the role of the graphics or 'game' is more so to be realistic and educational, so that while it may just be a practice, could offer more life lack training.

Or perhaps far better flight simulators.

 

[thewrongvine]

Take this place for example, curtosy of Google Images. Rather...boring don't you think? The ground is flat, it's plain, nothing is casting enormous shadows, ect. Everything is in focus, nothing is shooting back light. The trees look boring.

Look outside a window - Most of us probably won't have anything amazing, where if you saw that in a game engine, you'd just look over it.

But add effects to it (bloom, hdr, large terrain differences, loads of trees/image blockers, shadows, blur, ssao, ect) the image from the game engine would be a lot more interesting.

Has anyone really thought about it? I was thinking of ideas for modeling scenes while driving one day, and I realized how boring real-life graphics in a game would be.

That's because your time is bad, Not sunny enough, not dark enough.
And gameplay will change it. Take that image, let's say it's like 11pm during the Fall season, it's thundering, and there's a hundred zombies running behind you, No added effects, no added flashiness, just a realistic scene that's naturally dark, pouring, and has zombies behind you.

I guess throughout the whole game like and ORPG, it would sometimes get boring, but there are a lot of other factors besides graphics.

But your question is if it will be done, and so yes it will for reasons listed. If it'll be good is a different question,

~Hai-Bye-Vine~

 

[Ninva]

I like the imagine.

 

[Vellu]

Take that image, let's say it's like 11pm during the Fall season, it's thundering, and there's a hundred zombies running behind you,

Everything's cool when there's zombies in it.
For this moments most advanced graphics, check some Heavy Rain videos. They look too awesome!

 

[Wiseman_2]

Mercenaries Playground of Destruction (and the latest one most likely) offers gameplay with enough stuff to blow up (cities,cars,large groups of enemy armor) with a variety of weapons like airstrikes,Tanks and bazookas.

I have them both, they're probably the only games I have where so much can be destroyed. But even then, you can't actually go inside the buildings.
The graphics for the first one were ok, but as it was on PS2 they were very limited in what they could do elsewhere. Then when the second came out on PS3, everyone complained the graphics weren't good enough, despite the clear improvement and the ridiculously large amount of blowing shit up.

 

[tom_mai78101]

Not until we have nano-graphic cards. When stacked together as big as a normal Nvidia graphics card, you may get what you wanted.

<End of my turf.>

 

[Bronxernijn]

No. Simply because real life doesnt have pixels. I think there will always be a visible difference.

 

[Trollvottel]

Maybe the machines will someday inject pictures in our brain to make it real. maybe...

 

[WindexIsBack]

^Porn!