Have we finally reached photo realism?

[Jordan]

http://img161.imageshack.us/my.php?image=comparison018mx4df.jpg

Left = Real life
Right = Crysis.

Have we finally reached photorealism? Crysis is out Q2/3 next year when we finally have Direct X 10 on our PC's. Can we go any further?

EDIT: Just to clarify, this isn't pre-rendered its using the main engine.

[demonmike04]

That does look incredibly real, but is it ingame?

[Domstercool]

That's pretty darn close to each other. I think the only problem I've just noticed is the grass in the game. The rest is very nice looking.

[Jordan]

That does look incredibly real, but is it ingame?

Not ingame, but using in game footage.

[Ramar]

I think graphics can go further, check the grass in the bottom right picture. It doesn't look so good. In saying that, they are some mighty impressive graphics.

[mike-zim]

WOW what more can i say? although the grass in the second picture was lame.

damn beaten too it.

[Jordan]

Don't forget that the foliage is totally realistic too, it moves like it should in real life.

That and theres active dynamic whether systems and day to night cycles ;).

[gaggle64]

It all looks very relaistic, but I think we are still quite far away from having truly realistic game world. We can move leaves, rustle bushes and destruct almost anything we want now, but I've yet to see a game that comes anywhere near the dynamic do-anything real world we live in.

[gorrit]

Sure, it does look very realistic for being a 3D realtime engine. But is it even near photo realism, such that you can make a game which looks real? No, first off, humans etc, I haven't seen any 3D realtime rendered character look even near that of TV quality. And then physics, how do things react etc, I haven't seen a game come even close to reality on that part.

Sure, it does look nice, but we aren't there. Not even close, despite what people are preaching.

[rokhed00]

Clouds don't look quite real either.

[Pit-Jr]

Why is grass the new standard by which games are judged?

On topic, im underwhelmed with these graphics. Whats wrong with videogames looking like videogames

[Haver]

For me, real-world interaction is more exciting. For example, it was a very, very small thing, but shooting the lock off a door in Half-Life 2 was enough to make me stand back and say "Woah, that's cool".

[Shino]

What will happen to gore games with this kind of realism?

AND what kind of PC would I need to play this?

[conzer16]

For me, real-world interaction is more exciting. For example, it was a very, very small thing, but shooting the lock off a door in Half-Life 2 was enough to make me stand back and say "Woah, that's cool".


Shooting the locks off the gates in the "Facility" in Goldeneye made me go "Woah!!....COOL!!!"

:grin: :bouncy:

[Fields]

Who cares anymore? I think Nintendo have the right idea to be honest.

[The3rdChildren]

Getting there, but not quite there yet. Keep trying, graphics boys.

[Pestneb]

it shows Nintendo were right. the PS3/360 (possibly still wii?) could have acheived photorealistic 480p this gen, next gen photorealist 1080p and the gen after that we'd be enjoying gaming on our UHDV sets.

[Hellfire]

Don't worry, until we reach photorealism in game we still have a "long" way to go. And it's not just looking at stills, it's the motion that matters the most. Once we reach photorealism, people will get bored of graphics and look at more important things.

[Pestneb]

Don't worry.

why would we worry about photorealism being acheived???

[Haver]

Shooting the locks off the gates in the "Facility" in Goldeneye made me go "Woah!!....COOL!!!"

:grin: :bouncy:

Great! :hehe:

[mario114]

Apart from the grass I don't think I would even be able to tell the differnce, man those are nice, I think graphic have certianly reached a peak, I'm sure they will get better, but visuals not by the same leaps that have been common in the past.

[gaggle64]

Click below fro the tech demo vid which shows of all it's tech wizardry in motion for your convenience. It IS pretty damn sweet, though not quite "photo realistic".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0YuFHSF9sw&search=crysis

[Sexual Chocolate]

Why is grass the new standard by which games are judged?

On topic, im underwhelmed with these graphics. Whats wrong with videogames looking like videogames

Agreed, My cousins Phillips CDI was photo realistic and was shit.

[AshMat]

I remember seing something like this a while ago...
Something paradox i think it was called

edit: visual paradox: http://visualparadox.com/wallpapers/altitude640.htm

[Stocka]

Lighting is superb

But what good is photo realistic graphics?

Well the shed is fully destructable, trees can be shot down, now you have photo realism WITH realistic environment behaviour. that is NEXT gen.
EXACTLY. QFT ETC

[Zakatu]

Surely the limit to graphics is not the means to display them (the computer hardware) but the time and effort needed to create a world in the level of detail?

Think about creating a game world not distinquishable from real life, its just not possible to make a game in that detail, without taking 10 years or something.

I think we are a long way away yet, we will only get there when we can say, scan a real world environment and "record" all the positions of everything in it, which could then be displayed ona screen, i think.

[Gaijin von Snikbah]

If you put a photo in a game do you have photorealism then?

[Charlie]

I'm sure I read somewhere that the guys developing Crysis weren't going for photorealism, but something else? It was in one of the latest EDGE issues...

[Konfucius]

It comes damn close to photorealism indeed but in motion there are still some edges here and there and some shader typical lightning is also visible but I get what you mean.
I think at some point, maybe a generation ahead we will achieve something that really isn't destinguishable from real life anymore. If you look at the Makings Of of Matrix Revolution you realize what I mean. They did a software so you could apply any face texture to a model of an Agent. Sure that was in a film and this is a game.
However we eventually will reach a point when we have photorealism and I'm really hoping to get to this point because especially PC games are often mainly judged by the graphics and this could lead to a new era of innovation... or physics simulation.

[Supergrunch]

Surely the limit to graphics is not the means to display them (the computer hardware) but the time and effort needed to create a world in the level of detail?

Think about creating a game world not distinquishable from real life, its just not possible to make a game in that detail, without taking 10 years or something.

I think we are a long way away yet, we will only get there when we can say, scan a real world environment and "record" all the positions of everything in it, which could then be displayed ona screen, i think.
I think it will always be impossible to achieve perfect realism; we don't understand many of the things that make our own world appear "real".

[Jav_NE]

As you can see from the Crysis picture also, the mountains in the background are actually quite different. It's incredibly difficult to generate terrain that looks precisely like its real life couterparts. I think they use random algorithms, or stochastics that generate random faces based on set parameters that make things like mountains, trees, snowflakes, water, fire... any natural phenomenon so, without as someone said spending countless ours/days/weeks/years going into minute detail, were a long way off actual realism, but it looks pretty damn close and thats certainly something.

[Adrian DX]

I dont understand why a lot of people are dismissing the game, it will be the most important game since half life 2, and who doesnt like half life 2?
I like Half Life 2, but its not important. If you're talking about important because of the graphics, you know some other game would come around to take its place, Half Life 2 was just first in "the new graphics generation".

[Pestneb]

while being "graphic whores" may be considered a bad thing, improved graphics are good.
why is photorealism important? we can see reality, its something we can all compare and judge. if we can recreate what we can see, the only graphical limit from then is ourselves - if we can imagine it, we can recreate it.

once we have the detail nailed we just need to go for how large environments are etc.

and for the realism is impossible - largely yes. but we only need to simulate noticeable effects.
there are a lot of "real" processes that don't need to be incorporated into games. for example, air. as far as I am aware, most (if not all) games treat air as a standard, air pressure isn't factored in at all, so it may as well just be a vacuum (without people bursting and liquids evaporating etc.)

[Bowser57]

The thing is, none of my fave games look in anyway "real".

[Marshmellow]

wow that is amazing shame bout the grass though... we'll get there someday, i actually hadnt noticed the bad grass till somebody mentioned it, so fooled me:D

[gorrit]

Surely the limit to graphics is not the means to display them (the computer hardware) but the time and effort needed to create a world in the level of detail?

Think about creating a game world not distinquishable from real life, its just not possible to make a game in that detail, without taking 10 years or something.

I think we are a long way away yet, we will only get there when we can say, scan a real world environment and "record" all the positions of everything in it, which could then be displayed ona screen, i think.

The tools get better and better, so I doubt future game developers will use a real world scanner (altought a few will certainly do it, it has already been done albeit in a limited way) but much more advanced tools which will help them achieve something that looks rather real.

[Jamba]

:indeed: :zzz: ::shrug:

I get tired of photo realism. No actually I get bored of it. It is a holy grail like pursuit after something exponentially unatainable and while everyone is having their time consumed by this quest, millions of really interesting styles of visual graphics could have been born. Just because games can be escapist doesn't mean that they have to realistic to be immersive. For instance, I don't think that the graphical difference between MGS and MGS3 made me feel any more immersed. And frankly the game design and story did a lot better version of that.

[JimmyPage]

Well that's Direct X 10, Windows Vista and an uber-l33t PC for you.... shame it would be cheaper to buy ALL next gen consoles. But those graphics are unparalelled, absolutely stunning, the E3 video is very impressive too.

[Pestneb]

:indeed: :zzz: ::shrug:

I get tired of photo realism. No actually I get bored of it. It is a holy grail like pursuit after something exponentially unatainable and while everyone is having their time consumed by this quest, millions of really interesting styles of visual graphics could have been born. Just because games can be escapist doesn't mean that they have to realistic to be immersive. For instance, I don't think that the graphical difference between MGS and MGS3 made me feel any more immersed. And frankly the game design and story did a lot better version of that.


Photo realism itself isn't exciting to me, but the ability to produce something in realtime like that is - because we can see thats how they want it to look.
Currently with different visual styles we don't know if its purely what they wanted to display, of if its due to hardware limitation.

at the moment there are three things that govern graphics

1)Hardware
2)technical abilities of the artists
3)imagination of the artists.

improved hardware reduces one inhibition of artistry, its a barrier that I don't believe will be removed in our life times, but reducing it as much as possible is a good thing.

the more it is removed the more artists can focus on imagination and less on overcoming technical hurdles.

[Jamba]

Yeah, I know what you mean but isn't photorealism a bit of a bollocks term? The final goal of this quest keeps backing away, because the closer we get the more we examine and the more differences we see. It will never be achieved without simulating the real physics of the real universe right down to the cell structure of everything a virtual universe. So we are also limited by scientific understanding too. The computer power and artistic input to be able to achieve this is proposterous.

[Pestneb]

Yeah, I know what you mean but isn't photorealism a bit of a bollocks term? The final goal of this quest keeps backing away, because the closer we get the more we examine and the more differences we see. It will never be achieved without simulating the real physics of the real universe right down to the cell structure of everything a virtual universe. So we are also limited by scientific understanding too. The computer power and artistic input to be able to achieve this is proposterous.

not really, the game only needs realism in what it touches.
take a painting of a persons face, the painting completely lacks the information of the back of that persons head, and if it is literally just their face, we are left without a clue about their feet - do they have 16 toes?

if that persons mouth is shut, do they have a tongue??

in the same way, games only show and allow us to interact directly with what they concern

[Fierce_LiNk]

The thing is, none of my fave games look in anyway "real".

Same here, dude.

I'm not really one for photo realistic graphics. I prefer my games to have a 'different' art style. Games like Killer7 and Cel Damage describe the sort of style that really appeals to me. I guess you could say that i prefer unrealism in terms of visuals to photo realism.

But, then we get onto the argument of physics and fludity. I think that would be a different argument, imo.

[Jamba]

You can have realistic movement (or should I say representative?) whithout needing realistic graphics. I'm quite a fan of unrealistic movement too. It would be silly if you weren't allowed to hammer Mario's skull into the floor like a dart when using the cape in Mario World wouldn't it?

[somme]

I think the real point is, the generation after photo-realistic graphics are achieved it'll be Nintendo who shine.

[Cube]

It on the way to "photorealism", but its still a few billion miles away.