I wonder if games will make us feel some emotions as movies where you can see real people, like About a Boy or Twilight and so on and so forth.
http://www.pcr-online.biz/news/read/photorealistic-games-just-five-years-away/034735
]
Hmm videogames have genres just like films and novels and graphic novels and vocal...novels.
Movies do implement...some of them..clever writing to broadcast and even tug at the emotions of the viewer given that films average an hour and a half to two hours to set up the three different acts.
Videogames are far too interactive in comparison, plus you are given choices or decisions unless the game is heavily scripted to me a single linear story.
The better question would be is why haven't you as a videogame player felt emotion from playing videogame s?
Heavy Rain falls under that category as do a few others that don't degenerate into the usual "bromance emotions" of "not gonna leave you behind bro...nooooooo!!!!" Where most action shooters fall...or the passive novels type emotions of RPGs.
To me that reads like another claim after a bunch of previous claims of "marketing photorealistic/ism graphics" but never explaining why when given the chance to make hardware, they rushed things (any company)
I harken back to what Tim Sweeney said, he said 5000 teraflops is needed to get a good enough approximation of reality.
I dont really know if this is realistic at all or if it has any real meaning, it just seems a suitably faraway post to aim at.
If you quad crossfired/SLI or whatever, 4 of the top PC cards currently, I guess you'd have about 22 teraflops (R 9 290x=5.6 TF). There dont seem to be massive advances currently though, stuck on 28nm.
If current consoles are 1.3 and 1.8 TF, maybe we will see 10-20 TF next gen. Even 10 seems like a lot currently, no single card can achieve.
I think about the technology presentation of the Sony PlayStation 3's E3 2005 where Ken Kutaragi and nVidia's CEO were speaking of engineering visions that were misinterpreted as statements.
Back then there was a comparison of the 2TF theoretical performance of PS3 (CellBE+G70 based RSX at 90nm) versus the required theoretical power of 10TF used by contemporary workstations.
However in hindsight if we were to pre-plan last gen consoles to have been launched later with 2007 or 2008 technology and engineering nodes then the theoretical vision may have had to be revised because say:
a 65nm CellBE or Xenon would have packed more transistors and higher clocks.
At 55nm, a G92 or RV670/RV770 GPU would have more transistors and higher clock speeds yielding over 2.5 ttimes the raw rendering performance not to mention evolved architectures.
Higher ram ammounts and overall throughput and bandwidth.
That would have placed them at closer to 4TF theoretical performance.
But currently there were different decisions at work that made what we have now.
This tech is meh. There's absolutely no non-diffuse information stored about the environment. No chance for the surface to interact with dynamic lighting conditions, no translucency. Mixing some renders with video footage looks impressive but overall it's going to looks even more past gen than other stuff from Farm 51. I love those guys but it's all smoke and mirrors.
The E3 2005 presentation used that "nVidia Luna Technology demo" where a lot of that tech you mentioned is shown.
I ran that tech demo in a PC with an nVidia 6800GT along with the "Mad Mod Mike tech demo".
Problem is that those were as stated, "simple tech demos". Videogames however which feature Artificial intelligence, collision detection, polygon counts, etc and etc effects and then resolution and frame rate. ..(not to mention required sales) are just much more complex.
Hence the "photo realism" really depends on marketing and viewer perception. The latter is a huge problem for me because I don't want to argue how the average gamer kept telling me back in 2009 that CoD was "like real life"
Videogames do kinda require smoke and mirrors effects much like movies. I suspect that even if a real console were to exist with a GPU capable of 12TF, that even at 1080p smoke and mirrors would still be used.
still won't look as real life. why. imperfections. real life isn't perfect. i dont think we will ever reach the point of graphics looking like real life. i will give you reason #2. REAL LIFE ISN'T MADE OUT OF PIXELS. thats why.
In science that would be a debate...obviously life isn't pixels but there is a yt video on the resolution of the human eye...but that's a science discussion.
This. I think most people misuse that word, AMD included.
Do we really want all games looking like Lego games with almost everything heavily submerged into Depth of field?
Indeed, as I implied about the "smoke and mirrors" what games, even dramatic videogames would have is "hyper realism" as even movies are similar because reality would be too unexciting.
Increased costs for assets, animation, engine license ecc
Last console generation has been a massacre
Not to mention how only certain genres dominated sales last gen and how technically acclaimed games that were highly recommended were not given the coverage (by gaming sites) and sales and instead faced a lot of dramatic opinions or dislike by gamers who imho were disconnected by being too much into certain genres.
The nVidia GTX 980 technology demo is a very simple one that although animated, has a main objective on lighting by global light source and it's ray casting and bouncing effects as.well as shadows.
We are way past volumetric smoke, lighting, shadows which last gen could bring consoles to limits fast, I suspect current gen is going up against that wall but through clever use of "smoke and mirrors" the graphics will get close to the general interpretation of "photo realism" depending on the genre.
There is a bit of a problem though because of how most games imho last gen became kind of apologetic or hand holding.
Few games were set in total darkness with using a light source and many games had night settings where you could clearly see everything but shadows. I suspect it's a side effect of games being too easy for fear that gamers will fear the learning curve and not buy...or blame the game...not like Demons Souls was an instant hit, much less Dark Souls but it's part of a pattern going on because "photo realism" is greatly dependent on lighting and shadows and even smoke and mirrors literally specially as pointed out in the nVidia tech demo where light source gets discussed.
