My changing view of next generation consoles technology.

[babcat]

At first I was upset about the weak GPUs used in the latest consoles being released. However, games or demoes like Quantic Dream's dark sorcerer have convinced me that near photo realism is possible with the technology included in the these systems. Also, the fact that Kojima states that Metal Gear Solid 5 is focused on current generation technology and the next gen version will look much better makes me think that the dream of near photo realism could be satisfied with this generation of console technology. As far as I am concerned, if games can be made at the level of the dark sorcerer, we have learned something fundamental about console technology. The truth is you may not need the most powerful GPUs to create photo realistic games. Thoughts?

I think the truth is that near photo realism depends more on the developer then the actual power of the hardware. if developers are willing to do the work and have the budget they can make amazing looking games. for example we can now use a million polygons her character in next generation games. There are limitations of course because not every character in a game with hundreds of characters can have a million polygons. But you can make the phew characters closest to the camera look near photo realistic. For characters further way you can use LOD to limit the resources used on them. And combined with realistic environments these games can look very close to a television show. The problem is that many developers simply will not have the budget time to make their games look as photo realistic as possible.also the fact very realistic looking games are using high 1080p resolutions and targeting 60 frames per secondmean that with simply normal resolutions and frame rates the photo realism could be improved. I am convinced the Xbox 1 and the PlayStation 4 have the potential to make amazing near photo realistic games. The bast amount of RAM is probably the big thing that is helping this along with the faster processors.

 

[T.B.]

The difficulty of photo-realism really mostly depends on the photo.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Photorealism in a static picture can be relatively closely approximated currently assuming you spend enough rendering time and setup time (weeks, months per single shot). Or just take a photo.

Photorealism in real time is going to require multiple orders of magnitude more powerful hardware than what is currently available in the highest end PCs. Oh and likely orders of magnitude more storage (assuming we aren't using data center storage arrays) than is currently available in the highest end PCs.

And then to make it actually believable with require methods of real time animation that do not currently exist.

Regards,
SB

 

[babcat]

The dark sorcerer proved to me that near photo realism is possible with the hardware in the ps4 and xbox one. The makers of the demo started that the next gen game they were making would have even better graphics. Personally, I cannot distinguish the demo from a movie. I know true photo realism will require much more power but this demo, to my eye, looks real. This tells me that we are waiting on devekooers to get near photorealistic games and not better hardware.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

The dark sorcerer proved to me that near photo realism is possible with the hardware in the ps4 and xbox one. The makers of the demo started that the next gen game they were making would have even better graphics. Personally, I cannot distinguish the demo from a movie. I know true photo realism will require much more power but this demo, to my eye, looks real. This tells me that we are waiting on devekooers to get near photorealistic games and not better hardware.

It looked "real" in the same way that the original Far Cry looked "real" on PC. In that it's another graphical bump presenting something people had previously not seen rendered in real time.

Compared to actual reality (which I'm assuming photo realism is based off of) though it is still incredibly hugely lacking.

At no point while watching it did I ever think I wasn't watching a computer animated scene. Impressive in some ways, certainly. Photo-realistic? Not even close.

Regards,
SB

 

[babcat]

It looked "real" in the same way that the original Far Cry looked "real" on PC. In that it's another graphical bump presenting something people had previously not seen rendered in real time.

Compared to actual reality (which I'm assuming photo realism is based off of) though it is still incredibly hugely lacking.

At no point while watching it did I ever think I wasn't watching a computer animated scene. Impressive in some ways, certainly. Photo-realistic? Not even close.

Regards,
SB

Then you must have a better eye than I do. I have watched many prerendered movies that did not look as real as this. It is the most realistic rendered graphics I have ever seen.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Then you must have a better eye than I do. I have watched many prerendered movies that did not look as real as this. It is the most realistic rendered graphics I have ever seen.

All the pre-rendered stuff that Laa-Yosh's company worked on for E3 was more impressive than that, IMO.

And certainly Blizzard's pre-rendered stuff still looks head and shoulders above it. Not just in what is done but in the pure scale of what they do.

It's good certainly. Impressive in some ways in real time, not so impressive in others (animation, facial expressions, etc.). But still has a ways to go.

Regards,
SB

 

[zupallinere]

Every console generation I always assume the cut scenes and QTEs end up looking like gameplay in the next generation. Sometimes the cutscenes at the beginning of a generation sometimes ends up being at the end of the generation.

 

[XpiderMX]

The dark sorcerer proved to me that near photo realism is possible with the hardware in the ps4 and xbox one. The makers of the demo started that the next gen game they were making would have even better graphics. Personally, I cannot distinguish the demo from a movie. I know true photo realism will require much more power but this demo, to my eye, looks real. This tells me that we are waiting on devekooers to get near photorealistic games and not better hardware.

The worse thing we can do is to believe that all games will look like the tech demos

 

[Betanumerical]

The worse thing we can do is to believe that all games will look like the tech demos

QD has a consistant habit of making games that look better then their tech demos so its probably a reasonable assumption that it will look just as good, if not better .

 

[XpiderMX]

QD has a consistant habit of making games that look better then their tech demos so its probably a reasonable assumption that it will look just as good, if not better .

Cut-scenes? yes.

 

[Betanumerical]

Cut-scenes? yes.

In game, there games look better then the actual tech demos, whilst your playing, not cut scenes.

 

[XpiderMX]

In game, there games look better then the actual tech demos, whilst your playing, not cut scenes.

What I mean is Quantic Dream games are not the traditional games, their games, at least Heavy Rain, are not the tipical game with free cameras and big scenarios. I guess the kind of games that QD have made can reach easily the cut-scene quality.

 

[babcat]

All the pre-rendered stuff that Laa-Yosh's company worked on for E3 was more impressive than that, IMO.

And certainly Blizzard's pre-rendered stuff still looks head and shoulders above it. Not just in what is done but in the pure scale of what they do.

It's good certainly. Impressive in some ways in real time, not so impressive in others (animation, facial expressions, etc.). But still has a ways to go.

Regards,
SB

can you give me a link to one of the videos produced by him?

 

[Billy Idol]

can you give me a link to one of the videos produced by him?

You see the watch dogs trailer from the ubisoft E3 conference?

 

[Love_In_Rio]

At first I was upset about the weak GPUs used in the latest consoles being released. However, games or demoes like Quantic Dream's dark sorcerer have convinced me that near photo realism is possible with the technology included in the these systems. Also, the fact that Kojima states that Metal Gear Solid 5 is focused on current generation technology and the next gen version will look much better makes me think that the dream of near photo realism could be satisfied with this generation of console technology. As far as I am concerned, if games can be made at the level of the dark sorcerer, we have learned something fundamental about console technology. The truth is you may not need the most powerful GPUs to create photo realistic games. Thoughts?

I think the truth is that near photo realism depends more on the developer then the actual power of the hardware. if developers are willing to do the work and have the budget they can make amazing looking games. for example we can now use a million polygons her character in next generation games. There are limitations of course because not every character in a game with hundreds of characters can have a million polygons. But you can make the phew characters closest to the camera look near photo realistic. For characters further way you can use LOD to limit the resources used on them. And combined with realistic environments these games can look very close to a television show. The problem is that many developers simply will not have the budget time to make their games look as photo realistic as possible.also the fact very realistic looking games are using high 1080p resolutions and targeting 60 frames per secondmean that with simply normal resolutions and frame rates the photo realism could be improved. I am convinced the Xbox 1 and the PlayStation 4 have the potential to make amazing near photo realistic games. The bast amount of RAM is probably the big thing that is helping this along with the faster processors.

Well, after playing The Last of Us I firmly believe it will be enough something graphically only a little better in IQ and scope ( more open levels ) with a consistent frame rate to make me a satisfied gamer.

 

[torbor]

Then you must have a better eye than I do. I have watched many prerendered movies that did not look as real as this. It is the most realistic rendered graphics I have ever seen.

I would rather call it near "Avatar" quality.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

can you give me a link to one of the videos produced by him?

 

[dagamer]

I started playing the Uncharted series again to lead up to The Last of Us in graphical quality (so I don't constantly keep poking my eyes out at older games) but man, we've come a LONG way. Nathan Drake in Uncharted 1 looks like a shiny stick dude with no skin textures!

 

[archie4oz]

Meh, photorealism is uninteresting. We can already do it convincingly offline; and real-time is just an exercise of optimization within varying constraints. Art direction is far more critical and important IMO. Photorealism can look good, or it can look dull and boring. It's also shockingly easy to wow a lot of people with cheap effects and a lot of particles. Also, photorealism falls apart really quickly by itself without comparable physics and animation to back it up.