This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

How long before PC gaming graphics will look better than real life?

#21helldewPosted 4/20/2014 12:07:03 PM
Never the two work differently. think about it this way in engine you have polys. in the world you have cells and micro particles. There will NEVER be a reasonable reason to render that far down solely due to massive massive diminishing returns.after a certain point it wont matter but because we wont hit that point it will never look truly real.at least thats the logic i would think to it the technology world is a weird one so anything can happen if there is some crazy breakthrough who knows what will happen.
---
Competitive smash, random gaming news, + game dev stuff. Follow me on twitter @helld3w il follow back :p
#22ChetyrePosted 4/20/2014 12:11:37 PM
there are some who think ours might be a virtual world, and even that the world who created ours doesn't necessarily have to be the "real" one. So it is very well possible some day we might create our own virtual universe - but it really doesn't matter.
---
"Beyond The Beaten Path Lies The Absolute End. It Matters Not Who You Are, Death Awaits You." Nyx Avatar
#23TrueGBPosted 4/20/2014 12:22:40 PM
CELTEKK posted...
how can you expect something to look better than what you can base it off of?

dumb topic is dumb.


Clearly you're not an artist.
---
Future Billionaire
#24JonWood007Posted 4/20/2014 12:28:13 PM
Probably never, aside from artistic direction. We could see lifelike graphics by 2030 (or close enough to it you don't notice the difference) though. It's hard to say. Games are looking better, but the rate at which they are better is slowing down. Keep in mind, Crysis is 7 years old, and mainstream games are only STARTING to get on that level. Look at games from 10 years ago. Half Life 2, Doom 3. While graphics have advanced, those games still look reasonably good even today. Go back 15 years, when quake 3 and UT were the top games...you begin to see more of a difference. Go back 20 years to games like Doom....even more of a massive difference.

Back then, it took a little power, relatively speaking, to make a massive difference. Doom to Quake was only 3-4 years. Quake to Quake 3/UT was only another 3-4 years. Quake/UT to Doom 3/HL2 was only 3-4 years. Crysis was only 3 years after that. And then things kinda stagnated between the HL2/Crysis level for a while. We didn't even start to see games that touched crysis until 2011 or so. And we're not seeing games that are consistently that good until now with this "next gen" stuff. How many years until we see an even bigger boost? Hard to say. Maybe 5-10 years? Games are getting better, much slower now. Heck, much of the gains comes from higher resolutions and stuff...that's the big thing that holds the older consoles back....I'd argue 360/PS3 level titles are still reasonably visually appealing...but they lack the high resolutions and anti aliasing PC gaming has.

Much of the further gains will likely be in ever better textures, and if "next gen" 50 GB games means anything, this means in order to get lifelike textures, we'd need to drastically increase our storage capacities, VRAM capabilities, and internet speed to download this stuff. We can make models less pixelated, but this would likely take significant GPU power for little gain, etc.

Games will get there, but it will likely take at least 15-20 years, if not longer.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#25Arcadia__personPosted 4/20/2014 12:35:40 PM
h23456bca posted...
thedeadman568 posted...
Jedi454 posted...
we'll be able to live in a virtual reality world that's better than real life where we can do whatever we want, with no consequences and without having to leave our bedrooms ever again. I'll be able to create the ultimate gf in a video game and marry her in game, have a family, etc... How brilliant does that sound?!


This makes me really sad.


That sounds like half a dozen movies i've seen. And it makes me sad too knowing that people would rather live a virtual life with no real consequences than face reality


I'm not saying nobody believes that, but you guys know the TC isn't being serious, right?
---
3DS F.C = 0387 - 9320 - 6533. Eric from Hawkeye
#26Flen15Posted 4/20/2014 12:38:10 PM
It'll never look more real than real life. It might be able to match it someday though.

But better is subjective. You could argue some games already look better than real life since you can have things in games you can't have in real life.
#27LvthnPosted 4/20/2014 12:40:30 PM
SchoolRumble posted...
There is no better than real life


Actually, there definitely is, but achieving "graphics" that exceed it would require transmitting images directly to the brain or otherwise bypassing the eye.

Just as an example, you probably cannot even see the color indigo (some people can), but there's no reason you couldn't be made to. You also have limited vision at distance, which can obviously be enhanced (and in this regard some games already exceed real life for most people).

The real problem with such technology is how crappy you'd feel in real life after using it. Imagine going from having Superman's vision to having your regular ol' myopic vision.
#28CovenantPosted 4/20/2014 12:46:09 PM
Better is a subjective term and thus the answer is subjective.

If you mean more realistic or more any other word that refers to reality, then it isn't possible.
#29NeninaPosted 4/20/2014 12:48:29 PM
We will be able to use virtual reality to read a virtual book while sitting in a virtual chair.
#30Scisor50Posted 4/20/2014 12:52:43 PM
Why do some people make it seem like developers need to deposit money into a machine each time they make a cube in a game engine?
---
"WHAT THE HELL IS AN ESPORTS?!" -Mr. Torgue