Avalon
Diamond Member
- Jul 16, 2001
- 7,567
- 152
- 106
Originally posted by: 5150Joker
I don't think we'll see realtime graphics like that in a game until at least 15 years.
I'm not worried, I'll still be gaming by then :evil:
Originally posted by: 5150Joker
I don't think we'll see realtime graphics like that in a game until at least 15 years.
Originally posted by: mrzed
I'm with Ackmed -
Each step towards realism requires a much bigger leap in processing power, as we approach the target, the curve becomes much steeper. People have been pointing to rendered CGI as examples of what we'll see in the future for ages, and frankly, it isn't happening.
IMO, games now are just not that much better than they were in 2003. But compare 2003 to 2001 and you see a real difference. I'm sure people will jump in with examples of X game that is just so great compared to what came before, but I'm not buying it. Compare any x-year period since the development of the 3D card, and you will see improvements are tapering.
Originally posted by: Griswold
The skin pores are too visible or not randomly spread out enough, which kinda gives it away as cgi. But yea, looks amazing.
You're optimistic . I'd say at least another 50 years. Not to go off the OP too much. As far as quality of screen images. In our TV system wise, NTSC (Never The Same Color ) we've seen now has been around over 50 years and ATSC is just barely starting to emerge. NTSC is supposed to phase out 2008 I heard, BTW.Originally posted by: 5150Joker
I don't think we'll see realtime graphics like that in a game until at least 15 years.
That's because we haven't jumped generations yet.Originally posted by: Sunrise089
Originally posted by: mrzed
I'm with Ackmed -
Each step towards realism requires a much bigger leap in processing power, as we approach the target, the curve becomes much steeper. People have been pointing to rendered CGI as examples of what we'll see in the future for ages, and frankly, it isn't happening.
IMO, games now are just not that much better than they were in 2003. But compare 2003 to 2001 and you see a real difference. I'm sure people will jump in with examples of X game that is just so great compared to what came before, but I'm not buying it. Compare any x-year period since the development of the 3D card, and you will see improvements are tapering.
Agreed - last game I got a big "wow" from non-gamer friends and family was Far Cry. Since then I have seen games that look better, but even when viewed side by side the differences don't amaze me.
Originally posted by: Regs
Originally posted by: Leper Messiah
just imagine the pr0n games. :Q
Well, at least you're honest.
Originally posted by: garkon8
I don't know about anyone else, but that looks freaky. It is as close to real life as you can get, but with "something" missing, maybe in the eyes?
Originally posted by: Lonyo
That's because we haven't jumped generations yet.Originally posted by: Sunrise089
Originally posted by: mrzed
I'm with Ackmed -
Each step towards realism requires a much bigger leap in processing power, as we approach the target, the curve becomes much steeper. People have been pointing to rendered CGI as examples of what we'll see in the future for ages, and frankly, it isn't happening.
IMO, games now are just not that much better than they were in 2003. But compare 2003 to 2001 and you see a real difference. I'm sure people will jump in with examples of X game that is just so great compared to what came before, but I'm not buying it. Compare any x-year period since the development of the 3D card, and you will see improvements are tapering.
Agreed - last game I got a big "wow" from non-gamer friends and family was Far Cry. Since then I have seen games that look better, but even when viewed side by side the differences don't amaze me.
UT/Quake 3
->
HL3/Unreal 2/Farcry/Elder Scrolls 3
->
Unreal3/ES4 etc
Currently we're towards the end of one cycle, and waiting for the next. So it's not too suprising IMO there's been no huge jump.