This is what games may look like in 10 years

[Avalon]

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:

 

[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.

 

[Auric]

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.

Yeah, he would benefit from a pore refining creme and perhaps a mild dermabrasion and of course it goes without saying that a daily moisturizing regimen with a minimum of SPF 15 is key to preventative skin care.

Seriously though, I thought the same thing. It looks too much like a CGI aging effect applied to approximate what a younger man would look like in the future. The eyes are not quite right... perhaps too much reflection or symetry. The depth of field is a bit too small as well, as if to overty imply it is a real photo by nature of the focus dropping off so abruptly.

 

[Steelski]

http://www.cgnetworks.com/gallerycrits/148983/148983_1110764412_medium.jpg

its a young Leam Neeson

Or a drunk one......

 

[destrekor]

whenever it happens, the problem that is sure to come is not hardware requirements, but development costs. and guess what, development costs increase the pricetag of games. no way around that.
sure, there will be games that use prebuilt engines that make it a lot easier, but inhouse engines for a game will be fewer and far between because of rampant costs.
i dont really care if it takes 20 years to get near that image quality. as someone said prior, all on a flat display, it doesn't feel the same, no matter how real it looks.
with the improvement of 3d-surround imaging, things could look better without graphics even needing to improve. the feeling of realism is all that is necessary, not millions of polygons per character. but yea, they have been working on 3d-surround imaging in that moving your head could move the image, and redraws the image to fully surround you to present a better imersion. I think true VR is very very far away, but at least get us some headsets that have full-color displays in visors and wrap around and have gyro-capilities, of course with a mic and headphones built it
that would be sweet. expensive, but sweet

but it'll be awhile just to get the software and hardware available to provide the POV-skewing and ultra-wide resolution needed to truely make that feel right.

 

[videopho]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
I don't think we'll see realtime graphics like that in a game until at least 15 years.

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.

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah
just imagine the pr0n games. :Q

...

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

Sometimes I wish real life looked a little less real. Why do I need to inspect someone's greasy skin pores in a computer game?

10 years is a long time these days and not just for computer graphics. The world may look waaaay different than it does today.

 

[Piuc2020]

10 years is a LOT of time, just imagine 10 years ago the kind of graphics & hardware we had and the graphics and hardware we have now, 20 years ago we had blobs of pixels moving about in a scren that showed 16 colors.

I'd be genuinely surprised if we didn't have Shrek 2 quality graphics (at the very least) in the next 10 years.

 

[destrekor]

Real Life? Engine 1.1a is going to be beta'd soon, and I am told we are to expect a major overhaul in the image quality area.
lol

 

[Lonyo]

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.

That's because we haven't jumped generations yet.

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.

 

[dingetje]

too bad its not a chick

 

[the Chase]

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah
just imagine the pr0n games. :Q

Well, at least you're honest.

Hee hee- has to flash into every male mind for at least a couple of seconds!(And probably a lot of honest women's minds too!).

 

[BFG10K]

I can just see the comments now: "but it doesn't have good gameplay!"

 

[BlacKJesuS]

bout time they caught up...thats wut i look like now

 

[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?

 

[xtknight]

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?

The skin looks a tad rubbery, and the reflection in the eyes COULD be better (best I've seen so far though), but certainly not bad. The hair looks too much like an array of curved lines rather than actual blended pieces. Doing the eyes will give them a hell of a time.

But you have to keep in mind, this could have taken days on a huge render farm. Sure, there's no doubt we have the technology to do that today, but at what SPEED?

 

[gxsaurav]

a game engine is also simply a renderer, which uses the power of graphics card to render everything, because of which it will take a lot of time, for it to be as good as software rendering like Mental Ray & VRay etc

games like this will if not 10 years, take 6 years atleast, Radiocity was just introduced as a feature in Geforce 7800 GTX, & i hope it can be implemented in Games just like it can be implemented in 3d modeling

in my opinion, the scene is not bright & sunny enoughm it's really higy poly, but it needs some better lights, some shine on the skin, like in real life, which will also bounce of the eye balls automatically, & remve the rubber-ness of skin, but even this is insanely High quality, dam good

 

[xtknight]

Here's the hi-res: http://www.cgnetworks.com/gallerycrits/148983/148983_1110764412.jpg

 

[Sunrise089]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

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.

That's because we haven't jumped generations yet.

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.

Makes sense to me, too bad I'm upgrading for this generation and the next will be arriving soon : (

 

[Auric]

I knew something was wrong with the skin but it did not occur to me until Dethfrumbelo mentioned not wanting to see greasy pores... they aren't greasy enough... in fact this guy is too clean altogether if we are to believe he is the average man, let alone a medieval knight... unless he has been frequenting steam baths while on crusade or sumfing. But yeah, now that ya mention it, it is too rubbery or perhaps waxy like a dummy but with better texture.