• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

***Updated***WHEN Will We Play "life-like"/"real" VideoGames?

apoppin

apoppin

Lifer
I just finished Star Trek: Voyager Elite Forces, based on the Quake III engine . . . not too bad really . . . immersive . . .

I also recently watched Final Fantasy, The Spirits Within - The Movie (crappy story - awesome graphics!!! - some "realism" definitely here).

So . . . WHEN will we finally get to PLAY a videogame with comparable graphics? How many years (please speculate)? What kind of PC hardware will be needed? Will game developers EVER develop a game just for high-end machines?

EDIT: I have been busy . . . researching . . . see my latest post . . . Square and Nvidia have unveiled the Final Fantasy Technology Demo, which runs scenes from the movie in real-time
 
Perhaps I am not explaing myself very well . . . (what's new?)

I have been waiting for the NextGen videogames for quite awhile (since Pong). When the latest crop came out - like Max Payne/Serious Sam,SE - I noted the improvement but not as good as I hoped. Even X-box does not impress me.

Why? Well, Unreal came out in 1998 and FOUR years later, the newer games aren't THAT impressive (in comparison) or that more advanced graphically.

When do we see the next big jump in game engine realism?
And when will we get FinalFantasy, TSW quality graphics to PLAY on home computers?
 
Nvidia say 10 years. Sounds about right. But think about it. If games looked real, where do you go from there?
 
You are setting yourself up for a long wait. There just won't be any major jumps in quality - just minor improvements slowly over time.

1) Go back and play text based games.
2) Then play the first games with 16 colors at 160 x 100 resolution - huge improvement.
3) Now play the first games at 16 colors and 320 x 200 resolution - the improvment is dramatic.
4) The next level of games were 256 colors at 640x480 resolution - This is where games became realistic and life like. No more cartoon looking programs.
5) A few years later came 3D first person motion games at 256 colors and 640x480 resolution - Not much improved but it is more life like.
6) Finally play one of todays games at 16-bit color and 1600x1200 resolution. The difference is minimal over the games in the previous level (disappointing isn't it). Why? Few games ever use all the colors available to them (Quake is a great example, it seems like it only uses 256 colors of yellow...) Or they don't use all the resolution available (some objects are clear and others are blocky).

If you honestly go back and play several games at every step - you too will realize that we already have games that are realistic enough to satisfy the vast majority of people - so there is little incentive for a programmer to make a game only playable by a computer with a 10 GHz processor and a GeForce 5. I'm assuming that you started playing games around step (4) or (5) - thus you don't appreciate what we already have.
 


<< Perhaps I am not explaing myself very well . . . (what's new?)

I have been waiting for the NextGen videogames for quite awhile (since Pong). When the latest crop came out - like Max Payne/Serious Sam,SE - I noted the improvement but not as good as I hoped. Even X-box does not impress me.

Why? Well, Unreal came out in 1998 and FOUR years later, the newer games aren't THAT impressive (in comparison) or that more advanced graphically.

When do we see the next big jump in game engine realism?
And when will we get FinalFantasy, TSW quality graphics to PLAY on home computers? >>




No offense, but if you don't think there is a big difference graphically between Unreal and, lets say, RTCW then I think yer on crack. 🙂 I don't have hard numbers, but I'd assume that it took hours to render each frame of the FF movie, so I don't think we'll be seeing that level of "realism" in video games anytime in the near future.

Okay, you are on crack. You've noticed some improvement between games now and pong?!?! If yer goals for realism are *that* high go outside more often. 😉

Lethal
 
One of the major differences between something like Quake III and FF: TSW is that in the latter case all buildings, characters etc. are build up in a far more realistic manner instead of just simply geometrical shapes combined with some blurred textures slapped on top of them. This does require a lot more CPU power, plus a really powerful GPU.

My guess is that we'll have to wait for hardware to catch up with the next revolution in games. Sometime after the release of the Geforce 12 and the Clawhammer 4 we should see some dramatic improvements in games 😉
 
Most movies are at standard TV resolution. That is a resolution between steps (3) and (4)! So movie makers can get away with great detail (fully using all colors and complex objects) since they only need a poor resolution. If some game came out today with resolution that low you would whine and complain about the terrible resolution (even though the final product looks just like your "realism" movie).

A TV sitcom looks realistic, but that is only since it uses millions of colors and objects made of infinite number of triangles - who cares that the resolution is low and you only get 30 frames per second. Put that on a computer game and you will quickly see a flop...
 
You mean with:

1) Photo realistic textures/models? (This is no biggy it will come soon...say within 3 years)
2) Complete in every details physics engine? (This is a little bigger, but since all the math and principals are known it's only a matter of time before home systems are calculate every single physical parameter of a computer generated scene, dust, falling damage, weight and impact for force feedback etc...)
3) Complete and human level AI? (This will take a long time, we'd need a real neural net with extremely high capacity to be able to accomplish this. I mean like how do you teach a computer to improvise???? Think about it......)

Thorin
 


<< Okay, you are on crack. You've noticed some improvement between games now and pong?!?! If yer goals for realism are *that* high go outside more often. 😉 >>


I didn't SAY that.

I DID say I have been waiting for (each) "next gen" of videogames since Pong . . . I could see dramatic improvement from Pong to the Atari 2600 and from there to the Genesis . . .

My ULTIMATE goals for realism are (of course) "lifelike".

My question is WHEN???

Just 'cause it tooks hours to rended a frame in FF doesn't mean computing power isn't increasing rapidly. . . look at the first Star Wars (which took hours to render a frame, years ago).





<< But think about it. If games looked real, where do you go from there? >>

If games looked "real" now, then there is always the improvements in actual 3-D and eventually interactive holographic images.
I am just asking for something far more simple - WHEN do we PLAY today's movie graphics in tomorrow's home video games?
 


<< You mean with:

1) Photo realistic textures/models? (This is no biggy it will come soon...say within 3 years) YES.
2) Complete in every details physics engine? (This is a little bigger, but since all the math and principals are known it's only a matter of time before home systems are calculate every single physical parameter of a computer generated scene, dust, falling damage, weight and impact for force feedback etc...) Yes
3) Complete and human level AI? (This will take a long time, we'd need a real neural net with extremely high capacity to be able to accomplish this. I mean like how do you teach a computer to improvise???? Think about it......) No

Thorin
>>



Thank-you . . . 3 years for photo-realism . . . that IS progress.



<< Most movies are at standard TV resolution. >>

Not DVDs and certainly not in the Cinema . . . look at LOTR, The Fellowship of the Ring for GREAT graphics and resolution.
 
> Most movies are at standard TV resolution. That is a resolution between steps (3)
> and (4)! So movie makers can get away with great detail (fully using all colors and
> complex objects) since they only need a poor resolution.

Huh?

35mm resolution is as high as 3000x2000 actual/effective (and 5000 lines theoretical), and 70mm is even higher. Some studios use 4000 pixel renders during film composition. This isn't just for sequences shot with camera; even animations like A Bug's Life are rendered in upwards of 2048x872 (the latest animations at even higher resolutions) before being transferred to film.

Yes, you don't always see the full 3000x2000 resolution in the theater because of junk/poor projectors and projector setups, but if you go to a top tier theater, in a market that receives the top grade film transfers (i.e. LA)...you get on the order of 2000 lines of resolution on the screen. Even at a cheapo theater with poor equipment, you're still seeing higher resolution that you get with any PC game or demo.

Hell, on TV, you get those 3000x2000 film transfers telecined to 1280x720P and 1440x1080i with HDTV.
 
Even looking at your point #3, thorin - just a few years ago, there was much debate that a chess program would EVER beat a human grandmaster . . .

However, for great "AI" now, there are of course the Human multiplayer opponents which offer much more than the computer . . . I am really looking for significant improvement in photo-realistic gaming graphics (or least at the level of the Final Fantasy movie caliber).
 


<< Huh? >>



Rent a movie, and watch it on a standard television (about 99% are standard). You get terrible resolution. This is the format that most movies are watched at. Sure they may be in unseen or rarely forms at higher resolution. I'm talking about the effect that the vast majority of us would consider realistic: A brodcast of Seinfield.

Trust me, Seinfield isn't at 3000x2000 resolution! And it is realistic AND real to life.
 
Well, Unreal came out in 1998 and FOUR years later, the newer games aren't THAT impressive (in comparison) or that more advanced graphically.

good point, I think 10 years is a good number. When something like the 3Dmark Nature demo becomes a fully playable, real time 3d world you can move around in and interact with stuff, then that will be a big step forward.

Right now, I think one of the big factors that's holding games back is the fact that they sort of have to program for the least common denominator.

I would LIKE to see them make a game with a minimum 1ghz and new (GF3, Radeon 8500 etc...) vid card requried, however it doesn't make sense business wise to do that.
 


<< Trust me, Seinfield isn't at 3000x2000 resolution! And it is realistic AND real to life. >>


Now I doN'T trust you anymore (what "anymore"?) . . . Seinfield is neither realistic nor real to life.

😀

What I am simply asking is, "WHEN will we play videogames with photorealistic graphics on our home PCs?" The standard for "photo realism" I gave was the Final Fantasy DVD which certainly looks "real enough".
 
I would also like to see HUGE outdoor worlds that take hours to cross (rpgs can do it I suppose) and also FULL SIZE buildings in those worlds. How about a real 25 story building with real stuff inside that doesn't just take 3 seconds to scope out and cover each floor.
 


<< good point, I think 10 years is a good number. When something like the 3Dmark Nature demo becomes a fully playable, real time 3d world you can move around in and interact with stuff, then that will be a big step forward.

Right now, I think one of the big factors that's holding games back is the fact that they sort of have to program for the least common denominator.

I would LIKE to see them make a game with a minimum 1ghz and new (GF3, Radeon 8500 etc...) vid card requried, however it doesn't make sense business wise to do that. >>



Well, the Nature Demo is computer generated graphics . . . I imagine, it is possible NOW to make it a fully playable real-time 3D world (right????)

In programming for the least common denominator, that same Nature Demo will also work on lesser machines - it just takes a powerful 3D card an CPU to give it the realism.

Isn't it possible to ALSO program a game that works well with powerful and weak machines? As I understand it, it just takes took much time . . . perhaps future game engine advances will address this . . . (???)
 
dullard,

> Rent a movie, and watch it on a standard television (about 99% are standard).
> You get terrible resolution. This is the format that most movies are watched at.

This isn't a limit of the film or movie, however, it's a limitation of the VHS medium and the 1950's era NTSC format that standard televisions use. You would see the same resolution if you connected your computer to the TV with the NTSC s-video output. Standard NTSC TVs, are, after all, just junk 720x480 interlaced monitors with 60Hz refresh. While we have upgraded to 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 monitors for our computers, standard TVs are still stuck at low resolution with interlace.

So of course the nothing is going to look particularly great on these sets (although DVD with 480 lines, or more like 400 effective on a non-progressive set, still looks reasonably good). In contrast, buy yourself a 35mm projector, and get a 35mm print for your favorite film or sitcom..and you can enjoy the same material at several thousand lines of resolution. Or if you're in the poorhouse, and can't afford a 35mm projector costing tens of thousands of dollars 🙂 , there are always the HDTV sets with 1280x720 and 1600x1200 resolution. Or you could also get a HDTV PC card to use with your computer monitor...

My prior post really just took issue with your analogy. Games today are designed for 640x480, 800x600, or 1024x768 (in terms of textures, models, etc), while films, movies, and even sitcoms are created for 3000x2000. Even the animation sitcoms are created and rendered at ultra high resolutions. These sitcoms are even broadcast at high resolutions in HDTV (at least, on ABC, CBS, HBO, Showtime...etc), you just don't have the right monitor.

> Trust me, Seinfield isn't at 3000x2000 resolution! And it is realistic AND real to life.

Trust me, Seinfeld is at close to that resolution...if only you had a 35mm projector and the 35mm film for the episode. I've seen a Seinfeld HDTV clip during a demo at 1920x1080 before...Actually, just about every movie and sitcom shot today is archived by the studios at 1920x1080P.
 


<< I would also like to see HUGE outdoor worlds that take hours to cross (rpgs can do it I suppose) and also FULL SIZE buildings in those worlds. How about a real 25 story building with real stuff inside that doesn't just take 3 seconds to scope out and cover each floor. >>



Well, part of those limitations have to do with HD space and that they are CD-based now. . . . I imagine that this will change as games move to DVDs. Serious Sam already has huge outdoor worlds . . . Max Payne moved in the right direction with interactivity . . .

To me, the next big step will be completely photo-realistic graphics . . . there will always be great games with simple graphics and terrible games with great graphics . . . 3 years, huh?

EDIT: So, in 3 years we should be seeing PCs running GeForce 6 or 7 and CPUs in about the 4-6Ghz range?
 


<<

<< Okay, you are on crack. You've noticed some improvement between games now and pong?!?! If yer goals for realism are *that* high go outside more often. 😉 >>


I didn't SAY that.

I DID say I have been waiting for (each) "next gen" of videogames since Pong . . . I could see dramatic improvement from Pong to the Atari 2600 and from there to the Genesis . . .

My ULTIMATE goals for realism are (of course) "lifelike".
My question is WHEN???
Just 'cause it tooks hours to rended a frame in FF doesn't mean computing power isn't increasing rapidly. . . look at the first Star Wars (which took hours to render a frame, years ago).



<< But think about it. If games looked real, where do you go from there? >>

If games looked "real" now, then there is always the improvements in actual 3-D and eventually interactive holographic images.
I am just asking for something far more simple - WHEN do we PLAY today's movie graphics in tomorrow's home video games? >>



I think you want too much 🙂

I would be glad if the majority current games would be on a decent "up-to-date" standard...but they are not. In fact only a few games offer VERY good graphics (maybe RTCW, MaxPayne etc..)...but the vast majority of games has to satisfy the masses. I am still seeing a huge load of "texture glued on a flat polygon model" games ("tombraider engine")..and THIS times (directX6.0) are now REALLY over.

Btw. i see a recent increase in what is possible NOW (in comparison to what was cool like at above mentioned times)....this is hardware transform and lighting...which basically could be compared to "real time" hardware rendering.

I remember times when it took minutes/hours to render scenes with lights, reflections etc...not THAT long ago...and now i can see demos and games where this is done in real time !!!!!! This is an extreme improvement !!!!


Interactive holographic images ?

Well sounds nice....anyway what i am always wondering is why VR 3d glasses havent had envolved into the mainstream...i know they exists.....i dont talk about pseudo 3d glasses which you use in conjuntion with your computer monitor.

I just dont understand what's the big deal having vr glasses with builtin screens for both eyes (more far fetched: laser which beam images into the eye 🙂 )...to have a REAL 3d image with an REAL life like field of view. This is totally DOABLE - NOW, i dont see any big obstacles...get some optics...get some high resolution mini "screens" for the eyes...etc...

Instead...we're still sitting at CRT's (or LCDs)...basically flat, very small screens. The CRT i use on my monitor is the same technique they used like in the 1933 or earlier when tv first came out ! I dont understand that :/

Ever been in an IMAX theatre ? Then think further (with the images directly beamed into the retina/eyes or two small screens)..and you can only IMAGINE what's possible.....this has rather to do with "presentation" instead of software implementation..but also a "current" game...say a RPG with polygon graphics etc. should look far better than on a 19" flat screen 🙂 The joke is that with 3d graphics (opengl, D3d)...all the information about the 3d world (coordinates, locations) already is here...well.....


greetings



 


<< I think you want too much 🙂 >>


Nonsense . . . I want the samething everyone else wants - a working ship's computer from Star Trek: Voyager and a (personal) deluxe holodeck.

Well . . . eventually . . . but I wouldn't mind interacting in a movie what is what a few games are aiming at . . .

Personally, I think is really sad that Television is the best medium we have which is largely unchanged since the color broadcasts of 40 years ago . . . is it wrong to want my computer games to be at least that realistic? I'd also like to see more work on wearable displays.

🙂
 
When can we play a game that looks like Final Fantasy the movie? How about a few years after those screens can be rendered, in real time, for games.

I'd say we are 3-5 years from it and are pretty close now. Movies, on theater, aren't super high resolution pictures (quite the contrary, actually). So, with a video card that can do, say 1024x768 at a really high color depth (higher than 32 bit color), with massive amounts of AA, we'd accomplish what a movie would look like. Of course, movies are played back at around 30fps, but for a game, we'd want something closer to 100fps, during all scenes of intense combat.

By the time we have that, then we can start on a game that would look like the intended movie, THEN we'd have 2-3 years of development.

vash
 


<< I want the samething everyone else wants - a working ship's computer from Star Trek: Voyager and a (personal) deluxe holodeck. >>

First you need to stop people from purchasing "Dude, you're gettin' a Dell" machines with low-tech integrated video. 🙂

Seriously, video technology is constantly getting better but few games will be made for the latest GPUs because 90% of target consumers still have graphics cards from 2-3 generations past.
 
Howzit, JB?

Dude, the only Dell I recommend - are their notebooks - with ATI or N'vidia graphics (like I got). In fact, I now tell quite a few people to go to Dell.



<< Seriously, video technology is constantly getting better but few games will be made for the latest GPUs because 90% of target consumers still have graphics cards from 2-3 generations past. >>


But isn't it possible - doesn't it depend on the Game's engine - to program for the high-end systems AND the more modest computers (which gets and renders less detail)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top