• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Epic's Tim Sweeney: Lifelike Graphics Will Happen During Our Lifetimes

mocoworm

Member
Did a search, couldn't find this. Lock if already posted:

Epic's Tim Sweeney: Lifelike Graphics Will Happen During Our Lifetimes

TimSweeneyDICE610.jpg


http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/02/09/epic-39-s-tim-sweeney-lifelike-graphics-will-happen-within-our-lifetimes.aspx

One of the gaming industry's preeminent minds took the stage for a speech at the D.I.C.E. summit today, and his talking points didn't disappoint technophiles.

A self-acknowledged tech geek who feels more comfortable speaking to programmers about topics like the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem than he does distilling his theories for general audiences, Sweeney is the brilliant mind behind the nearly ubiquitous Unreal Engine, which powers many current generation games. Like id Software's John Carmack, his influence is so great that hardware developers bring him into the conversation early on to benefit from his insight. For his "Technology and Gaming in the Next 20 Years" presentation, he casually walked us through some of his computations that lay out an aggressive pattern of technological growth for the gaming industry.

He started by talking about the limitations of human physiology, saying our eyes are the equivalent to a 30-megapixel camera and framerate becomes imperceptible to us beyond 72 frames per second. The highest resolution we need is 8000x4000 pixels, which is slightly better than the 7630x4320-pixel prototype television Sharp showed off at CES this year. The technology isn't here yet, but it's coming soon.

Computer graphics are the art of approximating that reality, and Sweeney thinks we'll see lifelike representations of everything from lighting, subsurface scattering, skin, smoke, and fog in the near future.

“Within our lifetimes, we will be able to push out enough computational power to simulate reality,” he said.

To reach the level where computers are capable of producing truly lifelike approximations, Sweeney estimates that we need roughly 2,000 times the computational power of today's best graphics hardware. This level of processing power still doesn't account for human thought, movement, speech, personality, or intent, so there is still a lot of room to progress with artificial intelligence on top of the idealized graphics. Sweeney thinks we'll need a few more console generations to reach this level of fidelity.

He thinks the future is even more promising when you consider the potential of emerging technologies like gesture control, voice commands, persistent networks, cloud computing, augmented reality, and the sale of virtual goods. As we start to tap the potential of these technologies, Sweeney believes the platforms will start to consolidate.

“Only question is whether a game runs in your living room or in a server,” he said. “It’s not going to change everything but it will make things more convenient for gamers.... Our industry's brightest days are yet to come."

Sweeney will be inducted into the AIAS Hall of Fame tonight at the 15th Annual Interactive Achievement Awards hosted by Jay Mohr.
 

Juicy Bob

Member
Do we really want reality-level graphical quality though? I look at some of the models we have with current hardware and some renders I've seen are realistic to a scary level.
 

mocoworm

Member
Do we really want reality-level graphical quality though? I look at some of the models we have with current hardware and some renders I've seen are realistic to a scary level.

Depends what for. Games maybe not, but what about simulators ? Visit other places from your living room and interact ? Training devices etc.
 

Cartman86

Banned
No doubt a smart guy but predictions like this are often wrong. I buy that in our lifetime we will see this, but 20 years? In film I guess but video games? Maybe onlive will create this reality. Usually these changes are unforeseeable.
 

Corky

Nine out of ten orphans can't tell the difference.
Well considering where we were say 20 years ago I'd be hard pressed not to agree with him.
 

Truant

Member
I want to know the budget required for such high fidelity visuals.

I think we'll reach a point where developers don't have to reinvent the wheel for each game, in terms of graphics. There has to be easier and more efficient ways to create uberHD content in the future.
 

Sardello

Member
How old is He?

Thinking about my lifestyle I have to check if I could see this gloriousness (you know... beer, rock&roll, pastasciutta)
 

squidyj

Member
I want to know the budget required for such high fidelity visuals.

Hard to say, depends on the tools available to make them.

I suspect that beyond a certain point the cost in man-hours and dollars of creating any amount of 'art' in a game (models, animations, textures) will only ever decrease, either shrinking budgets or increasing the number of such resources created at the same budget. I don't think this point is very far away either. Already we see serious inroads into abstracting artists from the hardware these games will run on, virtual texturing, tesselation, voxels even, all have the potential to provide automatic LoD without having to optimize on the art end. Likewise pushing the complexity of real-time lighting increases the ease with which artists and designers can play with the lighting and setup of any level, if everything is being rendered in real-time there's no need to wait for some expensive map to bake in when you move a chair, or a toothbrush, or change the orientation of a lamp. Similarly we see a lot of WYSIWYP type stuff going on today.
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
Yeah, looking 20 years down the tracks, you'll see big improvements and advances on the content creation and production side too presumably.

Anyway, I'm glad people are still dreaming big :)

8K as 'the max limit' for him is interesting too.
 
Do we really want reality-level graphical quality though? I look at some of the models we have with current hardware and some renders I've seen are realistic to a scary level.

Yes, yes we do. But. This quality should be implemented meaningful.

I don't want to see a presentation in which I have to hear and see: "The detail level is phenomenal. We can can gouge out this characters eyes, with realtime simulated blood particles effects interacting with the characters hunderds of fine eyebrow hair!" "Ohhhhhhhhhhhh.... " "And even skinparticles sticking on to the pick-axe" "Ahhhhhhhh...."
 

Toppot

Member
We already have lifelike graphics /matrix


I think we will get lifelike graphics in our time, but games with the budgets to do it will be few and far between. The extra resources required to do it will be very costly, and need a lot of grunt to do it.

But we will get lifelike films first, which will be very interesting, films will be able to realistically feature actors that are dead etc.
 

Coolwhip

Banned
If that happens it will become even more obvious that game designers are not good at creating movie like experiences.
 

DieH@rd

Banned
Exactly 20 years ago we saw the release of following video games:

Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss [the first ever first-person 3D role-playing video game]
Wolfenstein 3D [first FPS]
Ecco the Dolphin
Mortal Kombat [in arcades]
Sonic the Hedgehog 2
Flashback


So, lifelike graphics in 20 years.... why not.
 
Then don't play FPS. Sorted!

Me? I want to see the life drain out of enemies as I fill them with bullets in Crysis 5.

How do we know our brains are equipped to handle the distinction between killing a real person and killing a virtual one if they both look and behave in the same exact manner? Do you want to run the risk of getting PTSD from a video game?
 

blu

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Strongly disagree with him on his '2000x' estimate:

A path-tracer running on todays's top-of-the-crop GPUs takes anything between 5-10 sec for a decent shading of a confined 'naturemort' scene in moderate resolution (512x512).

Scale that to 8000x4000@72, and you end up with a whooping ~90,000 performance factor to achieve it. For a simple naturemort.
 
How do we know our brains are equipped to handle the distinction between killing a real person and killing a virtual one if they both look and behave in the same exact manner? Do you want to run the risk of getting PTSD from a video game?

If people can see war movies and horror movies with getting PTSD then im pretty sure they can handle a game.
 

Jibbed

Member
If people can see war movies and horror movies with getting PTSD then im pretty sure they can handle a game.

I'd say we've already passed the point where you could say (cinematic) games and films essentially provide the same experience.

Having a first-person perspective, tied with complete character control AND realistic graphics is another thing entirely.

Edit: I'd say the only real barrier between games and (essentially) reality, once the graphics are there, will be the means on control.
 
If people can see war movies and horror movies with getting PTSD then im pretty sure they can handle a game.

Don't pretend like there isn't a difference between passively watching a character completely separate from yourself and your identity commit an action and you deciding to and carrying out the act of killing what is indistinguishable from a real human being. And don't think the medium in which the killing is carried out makes a difference. Drone operators half-way around the world get PTSD from pressing buttons to launch rockets at their targets.
 

luffeN

Member
I don't really want lifelike graphics, but I want "perfect" IQ in fantasy settings and stuff. marvelous AA, high-res everything, ownage animations etc. ^^
 
Edit: I'd say the only real barrier between games and (essentially) reality, once the graphics are there, will be the means on control.

And as I said a few posts up, even in real life the means of control don't matter in having a serious, damaging psychological effect.
 

lordmrw

Member
Unless we start to get lifelike animation or at least something better than the shit we get now than it's pointless.
 

EatChildren

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Raw graphical processing, as in geometry and texture detail with a boat load of shaders and post processing, simulating a convincing realistic image? Yeah, I can see it.

But it's the dynamics that will be required to bridge the uncanny valley. I'm not so much worried about the above, but instead how lively, life like and convincing the way game environments react to interaction. Same goes for animation.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I could see us creating life like images that have a tendency to fall apart in motion (as in, when interacting with them). I'd love to be wrong though.
 
And as I said a few posts up, even in real life the means of control don't matter in having a serious, damaging psychological effect.

if people already have problems segmenting a game world with the real world. Then them playing a game is a problem. It shouldn't change the normal person that can segment between the two experience. And a big chance that person who can't is already a social outcast or a strange person to be with.
 

BigTnaples

Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
This is kind of common sense I would think.

At the rate tech is evolving(exponentially) , in all fields we will see some pretty amazing stuff in our lifetimes.

Medicine, Robotics, Military, Transportation, Home Living, Computers, etc etc.

These things will all be near unrecognizable from what we have now by the end of our lifetimes.

We are on the brink now, where cloud computing, super computers, and just the raw spread of information and ideas is incredibly fast. Almost so much so it is impossible to keep up with the news of all the breakthroughs.

When we had games like this in 2007, I would think it would be kind of a "No s***" statement.

file.php

IMG_0026.jpg


Not to mention real time tech demos that look like this now.
skin_rendering_sssss_disabled.jpg

18a.jpg

18e.jpg
 
We can already render a realistic scene. It's the animation and movement where everything falls down. So screenshots are pointless.

All videogame animation is janky shit. Even Uncharted's.
 
Top Bottom