Support NeoGAF

[JesseZao]

Uncanny valley will always exist imo. We're just approaching a limit.

 

[KevinCow]

davepoobond nails it.

30 years ago, the lightcycle race in Tron was considered cutting edge.
10 years after that, we got Jurassic Park.
10 years after that, we got the Lord of the Rings movies, notably Gollum.
10 years after that - today - we're getting stuff like Avatar.

We've made huge strides in a relatively short time. Do you really think they won't eventually figure out a way to fix the remaining quirks that give CGI that "CGI look"?

 

[Lance Bone Path]

You could make a game "real" by sufficiently limiting the interface.

For instance, you could make a hacker game where you wake up locked up in an air-tight room with a terminal on an isolated network where you can only interact with unix like command prompt windows and simulated web browsers. You have to hack into the system before you suffocate.

 

[TheVampire]

I can see it now:

MANHUNT 5 with ultra life like graphics

Tasty.

 

[RevDM]

You could make a game "real" by sufficiently limiting the interface.

For instance, you could make a hacker game where you wake up locked up in an air-tight room with a terminal on an isolated network where you can only interact with unix like command prompt windows and simulated web browsers. You have to hack into the system before you suffocate.

...not sure if serious.

 

[UrbanRats]

Has no one posted that Meet Emily Image Metrics tech demo yet?

There.

 

[Log4Girlz]

how could both of us ever know ? its just my guess.

Sure, you can program tree leaves to move in a certain way, but would it look as random as the real thing ? Could you be fooled by it ?

Ive never been fooled by CGI, and i dont think its because the current state of computer generated images.

Reality is a static target, technology evolves at a rapid pace. Its inevitable.

 

[GameplayWhore]

http://hight3ch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/real-life-pac-man.jpg

I'm going to have nightmares about that.

 

[Mungular]

yeah they will theyre getting damn close as it is. just a couple more years

 

[DimmuBurgerKing]

Would rather have vibrant, colorful, living cartoons - but yes, eventually we will get there.

 

[Smeghead]

I'd rather see dynamic animations (basically a more realistic euphoria engine) rather than photo realistic graphics, but i guess that sort of comes with it.

 

[beelzebozo]

mario galaxy looks better than my real life

 

[Plumbob]

Which one is the real one?

 

[EternalGamer]

Videogames are nowhere close to what movies like Avatar or Pirates are doing. And, as others point out, I doubt it will happen any time soon due to budgets.

But I also think the fact that cameras are player directed in most videogames. It is easier to make films that look that way using artificial technology (like CG) when you have complete control over viewing angles and dynamic shots.

I mean, if you made a film out of REAL ACTORS where the camera was set about 20 feet back so they took up only 1/3rd of the screen like little dolls and made the camera spin the way it does in most videogames, I would think most films wouldn't "look real" either.

 

[Krev]

That's an interesting thought, because I've found myself a bit disturbed by the blood and violence in Bad Company 2. The game's graphics are really good and one of the most photorealistic we have at the moment... If games keep heading in this direction I may have to stop playing shooters. There's definitely a big difference between truly realistic violence and gore, and violence and gore as represented in most games so far. If the violence in games keeps getting closer to real life violence, I wonder how people will interpret it. It's an interesting problem.

Hopefully we'll see much more development of non-combat focused game gameplay in high-end titles.

Movies are photorealistic. Is it so horrible watching Rambo gun down a bunch of dudes?

There are some movies that use extreme violence to make the viewer feel squeamish. There are other movies where the hero kills dozens upon dozens of people, and despite those people being played by real actors, the viewer doesn't sit back and think, "Oh no, I can't believe he's killing all those people!"

If movies can do it with real actors, photorealistic video games could surely do it just fine. This is a non-issue.

The interactivity of games changes the deal considerably. It's one thing to watch someone else kill or even take pleasure from that, it's another to (virtually) do it yourself.
The thing is, mainstream cinema shies away from violence. Blockbusters cut away from depicting realistic wounds, or take place in an alternate universe where no one bleeds.
If graphics advance to the level that virtual humans become convincing to the average person, while games grow increasingly mainstream, then either shooters are going to lose their industry dominance or the level of violence they contain will toned down dramatically.

I mean, if you made a film out of REAL ACTORS where the camera was set about 20 feet back so they took up only 1/3rd of the screen like little dolls and made the camera spin the way it does in most videogames, I would think most films wouldn't "look real" either.

If you shot that material with standard film cameras, it wouldn't look less real than any other movie.

I do agree with what you say about the fixed camera making it easier for animators to create realistic looking CG, though.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

I would say no. It's like those robots/humaoids, the more details it get the more flaws we see. I think there's a word that summarize this, don't remember it.
So sure, CG and video game will improve and reach a new steps to the "real life looking" but there will always be something that will allow us distinguish it from the real.

Bah, we've had plenty of visual effects CG that most people couldn't distinguish from practical effects, i.e. the Iron Man suits. As mentioned earlier, at one point Favreau was giving comments on a IM1 shot on what he thought didn't look right, not realizing he was looking at a shot with the practical suit.

As another example, there's also plenty of digital set extensions in tons of movies and even television series that people don't realize are CG sets.

The illusion is broken a bit when he talks. I don't think it's the best we've seen.

Our facial animation pipeline has improved since then.

 

[fernoca]

Which one is the real one?

Both. Is not like one's Armie Hammer and the other is a CG render.
Josh Pence, who was the body double of Armie Hammer had to stand around, wearing clothes and act next to Armie Hammer. They later put his face on top of Josh's body.

For other scenes they did it the "classic way" of split-screen (i.e. filming Armie Hammer alone in one position, then filming him again in the other position with other clothes/hairdo, then mixing both scenes).

(Quick-dirty example I just made..using the same actors)

Original - 'shopped

Then, it's just a matter of having one wear boots to be taller or other camera tricks to adjust the height so both are similar.

 

[Mister Wilhelm]

The Resident Evil remake is still the most "real" looking game ever made.

 

[I NEED SCISSORS]

It never will apart from a select few genres such as racing games.

Games will probably look about as detailed as real life in still shots, but it's near impossible to make it animate realistically and dynamically. A lot of games which look very good break any semblance of reality when they start to move, because there is still a certain level of jankiness to the animation. Even LA Noire, the new standard in animation, still looks like a game.

I say racing games will be one of the few to achieve total realism because it's easier to emulate the animation of a car than it is a human.

 

[fernoca]

Another thing to keep in mind, is that in movies they can afford to put tons of details as seen on Pirates of the Caribbean and Avatar (and many other movies); but for those scenes they some haves dozens, even hundreds of computers just rendering that one scene; then that scene is saved as a movie. Is not like the forests of Pandora in Avatar were rendered by computers in realtime as you were in the movie theater.

For games they have to think of many other attributes and do them in realtime; while you have someone pressing buttons and moving the camera around just to see the panties of the female character in there.

 

[ReyVGM]

I don't know why people insist on games looking like real life.

Even if the graphics are photo realistic, then you would need 100% real life physics to go along with it, which is kinda hard to get perfectly.

And even if that's all perfect, you would still need humans to act and look 100% natural, or else, you'll enter the Uncanny Valley and all it takes is just a weird arm move to plunge right into it.

 

[KevinCow]

Another thing to keep in mind, is that in movies they can afford to put tons of details as seen on Pirates of the Caribbean and Avatar (and many other movies); but for those scenes they some haves dozens, even hundreds of computers just rendering that one scene; then that scene is saved as a movie. Is not like the forests of Pandora in Avatar were rendered by computers in realtime as you were in the movie theater.

And it took several computers several days to render the lightcycle race in Tron.

I don't understand the point here. Computers get better. Some of the stuff we're rendering in real time today was unfathomable to pre-render 20 years ago.

 

[Wray]

By 2050 we'll have completely life like full VR. So to answer your question...yes.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Not completely no.

As long as the end result is based on an artists interpretation. Until you can scan the real world and the people in it leaving nothing to artistic expression you'll never have a videogame that looks "real".

You'll only have an artists interpretation.

 

[ArachosiA 78]

It's inevitable, but I believe it's still going to be a very. very long time before we get graphics that are so realistic that you can't distinguish them from reality.

If you consider 1 single frame of Avatar takes, like, 50 hours to render...and that's using some of the most advanced computers in the world... we're still a LONG ways off from being able to do something of that caliber in realtime.

 

[Azure J]

I think the better question is why? Like, I understand that in some people's minds, there's a sort of entertainment value to be found in seeing truly lifelike things and rendered imagery in video games but at the same time, what is there to gain from emulating absolute realism when reality is already all around us?

Also, I might be biased as my personal holy grail for game style directions moving forward are things with more toonish/Pixar/Jet Set Radio/Windwaker/Okami/Borderlands/PoP2008 slants.

 

[ColonialRaptor]

I don't know why people insist on games looking like real life.

Even if the graphics are photo realistic, then you would need 100% real life physics to go along with it, which is kinda hard to get perfectly.

And even if that's all perfect, you would still need humans to act and look 100% natural, or else, you'll enter the Uncanny Valley and all it takes is just a weird arm move to plunge right into it.

They don't even have a 100% grasp on real life physics in science as it is... so simulating it might be hard.

Albiet, the stuff they don't have a grasp of isn't really at the same level as what I'm talking about - but they still don't know how to define gravity properly.

I agree that there are circumstances when "real life" is warranted, but there is also circumstances when absolutely not real life is also warranted. Depends on the game.

 

[MrBelmontvedere]

Will video games ever look like real life?

not if GAF has it's way

 

[RevDM]

They don't even have a 100% grasp on real life physics in science as it is... so simulating it might be hard.

Albiet, the stuff they don't have a grasp of isn't really at the same level as what I'm talking about - but they still don't know how to define gravity properly.

I agree that there are circumstances when "real life" is warranted, but there is also circumstances when absolutely not real life is also warranted. Depends on the game.

I can assure you, "they" can properly define gravity.

 

[SpartanDL]

I'm going to stick with no. If they get too realistic people will attack it for being to violent and plus thats part of the fun of video games.

It's like cartoons. Looney Tunes would be no where as funny if they were people in costumes.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

but for those scenes they some haves dozens, even hundreds of computers just rendering that one scene

Waaay too low. We have individual workstations from HP, most artists and engineers here are running CentOS. They all have multiple CPU cores, all have high-end Quadro cards, and have anywhere from 16-48 gigs of memory.

On the renderfarm side, we currently have about 8500 total CPU cores across both the farm and individual workstations (spare cores can get added to the pool). Server blades have several multi-core CPUs on them, and up to 32 GB of memory on each blade. For renders that can take advantage of GPUs, spare ones available in the facility also get thrown into the render pool.

Storage wise, for production storage and rendering alone is about 3/4ths a petabyte (786,432 gigabytes) for all the projects in-house. A single project can be up to 350 terabytes (about 358,400 gigs) of space (Rango hit about that much, Trans2 was around 145 terabytes in comparison). Bandwidth-wise, we have 10 gig ports from the datacenter to the distribution closets, and from there 1 gig ports to each individual workstation.

Our heaviest shots can take 72 hours to render a frame.

Back in the Toy Story days of 15+ years ago, on their renderfarm back then they averaged an hour a frame. Their renderfarm back then was about 300 SPARCstation processor cores (clocked at around 100 MHz). They averaged about 96 MB RAM per core, and used around 5 gigs of hard drive space.

When they re-rendered it a few years ago for the 3D theatrical re-release and to get ready for Blu-ray, it only took 1/24th of a second per frame for rendering on their modern renderfarm.

 

[Yoshichan]

The Resident Evil remake is still the most "real" looking game ever made.

Yep.

 

[Dynamite Ringo Matsuri]

I hope not. I think if it gets to look too much like the real thing then it just gets fucking creepy.

Precisely. I've always wondered about this in regards to videogame violence. For now, it's okay to shoot, dismember and maim people because they look like puppets. But once they look like your brother, or your sister or neighbor? And animation and damage models will have to evolve too, so if the characters move realistically and have realistic gore? Count me the fuck out.

 

[MisterAnderson]

Lol at people hating on Avatar CGI.

 

[Rodney McKay]

When they re-rendered it a few years ago for the 3D theatrical re-release and to get ready for Blu-ray, it only took 1/24th of a second per frame for rendering on their modern renderfarm.

God I fucking love technology! ...Except for when I buy it and it's cheaper/better/faster in a months time.

 

[miksar]

Realistic graphics are only needed in simulators. Other than that games should just become prettier. Reality is not always pretty.

 

[Master Milk]

*wow*

So basically, if someone ever makes a CG DOA movie, we'll want them to have a set up like this.

Realism will come, I just hope it comes faster. Realism in fighters is fun.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

God I fucking love technology! ...Except for when I buy it and it's cheaper/better/faster in a months time.

Well, also keep in mind that their current renderfarm also has thousands of processor cores to use. I'm sure a single workstation can likely do some real-time preview renders fine even for that level of complexity, but I'm not sure if it'll be at a fully interactive framerate.

 

[civilstrife]

Back in the Toy Story days of 15+ years ago, on their renderfarm back then they averaged an hour a frame. Their renderfarm back then was about 300 SPARCstation processor cores (clocked at around 100 MHz). They averaged about 96 MB RAM per core, and used around 5 gigs of hard drive space.

When they re-rendered it a few years ago for the 3D theatrical re-release and to get ready for Blu-ray, it only took 1/24th of a second per frame for rendering on their modern renderfarm.

So basically, that renderfarm can actually run the original toy story in realtime.

 

[apana]

No

 

[MikeE21286]

There.

Wow. I didn't understand what the hell happened until I read the comments

 

[abstract alien]

In picture quality? Sure, that will be the easy part. Actually resembling reality during gameplay? We are a LONG way from this due to one thing in particular: movement.

 

[Houston3000]

I look at that and wonder why the CG for Flynn/CLU in the new Tron movie was so bad. Certainly they could have done it a little better. It was barely believable.

Davie Jones from PotC and Navi from Avatar aren't human. We see very little inconsistencies because we're not really associating it with something we see in real life every single day constantly. Our eyes and brains are amazingly tuned to the human face, especially the movement of muscles in the mouth and eyes since we stare at those all the time.

I don't think there's any movie with a 100% CG photo-realistic human face. The only way they can do that really well is by motion capturing a human face and mapping that face to a 3D model - then using that mocap data on said 3D model. At that point though, it's literally 100x easier to just record the person's face with a real camera.

 

[bgassassin]

I would like to see a game at least on the level of Beowulf.

 

[Krev]

I don't think there's any movie with a 100% CG photo-realistic human face.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button comes close. I was fooled.

 

[Sinoox]

There will obviously be a point where its possible to make them look like reality, but I think developers are going to pursue realism as much as they are now- which they aren't.

Games are supposed to be fun, I don't expect FPS to become realistic because at that point it becomes disturbing or just plain boring.

 

[forest]

*EVERYTHING BELOW IS IN GAME

 

[Setvan2734]

The Third & The Seventh

http://vimeo.com/7809605

 

[GCX]

You'd get nightmares for the rest of your life if you played a 100% realistic fps game.

 

[conman]

Games won't have to look like real life. They only have to seem better than real life.

Once designers have accomplished that (*cough* WoW *cough*), they'll never need to worry about any stupid "uncanny valley." Instead, real life will start to look "uncanny" to us, and games will be the standard for realism. Life will just be a poor reflection of digital reality.