Photorealistic graphics on PC

D

DennisK4

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
361
So with the new game ArmA 2 we have taken another step towards photorealism in PC gaming. When the game is rendered with 200 % fillrate (renders at twice your monitors resolution and then downsamples). Now that is not quite playable for me (4870x2), the framerate hit is just too great, but with the next generation of cards from nVidia and ATI this year it may very well be playable.

So being this close to photorealism already, how long do you guys think it will be ? 2-3 years ? 5 ? and will it not be anytime soon ?

For those curious to see the game in motion here are two videos. Watch them in HD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy_osU-eA8s&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRg-TmRr2-g&feature=fvw
 
Last edited:
ARMA2's big bonus is that it allows for a realistic terrain layout. Most games don't do that because they want to guide you in the direction of the story line, so while elements of the game may look good or better than ARMA2, they look no where near as convincing as ARMA2, just because real life isn't a linear path with a skybox.
 
The environments are actually pretty impressive looking, but frankly the people look terrible. I'm not even watching them move and they have that claymation thing going on that plagued the early "next-gen" games like Doom 3, EQ2, etc.
 
I honestly hope we can get to photorealistic graphics in gaming as soon as possible, then the industry can crash the shit out of itself and devs can work that really matters.
 
not until realtime raytracing becomes possible IMHO.

You can 'fake' effects farily decent these days, but until they actually start calculating 'light physics' on the fly, it will always look a bit off
 
Falling Anvil said:
I honestly hope we can get to photorealistic graphics in gaming as soon as possible, then the industry can crash the shit out of itself and devs can work that really matters.
Click to expand...

Why would you assume that photorealistic graphics equals bad gameplay ?

Stalker, Crysis and ArmA 2 are great games.
 
I don't see photorealistic graphics becoming the norm any time soon. 5-10 at the least. The general populace doesn't have the hardware to run the games thus game developers aren't pushing for it. Its going to take a really huge push in PC graphics efficiency/cost to bring photorealism into the mainstream.

Arma II is a step in the right direction though. Its the best looking game I've seen since Stalker.
 
What game developers need to do instead of worrying about photorealistic graphics is how they can get good graphics to run better on more machines. I think that might even back PC gaming to a wider audience.

I don't know if any of you know or remember, but I remember downloading a game a while ago that was entered into a contest which the contest's main idea was "the smallest size game." The game itself was not even a megabyte or even half of one and it was a first person shooter. It had good lighting, and realistic shadowing of the environment. It was a little bit like Metroid where you were shooting brightly colored plasma bursts at aliens or something like that. This game won that contest b/c the file size was so small and the graphics were that good.

That's what game developers need to do is make nice looking games which take up less disc space and perform well on a wide range of computers but can still look good. I mean, games like UT2K4 are almost a 9gb install and others... it's ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
zamardii said:
What game developer need to do instead of worrying about photorealistic graphics is how they can get good graphcs to run better on machine.

I don't know if any of you know or remember, but I remember downloading a game a while ago that was entered into a contest which the contest's main idea was "the smallest size game." The game itself was not even a megabyte or even half of one and it was a first person shooter. It had good lighting, and realistic shadowing of the environment. It was a little bit like Metroid where you were shooting brightly colored plasma bursts at aliens or something like that. This game won that contest b/c the file size was so small and the graphics were that good.

That's what game developers need to do is make nice looking games which take up less disc space and perform well on a wide range of computers but can still look good. I mean, games like UT2K4 are almost a 9gb install and others... it's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Sure they can work on better performance, but clearly the graphics keeps getting better, so what I am wondering is how long before we reach something close to playable photorealism ?

Or do you think that progress in visual fidelity will slow down and that the extra power new cards will bring goes to improve performance ?
 
DennisK4 said:
being this close to photorealism already
Click to expand...

Depends how close you think that is. The bits that look photoreal do so mostly because they're essentially derived from photographs (ground textures, building textures, sky textures). The trees aren't convincing, neither's the grass, and (close up at least) the characters are nowhere near. That's not a criticism of the game, which basically looks great, but we all know that in 5 years this will look very primitive and you'll wonder how you ever thought it looked at all realistic.
 
zamardii said:
What game developer need to do instead of worrying about photorealistic graphics is how they can get good graphcs to run better on machine.

I don't know if any of you know or remember, but I remember downloading a game a while ago that was entered into a contest which the contest's main idea was "the smallest size game." The game itself was not even a megabyte or even half of one and it was a first person shooter. It had good lighting, and realistic shadowing of the environment. It was a little bit like Metroid where you were shooting brightly colored plasma bursts at aliens or something like that. This game won that contest b/c the file size was so small and the graphics were that good.

That's what game developers need to do is make nice looking games which take up less disc space and perform well on a wide range of computers but can still look good. I mean, games like UT2K4 are almost a 9gb install and others... it's ridiculous.
Click to expand...


that is entirely possible using procedural textures/sounds/levels/etc. The only problem is making it look "good" without the help of an artist since it will be 100% based on some algorithm

Most of the time it doesnt look and/or sound all that great. I do remember the game you're talking about... it was like 80k or so
 
We will see better graphics on PC games when the new consoles release, that's how it's been for over a decade.
 
Litfod said:
Depends how close you think that is. The bits that look photoreal do so mostly because they're essentially derived from photographs (ground textures, building textures, sky textures). The trees aren't convincing, neither's the grass, and (close up at least) the characters are nowhere near. That's not a criticism of the game, which basically looks great, but we all know that in 5 years this will look very primitive and you'll wonder how you ever thought it looked at all realistic.
Click to expand...

I actually that it is pretty close, not in the sense that I would mistake the game for a movie when I play it, but in the sense that the graphics are now becoming so good that it strongly enhances immersion in the game. I feel this way about modded Stalker, Crysis and ArmA 2, and now find it hard to play other shooters that are graphically inferior.
I played BioShock at 2560x1600 all settings max, and while the gameplay and atmosphere is great the ugly low res textures in that game really bothered me to the point of distraction.
I didn't play Oblivion until Quarls fantastic high res texture mod was released.
 
DennisK4 said:
Sure they can work on better performance, but clearly the graphics keeps getting better, so what I am wondering is how long before we reach something close to playable photorealism ?

Or do you think that progress in visual fidelity will slow down and that the extra power new cards will bring goes to improve performance ?
Click to expand...

Obviously games will always improve and look better, but I honestly think that developers need to, or with the success of consoles, start to think of new ways to make good looking games that run and look great on a wide scale of PCs. I mean, with the advent of $500+ videocards and SLI and Crossfire... your average person will not spend $500 on just the videocard to get the best performance. And that is why I think developers should start looking in different directions. A perfect example of this (and I have no idea how this was possible) would be Crysis and Crysis Warhead. When I play Crysis I can not play with the highest quality settings at all b/c the game becomes unplayable. However, I can play Crysis: Warhead at highest settings and it is playable and still looks better than Crysis on it's settings. Same engine, same game (basically) but performs better and all it took was a little extra time from the release of Crysis to Warhead to make the game that much more playable.

But, we also have to remember what makes a game a game. It's fantasy and I like the fantasy aspect of it. Like when I am playing Mirror's Edge... even though the graphics look really impressive at the highest settings I still know it's a fantasy world and like that aspect of it b/c it doesn't conflict with reality. But when you get into photorealism it will start blurring that line and me personally growing up in the 8bit days, I like knowing i'm playing a game. Graphics are nice, but on PC games that is the one thing you CAN NOT keep up with unless you have lots of money to upgrade your system every year and I am diffidently not one of those people.

I don't want to start a PC vs. console war here b/c i'm only using this as an example... And optimization is the keystone to console game development b/c the hardware never changes throughout the console's lifetime. The developer has to look at new ways to have the game look as good as possible but still be playable with minimal hiccups. I remember before the PS3 was announced I still had a PS2 and the games always looked incrementally better in small ways and then for the longest time I stopped buying games for the PS2 until a game came along which totally surprised me. It was called Shadow of the Colossus. the game had really impressive graphics and enough to convince me of the world this was set it, totally original idea, and was incredibly fun and challenging at times but not too challenging as to be frustrating.

And that game was released 5 years and 2 days after the PS2 launched and it was the best looking game i've seen on it. In contrast I remember when the 6800 line of videocards came out almost along with Doom 3 (which is why I upgraded) and nobody was able to play the game on Ultra Settings b/c the game needed 512 mb of memory and the 6800s only had 256mb and the card still cost me like $560... so you see I think it's incredibly important to focus more on optimization than graphics. I mean, can you play today's games with a 5 year old videocard? No way... We can't upgrade so much, and a good game will not have to rely on it's graphics to sell it. I always liked knowing i'm playing a GAME and being in that fantasy world with the character but I think the more realistic the game becomes it will just blur that line and not be as fun.

That's just my 2 cents...
 
Photorealistic graphics have a place, but I prefer games with unique style. To this day, XIII was one of my favorite games. It was not because it was such a great game, or even because it was cel-shaded. There are lots of cel-shaded games out there. XIII had its own style.
 
zamardii said:
Obviously games will always improve .... *snip* That's just my 2 cents...
Click to expand...

Great post. I agree with a lot of what you wrote.
Yes, smart developers will seek to make their games playable on a wide range of machines, and for a lot of games I don't actually find graphics to be that important. I love stategy games like Civ 4 and Hearts of Iron, and I don't care about the graphics in these kind of games at all.
But for fps type games I am a total graphics whore.
And I would love to play a Elder Scrolls V game with more realistic, gritty graphics rather than the brightly colored fairy land of the previous game.
But I am totally up for unique looking games. The Last Guardian (Trico) for PS3 looks to be fantastic.
 
I honestly do not care about graphics at all. My favorite games have never been ones that are realistic looking.

I know I'm a minority though.
 
tuaarita said:
We will see better graphics on PC games when the new consoles release, that's how it's been for over a decade.
Click to expand...

Consoles with significantly better graphics may not come out anytime soon, but we are getting new cards for the PC and as my pics show, the graphics keep getting better on PC
 
DennisK4 said:
And I would love to play a Elder Scrolls V game with more realistic, gritty graphics rather than the brightly colored fairy land of the previous game..
Click to expand...

There is a texture pack somewhere, just search the forums for Oblivion texture mod and I'd bet it'll pop up. I haven't played with it, but the screen shots do look phenomenal.
 
tuaarita said:
We will see better graphics on PC games when the new consoles release, that's how it's been for over a decade.
Click to expand...

Realy??What console launched when Crysis came out?Oh..which console launched when Crysis Warhead came out..Oh yeah,I forgot which console launched when Far Cry2 came out..While consoles are stuck on UE3,PC graphics keep evolving..Id love to see your reaction to Crysis 2 on a console..:D
 
g1xx3r said:
Realy??What console launched when Crysis came out?Oh..which console launched when Crysis Warhead came out..Oh yeah,I forgot which console launched when Far Cry2 came out..While consoles are stuck on UE3,PC graphics keep evolving..Id love to see your reaction to Crysis 2 on a console..:D
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Can't think of anything else than Crysis and Crysis Warhead? Far Cry 2 looked like crap, please.

Let me rephrase:

New consoles *generally* push the graphics bar higher.
 
tuaarita said:
:rolleyes: Can't think of anything else than Crysis and Crysis Warhead? Far Cry 2 looked like crap, please.

Let me rephrase:

New consoles *generally* push the graphics bar higher.
Click to expand...

Right...Low res textures and low resolutions...Groundbreaking stuff there..:rolleyes:..Oh look.I can use the rolleyes emoticon also..:rolleyes:
 
Ah, I see there's no point arguing here. You obviously came here to pick a fight, but I'm not giving it to you.
 
Kinda surprised my enthusiasm for photorealistic graphics isn't shared by more people here on [H]ardForum given that its all about new graphic cards, tech and stuff.
 
Well, the main thing is if you think that looks real, you need to go out more.

1103627962te6.jpg


Now this looks real :)
 
While it looks very nice in many way, I'd estimate it's going to be at least 7 years before games start looking photorealistic.
 
TheBuzzer said:
Well, the main thing is if you think that looks real, you need to go out more.

*snip HL3 photo*

Now this looks real :)
Click to expand...

psssh, the textures are low res and the bloom is over-saturated. needs AA too.
 
I'm more for a large complex environment with number of complex interactable objects and NPCs with advanced AI seamlessly loading, instead of a "photo realistic" hallway with two boxes, one braindead NPC, and a soda can to kick around.
 
ynnek888 said:
I'm more for a large complex environment with number of complex interactable objects and NPCs with advanced AI seamlessly loading, instead of a "photo realistic" hallway with two boxes, one braindead NPC, and a soda can to kick around.
Click to expand...

when HL2 was released i wasted a lot of time running around throwing pop cans and bottles at people. man that was fun.
 
ynnek888 said:
I'm more for a large complex environment with number of complex interactable objects and NPCs with advanced AI seamlessly loading, instead of a "photo realistic" hallway with two boxes, one braindead NPC, and a soda can to kick around.
Click to expand...

I would say that Arma 2 is a large complex environment with number of complex interactable objects and NPCs with advanced AI seamlessly loading. Also, its being called photorealistic so I don't think we have to take one or the other.
 
DennisK4 said:
And I would love to play a Elder Scrolls V game with more realistic, gritty graphics rather than the brightly colored fairy land of the previous game.
But I am totally up for unique looking games. The Last Guardian (Trico) for PS3 looks to be fantastic.
Click to expand...

So basically you want Morrowind? :D

I still maintain that Morrowind is a better game in pretty much every way than oblivion, and this is one of the reasons. Now of course the graphics in Morrowind are absolutely, positively not photorealistic in any way at all, but it has that special kind of style that makes it memorable.
 
zamardii said:
What game developers need to do instead of worrying about photorealistic graphics is how they can get good graphics to run better on more machines. I think that might even back PC gaming to a wider audience.
Click to expand...

Would be true if you were thinking in terms of a console. The $100 9600 is considered a mid range card, but in fact it's more of the equivalent of a 7800SLI. As technology progresses prices go down. It's only a matter of time before we get a $100 card that's the equivalent of a SLI'ed 280.
 
tuaarita said:
New consoles *generally* push the graphics bar higher.
Click to expand...
No. The reason it seemed that way this gen was that the 360 was released with a triple core processor at a time when most people (even most gamers) still were on a single core processor (a P4 or an A64), as multicore processor's in PCs were not mainstream yet. This with a combination of the CPU being the bottleneck in many games at the time made it seem like the 360 was pushing the bar graphics wise when it really wasn't - it just had a relatively powerful triple core processor which Microsoft could afford to sell at a loss. Developers were saying how great it was to be able to have 3 effective processors to work with.

Unlike Microsoft and Sony, Intel and AMD can't sell their hardware at a loss. Nowadays its different, the average PC gamer has 2-4 cores, and by the time the next gen of consoles hit the average PC gamer will probably have 8 cores and 16 threads with hyperthreading.

Processor Architects nowadays are no longer wondering if they should go with the "single core as high Ghz as possible" or "multiple cores sharing the load" route as they were deciding on back in 2003. When the next batch of consoles get released they most likely won't have anything on PC Hardware available at the time. Hell there's even some predicting that microsoft and sony will go the Nintendo route, and their next batch of consoles will be very similar specific wise to their current gen, as selling at a loss has become risky with the high level of competition nowadays.
 
Holy crap those almost look like photographs.. I'm curious about benchmarks for that game now.

Elder Scrolls V would be awesome.. Oblivion is my all time favorite.
 
angelicvoices said:
Holy crap those almost look like photographs.. I'm curious about benchmarks for that game now.

Elder Scrolls V would be awesome.. Oblivion is my all time favorite.
Click to expand...

Yep, I think they look pretty close to photographs too, thats why I thought discussing this subject would be interesting.
The screenshots are taken with 200% fillrate which is not quite playble (less than 10 fps) with current cards, but soon...
And yes an Oblivion-style game with scenery like that would be :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top