News Epic: Photorealistic games in ten years

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2009/05/26/epic-photorealistic-games-in-five-years/1

Epic's Tim Sweeney reckons that photorealistic games aren't far off and that the tech may be ready within the next ten years.

 

Do we actually want photorealistic games? I remember to good old laser disc arcade systems back in the days it was fun while it lasted. Better graphics and AI ok, but real life looking is a whole other gameplay.

 

While I think it would be awesome to have photorealistic games, i would rather have an A.I. that is more powerful and more innovative and make it as if you were playing a human.

 

I don't think so actually. I reckon graphics are slowing down massively. Take some of these examples. Starting with Doom (1993) and using the FPS/FPSRPG genres as the pinacle of graphics, and going in three year jumps, lets have a look at how graphics have moved:

1993:


1996:


1999:


2002:


2005:


2008:



To be honest, since 2002, games have looked pretty damn good, and ever since then all we've really managed to do is increase the pretty post-processing effects and increasing texture size. We're still churning polygons in the same way Quake did all those years ago. I mean, given the best looking game out right now came out a year and a half ago, it's not exactly like graphics are thundering along at a blistering pace now are they? I think the hay-day of every game breaking new graphical barriers are coming to an end, and we'll see a real slow down in the improvements people are making to game engines year on year.

 

I did laugh when I saw the 3DMark Vantage Benchmark, the guys in the first demo look like they've messed their underwear when they start to run.... then the strike a pose, shoot while looking pretty gey

 

Agree and disagree. It's true with any line of improvement, ultimately there are limited returns. But just as you say post-processing has got better - surely anything looks better with post-processing? So I think graphics is definitely moving forward, that doesn't have to just through continuous improvement of FPS and such but also as the industry evolves and grows there is much more ingenuity and new ideas. For example, procedurally generated textures may be the way forward but they're not implemented in any games yet - it's all still down to the artist.

Look here: http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2006/11/09/Procedural_Textures_Future_Gam/1


And without a doubt there will be new ideas and concepts (the majority of which probably wont make it through to the end project) that will continue to open new boundaries and new possibilities that aren't just a linear progression of today's tech.

 

while it's always exciting to see where they can take the technology, i'd really much rather they concentrated on making GOOD games instead of PRETTY games

 

Yea if the story is great the graphics dont matter as much. Sort of how people are still playing the N64 Zelda games.

 

in 10 years i hope Epic will be a distant, bad memory.

 

I would reccomend that you google Caustic Graphics... thats all that I'm gonna say

 

Agreed. Definitely the way forward me thinks.

To be honest though, if they just made every game look as good as Crysis with some of the texture mods etc, then I would be happy. I'm pretty sure if everyone could play a modded Crysis maxed out with 8x AA and all that jazz, no one would be complaining. But still, I do love progress!

 

didnt they say the same thing 10 years ago lol...

 

Joe, kudos for weaving a reference to System Shock 2 into this story! You just can't mention System Shock 2 often enough!

 

I for one am looking forward to the incredible graphics in this great hobby we call PC Gaming

 

I would love to be able to buy graphic upgrades to old games, lets say at least 5 years old?
Not necessarily animation and physics, but better textures, models, shaders and other effects, multicore support etc.

Never gonna happen commercially though, there's only fans doing that sorta work

 

It would be cool but better AI comes first

 

I'm not that bothered about graphics getting better and better every year or two, cos simply, you can't miss what you haven't seen yet. We may now have dx10, but can anyone say dx9 is ugly, even some dx8.1b games still look ok. Ofcouse I would like to see pretty new graphics, but not so often that i am upgrading my graphics hardware constantly. Its far too expensive.

Its AI, physics and great storylines that are most needed in new games. Oh, and the bottom to fall out of the console market.

 

I agree that gameplay > graphics anyday, but... To me the more realistic the environment looks, the more immersive it feels, especially when teamed up with great gameplay. I remember when I first played FEAR2 and was thoroughly impressed by the graphics. The film grain setting really makes it look less-plasticy and less-fake looking.

 

Reminds me of a story on Wired- that big tech 'jumps' just aren't as impressive anymore. We kind of know they're going to happen- who'd have thought about recording video on a mobile 5-10 years ago? And now? Its pretty meh.

I'm sure there are still some gob-smacking revelations to come- but graphics are being overdeveloped while AI, animation, design and quality control can barely squeeze the time and/or money they need. Priorities please!

 

QFT.

Games don't always have to look good, take System Shock for example, the graphics are horrible by todays standards, but the gameplay still is among the best of any game.