Do you think we will reach ultra realistic graphics? Do you care?

By ultra realistic I mean life like, to the point where you can't tell a difference between a character and a real person. Where games can simulate things as if they were real. Would you want that, SW? Would games still be fun to play if they were too realistic?

@SolidGame_basic: Eventually we will. The level of realism in some games is already pretty impressive.

As to whether or not I want that, I think it depends on the genre.

Medival roleplaying, or fps games? Sure.

Realistic super mario? Not so much :P

@SolidGame_basic:

Not even movies are at that level.

Don't care... Its great yes and will keep getting better gradually.

What I truly want is more open world RPG's with better character customisation and better combat, better AI and so on. Just gimme. Okay?... Gimme!

Gimme more Witcher, Gimme more Fallout, Gimme a Division 2 that turns the franchise from a 7 to 9... GIMME!... Don't have to be sequels gimme new worlds to explore.

If you would ask me this question 20 years ago i would probably say that by 2020 but oh well...

And yes it matters in some genres im huge fan of like for example Dead Space , Resident Evil 7 , Outlast etc. We heading there though but kinda slow.

I hope with mid generation console upgrades trend to see photorealistic graphics sooner fromn developers

Dude...we got there in Half Life 2 a long time ago. Graphics are static and can't improve. ;) I thought everybody knew this.

What do you mean static ?

I don't care and we live realism every day it's not exactly fun all the time

Means nothing to me. I far and away prefer stylized graphics over realistic anytime.

careful what you wish for.....

ultra realistic gfx=many development resources=high development cost=half finished games with shallow gameplay,season passes,overpriced DLC and micro transactions

$60 is not enough to cover the development costs of such games

Don't care.

I'm actually happy with the graphical capability of my launch PS4.

I'd be happy if the next PlayStation merely updated output to native 4K with minimal graphical increase.

Are we discussing graphics, realistic graphics, or realism in gameplay?

I play games not graphics, and there's a variety of flavors to choose from.

As for realism, sure. I'd like to see improvements in realtime fluid dynamics so we could see games such as Wave Race or a decent surfing game arrive.

Don't really care to be honest. What sells me on a video game is the story and playability.

Even if the power was available it would make development time that much longer. It will get damn close though.

I would settle for keeping the graphics we currently have and just having everything PHYSICALLY INTERACT like they do in real life...... It really bugs me that graphics have come a long way over the last 10 years but physics have stayed the same.

we will eventually but at the moment the wallet is the biggest barrier to that. AAA games already have insane budgets and going to ultra realistic graphics is just going to make that worse.

as @scatteh316 mentions though the physical interaction of everything is a big area developers could be focusing on though. generally the physics in games is still kept very basic as detailed physics is quite intensive and its not as easy to sell as pretty graphics. the key thing of course is to also ensure that the game is fun. it would be counter productive to have physics that makes the game play badly though.

the eye candy physics could also always be improved too of course. properly animated cloth and hair and such like. its very patchy at the moment in games.

Couldn't care less about that...as always, it comes to gameplay and art direction. Sure, I'm not saying it wouldn't be cool to see something like perhaps, Deus Ex with ultra realistic graphics but at the end, I rather play a good game instead of watching a "realistic" game.

Yes we will get there for several reasons. After playing VR I realize that there are going to be some driving motivations to make that happen.

Like for important simulations and for upcoming machine-to-machine learning. Another is for practicing things like speeches for important people, to prepare SWAT teams for hostage rescue operations with realistic visual fidelity/distraction and accurate lighting and communication, being able to have meaningful visual gatherings with other people in VR without the need to travel (that will include all the body language of the people you communicate with and then some). And most importantly to change society in the easiest way possible: through making people experience a realistic but alternate superior society that could move anyone and everyone to do things a certain way. It could provide the most convincing argument that we have ever seen, and that alone will make it worth chasing.

If there's one thing I noticed in VR it's that it makes everything more effective. Scaring people, exciting people, moving people all becomes easier with the immersion. And we can still improve the immersion. The resolution can be upturned a hundredfold before we would stop noticing the results entirely. And binaural audio can be far more optimized and customized on an individual level to match the shape of your ears/the characteristics of your hearing. Etc. I'm a big proponent of progress and perfection, and I think we have not hit the ceiling yet at all in terms of visual and auditory and sensory fidelity.

Realism is not necessarily what we want in every game though. There is safety in the surrealism of video games. We can hit characters on the nose without feeling bad about it because it is so obvious to us that they are not real. Even realism in other aspects than graphics could hinder our experiences. Like realistic reactions and emotions in NPC's could make people feel real bad and lead to potential psychological problems in players. One of the best things about video games is that they don't have to be realistic. They can be fantastical and whimsical and extreme. Games enable us to interact with imagination with great fidelity. Realism is probably only good for simulations and some specific story telling games. Maybe to accentuate some things in more fantastical games.

Probably. But graphics could stop advancing right this second and we'd be perfectly fine.

I want Fully Destructible Environments first.

Ever since Black and Burnout 3 I saw the future and it never came. Still waiting.

I never understood how Burnout 3 was able to have their cars burst into millions of pieces yet no game since can produce that level of destruction.

Black blew my mind being able to shoot through doors, crumbling walls and more.

Heck, even Destroy All Humans had satisfying levels of destruction.

Lazy Devs!!!!!

I just spent 30 minutes last night tweaking settings in Doom on my new laptop trying to maximize FPS. The game's a looker for sure, but I only care if it runs smoothly.

They're called FMV games, and they are glorious!!!!

Don't really care about graphics. Good graphics are nice though

I use to care, 10 years ago. When the ps3 and 360 hitvthe scene, I was really impressed with the visuals. I gelt like they were close to mimicking ultra realism. The games today do not wow me at all. I know on a technical stand point they are leaps and bounds better than what was achieved 10 years ago, but they have a weird look that makes them look just weird. Im impressed with environments found in alot if games, but the super realistic character models turn me off more than anything. Know I prefer unique artstyles over realism. I personally dont think any of the sports games of today look impressive. I use to always be amazed with new sports games.

All in all ultra realism in games is not very important to me.

Alot harder than humanoid models than it is with something like car or flight sims. Those games are pretty much borderline photographic.

Definitely but maybe not in the decade or three.

Might need a new non traditional computers or need an aid of our brain to create the illusion.

Yes. I'd like that.

If we're setting gameplay limits like current ones (aka not everything is destructible and with closed off paths), yeah, maybe in the far future.

If you're talking about simulating everything like single piece of hair, lint and then feeling it just as if it were real AND with "truly realistic graphics" no, maybe not in this lifetime and in the scale of something like the entire Los Angeles, probably not in this lifetime.

I mean...we already have games like this.

Say what you want about EA's Star Wars Battlefront, it's a very beautiful game to look at and at points looks pretty life like.

Could care less tbh, I wish the developers would stop worrying so much about graphics and instead focus more on gameplay and story.. the graphics we have in modern games are more than fine imo..

I prefer gameplay over graphics and Breath of the wild proved how game play over comes shiny graphics .

AMD's problem with GPU upgrades are mostly memory bandwidth related with TFLOPS increase out pacing physical memory bandwidth increase.

NVIDIA's workaround for the physical memory bandwidth problem is to focus on superior delta color compression (DCC, compression boost up to 100 percent) and tile L2 cache rendering (RBE connected to very fast 2MB/3MB L2 cache).

VEGA 56/64 has mitigated the bottlenecks for RBEs with a new connection to 4MB L2 cache, but it seems to still carry older Polaris DCC(compression boost up to 36 percent).

X1X has mitigated the bottlenecks for RBEs with 2MB render cache upgrade and connecting RBEs with 2MB L2 cache.

Vega 56 and Vega 64 are competing in the GTX 1070/1080 GPU range.