When games finally become 100% photorealistic

[Kira]

I think it will paradoxally become more prominent if we reach this point. Because reality is boring, let's face it.

Yet photorealistic capabilities would open infinite ways to become creative by tweaking "the reality engine". Like a Tim Burton film for example. My two cents.

[Koko Ricky]

Aliotroph? said:

What's this nonsense about games being shorter? Games these days are too damn long. I don't finish half the games I play because I'm bored of them by the time I'm 2/3 through.

Couldn't agree more on this one. Many of my Sega Genesis games can be beaten within 30-45 minutes, and the "really" long ones might take an hour or two at the most. I'd feel rather burnt out if those games took significantly longer.

InsanityBringer said:

I would hate it if technological advances intended for more realistic graphics start interfering with stylistic games for some random reason. While realism works with certain games, stylistic things work out rather well with other games.

I don't think we'll see that happen; stylistic games will always exist, even if the detail keeps increasing. There will always be a demand (on both the part of the artists and the gaming community) for games with cartoonish, non-realistic graphics, that just happen to be highly detailed.

[Maes]

GoatLord said:

Couldn't agree more on this one. Many of my Sega Genesis games can be beaten within 30-45 minutes

Bubble-Bobble or Raiden can be beaten in an hour, too, but it will be an hour of constant vigilance and dodging, with no cutscenes or pausing bullshit, that's the big difference.

[DuckReconMajor]

Am I the only one who would go to the store when the new Madden or whatever sports game came out and think it was real for a few seconds? What about those games some sites play where you have to determine whether a picture is from a game or real life? Photorealism is in games, it's just not everywhere yet.

Csonicgo said:

I wish videogames went back to a way to escape reality and play in a new, different one, rather than trying to emulate the current one that really blows.

K!r4 said:

Because reality is boring, let's face it.

This again. If nothing at all in a game had some semblance of reality, you wouldn't enjoy it.

And the reality being "boring" thing has nothing to do with graphics. Games only present the "fun" parts of life, or you wouldn't want to play them. Remember that Onion video after Modern Warfare 2 came out joking that Modern Warfare 3 would be so realistic it would be all about filling out paperwork and waiting for orders? You could do that on today's hardware.

And yeah games have taken the train to browntown lately. But I think that's just a trick to make things more realistic without actual hardware/software improvements. Once hardware can handle even better graphics I think we'll see more color in games again.

K!r4 said:

The question is: will virtual sex be as cool as its real counterpart?

I'd rather just be able to manually fire off the receptors and such that sex stimulates. This includes all of the endorphins and whatnot that makes up the "emotional" parts.

I mean really, what if you lived in a world where masturbation was better than sex? Would you still waste time looking for a partner?

[Maes]

DuckReconMajor said:

I mean really, what if you lived in a world where masturbation was better than sex? Would you still waste time looking for a partner?

...haven't had enough of the latter yet, eh?

[Kira]

DuckReconMajor said:

And the reality being "boring" thing has nothing to do with graphics. Games only present the "fun" parts of life, or you wouldn't want to play them. Remember that Onion video after Modern Warfare 2 came out joking that Modern Warfare 3 would be so realistic it would be all about filling out paperwork and waiting for orders? You could do that on today's hardware.

It makes sense. I still think it will attract demand once someone show how creative you can be with technologies primarily dedicated to photorealism though.

[Violator]

Hopefully I'm long dead before games become 100% photo-realistic, the only games that would be cool are racing games.

[RightField]

For games to become 100% photorealistic you'd have to build graphics out of atoms, and then animation out of physics on that scale. Good luck with that.

[Kira]

If you want "authentic" photorealism yes. But what if you can create the illusion? By hijacking the brain for exemple as someone pointed out.

[Koko Ricky]

When we talk of "hijacking the brain," do we mean:

A) The brain's own energy being used to power an advanced hardware interface...

B) Not-quite-photorealistic environments tricking the brain into thinking they are as valid as reality...

Or something else?

[Kira]

Or both.

[DuckReconMajor]

Then you get to the point where you wouldn't need a game at all. You'd just find the parts of the brain that make us like video games and fill them with happy.

[chungy]

that wouldn't really work, even if such a feeling good be artificially produced at all. Part of what makes games so good and enjoyable is the challenges they bring to overcome.

[Aliotroph?]

It would work if you can alter memories. Even without that ability, stimulating the parts of the brain that make you happy might be enough to just turn everybody into big, drooling grin faces anyway - at least until they build a tolerance to it.

DuckReconMajor said:

Am I the only one who would go to the store when the new Madden or whatever sports game came out and think it was real for a few seconds?

I first noticed non-gamers doing this about ten years ago with my brother's PS2 games. My dad looked at Madden and said, "it looks so real... except that the framerate sucks." I just laughed; the PS2 really did have trouble with the snow. Mom's boyfriend said similar things about games like GTA3.

[DuckReconMajor]

chungy said:

that wouldn't really work, even if such a feeling good be artificially produced at all. Part of what makes games so good and enjoyable is the challenges they bring to overcome.

Challenges which set off dopamine and other receptors in the brain.

If you won't go for that then, surely you must admit that your response to a "challenge" is going to happen mentally as a series of signals in your brain. If something could recreate these signals your brain would get the experience of challenge completion without doing anything.

Just saying "challenges" seems to say that problem solving is some dignified characteristic of human beings as opposed to an evolutionary trait.

Aliotroph? said:

It would work if you can alter memories. Even without that ability, stimulating the parts of the brain that make you happy might be enough to just turn everybody into big, drooling grin faces anyway - at least until they build a tolerance to it.

If I could do it sustainably for the rest of my life then sure, sign me up to become a big, drooling grin face.

As for tolerance, I think that is another brain function that could be rewired.

[Blastfrog]

I thought that when you guys were talking about hijacking the brain to display realistic images, that you were referring to the brain itself generating images (like it does in a dream), not powering a computer, or tricking it into thinking that unrealistic stuff looks realistic.

Honestly, of those 3, I think that tricking the brain into thinking undetailed stuff looks detailed would be the best option, as at that point, it serves it's purpose of looking like it's detailed, and you don't have to waste any development time making it look truly realistic. Just throw together some 2007-era graphics, trick the brain, and there you go.

[Kira]

It's all about suspension of disbelief after all.

[DuckReconMajor]

Sodaholic said:

I thought that when you guys were talking about hijacking the brain to display realistic images, that you were referring to the brain itself generating images (like it does in a dream), not powering a computer, or tricking it into thinking that unrealistic stuff looks realistic.

I dunno I think this would be neat, something like PostScript for brains, telling your brain what to display instead of sending pixel data. Then it would even be personalized to that person's brain. But then you run into the whole "artist intention" stuff.

[Maes]

DuckReconMajor said:

telling your brain what to display

...or what to buy, who to vote for, for what new laws and measures not to complain about, and while we're at it, let's see what your stance on the War of Terror is and correct it if necessary... seriously, would you trust anyone to mess with your brain at that level? Hell, I wouldn't even tolerate read-only access, let alone read/write...

[Kira]

It depends on the chip and software transparency. Damn it, despite what I said I would only trust a chip I have made myself from plans and source code that I fully understand, using 3D printers I would have made myself and that would be advanced enough to help me achieve this.