When do you guys think games will be indistinguishable from reality?

Submitted by _Anonymus___ t3_11dn7bp in gaming

when u take a small part of the picture lt looks close enough but it’s still not even close when you actually look at the full picture or play it . Don’t get me wrong I m amazed of current graphics. Graphics are improving rapidly we had pixels 30 years ago. Even in the last 5 years it s obvious how much games have improved some especially even set the bar higher like rdr2 , death stranding . Anyways ur all gamers so you know how much we improved. I play video games since 2005 and I played some 1990’s as well .

1

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AeuiGame t1_ja9mmn9 wrote

Real time gameplay will never look like live footage. 4k takes 4x the power as 1080p and looks marginally better, but still doesn't look 'real'. Imagine how many more time's you're going to have to 4x the cost to get very slight improvements.

All graphics follow this pattern. Diminishing returns for results. This is either some quantum computing shit or never happening. Computing technology will have to fundamentally change.

−4

Splyce123 t1_ja9mtj6 wrote

How do you know they're not already? You could be an NPC.

1

bork_13 t1_ja9n2d0 wrote

Replying to AeuiGame (#2,073,526)

I was having this chat with a mate

Surely once you’ve got a PC that can handle ray tracing, will you ever need an upgrade?

I know there will be upgrades, but like you say, it’ll cost more, be less energy efficient, for smaller incremental improvements

Surely we must be nearing the sweet spot at which the improvements start to be in energy efficiency as well as the continual graphical improvements

1

AeuiGame t1_ja9nfwk wrote

Replying to bork_13 (#2,073,641)

I think that the next direction to improve on is more characters. Being able to render a real wall of zombies that fills city streets, every single one bouncing off each other around like a real swarm.

Full scale, first person, battles the size the Romans had. Stuff like that. Small scale detail we've basically got what we're going to get, but just making the scenes grander and bigger can keep going before you hit that point of diminishing returns. A crowd of 1000, 10000, and 100000 all feel different in real life. I imagine past 100k characters in a scene you kinda stop caring, but that's a long, long way off.

Imagine a hitman game in a place like a video game convention, full scale, fully crowded.

0

dracoolya t1_ja9nopi wrote

When quantum computers are the size of and are as affordable as today's PC's.

1

bork_13 t1_ja9ntgd wrote

Replying to AeuiGame (#2,073,738)

I was wondering that, and improved open worlds with greater variety in quests and areas. I think the AAA devs are gradually realising that the Ubisoft open world blueprint is tiresome

1

Jealousturtle31 t1_ja9nvqh wrote

I don't think it will be feasible for a while if we consider the traditional means for developing a game, decades at least, probably more though. It takes massive teams of hundreds of people years to create games like RDR2 or Starfield, and those games still aren't quite photorealistic. Making a photorealistic rock or something isn't particularly difficult, but filling a massive open world with thousands of rocks, plants, trees, buildings, etc. takes a lot of time and manpower that simply makes it infeasible to develop at the moment.

However, I suspect there will eventually be a point where AI takes over the video game development process. AI will almost definitely be able to develop games so realistic that we won't be able to tell the difference, and it will probably be able to do it much quicker than humans. Theoretically if said AI has access to quantum computers thousands or millions of times faster than standard PCs we use today, then it could develop such a game in the blink of an eye, though it would require an unfathomable amount of computing power.

That being said, I think our GPU and general computing capabilities aren't quite there yet to support such a game, even if humans or AI were able to create it.

And certainly our AI is a ways away from being able to do that, though once we reach the theorized inflection point which Nvidia recently claimed we're close to, then all bets are off. Computing capabilities could advance so quickly that in 5 years we could have GPUs thousands of times more powerful than a 4090 today.

So TLDR; I think if Jensen Huang is right, about how fast AI is developing then it won't be very long for games to become indistinguishable from reality. If he's wrong then it will be another 30 or 40 years at least.

3

AeuiGame t1_ja9nz2a wrote

Replying to bork_13 (#2,073,854)

Well yeah, but that's a game design question, not as much a question of hardware. They'll move on to some other formulaic thing we'll get sick of, don't worry. You can't money your way into good design.

0

javeryh t1_ja9oct2 wrote

It already happened and we are all NPCs in someone else's sick game.

0

SpiralSuitcase t1_ja9rr78 wrote

Replying to _Anonymus___ (#2,074,707)

Do you mean good as in "virtuous" or good as in "interesting"? One would mean you're about to be killed, wounded, or kidnapped by a villain to provide motivation for the protagonist. The other would mean that you're going to provide a series of side quests before turning evil and being killed, wounded, or kidnapped by the protagonist.

2

_Anonymus___ OP t1_ja9snyo wrote

Replying to javeryh (#2,074,009)

Unlikely to run a simulation this big. Let’s say say they have the infinite computing power. They would need infinite dyson speheres around the sun which is kinda like a solar panel around the sun just more advanced. Let’s say they have great engineering they manage to create a system which turns off stuff kinda like games but way more advanced if no one is looking , every human has a conscious it’s hard to simulate that in a virtual world . Let’s say they created the perfect engineering marvel . They still need energy of 2 or 3 suns at least and a power transportation system beetween solar systems . That’s a type 3 civilization we are 100 thousands years away from that if that s even possible. Now an advanced civilization like this could simulate us but there s also a moral code . They are advanced a god like power for us so they have to consider this as well . And why would they even simulate us , not for a game that’s for sure because it’s still way to much power. Maybe to create a scientific experience. It’s possible but I m not a believer in this theory

−1

FeeDisastrous3879 t1_ja9xe8i wrote

Replying to DickieGreenleaf84 (#2,073,438)

Moore’s Law backs this up. I suspect if we want any games to look like reality, we’ll have to power them with things other than traditional computers and graphics cards.

It will probably need to be some kind of neural interface that uses our own brains to make it real to us.

4

Injushe t1_jaa8wdc wrote

I think it's getting pretty close, but then every new generation looks pretty close until you see the next one.

The Nanite stuff in unreal engine 5 games is very impressive though.

I think the biggest barriers are still characters and face animation, even in triple A games it still looks pretty bad.

I'd be interested to see what they could do if they did something like LA Noire these days, but everyone seemed to give up on the technology after that game. If they did it again today with 8k face textures etc. it would probably look amazing.

1

kennyh90 t1_jaasp15 wrote

When I have to press triangle to get out of my car

1

Golden326326 t1_jabdp31 wrote

If you think about CGI, Rendering times, supercomputers and simulation at atomic level. I can imagine several Super computers working together to make this work. But all the programming to share the load between the rigs is unimaginable for me.

1