>>2687 >unless you're savvy you will be hard pressed to tell the difference I wouldn't say it's hard to tell the difference between game graphics and semi-old CG films (indeed those older Reloaded renders are more realistic than the Beowulf example, as mentioned the production company behind it don't have an amazing track record). >Now imagine their next game fully utilizing ray tracing and other new stuff Well this was the original point, that there's still ways to improve the realism of games beyond what we have now in a tangible way. >Entirely a proficiency problem. The guys doing it aren't good enough to pull it off I'm not sure about that anon, Awakens was an in-house production by the Unreal Engine team, those guys know their shit and have the added benefit of understanding the tech inside and out. >You already can make a game look like that since all it does it basic photorealism and games can do that now I'd be amazed to see a game with that level of fur simulation (the best example I can think of is something like the effect used in Starfox Adventures and the Xbox Conker remake but that's not even close). >"hey, my games look like real life already, why do I need to buy PS7?" They don't though, there's very impressive examples but there's always details that stick out as artificial, there are shortcuts you can take but all of those cut corners add up to dispel the illusion. >it doesn't jump at you unless you're a tech savvy guy I would say picrel is a pretty obvious jump anon. >Well that's true for every gen, people once thought SNES was as good as it's gonna get Doesn't that suggest though that there's improvements beyond PS5 that we'll see with the next gen, the fact that people always think we've hit the limit? >you couldn't pass its screenshot as a photo even to the most casual of plebs. You can now Well let's look at your examples (I will say the color grading of those ENBs is very nice though):

>>2691 Anon, we went through this like 5 times already. We're not talking about in-games graphics reaching the amount of polygons, shaders, bamp maps and so on of a movie grade CGI. We're talking about it looking like it's a movie grade CGI. Because the threshold for perceiving something as realistic or high-end CGI is way lower than a state-of-the-art model with each individual hair rendered and ray traced. And we've reached the level where even in-game graphics can produce movie-tier looking images. Not replicate it on a technical level, but reach the similar end-result. Are we clear on that? There's no tangible way to improve on this. Humans just look like humans in games now, there's enough polygons to simulate that and the lighting is good enough to lit it in a natural-esque way. That is really the threshold, everything else from here on out is just window-dressing for the tech savvy nerds. >Awakens was an in-house production by the Unreal Engine team, those guys know their shit and have the added benefit of understanding the tech inside and out. Knowing how the engine works has nothing to do with the ability to recreate real life, you need a completely different set of skills and knowledge for that. They did what they could to the limit of their abilities. I can guarantee you that if they asked some Pixar guys or Quantic Dream guys to help them out the end result would have been drastically different. In fact, looking at Unreal's attempts as photorealism, they kinds suck at it in general. >They don't though Aaghh anon, I'm talking about normal fucking fags. Yes they do, to them. >Doesn't that suggest though that there's improvements beyond PS5 that we'll see with the next gen, the fact that people always think we've hit the limit? No, because the limit has been there since day one - "what if games could look like real life haha, wouldn't that be rad". That has been the dream goal for every new generation, though up until a certain point most devs didn't even try for the obvious lack of tech and instead created their own artistic visions of reality. Well, they are now, there's nothing beyond that sadly but obviously. And now you also can't go back to the wonderful visual creativity but it would look like a step back. That's why I hope normalcattle grows tired of boring photorealism. >Well let's look at your examples Anon, the screenshots I posted will literally pass as photographs to an untrained eye if you print them in some magazine somewhere (minus the character models, we're talking backgrounds here as I mentioned). These are in-game graphics from a 7 year old game with a new lighting rig. You can nitpick them but they in fact look like real life at a passing glance. There's no improving on that. Will the poly count be improved in 5 years? Yes. Will lighting be improved in 5 years? Yes. Will anyone be impressed with a photorealistic image before their eyes in 5 years? Not really, because they already saw it. >but all of those cut corners add up to dispel the illusion If you freeze frame the best CGI ever made and start scrutinizing it you'll find plenty of things that dispel the illusion. The illusion is sold through the larger picture which is what we're talking about here. Photorealism is basically a gimmick, it's impressive once, it doesn't matter if what you saw was the illusion or a mega rendered super model, you're not gonna be impressed the second time when it is a mega rendered super model. >I would say picrel is a pretty obvious jump anon. Only in a direct comparison to arguably one of the best photorealistic renders ever produced. And we're still talking about a 4+ year old game from the previous gen. I said it already, you show that Beyond head to a random guy on a street and he'll say it's from some film. >but humans see reality every day, we know when something isn't right even if we don't have the words That applies mostly to humans, the uncanny valley, you can go on jewgle and find countless incredible photorealistic images that fool your eye but finding even a single 3D image of a human face that passes would be a challenge. We're biologically evolved to communicate through faces after all.

>>2692 >We're talking about it looking like it's a movie grade CGI Yeah but it straight up doesn't, that's the point. If you want to talk about games beating movie grade CGI, then we can say that basically every game from PS2 onwards looks more realistic than Toy Story 1's human characters. >Because the threshold for perceiving something as realistic or high-end CGI is way lower than a state-of-the-art model with each individual hair rendered and ray traced Maybe so but games have not achieved this yet, there is still an obvious, easy to see difference between something rendered in real-time with a consumer-grade GPU and something rendered on industry grade hardware over the course of days and weeks. >Not replicate it on a technical level, but reach the similar end-result. Are we clear on that? What is your definition of similar? A lion from the Lion King remake rendered without all of the fur is not similar enough to be as perceptually realistic. By that standard we could say that Max Payne 1 is photorealistic because they slapped actual photos on the character faces and environments. >There's no tangible way to improve on this This argument makes no sense, there are things that aren't presently being rendered in game graphics that enhance the visual realism of the scene, as hardware progresses and these technologies become more feasible by definition you're improving on the realism of the visuals. >Humans just look like humans in games now, there's enough polygons to simulate that and the lighting is good enough to lit it in a natural-esque way Sure they look more realistic than they used to but they aren't realistic enough that you can't tell that they're game characters. >everything else from here on out is just window-dressing for the tech savvy nerds You don't need to be savvy on this stuff to know that something looks more like real life than something else, it's a matter of perception, not knowledge. >Knowing how the engine works has nothing to do with the ability to recreate real life, you need a completely different set of skills and knowledge for that I mean they literally wrote the thing themselves and understand all of the rendering technologies that went into it, they even had access to resources from the films and referenced them heavily (including numerous scene recreations). >if they asked some Pixar guys or Quantic Dream guys to help them out the end result would have been drastically different These days Pixar uses stuff they commissioned from Maya (as well as various in-house utilities of course). Quantic Dreams next game may well look better than Awakens, but as it stands Awakens shows a very obvious improvement in fidelity compared to Become Human.

>>2554 >What is that supposed to mean? Old 2007/08 paint meme about the companies' biggest mascots, Nintendo/Mario Microsoft/Halo and Sony/the main protag of Talladega Nights portrayed by Will Ferrell, back then one of the most sold out Blu Ray movies on the market no gaems, just blu ray movies, that's the joke

When you think how cringE3 been going since 1995 it becomes almost sad to see it go. No matter what it was part of gayme culture.

>>2656 TGS was always better tbh

>>2657 Watch they cancel it as well.

u wot? E3 2022 was cancelled but 2023 is still on the cards (for now anyway).

>>2662 >for now anyway Key words here. Will likely get cancelled as well.

>>71 I know this is an old post from the old place but something makes me wonder, probably in a negative way. It seems that, according to some freaks/trannies/badly-accompanied folks in the Lost Media community have realized that Snoopy Flying Ace is a "partially lost game" due to the Xbox Live Arcade getting some licensing issues and taking down the game, the XBLA from the 360 being shut down and the newer versions none having it reuploaded. What makes me wonder is... how is it "lost"? i highly doubt no one out there doesn't have the game installed for offlines uses and really, how are normalfags that retarded to search in torrent trackers and not finding packages with it for mod piracy uses? Is something not being able to be attained "legally" really an impediment for digital releases? because i don't think it can be even considered lost, i have it in my hard drive to begin with.

>>2196 A surprising number of people are moralfags about illegal downloads, even games like Scott Pilgrim (pre-remaster) were considered lost even though you can still download it from PSN despite it being delisted. Perhaps all the DMCA shenanigans have had a chilling effect on your average games enthusiast, it kind of reminds me of people who exclusively play on original hardware and have an irrational dislike for emulation.

>>2197 >A surprising number of people are moralfags about illegal downloads You mean normalfags? A reminder to pirate everything.

>>2219 >You mean normalfags? Not necessarily, I don't think your average normalfag is savvy about if they're consuming an 'officially licensed' release or not, instead it's more about convenience (whether that's streaming services like Netflix or those Android-based pirate boxes). Once you get into the realm of enthusiasts where spending hundreds on a copy of some dumb shit isn't uncommon is where that moralfagging seems to occur most.

>>2222 (checked) >Not necessarily, I don't think your average normalfag is savvy about if they're consuming an 'officially licensed' release or not They absolutely are. Soytendo, Soyple and so on - must only consume official products.

One that isn't exactly a prediction but more of a modus operandi bullet point list by big agencies: Rainbow Six Vegas >Separate terrorist attacks in the hotel strip coordinated at the same hour >Civilians being seeming obvious target but VIPs start disappearing or quickly moving >Spec Ops send to neutralize wrong doers ASAP and realize it was mainly a distraction >One event includes the extraction of a VIP from a gambling area >Despite obvious separate incidents the government decides to run a shaky fictional recount of the events to not scare people even more >Both teams travel suspiciously in helicopters >Both leave compromising tools (drop guns and such) in construction areas and airport near areas Obviously the real deal was much, much more subdued and quick than the fictional events but the places also do meet at times like the Arya and the Mandalay. Rainbow Six Vegas was a strong and perhaps unnecessary departure of the series but it was well made and i highly suspect it wasn't a Rainbow Six game in the beginning but a remake/rip-off of an earlier game, Goldeneye Rogue Agent, that few bought but had strong concepts that were most retrieved in Vegas and its sequel in explicit form. That's another story i suppose.

>>2090 9/11 is probably the most predicted event in history.

Obligatory.

>>2092 True dat, there was even an attack in 1993.

Are there any non-military games that predicted the future? In a positive way maybe?

My PC won't handle it sadly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clmeN-5RWUo Well to anyone has a computer that was made this century I want to get the feeling you only get from being in a new guild at the launch of an xpac so message me in game @ smashed.8536 I will be posting around elsewhere to so hopefully I will be able to pull some group of rando friendless neets even if it falls apart in a month.

explain guild wars

>>1948 Its like wow but with no sub fee and better build craft

>>1964 >Its like wow Not very promising.

Great screencaps assholes.

>5 screenshots from a cutscene bravo

You're not wrong, but in all fairness I typically didn't buy games based on what was on the back of the box/case; I'd read games magazines, play demos, and go off recommendations from friends. Maybe they just put these cool-looking "cinematic" screenshots on the back to impress clueless publishers and parents.

>>1890 >I'd read games magazines, play demos, and go off recommendations from friends That only works for the mainstream games that they cover in those. Often, especially back in the day, you would come across a game you never even heard about and the only thing to help you on the spot are the screenshots. But of course this is more about the mystery of how these screenshots even come to be. Though it's still not well illustrated in the thread, there are some truly awful and bewildering screens selected for some games. Like look at DMC3 here >>1789

Columns is possibly my favorite Genesis game. I ended up getting really in the zone once and made it to 111 starting on hard mode. I've never been able to replicate that feat since. Now I can't even get 10 levels in without dying. Yoshi's Cookie is underrated. I'd much rather play that than Tetris, which I've never gotten the appeal of.

>>1380 Tetris is the grandad. People played it when nothing else was around.

>>1381 I understand that it's historically important, but I don't find the mechanics to be very enticing.

>>1384 You're looking at it through a prism of spoiled modernity. Nowadays I won't really play it myself but back in the early '90s I had one of those brick games with tetris, and being able to play it on the go was very enticing indeed.

>>1386 Even as a kid I didn't like it. I just played Dr. Mario instead.

>>1344 modded 1946 was the first flight sim I ever played and it's pretty simple compared to the ultra autistic shit like DCS (not counting FC3) and Falcon BMS, which are the most complex I've played so far. I don't know much about civilian sims though, since I've always wanted to go fast and shoot things and haven't played any.

>>1332 Where is AC Zero?

>>1344 Compared to things like X-Plane or Prepar3D, the cockpit level of complexity is babby-tier. You have a couple gauges to keep an idle eye on, trim, prop trim, prop feathering, radiator openness, general engine heat and that's about it. The combat part, though, adds a whole world of new shit you have to learn because, y'know, it's ww2 combat. DCS doesn't really compare, you effectively don't have fucking electronics period. I can only pray that Cliffs of Dover gets a workable singleplayer at some point, but until then and discounting it I'd rate the IL-2 games a solid 6/10 autisms, with 1/10 being CoD and 10/10 being a megamek lorefag.

>>1346 Most of the civilian ones tend to render cockpits and stuff inside rather well and have great controller compatibility but are arcadey as fuck when it comes to flying. Mainly to keep the ratings down for kiddies and grandmas. Still it allows sometimes for fun stuff like Hot Air Balloons going vertical doing mach 1+ and if you want to actually visualize a cockpit they are good.

[End of Dump 8VG07 ~ 12/07/2018] I decided to stop it here for the thread to have space for some posts and near where that chart was being made. Prease understandu.