Technologically speaking.
Why don't videogames look like this?
https://www.cgtrader.com/blog/grab-an-inspiration-30-most-photorealistic-3d-renderings
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Technologically speaking. Why don't videogames look like this?
because they take days for a single frame? it literally says that in the description
Most of these aren't even particularly realistic and fpbp
not to mention the labor that goes into the (very few) assets
yeah but dude, gaming companies got a frick huge budget
Because gamers hate ray tracing for some reason.
Gaming isn't about realism. A great art style is way more important than how real it looks.
It doesn't have to be about realism and art styles. You can still have a good art style with ray tracing enabled.
Before ray tracing, developers usually had to fake high quality lighting by pre-rendering it into the textures. The problem with that is that objects couldn't move and had to be permanently fixed or else the illusion would be broken.
Ray tracing fixes this inconvenience by getting high quality lighting in realtime without the faking, so the objects can be dynamic, freely move around and even be destructible without burned-in lighting and shadows.
Don't waste your energy. IQfy kiddies know nothing about 3D graphics, even when it comes to rendering the games they play. If you asked them what basic game rendering terms like rasterization, vertex shaders or z-buffers meant, they would have no idea what you were talking about.
Yea but I can't afford a GPU that can do that.
dude just imagine vr chat or second life with super realistic graphics.
The graphics is why people consider them toys, if it had hyper realistic graphics nobody would even watch movies, everyone would just play videogames.
If raytracing made non-realistic art styles impossible, Pixar would have never been able to make every movie they've made since 2005. Literally every single movie Pixar has made since Cars uses ray tracing.
Not the point. Gamers don't care about raytracing not because it is impossible to have a nice artstyle with it, but because it is already possible to have nice artstyle without it. It's up to game developers to care because gamers have no reason to care.
Gamers want games and raytracing doesn't do anything to change the actual gameplay.
Elden ring doesn't even have good gameplay. Its too hard and just more of the same hack and slash anyways. Graphics from 2011 and bad gameplay. Yet gamers hail it as it if it were the next best thing since slice bread. Its sad, gamers are pretty much pigs eating pig feed at this point.
Btw they didn't even bother to change the xbox buttons for the pc version. Pc gamers are second class citizens to these game companies. They keep making games for these consoles with potato specs.
Raytracing is actually fantastic for non-realistic art because the artist can define what the materials are "made of" (in terms of roughness, metallicity, translucency, etc.) instead of what they should look like (RGB values).
That way the art looks consistent under varying lighting conditions.
Yeah i am familiar with maxwell stuff. Do people not know this is what ray tracing is meant to do?
>because the artist can define what the materials are "made of" (in terms of roughness, metallicity, translucency, etc.) instead of what they should look like (RGB values).
That's PBR, not raytracing.
Because none of that shit makes the game more fun.
Yes it does
Unreal Engine 5 has a built-in path tracing renderer (comparable to the Cycles engine in Blender and the Arnold engine in Maya) that can achieve that kind of quality. Unfortunately it's too complex for today's GPUs to render in realtime compared to the default realtime renderer so it's geared for artists and filmmakers.
https://docs.unrealengine.com/5.0/en-US/path-tracer-in-unreal-engine/
not reading, game companies already scan real life objects at the highest resolution possible and downscale them so their game doesn't run like shit
when your PC can handle it, they will put high res objects in
>Gamers: "Why don't videogames look like this?"
>Nvidia: "Here's something that can make your video games look closer to that."
>Gamers: "We don't want that! Give us the same results on our WITHOUT that, and do it at 60fps on our GTX cards!"
>Nvidia: "That is literally impossible on a rasterization-only GTX 1000 card."
>Gamers: *screeching in denial*
Prebaked is fine compared to the realtime shit rtx is capable of.
But then people complain about why most objects in games are static and non-interactive.
I have no idea why IQfy thinks PC games look like 2007 Crysis still. I honestly think most people just have old hardware, graphics cards and monitors.
There's so many stunning looking modern games that run fine on my 1440p panel and 3070 Ti, even when they are shit games gameplay wise, they look a million times better than Crysis did in 2007 on a high end computer (or even a computer from today).
Not liking something doesn't mean you dislike something. It is indifference.
But I do mostly play retro gaming on emulator handhelds. It is by far the most comfy gaming experience.
Because they are made with actual ray tracing (as opposed to polygons with some ray tracing lighting effects added on top)
Every pixel is computed by bouncing millions of rays off up to dozens of surfaces. - can't do that in games that require 30+ frames per second to be playable.
One answer is path tracing but other key element are massive 3D models and MASSIVE textures for micro detail, very detail normal maps and HDR Sky images.
Architecture render use very high quality textures.
Here's another picture to put it into perspective
The elden ring one even looks choppy and shit
At least post a Ultra settings + 4k comparison not some shitty console screenshot.
Come to think of it metal gear solid and resident evil do have pretty decent graphics. And coincidentally theyre both japanese games i think. I heard they exploit the heck out of their animators though. But thats a fair price to pay so i can play muh vidya.
Quiet is very lustful.
I want to see human faces, cats fur.
They do, that's like 2004 pre-rendered CGI, games today look better and run at 120 FPS doing so
Completely possible even with very high end consumer hardware but game devs wouldn't be able to make much money if games were exclusively optimized to the top 1% PCs. Instead they're mainly optimized to low-mid end consumer hardware of the time like an 5600G/8GB RTX 3050/8GB DDR4 RAM/500GB SSD PC right now. Games like the medium can look exponentially more photorealistic on top of the ray tracing employed if they simply used higher resolution textures but doing so would bump up the vRAM/system RAM consumption to something like 20GB+ and install size to over 1TB.
Give it a few more years when the average joe will be able to afford a PC with 32GB of system RAM, a 32GB RTX 7050, and 8TB SSD all for under $1,000 and photorealistic games will start to become very common.