>video games will never look this detailed in your lifetime

>>382167453
>rocket will never be your boyfriend

I really don't see any problem here, why games need to be so "realistic" ? Why it's so important?

File: 1498019900815.jpg (32KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x600px

>>382168983

>>382168983
But... He's a raccoon, a really cool one, but still, a raccoon. Just for the record: 2D way better than 3D

I think graphics are already good enough now and have been for a few years already. What we need is more effort put into physics.

>>382169965

DONT CALL HIM A RACCOON

>>382169965
no he's a sentient being equivalent to a "person" you fucking dum pumpkin
if it can talk than it can be your boyfriend

Before focusing on the details, can we get the writing, direction, and voice acting on par first?

Huge difference between pre rendered and real time. We have the capability to have assets that look that good in Vidya, the problem is that it takes an absurd amount of man hours to make simple images at that quality. We will NEVER have photo realistic games simply because of that. It would make even the most simplistic game have a fifteen year development cycle and bloat the budget to absurd amounts. They would have to sell 3 copies to every person to break even.

It will never happen, and it has nothing to do with tech.

>>382170415
Not if we can make AI to do the art for us

>>382170181
>>382170290
Sorry guys, but I don't know, his penis might be like a cat penis, with thorns and shit, so maybe his biology doesn't fit with ours? He could be a really cool guy to hang with, as the Dante says: for you rocket, anything

>>382167453
>behind
You realize it takes days/weeks to render this shit at 25fps.

>>382170596
>AI making art
You're an idiot

>>382170181
Ok Benis

>>382170713
*24 fps

>>382167453
>you will never pet rocket

File: maxresdefault.jpg (143KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1280x720px

>mvc:i version of rocket

jesus fuckin christ

>>382167453
They already look that detailed. Maybe if you got the fuck off the consoles and got a PC that can push more than two cores worth of power, you'd see that.

Those are still frames, 24-27 per second in realtime, each being rendered individually for hours at a time. Geometry with more polygons in a ball than an entire video game level. More often than not 8k x 8k textures/materials. Light and liquid simulations that require calculation of millions and millions of particles all moving individually in a 3d space, along with local and scene collision. I can bet there are normal scenes in movies you've seen in the past decade, or so, that have CGI (sometimes unnecessarily) that you would never have known about unless it was pointed out.

>>382172259

To add, I don't understand why people get upset with "oh it's pre rendered trash". That's a shortcut needed in order to provide a quality similar to CGI graphics, but in reasonable realtime frames per second.

>>382167453
Why do you keep making this exact thread?

File: 20170606191514_1.jpg (103KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1440x900px

>>382167453
>Lylla will probably never appear in the movies

Because consoles/

>>382167453
Video game graphics already look like that, though.

>>382170181
Fuck off, Bendis.

Batman: Arkham Knight looks better than that.

That movie was way more fun than I expected it to be. Of course, I went in with zero expectations and pretty much no knowledge of the comics so that probably has something to do with it.

File: 7bf3b1cc176a815b4148213da27fc8412d6c083727bbbb978aa31245050cd09d[1].jpg (29KB, 600x215px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x215px

>>382174418
She was mentioned in the first movie so maybe, at the very least she's part of the canon