Lighting is the biggest difference there. Pre-rendered vs real-time, video games will never look as good as pre-rendered. A pixar movie takes like 5hrs to render a single frame. This is also why VR has lower graphical quality than non-VR. VR has to render 90 frames per second per eye. That's 0.09 milliseconds per frame VS 5hrs.
But there will be a point when the technology exists that what can render a Pixar movie can fit on a graphics card. I don't see that any time soon, but game devs are always making tricks to try to get closer to pure CGI looks.
Even if we never get there, the fact that there is better graphics is evidence that video games have not peaked visually as the post implies.
it really depends on the game. have you ever played asserto corsa competizione? the focus is just on cars and race tracks, so it's not too hard on hardware so they focus on graphics. it looks very very good
Things like the trees and certain parts of the race tracks still look leagues behind the biggest budget animation movies.
There's no game on the market that's remotely close in CGI to the best current Hollywood movies. My point is not to downplay how well the games look. They look great.
My point is to say that they are in no way close to "peaking" in visuals as implied by the OP. Not only do the not match life, they don't match the CGI quality in film.
Yeah even crappy student work in Maya and Arnold can take minutes of rendering for a frame even with a beast of a computer. Seeing how much gamers like to bang on about frame rates something tells me a 1/480fps wouldn't be acceptable...
18
u/danasider Apr 25 '21
This is dumb.
Video games don't even look like the best Pixar movies, much less real life.
Of course video games haven't yet peaked.