Will GTA 6 graphics hit photorealism?

[NextGTA]

Gta V was near photorealism but not 100%. 

 

 

Edited October 21, 2019 by NextGTA

[kwul]

Gta V was near photorealism but not 100%. 

bruh?

Edited October 21, 2019 by kwul

[XXVIII]

I would strongly posit that the presentation of the new installment will be a looker. In that, it will take just one time for one’s perspective to convert to addiction, from attraction. It will be an attraction, but more of an attraction that cannot be articulated to the fullest. 
 

Photorealism has respect for reality, and I would further say that the reality is if the formula is willful to dawn a new face... greatness need not be waited upon, as... it is already here. It is just playing incognito, until Gregorian rolls the right number.

Edited October 21, 2019 by XXVIII
Spacing.

[HikikomoriYume]

It'll probably look close to GTA V on pc but with more detail.
 

[CarltonDanks69]

Gta5 is nowhere NEAR photorealism. 
We’ll see a huge jump of RTX is implemented 

[Lotte]

god i hope not for two big reasons

1. the human cost for putting together photorealistic assets is a lot higher than whatever it is they're doing currently, and even that's more taxing on the developers and artists than i'm comfortable with
2. it doesn't even make the game that much better to look at or more fun to play

Edited October 21, 2019 by Lotte

[MrQuiche]

5 hours ago, NextGTA said:

Gta V was near photorealism but not 100%.

What?!

 

It's missing PBR so it is far away from being realistic.

[GTA3Rockstar]

4 hours ago, HikikomoriYume said:

It'll probably look close to GTA V on pc but with more detail.
 

 

Nah

 

More closer to RDR2 but better.

[HikikomoriYume]

8 hours ago, GTA3Rockstar said:

 

Nah

 

More closer to RDR2 but better.

Which was essentially GTA V with more detail

 

 

[Paper Mario]

I would be super happy if it looked as good as Red Dead Redemption 2. 

[Ron Horse]

It'll probably be on par with RDR2 on PC.

[GTA3Rockstar]

2 hours ago, HikikomoriYume said:

Which was essentially GTA V with more detail

 

 

 

Doesn't work that way, otherwise we can say GTA4 was essentially GTA3 but with more detail. Obviously the next one is better lol

 

RDR2 is the best looking game out right now and I'm sure it'll look stupid good on PC. Then GTA6 will look even better.

[HikikomoriYume]

2 minutes ago, GTA3Rockstar said:

 

Doesn't work that way, otherwise we can say GTA4 was essentially GTA3 but with more detail. Obviously the next one is better lol

 

RDR2 is the best looking game out right now and I'm sure it'll look stupid good on PC. Then GTA6 will look even better.

I would call you dumb but then the mods here would scold me.

 

When I say that VI will look like V only with more detail I mean that at this moment in time development wise R* has hit a threshold where they can't improve much more on the graphical detail in ways that will be as drastic and apparent as previous generations ie GTA 2 to 3 or San Andreas to IV.

At this point the most it will look essentially the same, but with more depth, the next great leap will take at least another two to three generations and at that point they will finally achieve photorealism.

I have been gaming since the NES, so I think I know what I'm talking about.

 

Also you assume that just because it's a new generation and there is hardware improvements that the games will automatically be significantly more advanced graphically, and that is not the case.

The 7th and 8th gens were mostly miniscule increments compared to the leap from 5th gen to 6th gen.

We are at this point in time where graphics are in a void where we can create highly detailed 3D worlds that finally achieve the "will it look like toy story" threshold but to get further than that will take not only more advanced tech, but more detailed and evolved artistry.

With humans there is only so much they can do, and even with the best artist and tech of today you will still encounter the uncanny valley.

We are stuck in this period where artistic creations and 3D graphics will appear cartoony and primitive, it's going to take either supreme autism and artistic mastery or A.I. to get past that hump.

My thinking is that 10 to 15 years from now most game design and art assets will be done by A.I. leaving only the core design and direction done by actual humans.

[Jabalous]

Redemption 2 is definitely more than 'Grand Theft Auto V but with more detail'. For example, the latter did not have an implementation of a volumetric clouds system or ray marching contrary to Red Dead, and these two rendering techniques alone have completely changed how the environments, surroundings and distant objects look and feel in-game. The rural space in V, despite looking beautiful and atmospheric, looks basic compared to what Redemption 2 is offering. Even Saint Denis, despite how small it is, has more atmosphere and lived-in feeling built into it than the whole of Los Santos, especially during nighttime when the city is lit by streets lamps. 

 

At certain lighting and environmental conditions, Redemption 2 already can look, or maybe be mistaken for looking, photorealistic. I expect Grand Theft Auto VI to close the gap further and it could be the IV moment of the PS5 generation, meaning that more weight and depth will be inserted into the visuals, peds, animations, physics, gunplay and how the crime system, and therefore police response, works. 

 

Quoting various passages from eurogamer's Redemption 2 Tech Analysis article.

 

Quote

 

It's a remarkable leap over Grand Theft Auto 5, where the clouds are derived from a Perlin noise pattern mapped over a large dome which encircles the game world. This enables wide variation in cloud patterns, but it lacks the three-dimensionality you get with the volumetric system in Red Dead 2 - the clouds simply move along the surface of the virtual dome. It works just fine in real-time and its limitations are only really exposed in time-lapse, but Red Dead 2's implementation is our first example of a true generational leap in the open world's make-up. And this is just the beginning.

 

During the day, fog volumes are used to greatly boost atmosphere with light seemingly scattering through the air in a realistic manner. The placement and intensity vary heavily based on weather conditions and location on the map, but the effect is highly convincing - there is a real sense of thickness to the air where appropriate. At night, smaller local fog volumes are used to create a rather hazy atmosphere with dynamic lights illuminating the way. If we had to guess, Rockstar is using camera frustum aligned 3D textures: the idea is that artists can use this feature to place individual froxel volumes where needed. The way sunlight can interact with these volumes and produce beautiful crepuscular rays is especially impressive at dusk or dawn, where sunlight slices across the scenery in dramatic fashion. There are so many potential use-cases here and Rockstar uses this technology intensely throughout the game, lending the world a sense of depth beyond any previous of its previous productions.

 

Red Dead 2 marks Rockstar's first full foray into physically-based rendering, which has become increasingly popular this generation. PBR, of course, seeks to more accurately simulate the interaction of light across material surfaces taking things such as surface roughness and reflectivity into account. As Red Dead takes place in the late 1800s, modern shiny materials are relatively uncommon, so the shift to PBR enables a subtle realism that greatly enhances the presentation.

 

This is especially evident when exploring areas such as Saint Denis - the game's stunning representation of New Orleans. This booming port town is rich in stone, wood and metal and the juxtaposition of these materials leads to suitably realistic results. The combination of PBR materials with the pre-calculated global illumination technique and fog volumes helps to build a very cohesive image that often looking stunning. While the bright sunny days are certainly beautiful, it's darker scenes that are often more striking. The indirect lighting is simply beautiful, and the team manages to simulate the appearance of natural light bouncing across the scene.

 

Ambient shadowing is realistic and subtle across plant life, while light penetrates leaves and grass realistically, and the density feels just right. Moving into a dense forest, there's a wide variety of tree assets placed throughout which when combined with the local fog volumes, really boost the game's atmosphere. Plants and branches also feature bend points which collide with character models, giving the impression of foliage reacting to the player as you explore.

 

Red Dead 2's overall realism is next-level stuff. Just one example is the way in which light penetrates cloth. Go inside a tent and sunlight permeates through, with diffuse foliage shadows cast on the material. Go outside at night and you'll see the reverse effect: light from your camp lamp inside shines through to the exterior. The subtlety of the way that light interacts with materials can even extend to Arthur's hat: the top of the hat can cast a shadow which can be seen through the illuminated brim.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 22, 2019 by Jabalous

[GTAhare]

1 hour ago, HikikomoriYume said:

I would call you dumb but then the mods here would scold me.

 

When I say that VI will look like V only with more detail I mean that at this moment in time development wise R* has hit a threshold where they can't improve much more on the graphical detail in ways that will be as drastic and apparent as previous generations ie GTA 2 to 3 or San Andreas to IV.

At this point the most it will look essentially the same, but with more depth, the next great leap will take at least another two to three generations and at that point they will finally achieve photorealism.

I have been gaming since the NES, so I think I know what I'm talking about.

 

Also you assume that just because it's a new generation and there is hardware improvements that the games will automatically be significantly more advanced graphically, and that is not the case.

The 7th and 8th gens were mostly miniscule increments compared to the leap from 5th gen to 6th gen.

We are at this point in time where graphics are in a void where we can create highly detailed 3D worlds that finally achieve the "will it look like toy story" threshold but to get further than that will take not only more advanced tech, but more detailed and evolved artistry.

With humans there is only so much they can do, and even with the best artist and tech of today you will still encounter the uncanny valley.

We are stuck in this period where artistic creations and 3D graphics will appear cartoony and primitive, it's going to take either supreme autism and artistic mastery or A.I. to get past that hump.

My thinking is that 10 to 15 years from now most game design and art assets will be done by A.I. leaving only the core design and direction done by actual humans.

 

It’s true that game graphics are at a point where it’s harder to notice improvements, and for a couple decades most improvements will be things like depth such as interactivity rather than graphics. AI is currently in an early state but when it gets good man that will be quite a game changer when it comes to open worlds, although I think AI that can greatly aid game development is further away than most people assume.

 

A GTA game with Red Dead Redemption-quality graphics would be a massive leap after GTA 5 but after that? More graphical improvements would become harder to notice and when the PS6 comes out we may see less of a focus on graphics and more on depth.

 

I agree that for a long time game graphics will look pretty similar. An example: animated movies are pre-rendered on very powerful computers whose tech is far beyond gaming consoles, not to mention they’re pre-rendered unlike game consoles. If you look at animated movies from 10 years ago to now, you can notice improvements as the technology as gotten better. But quite often you’ll have to actually pause and examine the movie to see the improvements as while the animated films now may be more technically advanced than ones from a decade ago it’s hard for the human eyes to notice much of a difference.

[GTA3Rockstar]

14 hours ago, HikikomoriYume said:

I would call you dumb but then the mods here would scold me.

 

I will; you're dumb.

 

It's like when they say that the Xbox One X is the most powerful console ever. No duh, because it's the latest one. lol

 

Which is why you can't say, well it's(RDR2) like GTAV with more detail, no duh because it's their latest game lol

 

 

Quote

At this point the most it will look essentially the same, but with more depth.

 

Right, but like I said, it will be closer to RDR2 than it will be "GTAV but with more details" lol That's skipping a whole generational game, GTAV was 7th gen, RDR2 was 8th gen.

 

Quote

The 7th and 8th gens were mostly miniscule increments

 

It was, no doubt, but the reasoning behind it is that the 7th gen was getting old and needed a new gen. 2005 to 2013 was 8 years, long enough for a generation but they weren't ready to release an almost full 4k system until XboxX in 2017, 12 years would've been way too long. Gen 9 will fix that, considering that rumors have it as the biggest leap between generations in gaming history.

 

 

Quote

compared to the leap from 5th gen to 6th gen.

 

Ehhhhhhhhh, I would say 6th to 7th was FAR more of a greater leap because of HD 1080p. Plus, let's not forget that the 360 was actually ahead of computer gaming at the time. Took a year for a GPU to release that was better than what the 360 had.

 

 

Quote

I have been gaming since the NES, so I think I know what I'm talking about.

 

 

 

Oh no! He's been playing video games for a long time!!!! I guess he knows it all.

 

 

 

Not gonna argue after this, so have fun

[HikikomoriYume]

There is no way you can compare the leap from PS2 to PS3 with going from PS1 to PS2, it's not even close.

The Playstation 3 wasn't even true 1080p, most of the games were very blurry and had tons of aliasing and graphics wise they looked like Xbox (the original) games with more detailed textures and better mechanics.

 

We went from this:

To this

 

Going from the PS1 to PS2 was the biggest leap in graphical fidelity in gaming history, nothing will ever come close to that jump except perhaps going from flatscreen to VR.

 

Also don't expect much from the 9th, just because there is improved hardware doesn't mean the games themselves will look vastly more advanced.

The PS4 was tons more advanced than the PS3, yet the games just look like PC games from the mid to late 8th generation.

 

Edited October 22, 2019 by HikikomoriYume

[mariana_dm1989]

It will of course be closer to photorealism than gtav is, but not exactly photorealistic. 

[Monological]

yeah v was not photorealistic 

[ArmyRaidFail404]

Yeah I don't want photorealism. Someone else said that making assets like that is incredibly taxing, and looking at the fact it took 10 years to develop RDR2 I really don't want my games coming out in generation-sized intervals just because we gotta impress the kiddies with ridiculously high resolution textures.

 

I mean, that's not to say that graphics won't get better, but I think that the focus will shift away from achieving photorealism and towards making efficient use of hardware for making games look like they do already.

 

Again, not to say games won't look better, because hell, if you look at what the new RTX cards can do with light, we'll be getting hella good looking games. The textures right now are fine, it's just the "mechanics" of the graphics (like how with light works) that need to be improved.

 

I hope that jumble of words articulated my point well

[Max.pain]

wondering why people even talk about graphics these days considering every game has super good graphics. it doesn’t matter, it is the last thing i think about current gen gaming.

[GTA3Rockstar]

3 hours ago, ArmyRaidFail404 said:

Yeah I don't want photorealism. Someone else said that making assets like that is incredibly taxing, and looking at the fact it took 10 years to develop RDR2 I really don't want my games coming out in generation-sized intervals just because we gotta impress the kiddies with ridiculously high resolution textures.

 

I mean, that's not to say that graphics won't get better, but I think that the focus will shift away from achieving photorealism and towards making efficient use of hardware for making games look like they do already.

 

Again, not to say games won't look better, because hell, if you look at what the new RTX cards can do with light, we'll be getting hella good looking games. The textures right now are fine, it's just the "mechanics" of the graphics (like how with light works) that need to be improved.

 

I hope that jumble of words articulated my point well

 

RDR2 was closer to 7-8 years, not much more than RDR at 5 years.

 

One thing to consider, textures and such are re-useable. So a game like GTA can re-use a lot of them to cut the development time down dramatically. I think it would be safe to assume a lot of GTAV textures will be re-used and updated, if they weren't already made high res (4k) for GTAV but lowered for last gen's console power. So with that, GTAVI will look like RDR2 at the least, as shown here

 

 

 

 

 

A thing with RTX, I don't see how it will be that noticeable. Maybe I'm missing something but playing RDR2, the lighting and shadows are spectacular. We'll see