CGI-Quality said:
My take. |
Cool! You do not totally disagree.
I saw those truly photorealistic pics you posted earlier, and it was unreal, and obviously Battlefield is quite a bit away from that, I know that and I admit that.
But in a way it looks "almost" photorealistic... What I mean is, that when playing the beta it was the first time that I can remember, that a game truly gave me the feeling of "wow, so is this how photorealistic will look in a video game?" (SW: Battlefront did too, but in far fewer moments)?
I know that high profile programmers like Tim Sweeney say that you still need maybe 10 times more powerful hardware for moving landscapes to look photorealistic, and if we take into account everything, like closeups on human skin and everything, we ned maybe 30 times or even 100 times more powerful hardware depending on who you ask.
But still, Battlefield 1 is the first game to me that really brings that photorealistic feeling in the sense that I constantly compare it with reality while playing, and that I'm very immersed even if it's not virtual reality.
I never thought this generation would bring these graphics, and I may have to retract what I said about diminishing returns earlier.
Damn it's amazing to live in this era, to see that it's finally coming! Just to fantasize in your bedchamber if you understand what I mean, and actually being able to guess and estimate the years and hardware generations (GPU-wise) until photorealisic games might be here.







