HollyGamer said:
DonFerrari said:

Pixel count is just a small portion of photorealism, and we can certainly notice a lot of difference from the models at fullHD from game to game. Just compare the facial model between three great games like HZD, UC4 and Detroit. You'll still easily see how much better Detroit is and they are all rendered at similar pixel count.

But geometry, polygons, texture, and several other effects are still improving a lot. Don't worry when gen 9 really starts to blow you'll be able to see the difference to Killzone or Infamous Second Son.

Yes PS3 to PS4 is the peak evolution, we still can see the difference. But from PS5 to PS6 onward , we will just be seeing increasing of resolution and performance  , the rest of the hardware probably will be  focusing rendering the amount of object or character in one area.

If you want to see the end goal of photo realism is,  just look at  FF7 remake character model that has the same quality with the CG model in FMV CG scene or Resident Evil 8 in game model character which already using photo geometry using real human model

I don't know what else we can achieve beyond realism, current gen can already render realistic model with the exact same features . What only lacking this gen is proper lighting (Ray Tracing ) and animation and also proper physics and simulation . 

I will just say that you need to look CGI thread to see how much of a jump we are going to have.

Sure every gen the jump seem smaller because there is the ceiling (that we will still take decades to achieve) but sure everytime we get nearer there is less road to cover. But it is still very noticeable. And I'm not even thinking about the bad stuff like pop ups, collision and things like that.

I have seem the CGs from FF7 and I can still easily see the gap. Even if my relatives when I'm gaming ever since PS3 ask if I'm watching a movie.

Once we really achieve photorealism we will still have other stuff to achieve. We are at something similar to people going from B&W tv to color tv thinking they didn't need anything more and it wouldn't be possible to improve that 21" CRT because they were already seeing images that were life like.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994