That looks pretty good, but I wonder if it would still look that good at proper resolutions. Does anyone know if this is the tech that James Cameron is using in his next movie(Avatar).

if this is the future you can count me out. i don't play games to try to recreate my living room.

looks, good, but in nearly every game, that type of reality is just unnecessary. Movies definitely gain from this tech, but imo games don't. Visuals never make the game, they only help in essence. This is being perfectly played out in terms of sales and mass market appeal in the HD consoles vs Wii or PSP vs DS.

Either way, nice video.

^In case of those gfx, they ruin games.

woop de do - so the future is going to make development costs and times soar even more.

Doesn't interest me in the slightest to be honest.

I don't understand how this means the end of actors. All they did was scan the performance of a real actor with a very sophisticated scanner. Obviously if they want to continue to have realistic voice and animations, they have to keep scanning the actor.

Not that this technology isn't cool. I'm sure they will be able to make some pretty cool effects by editing the results of these scans. And it does dodge the uncanny valley because it's using scans of real textures and animations rather than trying to recreate them. I just think some people are overestimating the significance a bit.

I don't know why people are saying realistic graphics will ruin games.

Assuming we have capable hardware, take a game like Crysis and give it COMPLETELY realistic graphics. Away from the uncanny valley, no artifacting or texture pop-in, or aliasing...why would that not be a plus? Walking through a videogame world and have it look exactly like the real world sounds like a great graphics option, and the only reason it isn't done now is because the technology isn't there.

Why would we want a Resident Evil CGI quality or Final Fantasy CGI quality game, when the possibility to have realistic graphics is there? I understand less realistic games like Mario and Zelda should still have some cel-shaded style...but what about Metroid? Don't you think having all the people look indecipherable from real people would be a plus? Ultra-high-resolution textures, buildings, water, etc?

It doesn't have to be the only option for game graphics, but I sure as hell want a character that looks and animates as well as that lady in the video in my games.

Graphics = Not Important

I let's look at RE5, KZ2, FF13, FFvs13, KH2 cutscenes. Look at how these look, once we get this quality in-game... please stop there.

because most of the time unfortunately it takes away from the gameplay,  take cod4 where the graphics were amazing and when crawling you could see every leaf on the branches yet I completed the single player game in less than 12 hours and it cost me £38.99. 

Compare that to the gameplay I got out of Zelda TP, Zack and Wiki, RE4 or Okami for either the same price or a little less. 

@Dgc1808:  Why though? If we could have a similar style to those cutscenes, only with ultra-high resolution to the point they look like real people, what's wrong with that?

It's like people who hated 3D because 2D games had such cool art styles....which they did, but 3D brought something different to the table...and I think ultra-realistic graphics will bring something different to the table as well...it'll open up possibilities for new types of games.

@Me:  Yeah I'm sure ultra-realistic graphics will cost a lot...but I'm talking about an affordable system...if these kinds of graphics were available without cutting a game down to 15 hours...would you want it?  If not, why not?

This thread sounds familiar; I remember it dying after I asked this same question...so I want an answer.  If graphics like this are possible, and reasonable, why would you not want it?