There have been recent games which do verge on the realistic, and it just doesn't quite work if they're not just a tad bit stylized (like Red Dead Redemption 2).Īlso, not everyone is broke. The effect is gradual, hence "valley", and I do think some games are getting more realistic in their facial models/animations. They discuss some of the developments being made in premier titles.Īnd the uncanny valley is not an uncanny cliff. The consumers are willing to pay for the best graphics.Īgain, I'd recommend checking out DigitalFoundry's YouTube channel. This is how graphics have always progressed. "Better graphics, 10x the detail, 4x the size!" An obvious Fallout 76 reference, but the reason they market games like that is that consumers want bigger and better-looking games.
![quake 3 rtx quake 3 rtx](https://cdn.cloudflare.steamstatic.com/steam/apps/1089130/ss_baa728ef0eef6e4ec4ce53ffbd1a35d57c249afb.1920x1080.jpg)
Just listen to how developers try to sell their games. What? Where do you get your information from? There's plenty of studios, including indies!, pushing graphics along. Win-win-win-win for nvidia shareholders, now that the crypto bubble has popped and it's getting difficult justifiying keeping prices up. Rtx is the apex of this whole concept- a terribly inefficient, moslty unnecessary, completely unrequested effect that magically makes games 10 times slower to run. That's not it at all, graphics look pretty much the very same shit as 5 years ago, but games are much heavier.Īnd why is it so? Because nobody has interest in pushing it, while there is literally a billions dollars worth of interests in keeping the games getting heavyer regardless of graphics so that dumb nerds dump their moneys into 2070tis. "Ībsolutely nope, we aren't even remotely close to approach uncanny valley in videogames. But eventually, it'll cross the barrier into realistic again. The more detailed stuff gets, the less real it looks. And there's probably some uncanny valley stuff happening. But you can still see the change, if you look for it. "I think the issue here is that there's been quite a bit of small incremental change but nothing leaps and bounds better over the past 5 years. But eventually, it'll cross the barrier into realistic again.ĭigitalFoundry has a nice YouTube channel that talks about some of the tech in recent games, and how they're pushing forward.
![quake 3 rtx quake 3 rtx](https://www.gamingdose.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/quake-ii-rtx-rtx-on-screenshot-006-environment-setting-2-1024x576.jpg)
I think the issue here is that there's been quite a bit of small incremental change but nothing leaps and bounds better over the past 5 years. Graphics today are barely any better than 5 years ago, but significantly heavier. Then they simply stopped giving a fuck, and now the same games weight over 100 gigabytes each. Up to some years ago, devs used to optimize the volume of datas a game required to be saved. That's what i'm talking about, it's all a ruse.
![quake 3 rtx quake 3 rtx](https://babeltechreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/1920x1080-max.png)
Time that could have spent elsewhere was spent trying to replicate realistic lighting. Whereas, with conventional methods, it required all these tricks to imitate/approximate a realistically lit room all this extra consideration and effort to make it look good. The physics did the rest and it looked great. The real-time raytracing version of the area was simplified because it was just the materials and the lights. Some guy did a presentation - maybe it was at GDC (I can't remember exactly) - showing how they lit an area in Metro Exodus and the difference between the two approaches (real-time raytracing vs. I watched some tech talk on this specific issue. The only part that deserve consideration, and it's wrong.