FINALLY - photorealistic- gamegraphics ... guess who

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="pundog"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="pundog"]To be truly photorealistic you need to make the game atom by atom (mostly for physics) so I don't see it happening anytime soon. pundog

here are some of my pics i took

[QUOTE="pundog"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="pundog"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="pundog"]To be truly photorealistic you need to make the game atom by atom (mostly for physics) so I don't see it happening anytime soon. Vandalvideo

here are some of my pics i took

way2funny

[QUOTE="purplemidgets"][QUOTE="hitomo"]

this game is photorealistic....

InsaneBasura

The world has flat textures?

Well... yeah. But you know what I mean. The grass isn't a flat texture with pixelated green/brown/yellow/red stuff sprouting out.

I'm kind of frustrated here. STALKLER has soooo many things to note about it when praising it, there really isn't any reason to bring up the graphics. It's one of those situations where using the graphics to praise a game just to be below it.

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

here are some of my pics i took

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIYAMOTOnext007

ppl say it doesnt look good cause it doesnt have all that shiny ness reflecting off of peoples forheads like in every other next gen game. 

and gamespot only game it an 8.5... interestingmangobear

ppl say it doesnt look good cause it doesnt have all that shiny ness reflecting off of peoples forheads like in every other next gen game. 

i say crysis looks better.LoG-Sacrament

that doesnt look photo realistic at all :|:|Rob2223

Pundog: No, my arm moves as billions of billions of atoms move simultanuously together in what is known as a MUSCLE. As I said, physics is on a much larger scale than you think, because atoms move simulataneously on a much larger scale. You can simulate these things easily.Vandalvideo

no man, real physics is based on atom to atom movement. you think evertything happens simultaneously, but such thing doesn't exist, it just feels and looks that way. It just happens so fast that you won't notice the movement of billions of billions of atoms, but when you boil water, put some clothes to dry, or whatever, everything happens on atom to atom scale, one at a time, maybe some simultaneous to others, but not in the same molecule. The same goes to you moving one muscle. Even with sound. It needs mass, substance to propagate itself through sound waves. They "shake" atom by atom of whatever's in the way, to make them reproduce the same wave again.

But you could reproduce at least visually real physics by simulating those effects on a larger scale, no one would notice the difference since we're not actually living in the game. But even to do that properly you'd need one hell of a computer!

Stalker look like garbage unless you can turn on DX9 lighting effects and that requires one hell of a good computer. I can runs all setting at Max on R6 Vegas in 800x600, But I can turn on DX9 lighting effects in stalker at 800x600 with all details on minum, yet I can run it with Static DX8 light at stupidly high resolutions with all deatils maxed.Marka1700

go play oblivion on ultra low, and tell me how it looks.... any game can look like crap on low 

[QUOTE="Marka1700"]Stalker look like garbage unless you can turn on DX9 lighting effects and that requires one hell of a good computer. I can runs all setting at Max on R6 Vegas in 800x600, But I can turn on DX9 lighting effects in stalker at 800x600 with all details on minum, yet I can run it with Static DX8 light at stupidly high resolutions with all deatils maxed.way2funny

go play oblivion on ultra low, and tell me how it looks.... any game can look like crap on low 

and gamespot only game it an 8.5... interestingmangobear

Only? Thats a pretty good score if u ask me.

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

[QUOTE="Marka1700"]Stalker look like garbage unless you can turn on DX9 lighting effects and that requires one hell of a good computer. I can runs all setting at Max on R6 Vegas in 800x600, But I can turn on DX9 lighting effects in stalker at 800x600 with all details on minum, yet I can run it with Static DX8 light at stupidly high resolutions with all deatils maxed.Marka1700

go play oblivion on ultra low, and tell me how it looks.... any game can look like crap on low

Oblivion's lighting is crap combared to Stalker. The only game thats close to Stalker's lighting is FEAR. but stalker still has better lighting. 

I can agree to nearly almost every of the comments...

but I think everyone who played it fluid on maximum settings agrees that its the most realistic looking game RELEASED today, keep in mind that it looks exactly like in the DX9.1 trailers of stalker from may 13, 2005... and crysis is anything but near...

keep the cahrackter models out of most screenshots and it looks ike a photograph of a landscape, heck, majority of pre-rendered-stuff artist would dare to reach the quality stalker posses in real-time... the shadow casting on its own is so far a head

its the peak of DX9 graphic-engines... after playing stalker, I look at the unreal3 trailers - bioshock, tournament - I think, well its not as lifelike or believable as stalker... and of course stalker is a great game not because of its graphics...

I am not playing that much, and mostlikly no FPS's, but when I walk around, looking at trees or houses or streets I recognice how much real world detail was recreated in Stalkers scenery... you have to play it, see it in action...

show the next two pics to your wife or girlfriend and ask ...photo or not?! ...or the one with the two snorks...

I heard STALKER was number one in last weeks U.S. sale charts, great thing!

...okay, one last pic from me, its from my system... but look at this, even the dated characters can get very close to photorealism... 

greetz

and gamespot only game it an 8.5... interestingmangobear

*many pretty pictures*

I heard STALKER was number one in last weeks U.S. sale charts, great thing!hitomo