Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Are you comparing 1 frame of a still that hasn't been rendered in real-time to a video game that is being dynamically rendered at at least (I hope) 30 frames per second?

> you can still clearly see it's a computer game

I'll give you that, but we are comparing this footage to footage of other video games from the past. Can you name a video game that looks more realistic than this? Maybe some of those realistic racing games I guess, but that is a different type of video game. My point is: currently, this is as close as we get to real-life, no? Sure, it can be better (and it probably will be in the future), but I'd say this ranks pretty high.



Yeah, it's much, MUCH different to have those vistas unfold in front of your eyes at smooth 144 fps while you have control over the movement and everything compared to hyperanalizing 1 still frame or a sequence of frames with no real control.


I think people are reacting to the tweet saying

> almost can’t believe this is a video game

Hyperbole is fine but it does tend to cause backlash.


I agree. I wouldn’t even say it’s backlash it’s just debugging out loud.

HN users want to test how true a statement is because when you’re coding a program, any edge cases that prove your code wrong can literally break everything. I think that begins to rub off on how you perceive all kinds of propositional statements in other areas.


Is that really hyperbole considering the quality?


It's a video game, that is, it renders in real time on hardware costing a couple thousand dollars max.

It's not trying to look impeccably realistic cinema level CGI, but it's damn impressive given the limitations of a video game, and of gaming hardware.


All of these demos look way better than the one in the OP:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi_RW2ofkFY&ab_channel=Gamin...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: