This is a really good example of showing what video game graphics are really good at (static scenes with hard materials) and what they're not so good at but getting better (natural organic materials, humans with complex animations).

That said, as impressive as it is, we are still a long way off "photo realism".

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Photo-realism-in-video-games

Photo realism in video games has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine.

I mostly agree, but I did think the static interior shots were photo realistic, but I don't have a 4k screen.
If you smoothed out the jerky camera motion, the last scene had climbed out of the uncanny valley, imo....except the flame.

Are they saying this was rendered in real time by a consumer desktop? I mean, otherwise the framerate and resolution of the final product don't mean much.

considering what it takes to render actually photoreal CG at 4K, doing it in real time at 60 fps is at least 10+ years away. and that's extremely generous. this stuff looks awesome... for realtime renders in a video game. they're way the fuck off from photoreal.

so, one thought; the original Wii was success without having the highest graphics, but offering great games and an original experience.

And---while I look forward to great engines (though water and skin and hair are still so hard to get right)--the story and the mechanics are more important to me...

Exactly. At a time when Microsoft and Sony were pushing graphics, Nintendo nailed gameplay.

"I'm cheap, and fun."

*related=https://videosift.com/video/PS3-vs-Wii

PS3 vs. Wii has been added as a related post - related requested by notarobot.