Not really going to happen because no matter what people's interpretation of what reality actually is varies heavily and there's the constant drive to insert bullshit into games by investors. We couldn't even get an authentic 15th century bohemia simulator without extreme amounts of marvel humor, feminism and token out of place Jews and a token black saving the country. We only get what financially the industry incentivises.
"However, if I created an 8bit sprite of that very same thing and told you that's what it was, you would not have the same reaction"
That's not true at all. People have the capacity to understand what the imagery represents and treat it as if it was real regardless of what it looks like. Some of the scariest games are the low res games because you have to use your imagination.
And again, we're not going to get immersion because the industry is too infatuated with anything but that.
The problem with this line of thinking is that are basically trying to compute infinity. At which then there is no point questioning what might happen because we are working with a mystery box of infinite possibilities. I'm just pointing out that realistically speaking we are never going to achieve ideals such as too realistic or proper immersion that doesn't rely on innate human belief to accept a hypothetical situation as real. There will always be something else that the industry would rather focus on because its both easier and more rewarding to do that then it is to make the "ultimate" product.
We are a point in time where culture is so fucked that it cannot possibly imagine ancient history without shoving minorities into it. That our most advanced societies are either police states (or rapidly becoming) or have cultures convinced that people who were never important in the country built the country. In 50 years its would be very unlikely for this mindset to have gone away and its effects on making immersive settings is going to last potentially forever. We won't have realistic settings if we still allow without question extreme mythologies like WW2 being fought between prosthetic british ladies and black female nazis. The human brain will detect these incredibly obvious failures and no amount of gaslighting or highly realistic graphics is going to fix that. Technology cannot make up for the lack of enthusiasm, creativity or respect for the craft that the industry will always experience.
I'm rejecting infinite possibilities to flat out state that its much more likely that something very unlikely to happen will not happen. That's not dubious. You can absolutely be confident that in the absence of infinite possibilities that something unlikely to happen won't happen.
Neither is it dubious to state the industry will continue to do what its already doing. Nor is it ridiculous to assume innate human qualities would be a factor in what will happen. It is not contradictory for someone to argue that infinite possibilities is ridiculous but then conclude that given 50 years humanity will never suddenly mutate into 50 armed beings and win mortal Kombat. The rejection of infinite possibilities and the focus on a grounded reality is what makes the never conclusion valid.
If you want this "too realistic" thing to be believable then you to need to get off the idea of "time makes anything possible" mentality that ignores omni-present industry factors (such as finances, human error and cultural values) and instead describe exactly what factors are needed for this to happen and the likelihood of it happening in the next 50 years. Taking refuge in the infinite possibilities of future is not going to somehow make "too realistic" games believable when there currently is and always has been an incentive to not make games anywhere near realistic; either from today with its complete inability to understand history or respect history or back then where people just wanted graphics but not realism since it would affect the gameplay.
Not to mention the human factors of different subjective views on physics, realism and the fact that someone would have to work very very hard to make a game like this.
There will probably always be an audience for realism in games. In terms of your question about it incepting new thoughts or causing mental scarring, it will depend on how good the game is. I don't think most adults would be traumatized by in-game violence for example, but I do think people of all ages might be susceptible to some level of mental plisoning from the inclusion of certain elements. The best propaganda pieces are good art, games, movies, etc. If you enjoy the propaganda and seek it out to consume it, that makes it more effective. Baldur's Gate 3 and Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 are examples of good games with leftist propaganda that accomplish this.
If you know ahead of time that it isn't real and you can't really die, there is a part of your brain that disassociates because you know it's fake. If you dropped someone in without them knowing, like if they had no idea that it was even possible, then yeah they'd have real stress. But the knowledge that none of it is real, that the people dying around you are just really fancy pixels, would prevent that, for well adjusted adults anyway.
You do have a point. No matter how rational we are or how much we tell ourselves something is "just a movie" or "just a game," humans can't help but consume it as if it were an experience we actually lived through. This is why it's so insidious that they want to "diversify" media depicting actual historic events, and why they put such an emphasis on portraying leftist mindrot in every aspect of media imaginable.
We’re backsliding in games currently. And I don’t see that trend going away anytime soon. The game you referenced came out in 2009 when the arc of game making was still a positive one.
realism has been out of fashion lately. back when Halo was the king of FPS games, many kids wanted to be the boots on the ground Marines and chased realism. since then, call of duty took over as king, then the audience split between call of duty and battlefield, and then the audience further subdivided into more FPS games of varying realism.
if realism is what everyone wanted, Hell Let Loose and Ready or Not would be the kings of FPS games right now. Instead they lose out games like Fortnite and PUBG.
Even if it does it won't matter, games as they are now, and even ones from decades ago, are still more than enough to suitably affect people in ways as if IRL would. Your example of Arachnophobia being one, similarly games with "spider-free" modes now to avoid those with arachnophobia having issues along those lines, and probably any other similar phobias like moths, birds, and whatever else. Even when the graphics aren't that good it can still be enough to affect someone and it's a long way from realistic at that point so improving those graphics isn't going to do much because the responses already happen.
You might get people arguing whether it helps with IRL actions or could help train/run IRL situations via drones and turn gamers into unknowing remote operators of killer drones, it's been done in sci-fi before, but then you don't need advanced graphics for that, and in all probability non-realism might even help since it detaches the experiences from IRL consequences.
It only needs to be realistic enough. I loved Medal of Honor for PS1, but couldn't play it for PS2 because it felt like I was shooting my family. Also, the campy fun was gone so I wasn't laughing.
I think its possible but only in certain subsets of people that are susceptible to it. The same way now that things like hypnotism (the self done version), ASMR, and other various forms of delusional thought only effect certain people right now. The kind of people who can be lulled into dissociative states through certain stimuli already.
I don't think it'll have much effect on greater reality, because we already have people that delusional making up the majority of the Left, who cannot tell reality from the media itself.
So instead it'll just be gooners getting entirely too gross and sad loners getting way to into their waifu simulation.
Ok, you said people get uncomfortable experiencing simulated heights with VR, I agreed and said I get uncomfortable experiencing simulated falling in other games, like OP and his arachnophobia. Don't know why you're being argumentative.
Yes. Gore and violence in a NES nintendo game is less of an issue versus ultra releastic gore with realistic lighting. You can make some nice gore and gibblets, but with the right shaders/materials plus light.. it brings it to a frightening level.
Whenever the bar is raised im sure a lot of people are shocked by it, but after they become acclimated and accept it as the new standard it's not as impressive. Like I remember playing a Sega Genesis on a 32 inch TV for the first time when I was 10 and was blown away after previously only experiencing NES on a 13 inch. The next time a game took me aback was the first time I played Silent Hill 2 and realized I couldn't tell when the actual gameplay began, I was standing in the bathroom thinking it was still a cutscene. Maybe in 10 years VR will be indistinguishable from real life, at least graphically. I might be taken aback the first time I kill something in one, but after a while it will become blaise.
Maybe? I think there's a risk of hyper-realism in gaming replacing the normal dopamine cycles that drive human behavior. Look at the skinner-box loot-crate games to see what the application of psychology to gaming can do to people already.
I think there is room for things to get worse, too.
In Larry Niven's Ringworld series, the main character has to recover from having a wire linked directly to his pleasure centers, which gave him the possibility of endless self-pleasure to the point of ego death. One could see that as the ultimate manifestation of hyperstimulation. Imagine a random payout schedule dopamine hit from your neuralink in your VR game rig, and you can see where this kind of power could be abused to manipulate behavior.
Pornography can do the same thing to human sexuality, but gaming is (for better and for worse) a more versatile medium. Our desire for escape our day-to-day reality can certainly be weaponized to create a hyper-real 'replacement' reality. This can be a trap, or a needed safety release valve. It's a technology, which is to say a tool-- and tools are only as moral as their wielders.
yeah its already here, they are fake and gay, thats too real man
https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Reality_Is_Unrealistic
Not really going to happen because no matter what people's interpretation of what reality actually is varies heavily and there's the constant drive to insert bullshit into games by investors. We couldn't even get an authentic 15th century bohemia simulator without extreme amounts of marvel humor, feminism and token out of place Jews and a token black saving the country. We only get what financially the industry incentivises.
"However, if I created an 8bit sprite of that very same thing and told you that's what it was, you would not have the same reaction"
That's not true at all. People have the capacity to understand what the imagery represents and treat it as if it was real regardless of what it looks like. Some of the scariest games are the low res games because you have to use your imagination.
And again, we're not going to get immersion because the industry is too infatuated with anything but that.
The problem with this line of thinking is that are basically trying to compute infinity. At which then there is no point questioning what might happen because we are working with a mystery box of infinite possibilities. I'm just pointing out that realistically speaking we are never going to achieve ideals such as too realistic or proper immersion that doesn't rely on innate human belief to accept a hypothetical situation as real. There will always be something else that the industry would rather focus on because its both easier and more rewarding to do that then it is to make the "ultimate" product.
We are a point in time where culture is so fucked that it cannot possibly imagine ancient history without shoving minorities into it. That our most advanced societies are either police states (or rapidly becoming) or have cultures convinced that people who were never important in the country built the country. In 50 years its would be very unlikely for this mindset to have gone away and its effects on making immersive settings is going to last potentially forever. We won't have realistic settings if we still allow without question extreme mythologies like WW2 being fought between prosthetic british ladies and black female nazis. The human brain will detect these incredibly obvious failures and no amount of gaslighting or highly realistic graphics is going to fix that. Technology cannot make up for the lack of enthusiasm, creativity or respect for the craft that the industry will always experience.
I'm rejecting infinite possibilities to flat out state that its much more likely that something very unlikely to happen will not happen. That's not dubious. You can absolutely be confident that in the absence of infinite possibilities that something unlikely to happen won't happen.
Neither is it dubious to state the industry will continue to do what its already doing. Nor is it ridiculous to assume innate human qualities would be a factor in what will happen. It is not contradictory for someone to argue that infinite possibilities is ridiculous but then conclude that given 50 years humanity will never suddenly mutate into 50 armed beings and win mortal Kombat. The rejection of infinite possibilities and the focus on a grounded reality is what makes the never conclusion valid.
If you want this "too realistic" thing to be believable then you to need to get off the idea of "time makes anything possible" mentality that ignores omni-present industry factors (such as finances, human error and cultural values) and instead describe exactly what factors are needed for this to happen and the likelihood of it happening in the next 50 years. Taking refuge in the infinite possibilities of future is not going to somehow make "too realistic" games believable when there currently is and always has been an incentive to not make games anywhere near realistic; either from today with its complete inability to understand history or respect history or back then where people just wanted graphics but not realism since it would affect the gameplay.
Not to mention the human factors of different subjective views on physics, realism and the fact that someone would have to work very very hard to make a game like this.
The fatalities in more recent Mortal Kombat games can be pretty off-putting (esp on the female characters).
There will probably always be an audience for realism in games. In terms of your question about it incepting new thoughts or causing mental scarring, it will depend on how good the game is. I don't think most adults would be traumatized by in-game violence for example, but I do think people of all ages might be susceptible to some level of mental plisoning from the inclusion of certain elements. The best propaganda pieces are good art, games, movies, etc. If you enjoy the propaganda and seek it out to consume it, that makes it more effective. Baldur's Gate 3 and Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 are examples of good games with leftist propaganda that accomplish this.
If you know ahead of time that it isn't real and you can't really die, there is a part of your brain that disassociates because you know it's fake. If you dropped someone in without them knowing, like if they had no idea that it was even possible, then yeah they'd have real stress. But the knowledge that none of it is real, that the people dying around you are just really fancy pixels, would prevent that, for well adjusted adults anyway.
You do have a point. No matter how rational we are or how much we tell ourselves something is "just a movie" or "just a game," humans can't help but consume it as if it were an experience we actually lived through. This is why it's so insidious that they want to "diversify" media depicting actual historic events, and why they put such an emphasis on portraying leftist mindrot in every aspect of media imaginable.
Short answer: No.
We’re backsliding in games currently. And I don’t see that trend going away anytime soon. The game you referenced came out in 2009 when the arc of game making was still a positive one.
realism has been out of fashion lately. back when Halo was the king of FPS games, many kids wanted to be the boots on the ground Marines and chased realism. since then, call of duty took over as king, then the audience split between call of duty and battlefield, and then the audience further subdivided into more FPS games of varying realism.
if realism is what everyone wanted, Hell Let Loose and Ready or Not would be the kings of FPS games right now. Instead they lose out games like Fortnite and PUBG.
fair
Even if it does it won't matter, games as they are now, and even ones from decades ago, are still more than enough to suitably affect people in ways as if IRL would. Your example of Arachnophobia being one, similarly games with "spider-free" modes now to avoid those with arachnophobia having issues along those lines, and probably any other similar phobias like moths, birds, and whatever else. Even when the graphics aren't that good it can still be enough to affect someone and it's a long way from realistic at that point so improving those graphics isn't going to do much because the responses already happen.
You might get people arguing whether it helps with IRL actions or could help train/run IRL situations via drones and turn gamers into unknowing remote operators of killer drones, it's been done in sci-fi before, but then you don't need advanced graphics for that, and in all probability non-realism might even help since it detaches the experiences from IRL consequences.
It only needs to be realistic enough. I loved Medal of Honor for PS1, but couldn't play it for PS2 because it felt like I was shooting my family. Also, the campy fun was gone so I wasn't laughing.
I think its possible but only in certain subsets of people that are susceptible to it. The same way now that things like hypnotism (the self done version), ASMR, and other various forms of delusional thought only effect certain people right now. The kind of people who can be lulled into dissociative states through certain stimuli already.
I don't think it'll have much effect on greater reality, because we already have people that delusional making up the majority of the Left, who cannot tell reality from the media itself.
So instead it'll just be gooners getting entirely too gross and sad loners getting way to into their waifu simulation.
I get a falling sensation when jumping off a tall cliff in third person games. It's not traumatic or anything, it's just weird.
Indeed, but I don't like roller coasters or catwalks, so it makes sense to me.
Ok, you said people get uncomfortable experiencing simulated heights with VR, I agreed and said I get uncomfortable experiencing simulated falling in other games, like OP and his arachnophobia. Don't know why you're being argumentative.
I meant it isn't traumatic for me. Not like the people who lose their shit at spider enemies in games.
Unreal engine 4/5 and ray tracing is a curse... realistic lighting makes things look the same and runs like shit.
I do a lot of r34 stuff and cycles (ray tracing lighting) looks the same. Eevee with its baked lighting looks more interesting to me.
Yes. Gore and violence in a NES nintendo game is less of an issue versus ultra releastic gore with realistic lighting. You can make some nice gore and gibblets, but with the right shaders/materials plus light.. it brings it to a frightening level.
Whenever the bar is raised im sure a lot of people are shocked by it, but after they become acclimated and accept it as the new standard it's not as impressive. Like I remember playing a Sega Genesis on a 32 inch TV for the first time when I was 10 and was blown away after previously only experiencing NES on a 13 inch. The next time a game took me aback was the first time I played Silent Hill 2 and realized I couldn't tell when the actual gameplay began, I was standing in the bathroom thinking it was still a cutscene. Maybe in 10 years VR will be indistinguishable from real life, at least graphically. I might be taken aback the first time I kill something in one, but after a while it will become blaise.
It's inevitable. Look how far it's all come in 50 years. What might they be in, say, 500 more? Indistinguishable from reality.
Of course, this leads back to the almost certain possibility that WE live inside that tech already.
Maybe? I think there's a risk of hyper-realism in gaming replacing the normal dopamine cycles that drive human behavior. Look at the skinner-box loot-crate games to see what the application of psychology to gaming can do to people already.
I think there is room for things to get worse, too.
In Larry Niven's Ringworld series, the main character has to recover from having a wire linked directly to his pleasure centers, which gave him the possibility of endless self-pleasure to the point of ego death. One could see that as the ultimate manifestation of hyperstimulation. Imagine a random payout schedule dopamine hit from your neuralink in your VR game rig, and you can see where this kind of power could be abused to manipulate behavior.
Pornography can do the same thing to human sexuality, but gaming is (for better and for worse) a more versatile medium. Our desire for escape our day-to-day reality can certainly be weaponized to create a hyper-real 'replacement' reality. This can be a trap, or a needed safety release valve. It's a technology, which is to say a tool-- and tools are only as moral as their wielders.