Calin said:
But what is faking?

We can do photorealistic rendering, or accurate simulation of cars and all this. It's simple math.
Although, if we are honest, we can't. You can not simulate complex reality in a chip of the size of a fingernail. Even if you could understand reality, it would be a simplified model.

We can not generate believable interactive characters. First issue is communication. Although, https://www.pandorabots.com/mitsuku/​ pretty good.
Still, in games we neither have good chatbots nor AI that learns how to play, yet. We want games at first, not reality simulation that is no fun. To design this, it needs to remain somewhat predictable, they say.

But there is surely opportunity for new games here. We will see what happens. I'm no expert.

If you want to simulate human behavior, the easiest way is to do a multiplayer game? We do not need to simulate this - we already have it?

There are many other boundaries we can not cross.
There is no hope in accurate simulation of sound for example. Performance requirements are totally out of reach.
Then there is the interface limitation. Bad controllers but people stick at it, nothing new. VR only works comfortable at a view distance where stereoscopic sense of depth becomes zero, so it adds only head tracking. Not to mention the senses that are not addressed at all.

So what is fake in a game?
Depends on the player. But usually everything.

JoeJ said:
Even if you could understand reality, it would be a simplified model

the process of replicating an item is making something that has as many properties of the original object as possible. if you make a robotic rig of a dog you can`t say it`s a fake, it`s just a step in the path of creating the original thing. It you get 95 or 99 percent of the way can you still call it fake?

Calin said:

JoeJ said:
Even if you could understand reality, it would be a simplified model

the process of replicating an item is making something that has as many properties of the original object as possible. if you make a robotic rig of a dog you can`t say it`s a fake, it`s just a step in the path of creating the original thing. It you get 95 or 99 percent of the way can you still call it fake?

In that movie, i recommended you, they program copies of real humans and nobody can tell the difference. 100%. It is the same human. But you refuse to watch it, because logic.

NikiTo said:
100%

I never said 100%. Because in that case it becomes a moral issue. Each person has an identity, reproducing a person means reproducing it`s memories and what makes it unique

Calin said:

NikiTo said:
100%

I never said 100%. Because in that case it becomes a moral issue. Each person has an identity, reproducing a person means reproducing it`s memories and what makes it unique

Yes memories and personality is copied too. But you have to use functions and loops.

I agree. We can make a science out of dog simulation, and we may accomplish our goal. It's not fake then, but science. So it's a rhetorical classification and it dpends on context.
For me, the ford ‘faked’ in games has a certain meaning. SSAO or SSR is fake. Distant environment not meant to be ever reached is fake. A game that constantly spawns enemies nearby just to keep me busy is fake. Turning a ragdoll off because it jitters like hell otherwise is fake.

But there is a difference if you say ‘i make robotic rig simulation of a dog’, or if you say ‘we have simulated dogs in our game’. The latter is more likely to be classified as fake, because your claim is poorly specified. Former sounds like research work, latter sounds like marketing promises.

As my goal is realistic simulation, i am optimistic i can achieve my goals. I run around and say: “Whooo! I'll create photorealistic gfx in realtime, people!” And i mean it. But others may expect too much from that and end up disappointed when i show off my results. Although i did achieve what i wanted, to the level i assumed to be possible.
And probably you noticed how often this goes wrong in the game industry. Overpromising, Downgrades, ‘meh! game looks shit only cutscene looks good’, etc.

… that's the usual outcome if we are too motivated or not specific enough.

I think a difference should be made between Robocop and terminator. terminator is just a dumb tool with no personality meant to kill. Robocop is a person that has been downloaded to a computer.

Robocop never was downloaded to a computer.
You need to watch Robocop too….

NikiTo said:
Robocop never was downloaded to a computer.

in that case Robocop is not a pure robot, just a human with a robotic body.

The point I was trying to make is that our circuitry is not exactly special as much as it is vast in it's depth and current consumer hardware is a farcry from being able to handle the same computational load that our brain presents. With the advent of quantum CPUs… AI with a mind of it's own is a very real and eventual possibility.

Like it or not, we are not special. Given sufficient hardware, the human brain could easily be replicated. We are nothing more than complex biological machines. The only difference between us and a machine with equivalent hardware is we make mistakes unpredictably / uniquely.