Return to Answer

The other answers cover the raw graphics issues in good detail, but don't mention an important part of the realism of games vs. movies and trailers: the animations and camera movements.

In a movie or trailer, each movement of people and cameras can be carefully coordinated to show just the right emotion for the moment, and they never need to be repeated. In video games, the game must be able to react instantly to the player's movements, and must reuse a small pool of stock animations in order to fill the unlimited hours of game time that can be possible.

Examples of this from the trailer in question are when the therapist nods and gives a "not bad" smile, and when Lara grips the armrest, jiggles her leg, or looks on the cavern in awe. These small things (or the lack of them, and the "plastic" characters involved) affect the perceived realism far more than minor graphics improvements.

Unlike the other graphics differences, this is not a problem that can potentially be solved by throwing more computing power at it: it's a fundamental difference between a world that's scripted and a world that responds to your every action. In this particular regard, I expect that the realism of today's trailers will exceed all gameplay for the foreseeable future.

The other answers cover the raw graphics issues in good detail, but don't mention an important part of the realism of games vs. movies and trailers: the animations and camera movements.

In a movie or trailer, each movement of people and cameras can be carefully coordinated to show just the right emotion for the moment, and they never need to be repeated. In video games, the game must be able to react instantly to the player's movements, and must reuse a small pool of stock animations in order to fill the unlimited hours of game time that can be possible.

Examples of this from the trailer in question are when the therapist nods and gives a "not bad" smile, and when Lara grips the armrest, jiggles her leg, or looks on the cavern in awe. These small things (or the lack of them, and the "plastic" characters involved) affect the perceived realism far more than minor graphics improvements.

Unlike the other graphics differences, this is not a problem that can potentially be solved by throwing more computing power at it: it's a fundamental difference between a world that's scripted and a world that responds to your every action. In this particular regard, I expect that the realism of today's trailers will exceed all gameplay for the foreseeable future.

The other answers cover the raw graphics issues in good detail, but don't mention an important part of the realism of games vs. movies and trailers: the animations and camera movements.

In a movie or trailer, each movement of people and cameras can be carefully coordinated to show just the right emotion for the moment, and they never need to be repeated. In video games, the game must be able to react instantly to the player's movements, and must reuse a small pool of stock animations in order to fill the unlimited hours of game time that can be possible.

Examples of this from the trailer in question are when the therapist nods and gives a "not bad" smile, and when Lara grips the armrest, jiggles her leg, or looks on the cavern in awe. These small things (or the lack of them, and the "plastic" characters involved) affect the perceived realism far more than minor graphics improvements.

Unlike the other graphics differences, this is not a problem that can potentially be solved by throwing more computing power at it: it's a fundamental difference between a world that's scripted vs. a world that responds to your every action. In this particular regard, I expect that the realism of today's trailers will exceed all gameplay for the foreseeable future.

The other answers cover the raw graphics issues in good detail, but don't mention an important part of the realism of games vs. movies and trailers: the animations and camera movements.

In a movie or trailer, each movement of people and cameras can be carefully coordinated to show just the right emotion for the moment, and they never need to be repeated. In video games, the game must be able to react instantly to the player's movements, and must reuse a small pool of stock animations in order to fill the unlimited hours of game time that can be possible.

Examples of this from the trailer in question are when the therapist nods and gives a "not bad" smile, and when Lara grips the armrest, jiggles her leg, or looks on the cavern in awe. These small things (or the lack of them, and the "plastic" characters involved) affect the perceived realism far more than minor graphics improvements.

Unlike the other graphics differences, this is not a problem that can potentially be solved by throwing more computing power at it: it's a fundamental difference between a world that's scripted and a world that responds to your every action. In this particular regard, I expect that the realism of today's trailers will exceed all gameplay for the foreseeable future.

The other answers cover the raw graphics issues in good detail, but don't mention an important part of the realism of games vs. movies and trailers: the animations and camera movements.

In a movie or trailer, each movement of people and cameras can be carefully coordinated to show just the right emotion for the moment, and they never need to be repeated. In video games, the game must be able to react instantly to the player's movements, and must reuse a small pool of stock animations in order to fill the unlimited hours of game time that can be possible.

Examples of this from the trailer in question are when the therapist nods and gives a "not bad" smile, and when Lara flexes her fingers, jiggles her leg, or looks on the cavern in awe. These small things (or the lack of them, and the "plastic" characters involved) affect the perceived realism far more than minor graphics improvements.

Unlike the other graphics differences, this is not a problem that can potentially be solved by throwing more computing power at it: it's a fundamental difference between a world that's scripted vs. a world that responds to your every action. In this particular regard, I expect that the realism of today's trailers will exceed all gameplay for the foreseeable future.

The other answers cover the raw graphics issues in good detail, but don't mention an important part of the realism of games vs. movies and trailers: the animations and camera movements.

In a movie or trailer, each movement of people and cameras can be carefully coordinated to show just the right emotion for the moment, and they never need to be repeated. In video games, the game must be able to react instantly to the player's movements, and must reuse a small pool of stock animations in order to fill the unlimited hours of game time that can be possible.

Examples of this from the trailer in question are when the therapist nods and gives a "not bad" smile, and when Lara grips the armrest, jiggles her leg, or looks on the cavern in awe. These small things (or the lack of them, and the "plastic" characters involved) affect the perceived realism far more than minor graphics improvements.

Unlike the other graphics differences, this is not a problem that can potentially be solved by throwing more computing power at it: it's a fundamental difference between a world that's scripted vs. a world that responds to your every action. In this particular regard, I expect that the realism of today's trailers will exceed all gameplay for the foreseeable future.