How does the use of photos as a means of displaying graphics in a simulation game compare in the evolution of game development relative to 3D rendering? Some have commented that in a golf game photos might work well. But the larger question relates to which is the most evolved method of presenting simulation graphics. Keep in mind that in golf, very key to accurate simulation are collisions with terrain, trees, bridges, rocks, etc. Moving trees, water, flags, clouds, etc. are also nice to have. The precise placement of each shot requires the ability to display billions of views per hole. Dynamic cameras (changing views, ball-eye camera, etc.) are nice to have. The assumption is one is striving for accuracy. I'm hoping to get some insights into where photo-based games relate to 3D games in the evolution of game development. Thank you. [Edited by - AboutGolf on November 26, 2006 10:09:44 AM]

Or, you could make your game look photo-realistic ;)

Hey, if it looks good
and its a silly golf game that doesn't need dynamically generated graphics (not like Doom where you need the camera to run around)
Then I say it probably works great for that application.

Sorry, but technique should be used for a purpose, not just for the sake of itself. You're going to need to find a reason why a golf game needs rendered graphics as opposed to beautifully composed HD photos.

first thing that comes to mind, is dynamic camera positioning
but on second though, HD photos don't necesarially oppose this if they used tons of panoramic views along with some kind of interpolation between locations
so... i think that approach might actually win for a golf applcation