There really isn't, any more. A few more polys in the models and a few more rays in the path tracing aren't a big difference. Check out what Blender can do with Eevee, which is more-or-less a realtime engine. Better physics simulations are still a big differentiator, but that doesn't matter for characters. The only reason rendered likenesses don't appear in films more (because they already do, look at Peter Cushing) is that they're still expensive and take a lot of manual work, and both of those factors are decreasing rapidly.
The CGI Peter Cushing is obviously CGI and non CGI Peter Cushing is obviously not. Its impressive but its not remotely close to being there yet. Is there a better example? You can probably make some CGI stills that fool people pretty well, but so far I haven't seen a convincing animated character.
Death Stranding is even more glaringly obvious. However to be fair to the devs they aren't under the impression that it looks like anything other than a videogame. A very pretty videogame, but still obvious CGI.
> CGI Peter Cushing is obviously CGI and non CGI Peter Cushing is obviously not.
It's interesting you say that, because I've found there are two camps of people on CGI Cushing: those who say the CGI is blindingly obvious and nowhere near realism, and those who didn't even notice. It is already good enough to fool some of the population.
I'm also not saying Death Stranding is photorealistic--unlike Tarkin it wouldn't fool anyone. I'm saying there's nowhere near an "ocean" of quality difference between the best video games and film CGI. Death Stranding isn't an example I'd use because it runs on PS4 and thus lacks the raytracing and high poly counts of state-of-the-art PC games.
