When the fuck will games look like CGI?
When the fuck will games look like CGI?
never
unless you want to play it at that renderingspeed
which is like a frame a day
In a hundred years, and they'll look like 2010 CG, not 2160 CG.
Uncharted 4 for the Sony playstation 4 says hi....
but user, aren't vidya game graphics already generated by computers?
This demo runs at 30 fps on a PS4 tho
CGI =/= Games
Just because they can both be animated doesn't mean they are the same
now play that while spinning and jumping like an idiot and having a dynamic firefight or something
>rendering static shit
He said games that look like CGI, not games that look like kindergarten drawings by 5 year olds.
I'd say we're getting there, honestly.
People will shitpost this game to death, but these characters are infinitely more life like and detailed the the average CGI character in film.
It's a fully dynamic global illumination solution. Obviously no game will look like that on PS4 but on the scorpio/neo, absolutely
>It's a fully dynamic global illumination solution.
Do you have a single fact to back that up?
meh even that's possible with extreme optimization work and top talent, but you'd either have an extremely short vertical slice or you'd never manage to break even
I guess I'm trying to make the point that a lot of our efforts are still largely limited by stuff like organization and logistics than actual hard physical limits
and who will make it?
even if thats true it would take highlevel first party money and take like 5 years
we've reached 2001-levels of CGI
That scene SHOULD look like a prerendered seen because there's no point in it not being prerendered
ie there's no gameplay
ie I can "play" through that 1000 times and it will be literally identical each time
>posts a cutscene
>M-Muh Uncharted...
If you sincerely think Uncharted 4 looks soooooo much better than any other video game, then you clearly haven't seen a cutting edge PC game.
>Full control of the character.
>Have an attack and defense options.
>Not gameplay.
Guess Mario is just a cutscene, since all that faggot does is run and jump.
I remember reading about the engine a few months ago
Games are actually getting easier to develop because of PBR workflows though, so probably not. UC4 and Order 1886 aren't even that far off visually
yeah and UC4 and the order took highlevel first party money and over 3 years to make
>lying
Who do you think you're going to trick?
Are you retarded?
Assassin's Creed Unity is close too
>slow movement
>no physics
>no dynamic breaking of anything
I'd say we are well past that point. This was mo-capped in real-time on stage.
unity have like three areas that even comes close
and its not really that close
and its not even 1080p
...
>Just like movies, except ours run in real time.
It'd a good looking game on a $300 console that's replicating high settings on PC
sure you could show pics of a game running on a decked out PC but its not impressive at all
>trying this hard
The Witcher 3 looks perfect on 4k all details maxed
So you think graphics will just stagnate forever, then? Most AAA games releasing in the next few years will be on-par with UC4 visually. Look at Battlefield 1, Horizon Zero Dawn, even Mirror's Edge looks fantastic
Photorealism is near
Soon...
What's a cutting edge PC game that actually looks cutting edge?
The thing is, the game itself isn't all that impressive considering you could run Crysis 3 at 1080p30 on a $300-$350 PC, and it looks better.
Now what's really impressive is Crysis 3 running on PS3/360.
That's some fucking black magic shit.
When we can readily afford computers able to render that level of quality in real time.
I think The Witcher 3 looks kinda plastic-y, the water especially
GTA V looks much better
Real-time video games will never have animation and lighting quality like this.
It would look good on a PC, but just knowing that it's running on a Playstation is enough to make it look like shit. Sony branding just sours everything it touches. I won't allow their products in my home until they abandon the console market and let their hostage games go. Then they can run free, to PC, where games belong.
I dont think so, it looks better than crysis thats just my opinion though
What makes the animation so much smoother looking? Pure talent or are there actual tech limitations?
not in the lighting department.
Every fucking time this thread pops up i have to come and post this picture. aside from the lighting and model resolution. every single hair on that bear is individually rendered, lit, has applied physics and mass.
Game's are a long long way off even pixar level detail, Don't even talk about ILM or Weta cgi.
Don't be fucking idiots, we aren't anywhere near it and wont be for a long time.
Yes we have, UC4 looks just as good
see
From a lighting perspective we aren't that far off. Sheer detail isn't as important
>Every fucking time this thread pops up i have to come and post this picture. aside from the lighting and model resolution. every single hair on that bear is individually rendered, lit, has applied physics and mass.
source
Better model rigging, no limit on bones (or not as much real time rendering), maybe, I don't know
Your opinion is brain damage, then.
Ehh, you're entitled to your opinion, regardless of what other anons say.
Pixar doesn't use bone rigging on faces, they use deforms all the way. Go look at their behind the scenes shit.
texture resolution isn't everything. geometry complexity and shaders and whatnot advance considerably every year and vary in the computational power they require
That guy with the top hat in the back left is creeping me out.
hello sony friend
>advance considerably every year
No, not really.
In fact, in some cases they actually get worse.
Crysis 3 has comparable geometry to the vast majority of modern games, and pic related isn't even at its best considering when I took the screenshot I was running an HD 7870, a C2Q Q8200, and 6 GB of DDR2 RAM.
The only part I'd agree looks somewhat dated are the character models.
Both. Without time or hardware constraints, they're free to make the art they want. Think of it as the difference between building an action figure and filimg stop motion.
lol no
I'm not a source, but Disney did the same shit in Frozen, and pretty much all big-game CGI movies nowadays are using this kind of tech. Hair physics has come a long way. What you can do in games, being rendered in real time by console hardware, has absolutely nothing to do with what you can do with "render farms", as they call them.
None of what they apply can be pulled of in real time, especially not with player input. You can "spoof" some of the same visuals and come up with something that looks almost as good at a glance, but it will never be like individually rendered strands of hair. Anna's hair in Frozen looks almost too realistic in one scene where it's all frizzed up in bedhead.
I don't know anything about 3d modeling/animation. I'm just taking shots in the dark. How does deforming work?
Also, Zootopia isn't Pixar
I'd say Uncharted 4 still looks better. Art direction > technical capabilities.
There isnt anything happening in that scene though. Everything is static. It looks nice but you wouldn't be able to play that and smash everything, apply gun fights. Anything. We are getting there but we are still a long way off.
Source on what? That the bear is that way? Go watch the dvd extras of the film and also look at the previous work of pixar. Tangled is another prime example of the lengths they go to when it comes to hair rendering detail. You're delusional if you think we are even 1/10th of what pixar can do.
Another case is pic related. this is entirely cgi. even the eyes. we are not near this kind of quality and its already 10 years old.
Uncharted 4 looks better than Toy Story 3? Lmao nigga baka......
>grabs a sword which the enemy doesn't notice
>enemy takes a giant swing at you, could easily dodge and stab him
>hit his sword instead
???
>but Disney did the same shit in Frozen
Yea, Frozen isn't exactly the best example for high-detail CGI.
>Lmao
>nigga
>baka
>......
vegetation looks bad and lighting is inferior to the kind of shit we're starting to see in games like ff15 and uncharted 4.
it *can* look good but it never does this gen with all games being downgraded console ports
They have Crysis 3 on sale for like £2, is it worth checking out?
Is this a CGI thread?
I was talking specifically about Anna's hair, if you'll bother to read instead of skimming for something to greentext.
It doesn't surprise me at all that Disney cheaped out on things nobody was going to pay attention to. Even their classic animated films utilized major corner-cutting. Pixar is a lot more detail-oriented.
get Crysis 1 instead
X years ago on PC
youtube.com
Though in all honesty, CGI is made in renderfarms, not on your consumer-grade PC
Like I said earlier, it's a GI solution. Scorpio/Neo games will be able to handle those visuals alongside physics-heavy interactions
Obviously Pixar levels of detail are a long way off though
The vegetation is actually much better than what's employed in either of those games and the lighting is just as good, complete with proper refraction shadows which neither FF15 nor UC4 have.
already got it with the expansion senpai
>When will everyone in the world have a $1k graphics card so devs can waste lots of time and money focusing on high end graphics?
This isn't about art direction though. OP was talking about reaching CGI levels of detail. and as much as i like U4 and think it looks sensational, it's sadly nothing compared to the cgi in use today.
But okay lets look at your uncharted art style. And look at modern cgi and compare. It can't even hold a candle to SE cgi. and they are NOTHING against Pixar, ILM and Weta.
...
games already look better than toy story
Uncharted surpassed crysis, just give it a rest gramps
...
Toy Story 1 sure, but that looks terrible now. I'm referring more to mid-late 2000s era CGI, hence the wall-e screen
When technology reaches a point where said CGI can be rendered in real time and in an interactive environment.
Today's video games look about the same as CGI looked around 10-15 years ago.
So in about 10-15 years games will look like today's CGI. That lag will always exist due to the difference in power required to render in real time versus rendering one frame at a time over many, many hours to create a pre-rendered movie.
wow that is some low quality washed out shit. honestly blood and wine occasionally looks better than this
Crysis 1 unmodded?
Sure.
Crysis 3?
No, not even close.
well, UC4 runs at 30 fps in singleplayer, where the graphics are
and crysis is 10 years old
>game released 9 years later looks better
>in SOME aspects
Does Uncharted have a "photo mode"?
it's impressive what talented devs can do. it probably forces them to think creatively to work within the limitations of console hardware
>No, not even close.
Feel free to prove it then, Uncharted has done vegetation the best there is no contest
Does anyone have that cool video on the tech behind The Good Dinosaur and how they rendered the entire "map" that they used and the volumetric weather and the things like that? I can't find it.
You want games to look like pic related?
>Uncharted has done vegetation the best
Yea no, see and
*all aspects
>Weta
District 9's CGI just looks like black magic to me. Normally I find CGI jarring and distracting in movies, but D9 was the big exception for me.
This looks ridiculous man, we really aren't far at all from photorealism
>photo mode
He's right actually. You have full movement and can choose when to attack/block in that segment. The only QTE style 'scripted' parts only pop up during transitions to the next phase of the boss fight.
>It's another muh graphics thread
This post is Uncharted 4 if you didn't realize