Why the fuck don't games look as good as Toy Story yet?

Why the fuck don't games look as good as Toy Story yet?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=6xL2rcXI698
youtu.be/gsusakRf7T8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

For what reason? Why would you want all games to look like big budget CGI movies? Some certain come close, and they're good in their own rights. But I rather not want all my games to be movies.

I'm quite positive you're from neoGAF

All pre-rendered by server farms, the hardware needed to render something like that in real time at least or at least that can be affordable to your average consumer does exist.

Because video games are interactive.

Because games look like shit compared to big budget CGI movies. And this isn't a photorealism issue because Toy Story is a stylized fucking movie.

Meant does not exist.

Why do you keep making this thread?

Shit thread, let's talk about the greatest licensed game ever instead.

What? This is my first time making this thread.

Average development software in the 2010s >>>>>> high tech state-of-the-art hardware in the 1990s
Technology is evolving quickly, but not that fucking quickly.

They got better textures.

My man

How can they even compete?

They already look a million times better since Pixar's grotesque character design is just trash from children's picture books. There's a reason animated movies still get their own categories in award shows.

Why is the lighting so fucking bad? Why are there still jaggies in 2017?

When it comes to Toy Story 1 we're actually pretty close to having single GPUs be powerful enough to render it in real time.

Shut. The. Fak. Up.

The power of consoles

that game was fucking lit

it takes render farms to render that shit because of the lighting and shit meanwhile video games have to have optimized models and lighting that allows for shit to be controlled by the players so the quality drops and devs have to use a bunch of illusions to make them look good or some shit

Lighting is hard, you know?

how retarded can you possibly be to even compare the two?
>I have no idea what I'm talking about but I'm mad about it anyway

Toy Story is over 20 years old, isn't it about time games start to match it?

I'm pretty sure Metro 2033 has you covered looking back at Sid.

There is a reason Pixar didn't have many people in their movies for a long time. Took until Incredibles for hair to work.

maybe when people figure out how to make an engine that can render like a fucking animated movie in real-time and still have good performance, ya dope

So people are just fucking lazy, then?

yeah dude thats it, not a lack of tech or power or anything
good detective work

How about you leave my fucking thread?

how about you don't make dumb threads bitching about things you lack knowledge for haha

>lazy
Don't criticize what you have no scope about.

Unless you don't mind a broken jaw.

>outrage culture babby gets BTFO
>l-leave my thread!
Priceless. I'd love to hear you talk about politics.

I know for a fact the PS4 can render Toy Story in real time. Developers are too lazy to make use the available technology.

At a 32x32 resolution, maybe. A Titan Xp isn't quite capable of rendering it at a solid 24fps at its original rendering resolution of 922p.

>why don't games, which have to be rendered in real-time and go as far as the engine will take them, look like fucking CGI movies which take hours upon hours to render even frames of
Factually incorrect. There's no consumer graphics card on the market right now that could flawlessly render Toy Story in its entirety. You're an idiot and you have no idea what you're talking about.

Stop while you can.

this bait again, get something original

John Lasseter literally said they rendered Toy Story with a GTX 770 last year. Get fucked

>games keep focusing on polycount and gobs of unnecessary detail rather than textures and lighting which are what make games look really good
I don't care if things are perfectly round or have all the fucking filters in the universe, I just want textures that don't look like they're from N64 games and lighting that looks better than Half-Life 2.

>that rainy alley level
>that rainy alley boss
>trying to jump across the river on boxes a la frogger

What a difficulty curve. Everything after that level felt easier for some reason.

Probably because CG animation takes hardcore effort for just one 1-2 hour long movie and not a fucking video game, you dumb cunt.
>citation needed

we're gettin there

The technology doesn't exist, and even if it did, there is no hardware capable of utilizing it well. Maybe in a generation or two.

>hurr why doesn't real time look as good as pre-rendered
Gee I wonder.

lolno. He said their renderfarm (in 2010) could. A 770 isn't equivalent to a 2010 renderfarm.

>ITT: retarded OP tries hard to backpedal and deflect and ends up embarrassing himself more

That's not Aladdin on SNES

Toy Story took like 6 months of nothing but rendering to make a hour and a half movie.

Games could look like Toy Story, but you'd get 1 frame per hour at best.

You're really going to tell me with a straight face that Toy Story looks better than this?

Or this?

Or this?

>waifu2x

That was some slight noise removal to get rid of jpg artifacts. Here's the original.

It's taken this long to get a game that looks as good as a black and white cartoon from the '30s

What's so taxing about CGI?

Is this final release or are you bragging about bullshots?

They do, toy story looks fucking awful outside of the main toys and even then the versions in KH3 look better.

props for not using the outpost pic most people use

Full body lighting is fucking resource heavy as hell and requires a 50k PC setup to even START on the possibility of doing an imitation of it in real time.
Even Toy Story 1's lighting is too good for anything in real time.

youtube.com/watch?v=6xL2rcXI698
Why not look for yourself?

Actually a month and a half. And that was on just under 300 CPUs from 1993 running at 100MHz.
We're actually pretty close to real time toy story.

na it would take a 1080ti 1 1/2 hours to run ts 1

Yeah, OP, Toy Story is such a visual treat
A real masterpiece
If video games could even come close to rendering so well
10,000,000 computers in unison

Look at this superior graphix

Really, how can video games compete?
When will they?
It's been 20 years, video games
step it up

The lighting is still better

I just don't know when our rendering technology will catch up to the glory of pre-rendered animation from the 90's.

>thing where it takes hours of render time per frame
>thing where frame timing is absolutely perfect and consistent
>doesn't have to worry about AI or user interaction

vs

>rendering 144 frames per second!

That's why.

It really really isn't. Baby's first Blender render looks better than this.

OP please
fucking TF2 blows this shit out of the water, a game from a decade ago

must be a PC fag who only cares about graphics

You sound like a retard.

yep, lighting, IQ and polygon count is still superior

>hey john, what do you think this scene needs?
>BUMPMAPS!
>wow, it's like I can actually SEE the wood kind of

Why don't you make it then if it's so easy? Show all these developers how "fucking lazy" they are. But I know you won't, you'll just continue to shitpost on an anonymous message board.

>render
proof?

You jest, but the natural lighting looks ten times better while the background is pretty much how Uncharted looks.
Meanwhile, whoa. That means you now have to beat a soon to be 18 years old movie vs a 22 year old one.

>seriously saying the lighting on this shit is better
>Seriously
>Really


On a different note, I did just spend about five minutes trying to find this gif I once saw from a game--a guy throws a grenade into a room only lit by a light hanging from the ceiling. The light spins around on its cord and everything throws really cool shadows.

Oh well.
Settle for this?

Because look at how long it takes to render a single frame for Toy Story. Toy Story 3 took 7 hours per frame. 7 hours nigga.

This isn't Toy Story 1.

You mean this? Game is FEAR.

Yeah, I think that's the one.

>Reading comprehension

are you fucking retarded?

>no ray tracing
>no high-poly models
>compressed textures
lol

>user seriously thinks this looks better than modern video games:
youtu.be/gsusakRf7T8


Nevermind that Toy Story isn't a playable experience.
Nevermind that Toy Story isn't in real time.
Nevermind that Toy Story's render time is insane.

Toy Story wasn't ray traced retard

If Toy Story was made today, people would claim its anti-transexual/gender-fluid

if op likes toy story so much why doesnt he marry it!!!

>Lighting, IQ, and Polycount is better

ha. Funny jokes mr know nothing

The lighting isn't really that great. Look at the shadows coming off of his hair, and look at the lighting in the sandbox. Notice how it seems like lots of shadows have weird uniform blurring on them - this is because old light rendering has issues with resolving geometry at distances, so they had to do some face scattering effects to smoothen out shadows. Modern games can do a less expensive but better method.

Look at sid's eye sockets. Notice how they're bleeding a purple hue? That's because the specular lighting effects on his eyelid is being lit through his head mesh.

Also notice the distinct lack of ambient lighting. Pixar used global illuminators, which essentially brightened the albedos of the textures in a uniform fashion. That's why all the grass in the shadows looks similarly shaded.

Also, the polycount is not at all superior. That sid mesh probably only uses about 20-30k polygons, with the majority of them being in his hair. Most of the mesh's smoothness is attributed to Pixar's really advanced methods of face smoothing via light calculations. The hair is a bit of an exception because they used a really fucking expensive "cone rendering" technique to simulate it, when a simple mesh with some alpha mapping could have done the trick even better (but that tech didn't exist back then)

>HIGH POLY MODELS GUYS

You're a fucking idiot.

Yet they still look better than Toy Story, by a fucking mile. Your point? Not only that, but;
>nobody's gonna fucking ray-trace when you can get cheap workarounds that look just as good without destroying your computer
>many of the models in those images have higher polycounts than those used in toy story
>many of the textures in those images are higher-res than those used in toy story, and many of them ARE uncompressed, which is why games are so big nowadays
Care to try again?

Where is this coming from?

That reminds me, I made a thread once on /vp/ detailing how high the polygon counts for Pokemon were. Fucking Primarina has a 16k polygon count, a model for a 3DS game. What the hell, Game Freak?

Holy shit the bait, and holy shit the people ACTUALLY agreeing and defending this shit? Video games have looked better than Toy Story since PS2 came out. Fuck outta here.

And people wonder why the game chugs.

You're a toy not a space ranger.

They do

LOD. That's the super high detailed model for very close closeups. The model that you're looking at most of the time ingame is probably much more reasonable.

>ucking Primarina has a 16k polygon count, a model for a 3DS game. What the hell, Game Freak?
It's to make the transition to the Switch easier. It's not like they didn't know it was going to come out.

why don't games look like Warcraft III???