Why have videogame graphics stopped advancing?

why have videogame graphics stopped advancing?

Other urls found in this thread:

venturebeat.com/2013/04/24/the-making-of-pixars-latest-technological-marvel-monsters-university/
web.archive.org/web/20170512075856/https://venturebeat.com/2013/04/24/the-making-of-pixars-latest-technological-marvel-monsters-university/
youtube.com/watch?v=tkDadVrBr1Y
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Because you don't buy enough lootboxes

Maybe it's because Woody is just some ancillary character in a large 60+hour experience and not the total focus within camera frame for a 1 hour film.

When a videogame makes something that looks like the original thing.

when we have cpus that can render using ray tracing in milliseconds rather then minutes/hours then videogame graphics will improve.

It takes super computers to get to Toy Story 2 levels of detail. Upside is they surpassed Toy Story 1, so 10 more years i suppose

>this image
yeah, comparing a movie that takes 9 hours to render one frame to a videogame that renders a frame in less than a millisecond.
Sup Forums seriously needs to get some tech literacy

maybe it's because one is rendered in real time and one isn't

pre-rendered vs in-engine

Your a complete fucking retard if you think games should be at this levels yet. Real time versus pre-rendered are two completely different things. Even with computers available back then they had a massive amount of resources available to render it. If you tried to render something like Toy Story in real time you'd be measuring in frame per hours instead of second. Just look at a more modern comparison

venturebeat.com/2013/04/24/the-making-of-pixars-latest-technological-marvel-monsters-university/

29 hours PER FRAME to render this shit with 24000 cores of processing power at their disposal.

Meant to post archive link

web.archive.org/web/20170512075856/https://venturebeat.com/2013/04/24/the-making-of-pixars-latest-technological-marvel-monsters-university/

>a movie looks better than a game
water is wet, more at 11

>comparing a 2013 movie to a 1997 movie

>2017
>video game graphics don't look as good as pic related yet
Who's to blame? Consoles?

A better question is do videogames need to achieve better graphics? I think we have progressed far enough to the point where any gains are just diminishing returns reached by exorbitant monetary costs.

Image on the left takes 1/60 of a second to be done. Image on the right takes more than 60h on your shitty pc.

Look at Arena then look at Skyrim
Now look at Toy story 1 then at Toy Story 3

Real time graphics are advancing at an incredible speed

/thread

No, he's comparing relative processing power with real-time versus pre-rendered. Computers just aren't at the level where real-time can match up to 1995 pre-rendered (environmental and lighting effects anyways).

What is the meaning of these terms "real-time" and "render"? I don't have any technical knowledge. Why don't the video games pre-render things in the way that films do? Why can't they copy their methods?

> implying companies seeing their games as cash registers instead of a finished product isn't a huge part of the problem.

>Pixar today has 23,000 processors at its disposal — enough to render the original Toy Story in real time

This, graphics are good enough. Put the effort into more interesting things like A.I., art style, animations, design etc.

Because then it would just be a movie

A movie doesn't have to respond to a player's inputs. A game does. Therefore a game has to render each frame so that the experience remains smooth. That means it's rendering at least 20-30 frames per second at a bare minimum.

>A movie doesn't have to respond to a player's inputs. A game does
We should make games where player input doesn't do anything. Then they can be a truly cinematic experience.

He's right though. It would take Pixar's render farm in 95' a week to process just a few minutes. Those were high-end dedicated machines for it's time, nothing compared to today but still it would take a computer than is 9.4million times faster to process in real time at 30fps.

user, someone from Sony Computer Entertainment called and is asking for your cv.

>what is pause, rewind, fast forward
Nice try apologist.

>expecting good graphics on a ~$300 console
lmao. if the game was a PC exclusive it would look even better than the movie.

so we COULD have toy story like games real time if the power if one future processor would process the power of 23000 processors
in fact, technically we could play toy story real time NOW in a single massive room in Pixar's headquarters

because anyone who cares about graphics is a faggot

If you want to compare it with the original toy story it's still pretty amazing.

Disney had 117 high end mid-90s PC workstations render Toy Story, each frame took 45 minutes to 30 hours to render. The 117 PCs cranked out about 3 minutes of video per week. In total the PCs spent 800,000 combined machine hours (over 91 years) to render Toy Story's 114,240 frames at a resolution of 1,536 by 922 pixels.

This is what it means to go even further beyond!

It took like 10 fucking years to render the first Toy Story

KH3 is in real time

Don't you have an ELEX thread to be shilling for Bjorn?

Enjoy your 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
FPS

>the virgin real time render
>the CHAD pre-rendered CGI

don't even know what you mean, but it's true, graphics only matter to people that suck at videogames and need something to make up for the experience

Just slightly above PS4

The advancement of graphics in this day and age has only caused games to become more shitty, prove me wrong.

Games these days take longer than ever to make, costs way more money to make, and often aren't even as good as older games with worse graphics. And look, it's even given rise to people who excuse garbage games, just because they look good.

>game with super hd 4k grafix
>still has clipping even in promo shots
>clothes and hair don't have proper physics
why is this allowed?

>what is diminishing returns

You probably could render the original movie in real time at a render farm, but chucking everything into a single computer and trying to play a video game is probably not going to work out.

...

That's just rendering though, user input would add extra.

This is why photorealistic gaming is a meme. We can get close, but it becomes infinitely more difficult as you get closer.

It's sad, but there is no turning back on evolution user. Spyro the dragon was the shit in it's time, and it's not for nostalgia, it is because there wasn't anything better.
You cannot think of making a game with those graphics now, having something better.

Retro looks are a different issue, I don't know why.
Maybe because retro looks is a aesthetic in itself and reached a 2d peak, whether 3d looks was still evolving in ps2 era.
I'm 42 and that time, for gaming, was the perfect mix of graphic advancement and gameplay, in my taste.

Rendering is the process of outputting computer graphics into a frame. In video games, the frames are being rendered as the player plays so that the game can adapt to any controls the player might input.

When you watch a CGI movie, everything has already been rendered and it usually took much longer than the few miliseconds a game has to churn out their frames, but since nobody has to constantly be telling the movie what to do they can afford to take a bit longer to look better.

wasnt every frame of toy story 1/2 painstakingly edited over YEARS of work?


I dont think vidya developers have the leisure of being THE household name that is disney

that's the joke

>comparing a pre-rendered movie to a video game
are you 12 that you know so little about how these things work?

Why are you and everyone else who tries to make this comparison absolutely fucking retarded? Why do you retards continue to ignore the already hundreds of threads where there's a thousand explanations of the same fucking answer?

>at a resolution of 1,536 by 922 pixels.
For 1997, wasn't that needlessly large?

Am I the only one who thinks that having to create the illusion of motion by making one picture at a time sounds dumb as shit? I know it's the best we got, but I always get the feeling that aliens would laugh at our faces if they found out how our displays work.

>You mean your computer has to keep making new pictures even when it's idle?
>Haha, sure, next you'll tell me you need to individually press every button to make words appear on the screen!

My guess is they scaled it down to get some kind of antialiasing going.

>sony niggers wont stop going on about how the game looks better than the movie
>get called out
>WOW WHO EVEN CARES ABOUT GRAPHICS OBVIOUSLY THE MOVIE LOOKS BETTER

like fucking clockwork

Why do people assume aliens are any more advanced than we are?

Not necessarily more advanced, I just feel like there has got to be a more efficient way of getting things to move on a screen and they might have followed a different tech branch like vector graphics or something.

movie is 21 years old, we're not asking modern machines to render Toy Story 3 or the latest Pixar movie.

Thank you.

Jesus that's terrible, woody looks like a fucking toy

>why are pre-rendered cgi movies are better graphics than what we currently run real-time?

The same exact reason that since the sega saturn we have had cutscenes that require tons of pre-rendering to produce graphics that cannot be produced real-time by our meager hardware. Key example: the entire FF series.

Look if you mastered space travel and can willing enter and exit an atmosphere at will I think you've earned the right to be smarter than us.

>we still cant match prerendered saturn or PS1 games in realtime

Cartoon movies are what is called pre-rendered.

First it is made in normal 3D. 3D so good that the best gaming computer in that a $2,000 computer made from the latest parts could not run it, much less a $400 console with 5 year old pieces. This is unredndered.

Than it is rendered which makes it go through an insane amount of light reflection and smoothing animations. It takes multiple super computer computers working 24 hours straight, being overclocked, a full YEAR to render it. I'm not making this up.

Light reflection and smoothing is done by vidya games too but it is all done in real time on consoles not super computers.

So yes we COULD make games that look like the latest Pixar movies. It would run at 1 frame per hour and require 5 of Nivda's latest graphic card all stacked ontop of each other to achieve that.

Not for theaters? Movie theaters used to offer a better experience than what you could get at home.

>dude graphics lmao
>consume! consume! consume!
>nothing is ever enough just keep consuming

get fucked

and to elaborate, It is coming very close though. Like for example, ff13, while being very old, has graphics nearly good enough to match the cutscenes. it won't be long before hardware realtime rendering becomes more-than-acceptable for our human eye. the nvidia demo programs are a good example of what is to come

I was talking about games and scenes respective to their native console.

It's probably because the game industry rewards hard work with more hard work and layoffs.

>brainlet misses the point

one gripe, you refer to them as "Cartoon movies" I would rather refer to them as "Animated movies". More general to what we are talking about here.

For TVs, yes, for movie theaters? No.

and a very good point on that last line. Anyone can load a shit fuck ton of ENB overlay on GTA V or Skyrim and make it look gorgeous as fuck, but sadly it still runs at sub 5-fps for now. It will be interesting as hardware progresses to go back and slam these at 60 fps 4k.

according to some guy in the last edition of this thread a titan can almost render toy story in real time

...

Even if that's true until the consoles have the equivelent of a Titan and the average PC user does there's no market for that level of graphics.

Graphic card prices halve every 5 years. So in 10-15 years we will be at that level.

And than Pixar and Disney will be stacking 200 of the best Super-Titan cards ontop of each other and making movies that make Toy Story look like an Atari game. Movies will always be 40 years ahead for this reason.

Silky smooth 1 frame per century

...

KH3 actually looks better though, the image is just pure incorrect bait. Even the fucking digital foundry video the images are from says that the KH3 version looks better: youtube.com/watch?v=tkDadVrBr1Y

The person who made the image has no fucking clue what they are talking about, the biggest example is when it says "the floor has no reflection" on the KH3 side when it does have a reflection, it just actually has the right amount of diffuse reflectivity that a wood floor would have, vs in toy story one they just cranked the specurity up to max which is completely unrealistic and looks like shit. Besides that plenty of surfaces don't even have lighting or shadows on them in the original toy story screenshot, such as the headboard of his bed, wheras in KH3 everything has good lighting and shaders.

As far as woody's model, KH3 does have lower poly ears, but in every other way the KH3 image is superior: There's visibly lower (or at least with worth topology) polycounts with fucked up normals all over the original toy story 3 model around the back of the neck, jaw, chin, nose, edges of the mouth and eye sockets, as well as noisy raytracing artifacts along his forehead and in the background of the image. Also, once again, they just crapped up the specular shading to 11, it doesn't look "realistic or natural at all".

Stop responding to the image talking about realtime vs pre-rendered trying to act smart. TS1 just looks fucking worse. Also, Toy story looked like absolute trash, even worse, for most scenes. Pic related, even a typical AAA game from early 7th gen looks better.

t. somebody who actually works with 3d software

nice bait

Wasn't making the movie about toys a way to compensate for the plastic-y look of early CG?

Kek.
>being this retarded
>even ironically

The thing is KH3 is designed to look good in motion. The picture discussing how the reflecting sucks is just cherry picking. When you actually play the game you're going to be running around and moving, paying attention to the monsters and world. You won't even notice if woodies eyes are reflective.

I actually work with UE4. ANYTHING Can be made reflective. You click a little button and decide what degree of reflection you want ( 0.0=none 1.0=max). The thing is that it eats up lots of processing power. If you drop a light 3 sources in an empty room and put like 5-6 reflective spheres around the light source it's harder than running Crysis at Maximum.

Most reflective surfaces in games are not fully reflective, most light sources are not fully dynamic.

Animated movies do not need to worry about processing power. They are only limited by the tech. For example. UE4 has particle systems that are better than what the boys at Pixar had in the past.

> The picture discussing how the reflecting sucks is just cherry picking

My point is it doesn't even suck to begin with though: the lighting and shaders for KH3 there are outright superior.

Wooden floors shouldn't be shiny.

says who

It depends if they're exceptionally polished showoff stuff or for actual living

And andy's room is for living. Not arguing about it, i'm just saying.

It wasn’t overkill for theaters, plus the resolution was actually limited by tech at the time and they would’ve gone higher if they could. Due to the generation loss of the contact printing process (there was no digital editing of the entire film at that time), the resulting release print, once projected, had a lower “resolution” than 720p even. Despite film capable of much higher.... between 3k and 4k for most 35mm films on the negative.

They already used anti aliasing when they rendered it. Toy Story used some archaic tools and didn’t rely on triangles but on some other sort of object that fits in here too

>sony
OBSESSED

Depends where you are looking. UE4's lighing tech is definitly more advanced but they are only going to have very strong reflective surfaces on the stuff your eyes actually focus on.

If you poking around for areas that your eye would normally dismiss you're going to find all sorts of place where the artist skimped. That's part of what it means to be a good game artist; it saves processing power. Take woodies ear, the artist easily could have tripled the polycount to make it smoother but if he does a tiny of minor shit like that it means the higher priority stuff gets less polys.

Game art is done for the sake of the game in motion not for autistic losers that made that image. Who the fuck is going to look at Woody's ear while actually playing it? And if they do how many seconds will they spend on it?

what 3rd world shithole do you live in?

Yes, the movie is only 21 years old, what point are you trying to make?

the point hat technology has advanced in the past 21 years. something you renderfarm fags cant understand

Point I'm trying to get across is the whole discussion has nothing to do with reality. It's a discussion for loser nerds to argue about nothing. Any discussion about video game art that doesn't take into account how much motion there is a non-discussion. It's like taking a transitionary frame from a cartoon and comparing and discuss it's artistic merits, but more stupid.

I bet you thought we'd have flying cars too

A young boy's room in middle class America will not have a wooden floor that shiny.

This is a fact.

A floor like the one in your pic won't look like that once people actually start walking on it.

>take one step on floor
>slip and fall

One in which I my floors aren't a fucking slip-n-slide

Imagine being this retarded.

Why are his ears low poly, while the rest of his face is fine?

Can modern computers render Toy Story 1 in real time?