Wishmaster92
Member
We're getting there. Uncharted 4 is currently the only game that comes close.
This is currently the best imo
This is currently the best imo
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Next-gen consoles have reached CGI rendering in real time ?
- Thread starter Toxa
- Start date
Naughty Dogs claims so.
Square Enix said they can do it with Luminous engine.
Pretty crazy to think that Luminous engine presentation, Agni's Philosphy, was two years ago.
Square Enix said they can do it with Luminous engine.
Pretty crazy to think that Luminous engine presentation, Agni's Philosphy, was two years ago.
Yes
Kill Bill?
copelandmaster
Member
What year? Before 2000? For the most part, yes, in terms of game cg intros.
Also what size production, in what year? Games have yet to beat something like Spirits Within as a complete package, but many individual parts like facial animation/modeling have gotten loads better.
That TT intro is really dated in terms of human models, but the cloth physics and materials are still better.
Also what size production, in what year? Games have yet to beat something like Spirits Within as a complete package, but many individual parts like facial animation/modeling have gotten loads better.
That TT intro is really dated in terms of human models, but the cloth physics and materials are still better.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Is that Uncharted gif in-game?
Holy fucking shit it it is.
Holy fucking shit it it is.
SystemUser
Member
8th generation consoles are at the level of movie CG 30 years ago and television CG 20 years ago. Even the beefiest PC with multiple SLI cannot come close to the best CG from 10 years ago.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
Honestly UC4 tops The Order by quite a bit which sounds like crazy talk but it does. UFC shouldn't even be up there.
The Omega Man
Member
scope
houroftower
Member
I feel with the next version of Gran Turismo and other driving games the answer will be a clear yes compared the PS3 era CGI. The first round of sports games in general are already looking unbelievably good on PS4.
Audible Phonetics
Member
LurkerPrime
Member
Why are E3 demos and trailers suddenly representative of the final product?
I mean, they spend months creating these glorified videos to sell their game(s) to journalists. There's no reason to believe that they are what the game will look like at release, in-engine or not.
I mean, they spend months creating these glorified videos to sell their game(s) to journalists. There's no reason to believe that they are what the game will look like at release, in-engine or not.
MaximusPayne
Member
You sound so sure...have you played their last few games on last gen hardware???
Well No. But what kind of in-game graphics did we have when say Phantom menace came out.
Come a long way.
FonkyByNature
Member
Well Ryse is incredible too and is out right now.
copelandmaster
Member
Plus, you have to mention poly counts. Game ready characters haven't topped 200K yet.
Aki Ross from spirits within had 60,000 hairs and clocked in at about ~400k. And that movie is almost 13 years old.
Aki Ross from spirits within had 60,000 hairs and clocked in at about ~400k. And that movie is almost 13 years old.
Callibretto
Member
supposedly Dark Sorcerer had 1 mil polygon character, and we know that demo is real time for sure
BRocknRolla
Member
True.
Likewise, I think we should be real wary of making any kind of assumptions about this sort of thing unless we're directly told we're looking at gameplay. A LOT of E3 announcements were made with CGI trailers, and as far as I'm concerned, they're worth basically nothing until someone shows what the actual game looks like. Don't let publishers and developers suck you in without showing you what the actual game looks like. (That goes for Uncharted 4 too. Just because it's "in-engine" doesn't mean it's necessarily going to be representative of gameplay.)
metareferential
Member
The fact you can't point out the pre-rendered ones kinda validates his point, don't you think?
Some games are already close enough that the general audience will say they look like "a movie" or "real".
And that's always been the case, by the way xD
I'm impressed by what they can already produce a couple months in. It's going to be a good ride.
And when next-gen only title get the proper pc treatment, we'll be in for a treat (pun not intended).
Using the game engine though, they are not 'cgi'. You can even see shadows flickering on that fat guy for example.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Holy shit. Where was it confirmed as in-engine and actually running on a PS4?
I thought for sure that was CG when it was revealed. Goddamn.
That puts to 1886 to shame and that game already looked like the most visually stunning game coming out on any platform.
Auto-Reply
Member
We already did last gen, one could argue even before that. Set the target comparison, PS1 CGI or ILM ? Set the level of detail!
Offline rendering is undergoing an evolution as much as realtime rendering. They are the same thing, as technology (hardware and software) progresses you will find yourself using more and more things in realtime rendering that were exclusive to offline rendering at some point.
What differentiates offline from realtime rendering ultimatively is not raytracing or better quality, it is time. Time that you have to create something. You are still bound by your recources in realtime rendering. You are bound by your time you have to work on something to make it look right. It is still easier to make something look clean or work at all in offline rendering as you don't have to have the gaming tech in mind and the gamer that will not buy your game if it runs at 10fps.
Maybe your question should have been can we create everything at a similar quality level in realtime rendering that we can create in offline rendering, without people spotting the difference? and the answer is to some degree, yes..
Go into detail and you will soon find the limit.
Offline rendering is undergoing an evolution as much as realtime rendering. They are the same thing, as technology (hardware and software) progresses you will find yourself using more and more things in realtime rendering that were exclusive to offline rendering at some point.
What differentiates offline from realtime rendering ultimatively is not raytracing or better quality, it is time. Time that you have to create something. You are still bound by your recources in realtime rendering. You are bound by your time you have to work on something to make it look right. It is still easier to make something look clean or work at all in offline rendering as you don't have to have the gaming tech in mind and the gamer that will not buy your game if it runs at 10fps.
Maybe your question should have been can we create everything at a similar quality level in realtime rendering that we can create in offline rendering, without people spotting the difference? and the answer is to some degree, yes..
Go into detail and you will soon find the limit.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
This bullshit again? Or are we talking about "game level" CG only and not photorealistic stuff? The thread title is almost begging me to come in here and interject. 
Depends on what you mean by CG.
I recently tried to play planescape: torment and after watching E3 trailer of batman arhkam knight, I decided to play arkham city again. I can outright tell you that arkham city gameplay is so much better than Torment CG.
If what you mean is CG output by Blur Studios or Blizzard CG, then then answer is no. Not even close. Gen 9 maybe.
I recently tried to play planescape: torment and after watching E3 trailer of batman arhkam knight, I decided to play arkham city again. I can outright tell you that arkham city gameplay is so much better than Torment CG.
If what you mean is CG output by Blur Studios or Blizzard CG, then then answer is no. Not even close. Gen 9 maybe.
copelandmaster
Member
Yup, real time. Game ready is the key word though. Nathan in in U4 is still around 60K, isn't he? Cut the framerate in half for a bigger budget, and he still doesn't make it.
That does not take away from the fact that The Dark Sorcerer, The Order, and U4 look phenomenal. U4 especially, because 60fps is just that good.
This bullshit again? Or are we talking about "game level" CG only and not photorealistic stuff? The thread title is almost begging me to come in here and interject.
Please do, this stuff is interesting.
Also, what's with the complete lack of 60fps CGI movies? It looks soooooo good! Studios should throw $300 mil at that shit.
Depends what CGI we're talking about. Old ones like that TT one sure, many games have surpassed that imo. If we're talking about some of the CGI sequences from FFXIII for example, I think we still have a way to go, Uncharted 4 easily comes the closest. Will we reach that level this gen? Games like UC4 this early makes me hopeful that we will.
sixteen-bit
Member
I haven't seen a current gen game match CG from Onimusha on PS2
Captain Europe
Member
I will wait for actual gameplay before I jump to conclusions.
dragonbane
Member
What do you think about the Uncharted 4 trailer running at 1080p60 in real time on PS4 with pretty much no visible aliasing?This bullshit again? Or are we talking about "game level" CG only and not photorealistic stuff? The thread title is almost begging me to come in here and interject.
I think we've effectively reached a point comparable to CG from five or 10 years ago (barring certain imperfections like aliasing and shadows), but that tends to be the norm for game consoles. Rendered CG is always like five years ahead of real time video game graphics, simply because of the difference between Pixar's render farms and a $400 consumer machine.
Go back and look at PS1-era rendered CG. There are definitely PS2, original Xbox, and Gamecube games that look as good as or better than most 90's CG. At the same time, CG started to take a big leap forward around the time the PS2 came out. I would say Square's Luminous demo in real time looks comparable to Final Fantasy X's CG cut scenes.
But comparing today's video game graphics to Avatar? No way. Hell, just look at the CG trailer for Assassin's Creed Unity (or even the Revelations CG trailer) and compare that to the gameplay demo. The CG is still clearly a league ahead.
Go back and look at PS1-era rendered CG. There are definitely PS2, original Xbox, and Gamecube games that look as good as or better than most 90's CG. At the same time, CG started to take a big leap forward around the time the PS2 came out. I would say Square's Luminous demo in real time looks comparable to Final Fantasy X's CG cut scenes.
But comparing today's video game graphics to Avatar? No way. Hell, just look at the CG trailer for Assassin's Creed Unity (or even the Revelations CG trailer) and compare that to the gameplay demo. The CG is still clearly a league ahead.
adamantypants
Member
You're trolling right? Tron came out 32 years ago. John Lasseter from Pixar animated his first movie in 1984, The Adventures of Andre and Wally
And I'd say depending on the game, a high end PC CAN come close to CG from 10 years ago but that's more of the game's limitation rather than the hardware limitation. Don't forget that the GPUs we're putting in our PCs are also used to create CG movies. The hardware is there, the coding and art direction is the bottleneck.
eddfromtheriver
Banned
I saw The Order and Uncharted 4 on an IMAX screen, they do in fact look CGI to me, i'm sure some of you guys could find something to nitpick on, but i would be quite ok with this gen lasting 10 years, i can't possibly imagine graphics getting better (at least from what i've seen on PS4).
EightBitNate
Member
Is CGI rendered at 24fps initially? Or is it slowed down so that it looks natural? That UC4 gif is 60fps.
No. We sitll have a long way to go. I mean, if you just take Drakes character model in uncharted 4 then he's getting pretty close. But in good cgi movies (pixar, dreamworks, disney) everything is up to that quality. In games, stuff like draw distance, lod, and even shadow and lighting quality are still quite a ways behind.
metareferential
Member
The CGI from studio Blur for the Halo series is mind-blowing at times.
No way this gen will get to that level in real time.
No way this gen will get to that level in real time.
Similar threads
- Poll