| Hynad said: If you look back at the CGI graphics from the PS1, today's graphics are now crushing most of what was done back then.
It's only a matter of time before today's CGI is matched by in-game graphics. |
QFT
| Hynad said: If you look back at the CGI graphics from the PS1, today's graphics are now crushing most of what was done back then.
It's only a matter of time before today's CGI is matched by in-game graphics. |
QFT
I love how at the end of the video in one of the ads, the guy said, "took over 2 years" as if it was such a big deal, and now, it's more like 5 years for them LOL.
BTW, the proper way to differentiate them is pre-rendered vs. real time. 3D modelling is just the process used to create 3D assets such as characters, environments, etc.
It's actually a bit hard to imagine playing a game that looks as good as pre-rendered CGI. I imagine the depth and expansiveness of games would be reduced to accommodate the extra time it takes to polish up graphical details.
Currently playing: Gran Turismo 5
Just finished: Infamous 2
| spiffiness said: It's actually a bit hard to imagine playing a game that looks as good as pre-rendered CGI. I imagine the depth and expansiveness of games would be reduced to accommodate the extra time it takes to polish up graphical details. |
Right. You'd be 'playing' a film, with scripted setpieces and hours of cutscenes to make up for reduced playtime.
To many times the trailer is the ‘whish the game could look this good’ pretty box art hook. I would love it if the games actually looked as good as the trailers – See Warcraft trailer – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYK_Gqyf48Y
It’s not a new thing, look at the box art vs the game of the old Atari – the games today are looking as good as those old boxes. http://www.amid.com/werd/atari-2600-box-art/
Games are getting better. Look at the original Halo where green meant grass, and Halo: Reach you have little grasses, lettuce and such. The level of detail in say God of War vs God of War III the graphics use the improved hardware to make the games closer to movie quality CGI.
I would love to see next gen home consoles with quality like Cameron’s “Avatar” and using the same performance capture (as it looks like Rockstar is doing with “LA Noir.”) I think the resolution for Avatar consumes something around 17 gig per second for the film and each frame would take hours to render. That a whooping amount of computer power. So it might be the gen after the next one. But I would challenge that the Wii has more processing power that the Space Shuttle.
The consoles are limited by their graphic abilities. The Xbox 360 is only Directx 9.1C. DirectX has continued to evolve. If you look at the performance demos of DirectX 11, as I understand it, has more information that the CGI “Titanic.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G9anRoYGko
So what was cutting edge in a movie, is now, 10 years later, surpassed on a home PC in real time. OpenGL is advancing too. It will be exciting to see what the next standard is on a home console – (My vote would be 3840x2160P at 120 frames per second per eye.)
And here is a demo where you can see advancements in real time rendering (advancements in textures, form, etc:) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtNHmj7vznI&feature=related
I don’t know what will show up in the next DirectX 12 or the next OpenGl standard, but it will be excieting.
I’m looking forward to where the trailers and the game are exactly the same (and closer to looking completely real.) The 360/PS3 are somewhat old tech by today’s standards. Trailers now are often made with the game, and it seems hardware will have to be improved for the next big leap.
Zappykins
PS What would you like to see in the next Consoles?
Crystalchild said:
lol if THAT was his intend.. xD @topic: well okay makes sense, but 'could', in case the hardware would be strong enough - 'could' Games look like FFXIII's CGI Sequences? or is it really the same method already only that dev's are limited to time and hardware? :o |
Wow...Conceited Much???
![]()
In the best Kevin Butler voice I can muster, " Come on!"
Tho I still stick by Quality!
Correct me if im wrong, but isn't CGI bigger in size than in-game engine rendered graphics? That would mean games would be around or exceed 50gb on average.
e=mc^2

Gaming on: PS4 Pro, Switch, SNES Mini, Wii U, PC (i5-7400, GTX 1060)
| Soleron said: The main issue is that to make the graphics for the game as good as current CGI the number of artists and designers you'd need to employ would be so large that the game would never make a profit. Many non-Halo, non-CoD HD games are on the edge of this right now. Hardware is fast enough now or will be fast enough within a few years to do it (look at current high-end PC graphics cards). But you won't see it in the vast majority of actual games because of the development cost. Shrek has far fewer art assets because of its length and views them from far fewer angles than a game does. |
Procedurally generated content could help with this, I would hope.
Wait for PS6, but in those times, GAMES will cost $599
Khuutra said:
Procedurally generated content could help with this, I would hope. |
I'd hope that someday they could 'scan in' real environments and objects to save them remodelling stuff that already exists and also make it more realistic looking.
They're starting to do this with people, especially facial expressions.
CGI are just movie files written on the disk, they're just scenes made by the cutscene team, they're not "Ingame" , they can NEVER glitch or be interactive, you can just skip them, because they're just movie files
Ingame graphics are ingame animations that control the character to show ingame cutscenes in one point in the game, and because they're ingame , glitches can be done on them , and they can be interactive, they're not movie files tacked on the game, like MP4 files, they're animations.
think of it that way, CGI = animated MOVIES made by movie makers , Ingame = Cutscenes made with the game's engine.