Metalmurphy
Member
What are you talking about?
He thinks we saw nothing but CG.
Not sure what he means about 2006 though.
What are you talking about?
He thinks we saw nothing but CG.
Not even close from what I've seen.
Project Cars is sitting high and pretty on top of the racing game graphical dog pile.
I think Deep Down is definitely achievable on PS4.The fact that you have to look at 1080P footage of these videos to confirm if they are realtime or not should clue you in as to how impressive some of the tech was.
Killzone was most impressive as it was all 100% game play with stuff like physics and AI working. Watch Dogs was also impressive but not as much as KZ.
Deep Down was just absurd but there was no indication that it was actually game play with the physics and AI implemented. It looked like a cutscene/tech demo than an actual game. Still though I said wow at that. To me it's the same as the Agni demo, yea I am sure cutscene will look like that in the future but call me when a FF game looks like that when you are actually playing...
Infamous and Drive Club were also impressive. I really feel that Knack deserves some gifs as well, it looked really good too visually speaking just a different art style.
Wow, I'm going to have to check this out when I get my PC built.
FWIW, yes I will be buying a PS4 day zero!
Killzone looked good, especially the cityscape stuff, but not "CG" good.
Also, games will never achieve movie level CG literally, but I think its fair to say that many assets could be on par in some fields.. But namely, if its matching CG, its matching video game CG, not CG from actual movies.
I wont lie, I was hoping to see more visuals like this. Deep Down was the only one that made me question whether it was CG or In-Engine.
this is garbage to me. Fuck developers who put graphics over gameplay, you can't even see the enemies. fuck the people who like this type of crap, this is why gaming is in a massive decline.
I think Deep Down is definitely achievable on PS4.
This part in particular looks like what we could expect from a good dev like Capcom when working with such small corridors.
The dragon fight is what we can expect from in-engine cutscenes. The camera wasn't believable for gameplay, and the animation was too good. But who knows, maybe a team like Naughty Dog or SSM could pull off animation like that.
Why not though, why does that have to be the case. We have had a lot of cinematic camera techniques in the last couple of years, why would a cinematic combat camera be so crazy?
Because it makes it harder to play?
Yeah, in videos, especially in-car view of Project Cars looks really sterile and nowhere near as appealing as DC, or at least what little they've shown of it. It's high quality sim, I have no doubt but it looks raw and sterile, as oppose to creamy smoothness that they have going on in this new game.Now see, that image doesn't even remotely look as good as DriveClub. It looks completely lifeless and a lot of those reflections look really poor.
Yup...Because it makes it harder to play?
Watch the 1080p video of Deep Down. Actually looks more like in-game than pre-rendered.
Not even close from what I've seen.
http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa194/FordGTGuy/racesimcentral-ProjectCARS-formulaGULF.jpg[IMG]
Project Cars is sitting high and pretty on top of the racing game graphical dog pile.[/QUOTE]
Uhm, that is not a screenshot?
This is one:
[QUOTE][IMG]http://www.virtualr.net/wp-content/gallery/3823/054.jpg
Killzone was the only one I was sure was running in game. The rest have been tweaked or are running in-engine.
The biggest concern I have over everything was; are we just going to be playing the same stuff again with better graphics. Are we going to see more innovation and more risks.
It is hilarious to see gullible people have forgotten E3 2005-2006...
Not even close from what I've seen.
Project Cars is sitting high and pretty on top of the racing game graphical dog pile.
Why do people keep saying this? Its almost inevitable that someday games will look as good as current CGI does. Isn't CGI one of the best ways to predict what real-time rendering can look like (maybe several decades) in the future, when consumer-grade computing power would be more powerful than today's rendering farm? Or do we really think things will slow down enough that we'll never get there?
Are the F1 cars in Project Cars modeled with a camera on top?
I am sorry but I don't buy that 'I am a developer I know it's not pre-rendered, just shut up' crap.
I work in a studio, and a big one, and there are people around me who think it's heavily tweaked in-game-engine (making it effectively 'fake' due to the amount of tweaking), and some who think the tweaks are just on the camera and some effects (the fire) - eventually making it a 'real' video. It's more a philosophical question (to what extent can you push the envelope when showcasing a game?), than a technical one to be honest.
At the end of the day, the debate stagnate when the 'more real' stuff will be public, the 'it's fake' guys will stick to their side of the story, saying the new footage looks nowhere as good as the original one, the 'it's real' side will claim victory cause it looks the same to them...
A bit boring, right?
Yup...
It would work as a QTE though.
That's a photo.
There is precisely zero chance that Deep Down isn't pre-rendered.
same zero chance that the ps4 would have a max of 2gb or 4gb ram?
seriously, why make statements like that when you know nothing about the console or the game?
Why not though, why does that have to be the case. We have had a lot of cinematic camera techniques in the last couple of years, why would a cinematic combat camera be so crazy?
It is hilarious to see gullible people have forgotten E3 2005-2006...
Why do people keep posting all these gifs when only one of them shows actual gameplay and it didn't even look that great. Watchdogs was the best demo and that was running on a pc. Killzone looks like the same fucking game. How can anyone be excited to play what looks like the same exact style of game that we've been drowning in since last gen. I really don't get it. /rant
Why do people keep posting all these gifs when only one of them shows actual gameplay and it didn't even look that great. Watchdogs was the best demo and that was running on a pc. Killzone looks like the same fucking game. How can anyone be excited to play what looks like the same exact style of game that we've been drowning in since last gen. I really don't get it. /rant
Why do people keep posting all these gifs when only one of them shows actual gameplay and it didn't even look that great. Watchdogs was the best demo and that was running on a pc. Killzone looks like the same fucking game. How can anyone be excited to play what looks like the same exact style of game that we've been drowning in since last gen. I really don't get it. /rant
Yeah, dude, that looks great but did you see the actual gameplay of Knack? It didn't look that great at all. It could have been a PS3 game.
We're getting pretty damn close to this, maybe even surpassed it in some aspects.
The main character has 400,000 polygons alone in addition to 60,000 hair strands. I'm not sure if anything at the PS4 event came close (especially with the hair).
The main character has 400,000 polygons alone in addition to 60,000 hair strands. I'm not sure if anything at the PS4 event came close (especially with the hair).
Just as a comparison, this gen had characters averaging in the 10,000-30,000 polycount and the gen before that it was 2000 ~ 10,000 polygons.
Why do people keep saying this? Its almost inevitable that someday games will look as good as current CGI does. Isn't CGI one of the best ways to predict what real-time rendering can look like (maybe several decades) in the future, when consumer-grade computing power would be more powerful than today's rendering farm? Or do we really think things will slow down enough that we'll never get there?
No. It takes a server farm composed of like 40,000 high powered servers like 3 hours to render a single frame of a modern day CG movie. There are 24 frames per second, if you don't know what I'm getting at.
We're getting pretty damn close to this, maybe even surpassed it in some aspects.
How long does it really take? I'm curious. It can't be 3 hours.
“One frame of certain shots, it’s 24 frames per second, took 100 computer hours to render. Just one second was 2,400 hours.
Deep Down wins, hands and pants down. No contest.
Best real time visuals I've ever seen, and I've seen it all.
Yeah, dude, that looks great but did you see the actual gameplay of Knack? It didn't look that great at all. It could have been a PS3 game.