When people say this, i never really know what they're referring to. Like in those threads where people claim that no game has touched Toy Story 1 yet when Toy Story 1, all things considered, looked like shit compared to most modern AAA games.
It's more that they have a better workflow for real-time visuals compared to back then when they were testing the waters of what's feasible with CGI outside of small video game cutscenes. Still the CGI result is better looking. See the comparison above.
No. FFXV is just using more sophisticated techniques than advent children did. Plain and simple. It's obvious.
Whether you chock it up to workflow or ignorance, the result is the same. If you would then say that they could have achieved the same if they knew what they know now, then I would say "yes, obviously" and then ask what the point of this argument even is lol.
Not just the hair but also pretty much everything else. The textures on the outfits. Yes, skin. ABSOLUTELY lighting and PP as FFXV doesn't even have realtime GI...
XV doesn't have realtime GI, hell most console games don't, why the hell would you waste the massive resources when you can just bake it.
Advent Children's lighting is better from the perspective of rendering -- worse by application. XV's lighting is far more natural and realistic than Advent Children, even at its most jaggy and dithered. Again, this is just a difference in technique and knowledge.
And sorry, but XV has a better application of GI in realtime than Advent Children has in its entirety. I don't know how you can possibly look at the AC and say otherwise, nevermind the fact that the movie's palette is almost exclusively grey, brown and orange.
Come on dude you know the game doesn't look like that. I even said above that the year that scene was shown was when the game had CGI like visuals.
No, the GAME doesn't look like that. But there are plenty of screenshots that display how good the game can look in this very thread.
I already conceded that the game in realtime can't really contend with ACs image quality...on console.
A PC version of XV, however, would easily shit all over Advent Children. And I stand by that 100%. I'm talking single graphics card rigs.
I'm 100% sure the lack of finite skin detail is a stylistic choice instead of a technical one. As the only time they deviated from that was with this game specifically. As they did, (and still do), the same for KH CGI every Final Fantasy. You look at Lightning and any character from FFXII and they still have very little realistic detail.
How could you
possibly be 100% sure of such a thing when nobody would have complained about it in 2005?
Again, this isn't a result of style. It's just technique. FF characters were never realized quite to the degree that they were when Advent Children was released, and we see that in modern times, they've gone the "FFXV" route in terms of detail.
It's technique. Advent Children was just more basic rendering.
Comparing Industrial Light & Magic and its $230,000,000 budget to FFXV
Oh
come on man. Putting budget, and also the fact that this is composite footage aside, this is also a vast difference in technique that games are only recently starting to tap into.
ILM's job is to make convincing CGI that blends seamlessly into live-action footage. The modern techniques employed in games like U4, HZD and FFXV are pretty much required to get a believable picture weaved into footage like that.
You should use a full-CG (or near full) movie for comparison.
Any modern engine can produce CGI level visuals in incredibly limited scenarios. And that trailer was real time. And although it looked REALLY good. It still quite clearly was a video game. Now if FFXV still looked like that, we'd be having a different discussion.
It's not even matching ten year old CGI....Davy Jones was shown a year after Advent Children. I should note, I'm definitely not saying the game is bad looking. Just that it doesn't look like CGI. A lot of what you guys are talking about is more down to preferring the art direction.
Dude, there is
no CG that exists that is indistinguishable from real life right now. And comparing a fully rendered 3D game (or CG) environment to composite CGI footage from a live action movie isn't really proving anything.
My point is, you need to define what level of CG you're talking about. And we should probably define "looks better than" as well.
Image quality? Not likely that a game is going to have that beat, it's just not feasible in realtime.
Realism? Lighting? In my opinion, older CG has
long since been beat by this generation of games.
Especially when you consider we're talking about movies that dedicated minutes-to-hours
per frame of rendering, vs. engines that spit out 30-to-60 frames
per second, in a playable environment.
