• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Has this CG been met by real-time in-game graphics yet?

The only thing no game matches yet is the huge draw distance and the absence of pop-ins. in that dense 3D world.

Apart of that, it looks bland. Gotta be and old CG.
 
SteveWinwood said:
If you haven't watched this video: http://youtu.be/V_h7Lm7C9Nk
Then you haven't lived.
I teared up a little bit, i'm gonna watch some Reggie Miller highlights with this playing in the background.

Edit: There really needs to be a movement on the internet to force the NBA to either buy this theme from NBC or give them the NBA back.
 
Assets wise, we are way past that quality. Lighting wise, we can get much better results but with lots of faked elements. Texture wise, that stuff (360p YouTube though...) seemed like some bad PS2 stuff.

The only issue would be being able to handle that big of a scene without pop-up and having it all stream nicely. But I believe it can be done.
 
iKeepPlaying said:
You shouldn't go by Crytek opinion on how next-gen consoles should be.

If you want to know someone that is really showing what an aging machine can really do, go and ask Naughty Dog. They are the right people to ask, how a next-gen should be.

I seem to remember a few years ago someone at Naughty Dog said we were two generations from photorealism But that animation would hold games back at that point. Lol, I don't believe it but if someone could find the quote I would appreciate it.
 
Mik2121 said:
Assets wise, we are way past that quality. Lighting wise, we can get much better results but with lots of faked elements. Texture wise, that stuff (360p YouTube though...) seemed like some bad PS2 stuff.

The only issue would be being able to handle that big of a scene without pop-up and having it all stream nicely. But I believe it can be done.
If I gave you all of that, we'd still be lacking in the animation department, which I think is by far the most impportant when it comes to making CG actually look good.
 
Please forgive me for making this thread and posting a terrible video of some old-ass 'lame' CGI. It's just that I've always loved that piece and wanted to show it to GAF to get your thoughts on it '___'
 
kind of.

I mean modern games sure look better in most ways then ps1 era CG.


CG has had technical advances the same way in game graphics had. CG will always have a advantage though.
 
Orayn said:
If I gave you all of that, we'd still be lacking in the animation department, which I think is by far the most impportant when it comes to making CG actually look good.
Well, I was talking about the CG in the OP. That one doesn't have any animation other than the camera path and the cars moving.

And even then, you should check more CG stuff from the 90's. Their animation isn't as good as you might remember :P

Other issue with early CG is that while the lighting is usually quite good (not nearly as good as today's CG obviously, but it's all prerendered GI with lots of stuff like caustics, ao, etc etc..), the models themselves aren't as good (they are just super-smooth because they can use more polygons in this kind of stuff) and the materials are usually lacking realism and detail. I believe many games nowadays look much better in those aspects. And even the lighting feels better, even if quality wise might not be as good.
 
Mik2121 said:
Well, I was talking about the CG in the OP. That one doesn't have any animation other than the camera path and the cars moving.

And even then, you should check more CG stuff from the 90's. Their animation isn't as good as you might remember :P

Other issue with early CG is that while the lighting is usually quite good (not nearly as good as today's CG obviously, but it's all prerendered GI with lots of stuff like caustics, ao, etc etc..), the models themselves aren't as good (they are just super-smooth because they can use more polygons in this kind of stuff) and the materials are usually lacking realism and detail. I believe many games nowadays look much better in those aspects. And even the lighting feels better, even if quality wise might not be as good.

I guess I pretty much agree with you on what you said.


The other thing people need to remember is that, the CG I posted in the OP is not just old CG, it's merely television broadcast level CG for HBO, not on par with movie level CG like Toy Story. So it's not just old, it's also much lower-end.
 
Why yes, I do think current gen games can match a poorly textured, poorly lit and simple CG at 640x480.
 
Infamous Chris said:
Lol. Not even close.
Did you play the game on an HD tv? One scene in particular can be directly compared to a scene in uncharted 2. When they go through that snowy mountain. In uncharted 2 durning the train level they have a scene that is almost identical in terns of how the camera goes. The Uncharted 2 version looks way better.
 
Sky Chief said:
I seem to remember a few years ago someone at Naughty Dog said we were two generations from photorealism But that animation would hold games back at that point. Lol, I don't believe it but if someone could find the quote I would appreciate it.

I was wrong, it was Tim Sweeney from Epic who said a couple years ago:

Epic Games founder Tim Sweeney now estimates that videogame graphics will reach the point of realism in as little as 10-15 years.

When asked for an estimate on movie-like photorealism by Gamasutra, Sweeney replied: "Probably 10-15 years for that stuff, which isn't far at all. Which is scary--we'll be able to saturate our visual systems with realistic graphics at that point."

"We're only about a factor of a thousand off from achieving all that in real-time without sacrifices," he said. "So we'll certainly see that happen in our lifetimes; it's just a result of Moore's Law."

While graphical fidelity might be perfected, Sweeney noted that mastering actual human realism will be a more daunting task.

"There's another problem in graphics that's not as easily solvable," he added. "It's anything that requires simulating human intelligence or behavior: animation, character movement, interaction with characters, and conversations with characters."

Sweeney explained that simulating human behavior is not "a matter of computational power," saying that "we just don't have the algorithms; we don't know how the brain works or how to simulate it."

"And if you could simulate it all, how could you train it to be realistic like a human? Those problems are probably decades away from being solved. Those are things that may not occur in our lifetimes."

http://www.shacknews.com/article/58771/perfectly-realistic-game-graphics-10
 
Thought the CG looked crap by today's standards, real time or CG...so, yeah. Funny how some people are saying it doesn't though...it really looks very poor. The FF versus video has a city fly over that looks much better than that
 
corkscrewblow said:
Uncharted 2
Not. not even close.
Look, this game is a lot of fun and very cinematic and well animated, but it is not really mind blowing. Graphically it is probably close to the best this gen can do, but it is also nowhere near cinematic CG quality visually. I don't think even next gen hardware will be able to do that in an in-game environment. Computer games certainly haven't reached that level yet.
The way things are now though, game companies can pretty much make what they want and can envision. This sort of visual quality is not really necessary.
 
cajunator said:
Not. not even close.
Look, this game is a lot of fun and very cinematic and well animated, but it is not really mind blowing. Graphically it is probably close to the best this gen can do, but it is also nowhere near cinematic CG quality visually. I don't think even next gen hardware will be able to do that in an in-game environment. Computer games certainly haven't reached that level yet.
The way things are now though, game companies can pretty much make what they want and can envision. This sort of visual quality is not really necessary.


I agree with this.
 
When we talked about cognitive dissonance I thought the matter would be solved. How stupid I was, people still say Uncharted 2 when it comes to top graphics. I'm sorry to say it's not even close to being the best looking game ...
 
cajunator said:
Not. not even close.
Look, this game is a lot of fun and very cinematic and well animated, but it is not really mind blowing. Graphically it is probably close to the best this gen can do, but it is also nowhere near cinematic CG quality visually. I don't think even next gen hardware will be able to do that in an in-game environment. Computer games certainly haven't reached that level yet.
The way things are now though, game companies can pretty much make what they want and can envision. This sort of visual quality is not really necessary.
I agree with your overall point, but pc games as a mark of what we can do and can't do is really a poor choice.
 
RooMHM said:
When we talked about cognitive dissonance I thought the matter would be solved. How stupid I was, people still say Uncharted 2 when it comes to top graphics. I'm sorry to say it's not even close to being the best looking game ...
For console games yes, it pretty much is.
 
as soon as we have the machine that can run Resident Evil Remake with real time rendered 3d backgrounds, instead of prerendered 2d.
 
User33 said:
I was a little harsh, but I'm just tired of seeing GAF obsess over Uncharted 2 as if it's perfect, and leagues above any other game ever created. Its getting really annoying.
So it isn't just me!
 
Top Bottom