CryEngine 2 vs Bravia Ad. Holy Crap.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/31022.html?type=flv

You can't say in all the shots which one is real and which one is using the engine. Amazing.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/31022.html?type=flv

I forgot to make it clicky earlier, the awesomenes was too much for me:P

Haha, I saw that earlier, and man, sometimes the Cryengine actually looks better.ElArab

i know what you mean, man, its like enhanced reality.

its like an oil painting of a bridge...in reality, its just a stupid bridge. But as a painting, its freaking beautiful.

Reality still looks a lot better.smokeydabear076

Ok. If you think reality looks "a lot better" then check out GT5 and get a 14/14 on this quiz.

http://generationdreamteam.free.fr/Quizz.html

Sweet, now i only need a graphics card worth approx $1000 to run it :roll:

Reality FTW!

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"]Reality still looks a lot better.nVidiaGaMer

Ok. If you think reality looks "a lot better" then check out GT5 and get a 14/14 on this quiz.

http://generationdreamteam.free.fr/Quizz.html

I found 13 pics, whatever that means, but yeah, they all look real.

Im not quite sure what any of you are finding amazing about that? Any physics engine in the last 5 years can do that level of calculation.teebeenz

What's amazing is that CryEngine 2.0 successfully recreates that advertisement in real-time, looking very similar and nearly just as real (for the most part). The physics have nothing to do with it.

[QUOTE="nVidiaGaMer"]

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"]Reality still looks a lot better.harrisi17

Ok. If you think reality looks "a lot better" then check out GT5 and get a 14/14 on this quiz.

http://generationdreamteam.free.fr/Quizz.html

I found 13 pics, whatever that means, but yeah, they all look real.

I got 12 so you did better!

[QUOTE="teebeenz"]Im not quite sure what any of you are finding amazing about that? Any physics engine in the last 5 years can do that level of calculation.JP_Russell

What's amazing is that CryEngine 2.0 successfully recreates that advertisement in real-time, looking very similar and nearly just as real (for the most part). The physics have nothing to do with it.

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"]Reality still looks a lot better.nVidiaGaMer

Ok. If you think reality looks "a lot better" then check out GT5 and get a 14/14 on this quiz.

http://generationdreamteam.free.fr/Quizz.html

[QUOTE="nVidiaGaMer"]

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"]Reality still looks a lot better.smokeydabear076

Ok. If you think reality looks "a lot better" then check out GT5 and get a 14/14 on this quiz.

http://generationdreamteam.free.fr/Quizz.html

Either way I personally don't think games would be good if they looked completely like reality.

it's almost real

Looked great ..... but why did they use teapots as balls???????N3xus9

I think that It's a internal joke because the teapot is a "trademark object" of 3D Studio MAX, which is widely used for game developers in both CG's and pre-modelling to the final wireframes in games. And at the same time teapods are more complex than a simple spheric objects.

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="nVidiaGaMer"]

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"]Reality still looks a lot better.nVidiaGaMer

Ok. If you think reality looks "a lot better" then check out GT5 and get a 14/14 on this quiz.

http://generationdreamteam.free.fr/Quizz.html

Either way I personally don't think games would be good if they looked completely like reality.

[QUOTE="nVidiaGaMer"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="nVidiaGaMer"]

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"]Reality still looks a lot better.smokeydabear076

Ok. If you think reality looks "a lot better" then check out GT5 and get a 14/14 on this quiz.

http://generationdreamteam.free.fr/Quizz.html

Either way I personally don't think games would be good if they looked completely like reality.

The problem is that the human mind can detect very subtle variations visually. Whenever I watch a CGI that tries to have a realistic art style (i.e. Polar Express) something just doesn't feel right. That's why I love games like TF2 so much. Valve realizes that having a bunch of soliders jumping around just looks ridiculous, so they choose an art style to reflect the absurdity of the gameplay. I think the big challenge for game graphics won't be technical, but rather artistic. When games start looking photorealistic (and let's face it, it's only a matter of time), artists will have to spend much more effort making sure everything looks absolutely perfect. Just like actors have to be even more careful now that we've moved into the HD era.

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="nVidiaGaMer"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="nVidiaGaMer"]

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"]Reality still looks a lot better.BlueBirdTS

Ok. If you think reality looks "a lot better" then check out GT5 and get a 14/14 on this quiz.

http://generationdreamteam.free.fr/Quizz.html

Either way I personally don't think games would be good if they looked completely like reality.

The problem is that the human mind can detect very subtle variations visually. Whenever I watch a CGI that tries to have a realistic art style (i.e. Polar Express) something just doesn't feel right. That's why I love games like TF2 so much. Valve realizes that having a bunch of soliders jumping around just looks ridiculous, so they choose an art style to reflect the absurdity of the gameplay. I think the big challenge for game graphics won't be technical, but rather artistic. When games start looking photorealistic (and let's face it, it's only a matter of time), artists will have to spend much more effort making sure everything looks absolutely perfect. Just like actors have to be even more careful now that we've moved into the HD era.

The problem with this is, the engine is focusing entirely on these bouncy ball objects and the scenery.

What happens when we turn it into an fps and explosions are going off everywhere etc?

Polygons have to be reduced.

The graphics wont sadly turn out as good as this, but they wont be short of exellence.