how far are we from cutscene graphics in real time?

Longer imo, especially consoles, unless a major advancement is made. There's a massive difference between CGI and real-time gameplay, massive.

Not far. Crysis and Call of Duty 4 look about as good as any cutscene in a Square Enix game of yester-gen.

The real question is: once we hit that point, what's next? Make the graphics better?

The real question is: once we hit that point, what's next? Make the graphics better?

Michael85

Clearly, the Matrix is not far off.

[QUOTE="Michael85"]

The real question is: once we hit that point, what's next? Make the graphics better?

whoisryanmack

Clearly, the Matrix is not far off.

[QUOTE="Michael85"]

The real question is: once we hit that point, what's next? Make the graphics better?

whoisryanmack

Clearly, the Matrix is not far off.

Assuming you mean that the answer to my question was "yes, make the graphics better", as I don't want to interpret you incorrectly, my response is:

Yes, The Matrix achieved an excellent and very realistic look. Most of the time I couldn't tell the difference between the CGI and the actors. But look at the first movie, then watch the second, and then the third. Most would agree that the series was slowly going downhill. Why? Probably because people were no longer as impressed by its graphics and were instead craving a story, and the story was, in the end, a let down.

Mind you, I don't personally believe that. I thought the ending was as good as it could possibly be. I liked the symbolism. But most people seem to think it sucked.

Point is, once graphics hit a certain point, then they can't really do anything more for the movie. The same will happen to videogames.

[QUOTE="whoisryanmack"][QUOTE="Michael85"]

The real question is: once we hit that point, what's next? Make the graphics better?

Michael85

Clearly, the Matrix is not far off.

Assuming you mean that the answer to my question was "yes, make the graphics better", as I don't want to interpret you incorrectly, my response is:

Yes, The Matrix achieved an excellent and very realistic look. Most of the time I couldn't tell the difference between the CGI and the actors. But look at the first movie, then watch the second, and then the third. Most would agree that the series was slowly going downhill. Why? Probably because people were no longer as impressed by its graphics and were instead craving a story, and the story was, in the end, a let down.

Mind you, I don't personally believe that. I thought the ending was as good as it could possibly be. I liked the symbolism. But most people seem to think it sucked.

Point is, once graphics hit a certain point, then they can't really do anything more for the movie. The same will happen to videogames.

Oh no, I meant (sarcastically) that consoles are a genor two away from plugging yourself up and living the game. Now those would be some graphics!

Cutscene graphics = Offline Rendering

Normal graphics = Realtime Rendering

Not that that was relavent, but Offline rendering places in more details at the expense of speed. Even the simplest scene takes 3 seconds or so to render a single frame, whereas the equivalent scene on the same graphics card rendered in real time will... be in real time, or 30 fps (sometimes 60 fps for shooters).

I know I shouldn't make calculations like this at all and i will hit myself later, but put it this way. 30 fps vs 0.3 fps. aka, about 100 times more powerful graphic card to render the same scene in in the same offline quality.

Not far. Crysis and Call of Duty 4 look about as good as any cutscene in a Square Enix game of yester-gen.

The real question is: once we hit that point, what's next? Make the graphics better?

Michael85

I partially disagree with you, crysis and COD4 in no way look as good as cutscenes from say FFX or FFX-2 (specially COD4 as i don't see as good lookin as people make it out to be).

I think if we hit CGI quality gameplay they'll only make it better until its photo-realistic.

Now the REAL real question is: once we hit that point, what's next? VR?

[QUOTE="Michael85"]

Not far. Crysis and Call of Duty 4 look about as good as any cutscene in a Square Enix game of yester-gen.

The real question is: once we hit that point, what's next? Make the graphics better?

thejakel11225

I partially disagree with you, crysis and COD4 in no way look as good as cutscenes from say FFX or FFX-2 (specially COD4 as i don't see as good lookin as people make it out to be).

I think if we hit CGI quality gameplay they'll only make it better until its photo-realistic.

Now the REAL real question is: once we hit that point, what's next? VR?

I said "about as good". There's some good differences, but overall the gap isn't exactly vast.

not only do graphics need to be photorealistic to fool us, humans can spot a fake even if it looks real. characters need to move in lifelike manners and not make any mistakes in facial animations. perfecting those for real time rendering will take years even after photorealistic visuals become reality.Mordred19

What are you talking about.

FF X Already did that. The faces in the cutscenes can be played in the gameplay. You just have to pay close attention to when it happens. Really the only happen in the beginning of the game. Twice on two parts of the beginning and theres one spot you can do it over and over al lthe itme where Tidus And Wakka jump into the water.

Go check yourselves.

Not far. Crysis and Call of Duty 4 look about as good as any cutscene in a Square Enix game of yester-gen.

The real question is: once we hit that point, what's next? Make the graphics better?

Michael85

LOL at CoD4.

Not far. Crysis and Call of Duty 4 look about as good as any cutscene in a Square Enix game of yester-gen.

The real question is: once we hit that point, what's next? Make the graphics better?

Michael85

After we get to the point of reaching limitless potential with graphics, physics, scale, framerate and audio (I think ill be as old as those grampas in the video Wii demonstrations by that time) then that only leaves the quality of the games themselves. Games are the core reason why there are generation leaps and with the bigger and better hardware per generation there are less excuses for producing low quality games. Innovation will never cease with thecreative minds behind the industry and the fun factor in games is only limited by your own imagination.

[QUOTE="Michael85"]

Not far. Crysis and Call of Duty 4 look about as good as any cutscene in a Square Enix game of yester-gen.

The real question is: once we hit that point, what's next? Make the graphics better?

XenogearsMaster

LOL at CoD4.

[QUOTE="Michael85"]

Not far. Crysis and Call of Duty 4 look about as good as any cutscene in a Square Enix game of yester-gen.

The real question is: once we hit that point, what's next? Make the graphics better?

XenogearsMaster

LOL at CoD4.

Crysis and UT3 are close, and that Heavy Rain game looks very amazing - in terms of facial animation.

ok there's a few things we need to sort out. Are we talking visually looking as good as CGI, or are we talking real-time renders of CGI quality.

I think we're almost there as far as visually looking as good as CGI if you look at some of the videos that come out many people are arguing "is it real time, or CGI?".

As far as actually rendering CGI quality in real time we're quite a ways off, and we're not even near CGI from 10 years ago either

When we look at graphical comparisons to real life it's a strange battle. Sure the new stuff look really realistic, but if you've done any graphic work before you know you're making illusions, and like all illusions over time they don't work as well as they use to. Remember how realistic Jurassic Park looked as a kid. Now watch it again, and you'll see the CGI parts are not nearly as impressive since now we've gotten better at seeing through the illusions.

I suppose you could argue that the MGS series has been doing it since the PS2, seeing as they use the in-game engine for all the cutscenes. Seeing as the same applies to MGS4 which is far superior graphically to its predecessors, I'd say that's a pretty good good example IMO.Jagazaar

but we are really talking about real-time CGI quality. No MSG is going to have done that, will do that, anytime soon.

[QUOTE="whoisryanmack"][QUOTE="Michael85"]

The real question is: once we hit that point, what's next? Make the graphics better?

myke2010

Clearly, the Matrix is not far off.

Agreed ! I don't care if they can't make a Character-model that is unmistakable for a real person, What I care about is making that character model crumple like he would in real life when I shoot him with a gun, or a Racing Simulator that is accurate enough to be compared to real life ( no Forza 2 nor GT5 is not realistic, crashing a car at 150 mph you don't just loose your bumper, and you also don't just crash and there is no scratch or dent )

And boy o boy do we need some better A.I. I am so sick of brain dead enemy's, but its basically become the game industry standard now. I would rather 1-4 Amazing and smart opponents, then some graphic whore game that touts that its capable of displaying 9237028907528905702208957 enemies on screen at once, that can just basically walk towards you and do one attack.

Lol, the question is more than flawed. By definition, Real-Time will never surpass its Prerendered counterpart. When games reach the stage where they will look like Advent Children in real-time, the prerendered cutscenes will look even better - These two advance at the same speed. With more proessing and graphics power you can make better realtime, but you can also make better prerendered videos.

I suggest you all to DL the HighDefinitionTrailer of the upcoming movie "Beowulf", the first 100%-CGI-movie that attempts at realistic graphics since The Spirits Within.