Video Games: And Will ddslLook

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by freedomfreak (41036 posts) -

My compadres, I just watched Tintin Unicorn Adventures. As a Belgian, I felt very close to this movie. The cartoon was made by a Belgian.. And.. Spielberg made a movie now. I don't know why it took me that long to watch it.

But the animation quality was insane. And it made me thinkos. When do you think video games will reach this level of quality?

And I'm talking gameplay. No stupid ass "IN ENGINE" bull hickey.

10 years? Less?

Watch that movie.

#2 Posted by parkurtommo (27260 posts) -

Yes, my guess is a decade, maybe less.

#3 Posted by freedomfreak (41036 posts) -
@parkurtommo said:

Yes, my guess is a decade, maybe less.

your sig.. So hot

#4 Posted by scottpsfan14 (5588 posts) -
@freedomfreak said:

My compadres, I just watched Tintin Unicorn Adventures. As a Belgian, I felt very close to this movie. The cartoon was made by a Belgian.. And.. Spielberg made a movie now. I don't know why it took me that long to watch it.

But the animation quality was insane. And it made me thinkos. When do you think video games will reach this level of quality?

And I'm talking gameplay. No stupid ass "IN ENGINE" bull hickey.

10 years? Less?

Watch that movie.

Well, that quality? That is a cinematic camera view. So gameplay will never look like that scene in the gif, but rather the traditional behind TPS view (which is what I imagine a game with those asthetics would be). But lets say the cutscenes are real time graphics on a game and use the same assets as in gameplay, I'd say about 10 years before it's as detailed as this. PlayStation 6 launch titles perhaps? The lighting in games today is already close to this. Especially now they have made the switch to physically based lighting (lighting that obides by the laws of physics and looks natural in any environment while maintaining the same lighting model). Physically based lighting has been used in CGI for over a decade now. Only now is it coming to real time game graphics.

The main differences between CGI graphics and games today is polygon count and animations. Something this generation of consoles is taking 1 step closer to achieving. Look at Ryse, The Order. What those games are lacking compared to that movie is actual geometric detail of objects and characters, the degree of animation accuracy and raytrace mapping (super high quality CGI textures basically).

#5 Posted by clyde46 (46634 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:
@freedomfreak said:

My compadres, I just watched Tintin Unicorn Adventures. As a Belgian, I felt very close to this movie. The cartoon was made by a Belgian.. And.. Spielberg made a movie now. I don't know why it took me that long to watch it.

But the animation quality was insane. And it made me thinkos. When do you think video games will reach this level of quality?

And I'm talking gameplay. No stupid ass "IN ENGINE" bull hickey.

10 years? Less?

Watch that movie.

Well, that quality? That is a cinematic camera view. So gameplay will never look like that scene in the gif, but rather the traditional behind TPS view (which is what I imagine a game with those asthetics would be). But lets say the cutscenes are real time graphics on a game and use the same assets as in gameplay, I'd say about 10 years before it's as detailed as this. PlayStation 6 launch titles perhaps? The lighting in games today is already close to this. Especially now they have made the switch to physically based lighting (lighting that obides by the laws of physics and looks natural in any environment while maintaining the same lighting model). Physically based lighting has been used in CGI for over a decade now. Only now is it coming to real time game graphics.

The main differences between CGI graphics and games today is polygon count and animations. Something this generation of consoles is taking 1 step closer to achieving. Look at Ryse, The Order. What those games are lacking compared to that movie is actual geometric detail of objects and characters, the degree of animation accuracy and raytrace mapping (super high quality CGI textures basically).

Studios like Pixar take days to render single frames.

#6 Edited by scottpsfan14 (5588 posts) -
@clyde46 said:

@scottpsfan14 said:
@freedomfreak said:

My compadres, I just watched Tintin Unicorn Adventures. As a Belgian, I felt very close to this movie. The cartoon was made by a Belgian.. And.. Spielberg made a movie now. I don't know why it took me that long to watch it.

But the animation quality was insane. And it made me thinkos. When do you think video games will reach this level of quality?

And I'm talking gameplay. No stupid ass "IN ENGINE" bull hickey.

10 years? Less?

Watch that movie.

Well, that quality? That is a cinematic camera view. So gameplay will never look like that scene in the gif, but rather the traditional behind TPS view (which is what I imagine a game with those asthetics would be). But lets say the cutscenes are real time graphics on a game and use the same assets as in gameplay, I'd say about 10 years before it's as detailed as this. PlayStation 6 launch titles perhaps? The lighting in games today is already close to this. Especially now they have made the switch to physically based lighting (lighting that obides by the laws of physics and looks natural in any environment while maintaining the same lighting model). Physically based lighting has been used in CGI for over a decade now. Only now is it coming to real time game graphics.

The main differences between CGI graphics and games today is polygon count and animations. Something this generation of consoles is taking 1 step closer to achieving. Look at Ryse, The Order. What those games are lacking compared to that movie is actual geometric detail of objects and characters, the degree of animation accuracy and raytrace mapping (super high quality CGI textures basically).

Studios like Pixar take days to render single frames.

Yep. Because of the gargantuan level of detail in everything. They spare no expense in CGI. Nothing in the background thats out of view has less polygons to save power because there is no need to. There is no LOD's in CGI. Everything is impossibly detailed. Because they can. Even if a real time game reaches this detail in the foreground, there will always be LOD details to save rendering in the backgrounds and small objects with blocky triangles etc. Because CGI graphics is always at least a decade ahead of games in immediate detail. But even further ahead when you consider all the backgrounds are rendered in full detail without any LOD's.