Dark Souls 2 VGA trailer: Pre-rendered or in-game or combination?

  • 61 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Ravenshout
Ravenshout

1265

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Ravenshout
Member since 2012 • 1265 Posts

As we all know, at least most us, Dark Souls 2 was announced at the Spike TV's VGA 2012, and like other announcements at the event, it was revealed with a trailer.I'm not interested in knowing what setting the game will take place in, as it seems that it will be somewhat a continuation of its predecessor as most sequels are.

However, I am intrigued by the visual in the trailer. Was it rendered fully in CGI like Blizzard/SquareEnix's CGI trailers, or CGI in combination with the game engine? More interestingly, could the trailer be rendered fully using the engine?

If it's the former, than it's MEDIOCRE pre-rendered CGI since the animation and graphics aren't as good as Blizzard/Square Enix trailers from years ago, not to mention the latest ones.

BUT, if it's the latter, then IT IS GRAPHICS KING.

No game looks that good!

So what do you think, O' system warriors?

Avatar image for themyth01
themyth01

13924

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#2 themyth01
Member since 2003 • 13924 Posts
All pre-rendered, I mean just look at it. It's obvious.
Avatar image for MFDOOM1983
MFDOOM1983

8465

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 MFDOOM1983
Member since 2010 • 8465 Posts
Lol, c'mon. You can't be serious.
Avatar image for bobbetybob
bobbetybob

19370

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#4 bobbetybob
Member since 2005 • 19370 Posts
So you think it's in engine because "it's not as good as Blizzard/Square Enix trailers". Yeah, or maybe they didn't have a sh*t ton of money to spend promoting their game, it still looked great, are we going to have f*cking CGI graphics whores now or something?
Avatar image for deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab
deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab

17476

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#5 deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab
Member since 2008 • 17476 Posts
Its obviously pre rendered. Could you seriously not tell?
Avatar image for BrunoBRS
BrunoBRS

74156

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#6 BrunoBRS
Member since 2005 • 74156 Posts
it's clearly full CGI, and gorgeous one at that.
Avatar image for Basinboy
Basinboy

14495

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#7 Basinboy
Member since 2003 • 14495 Posts

...is this a serious question?

Avatar image for Gue1
Gue1

12171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#8 Gue1
Member since 2004 • 12171 Posts

it was all real-time and running from a PS3.

Avatar image for Riadon2
Riadon2

1598

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 Riadon2
Member since 2011 • 1598 Posts

It's either CGI or the PC version.

Doesn't have enough blur, bloom, jaggies, lens-flares, pop-in, and low-res textures to be console version.

Avatar image for Dante2710
Dante2710

63164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#10 Dante2710
Member since 2005 • 63164 Posts

Real time and only possible on the PS3.

Avatar image for Badosh
Badosh

12774

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#11 Badosh
Member since 2011 • 12774 Posts
Come on now...
Avatar image for HaloPimp978
HaloPimp978

7329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 1

#12 HaloPimp978
Member since 2005 • 7329 Posts

Of course its pre rendered

Avatar image for bobbetybob
bobbetybob

19370

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#13 bobbetybob
Member since 2005 • 19370 Posts

It's either CGI or the PC version.

Doesn't have enough blur, bloom, jaggies, lens-flares, pop-in, and low-res textures to be console version.

Riadon2
Unless PC's magically advanced through 10 years of tech in the past day I'd say it's pretty safe to say that it's CGI. And that you're a moron.
Avatar image for deactivated-59b71619573a1
deactivated-59b71619573a1

38222

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 deactivated-59b71619573a1
Member since 2007 • 38222 Posts

Wait what? Really? You honestly think any part of that was in game? :?

Avatar image for deactivated-59b71619573a1
deactivated-59b71619573a1

38222

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 deactivated-59b71619573a1
Member since 2007 • 38222 Posts

it's clearly full CGI, and gorgeous one at that.BrunoBRS

Some of the best I've seen actually. Like we were talking about, that female character looked almost live action at one point

Avatar image for Riadon2
Riadon2

1598

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 Riadon2
Member since 2011 • 1598 Posts

[QUOTE="Riadon2"]

It's either CGI or the PC version.

Doesn't have enough blur, bloom, jaggies, lens-flares, pop-in, and low-res textures to be console version.

bobbetybob

Unless PC's magically advanced through 10 years of tech in the past day I'd say it's pretty safe to say that it's CGI. And that you're a moron.

Two overclocked 690's and an overclocked 3770k should be able to do it at console fps, look at Crysis 3 and the Samaritan and the UE4 demos and how they look on far lesser hardware.

Obviously this is CGI though, From Software isn't exactly known for pushing graphics, especially not to the point where it is hard to distinguish ingame from CGI.

Avatar image for PinnacleGamingP
PinnacleGamingP

5120

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 PinnacleGamingP
Member since 2012 • 5120 Posts
your not wrong by asking this, its due to the power of the Playstation 3.
Avatar image for Gue1
Gue1

12171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#18 Gue1
Member since 2004 • 12171 Posts

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"]it's clearly full CGI, and gorgeous one at that.seanmcloughlin

Some of the best I've seen actually. Like we were talking about, that female character looked almost live action at one point

I thought it was all live action! But I was watching it on a crappy stream with lots of lag though.

Avatar image for deactivated-59b71619573a1
deactivated-59b71619573a1

38222

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 deactivated-59b71619573a1
Member since 2007 • 38222 Posts

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"]it's clearly full CGI, and gorgeous one at that.Gue1

Some of the best I've seen actually. Like we were talking about, that female character looked almost live action at one point

I thought it was all live action! But I was watching it on a crappy stream with lots of lag though.

Yeah it hid some of the "fake" look to it. Still mightily impressive though

Avatar image for deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab
deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab

17476

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#20 deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab
Member since 2008 • 17476 Posts

[QUOTE="bobbetybob"][QUOTE="Riadon2"]

It's either CGI or the PC version.

Doesn't have enough blur, bloom, jaggies, lens-flares, pop-in, and low-res textures to be console version.

Riadon2

Unless PC's magically advanced through 10 years of tech in the past day I'd say it's pretty safe to say that it's CGI. And that you're a moron.

Two overclocked 690's and an overclocked 3770k should be able to do it at console fps, look at Crysis 3 and the Samaritan and how they look on far lesser hardware.

Obviously this is CGI though, From Software isn't exactly known for pushing graphics, especially not to the point where it is hard to distinguish ingame from CGI.

No they couldn't. I think you vastly underestimate what would be required to render something like that in real time.
Avatar image for deactivated-59b71619573a1
deactivated-59b71619573a1

38222

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 deactivated-59b71619573a1
Member since 2007 • 38222 Posts

[QUOTE="Riadon2"]

[QUOTE="bobbetybob"] Unless PC's magically advanced through 10 years of tech in the past day I'd say it's pretty safe to say that it's CGI. And that you're a moron.ferret-gamer

Two overclocked 690's and an overclocked 3770k should be able to do it at console fps, look at Crysis 3 and the Samaritan and how they look on far lesser hardware.

Obviously this is CGI though, From Software isn't exactly known for pushing graphics, especially not to the point where it is hard to distinguish ingame from CGI.

No they couldn't. I think you vastly underestimate what would be required to render something like that in real time.

Even the amount of memory even that trailer takes up pre-rendered is likely quite a lot

Avatar image for PinnacleGamingP
PinnacleGamingP

5120

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 PinnacleGamingP
Member since 2012 • 5120 Posts

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"]it's clearly full CGI, and gorgeous one at that.seanmcloughlin

Some of the best I've seen actually. Like we were talking about, that female character looked almost live action at one point

last of us looks better then this, yet your argueing with me in the last of us thread saying "its just a pre rendered cutscene" yet this is "some of the best youve seen?" its all power of the PS3, talk about fanboyism just cuz this is multiplat????!!!
Avatar image for Riadon2
Riadon2

1598

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 Riadon2
Member since 2011 • 1598 Posts

[QUOTE="Riadon2"]

[QUOTE="bobbetybob"] Unless PC's magically advanced through 10 years of tech in the past day I'd say it's pretty safe to say that it's CGI. And that you're a moron.ferret-gamer

Two overclocked 690's and an overclocked 3770k should be able to do it at console fps, look at Crysis 3 and the Samaritan and how they look on far lesser hardware.

Obviously this is CGI though, From Software isn't exactly known for pushing graphics, especially not to the point where it is hard to distinguish ingame from CGI.

No they couldn't. I think you vastly underestimate what would be required to render something like that in real time.

The CGI likely uses supersampling and other things that were done specifically becaue there was little concern about the framerate of a pre-rendered movie. Ingame, many things would be toned down, but the end result would look pretty comparable. Also, I don't see the trailer as being MASSIVELY better than Crysis 3/Unreal 4 demos, and these aren't even run on the latest hardware.

And the trailer is only in 720p.

Avatar image for cysf661
cysf661

6599

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 cysf661
Member since 2002 • 6599 Posts

Is the trailer online?

Avatar image for MercenaryMafia
MercenaryMafia

2917

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 MercenaryMafia
Member since 2011 • 2917 Posts
Come on now...Badosh
Avatar image for deactivated-59b71619573a1
deactivated-59b71619573a1

38222

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 deactivated-59b71619573a1
Member since 2007 • 38222 Posts

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"]it's clearly full CGI, and gorgeous one at that.PinnacleGamingP

Some of the best I've seen actually. Like we were talking about, that female character looked almost live action at one point

last of us looks better then this, yet your argueing with me in the last of us thread saying "its just a pre rendered cutscene" yet this is "some of the best youve seen?" its all power of the PS3, talk about fanboyism just cuz this is multiplat????!!!

Some of the best CG I've ever seen. a pre-rendered cutscene isn't CG.

Avatar image for deactivated-59b71619573a1
deactivated-59b71619573a1

38222

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 deactivated-59b71619573a1
Member since 2007 • 38222 Posts

Is the trailer online?

cysf661

Yep

http://kotaku.com/5966786/here-is-dark-souls-iis-debut-trailer

Avatar image for jer_1
jer_1

7451

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#28 jer_1
Member since 2003 • 7451 Posts

Prerendered obviously, also it looked excellent so I'm not sure what the hell the OP was talking about saying it was not good. Craziness.

Avatar image for PinnacleGamingP
PinnacleGamingP

5120

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 PinnacleGamingP
Member since 2012 • 5120 Posts

[QUOTE="PinnacleGamingP"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Some of the best I've seen actually. Like we were talking about, that female character looked almost live action at one point

seanmcloughlin

last of us looks better then this, yet your argueing with me in the last of us thread saying "its just a pre rendered cutscene" yet this is "some of the best youve seen?" its all power of the PS3, talk about fanboyism just cuz this is multiplat????!!!

Some of the best CG I've ever seen. a pre-rendered cutscene isn't CG.

there was a prerendered cutscene in there too daft punk!! didnt you notice the OP?
Avatar image for DarkLink77
DarkLink77

32731

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#30 DarkLink77
Member since 2004 • 32731 Posts

Obviously, obviously pre-rendered.

Seriously, TC, are you blind?

Avatar image for Gue1
Gue1

12171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#31 Gue1
Member since 2004 • 12171 Posts

Is the trailer online?

cysf661

Here and watch it fast before it gets pulled off!

Avatar image for deactivated-59b71619573a1
deactivated-59b71619573a1

38222

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32 deactivated-59b71619573a1
Member since 2007 • 38222 Posts

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="PinnacleGamingP"] last of us looks better then this, yet your argueing with me in the last of us thread saying "its just a pre rendered cutscene" yet this is "some of the best youve seen?" its all power of the PS3, talk about fanboyism just cuz this is multiplat????!!!PinnacleGamingP

Some of the best CG I've ever seen. a pre-rendered cutscene isn't CG.

there was a prerendered cutscene in there too daft punk!! didnt you notice the OP?

ugh...

the pre-rendered CGI in the DS2 trailer is not the same as the pre-rendered in engine cutscene in TLOU.

Learn the bloody difference.

Avatar image for deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab
deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab

17476

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#33 deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab
Member since 2008 • 17476 Posts

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="Riadon2"]

Two overclocked 690's and an overclocked 3770k should be able to do it at console fps, look at Crysis 3 and the Samaritan and how they look on far lesser hardware.

Obviously this is CGI though, From Software isn't exactly known for pushing graphics, especially not to the point where it is hard to distinguish ingame from CGI.

Riadon2

No they couldn't. I think you vastly underestimate what would be required to render something like that in real time.

The CGI likely uses supersampling and other things that were done specifically becaue there was little concern about the framerate of a pre-rendered movie. Ingame, many things would be toned down, but the end result would look pretty comparable. Also, I don't see the trailer as being MASSIVELY better than Crysis 3/Unreal 4 demos, and these aren't even run on the latest hardware.

And the trailer is only in 720p.

Stupid argument. If you toned down everything it wouldn't look the same. You can technically run crysis with an fx5200 if you tone everything down enough, but it won't look anywhere near comparable to the game maxed out. You really don't know anything about offline rendering and the techniques used with it if you think that any single consumer desktop computer can come close to something like that trailer. Cinematic trailers like that or what you see from places like Blizzard, Blur, Square Enix are done on render farms that comprise of hundreds to thousands of computers.
Avatar image for Riadon2
Riadon2

1598

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 Riadon2
Member since 2011 • 1598 Posts

[QUOTE="Riadon2"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] No they couldn't. I think you vastly underestimate what would be required to render something like that in real time.ferret-gamer

The CGI likely uses supersampling and other things that were done specifically becaue there was little concern about the framerate of a pre-rendered movie. Ingame, many things would be toned down, but the end result would look pretty comparable. Also, I don't see the trailer as being MASSIVELY better than Crysis 3/Unreal 4 demos, and these aren't even run on the latest hardware.

And the trailer is only in 720p.

Stupid argument. If you toned down everything it wouldn't look the same. You can technically run crysis with an fx5200 if you tone everything down enough, but it won't look anywhere near comparable to the game maxed out. You really don't know anything about offline rendering and the techniques used with it if you think that any single consumer desktop computer can come close to something like that trailer. Cinematic trailers like that or what you see from places like Blizzard, Blur, Square Enix are done on render farms that comprise of hundreds to thousands of computers.

There are certain very demanding features that could be dropped or done more effectively that could make a game look comparable, though not identical. The 780/8970 and Haswell CPU line will be out by the time DS2 is released, giving further power to effictively run something close to that CGI trailer if run in tri or quad sli/crossfire.

We also don't know what was used in the rendering of the DS2 CGI. You can't really argue technical details if you don't know them, we can only discuss how the trailer was very liberal in its use of browns and greys and is therefore held back from being all that it can be.

And I never claimed that current hardware could run Blizzard CGI, which is FAR more advanced than the relatively basic CGI shown in the DS2 trailer.

And the game could make use of future hardware in the way that Crysis did, but again, this is From Software and it won't happen.

And again, 720p.

Avatar image for dommeus
dommeus

9433

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#35 dommeus
Member since 2004 • 9433 Posts
All pre-rendered, I mean just look at it. It's obvious. themyth01
Avatar image for PinnacleGamingP
PinnacleGamingP

5120

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36 PinnacleGamingP
Member since 2012 • 5120 Posts

[QUOTE="PinnacleGamingP"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Some of the best CG I've ever seen. a pre-rendered cutscene isn't CG.

seanmcloughlin

there was a prerendered cutscene in there too daft punk!! didnt you notice the OP?

ugh...

the pre-rendered CGI in the DS2 trailer is not the same as the pre-rendered in engine cutscene in TLOU.

Learn the bloody difference.

where did i say they were?
Avatar image for ugoo18
ugoo18

1005

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37 ugoo18
Member since 2010 • 1005 Posts

Were people really that dissapointed with how Phantom Pain looked as the next gen glimpse to be asking this now?

E3 2013 is likely to produce even more dissapointment then.

Avatar image for PinnacleGamingP
PinnacleGamingP

5120

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 PinnacleGamingP
Member since 2012 • 5120 Posts

Were people really that dissapointed with how Phantom Pain looked as the next gen glimpse to be asking this now?

E3 2013 is likely to produce even more dissapointment then.

ugoo18
but you have to keep in mind dark souls needs to be toned down enough to run on the 360 hardware, this is not demons souls were talking about here
Avatar image for deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab
deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab

17476

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#39 deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab
Member since 2008 • 17476 Posts

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="Riadon2"]

The CGI likely uses supersampling and other things that were done specifically becaue there was little concern about the framerate of a pre-rendered movie. Ingame, many things would be toned down, but the end result would look pretty comparable. Also, I don't see the trailer as being MASSIVELY better than Crysis 3/Unreal 4 demos, and these aren't even run on the latest hardware.

And the trailer is only in 720p.

Riadon2

Stupid argument. If you toned down everything it wouldn't look the same. You can technically run crysis with an fx5200 if you tone everything down enough, but it won't look anywhere near comparable to the game maxed out. You really don't know anything about offline rendering and the techniques used with it if you think that any single consumer desktop computer can come close to something like that trailer. Cinematic trailers like that or what you see from places like Blizzard, Blur, Square Enix are done on render farms that comprise of hundreds to thousands of computers.

There are certain very demanding features that could be dropped or done more effectively that could make a game look comparable, though not identical. The 780/8970 and Haswell CPU line will be out by the time DS2 is released, giving further power to effictively run something close to that CGI trailer if run in tri or quad sli/crossfire.

We also don't know what was used in the rendering of the DS2 CGI. You can't really argue technical details if you don't know them, we can only discuss how the trailer was very liberal in its use of browns and greys and is therefore held back from being all that it can be.

And I never claimed that current hardware could run Blizzard CGI, which is FAR more advanced than the relatively basic CGI shown in the DS2 trailer.

And the game could make use of future hardware in the way that Crysis did, but again, this is From Software and it won't happen.

And again, 720p.

I don't need to know the exact techinical details when I see things that obviously can't be ran in real time on single desktop. And again, making something comparable argument is irrelevant because running something comparable is not the same as running the original, and what is "comparable" is highly subjective. As you've pointed out you seem to think it doesn't look much better than UE4 or Crysis 3, while to me and many other people they very blatantly look worse.

Also, I don't know where you are getting the idea that the Dark Souls 2 trailer is "relatively basic" CGI in the first place. You shouldn't be insulting the people who made it when you clearly have little knowledge of the subject to make that sort of judgment.

720p doesn't matter that much. If your computer would take 3 hours to render a frame at 1080p and 2 hours to render it at 720p, it is still not rendering at real time.

How about something so you can see for yourself?http://www.luxrender.net/wiki/LuxMark#DownloadThis is luxmark, a pathtracing benchmark capable of using both the CPU and GPU in the rendering process. Download it and try it out. See for yourself how quickly your single computer is capable of rendering the stuff. And that is just lighting and basic materials. Not counting the particles, fluid effects, complicated materials, cloth, post processing, and the many other things that go into something like a cgi video game trailer.

Avatar image for DISSESHOWEDO
DISSESHOWEDO

1775

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#40 DISSESHOWEDO
Member since 2010 • 1775 Posts

it was all real-time and running from a PS3.

Gue1

Confirmed by S.Jackson himself !!!

Avatar image for blackace
blackace

23576

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#41 blackace
Member since 2002 • 23576 Posts
Yeah, it was pretty obvious. It still looked great though. The trailer made me want to pre-order it right away.
Avatar image for FastEddie2121
FastEddie2121

3081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42 FastEddie2121
Member since 2009 • 3081 Posts
Confirm: its the Game Boy version.
Avatar image for Promised_Trini
Promised_Trini

3651

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#43 Promised_Trini
Member since 2008 • 3651 Posts

I just can't wait for this game!.

Avatar image for Riadon2
Riadon2

1598

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44 Riadon2
Member since 2011 • 1598 Posts

[QUOTE="Riadon2"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] Stupid argument. If you toned down everything it wouldn't look the same. You can technically run crysis with an fx5200 if you tone everything down enough, but it won't look anywhere near comparable to the game maxed out. You really don't know anything about offline rendering and the techniques used with it if you think that any single consumer desktop computer can come close to something like that trailer. Cinematic trailers like that or what you see from places like Blizzard, Blur, Square Enix are done on render farms that comprise of hundreds to thousands of computers. ferret-gamer

There are certain very demanding features that could be dropped or done more effectively that could make a game look comparable, though not identical. The 780/8970 and Haswell CPU line will be out by the time DS2 is released, giving further power to effictively run something close to that CGI trailer if run in tri or quad sli/crossfire.

We also don't know what was used in the rendering of the DS2 CGI. You can't really argue technical details if you don't know them, we can only discuss how the trailer was very liberal in its use of browns and greys and is therefore held back from being all that it can be.

And I never claimed that current hardware could run Blizzard CGI, which is FAR more advanced than the relatively basic CGI shown in the DS2 trailer.

And the game could make use of future hardware in the way that Crysis did, but again, this is From Software and it won't happen.

And again, 720p.

I don't need to know the exact techinical details when I see things that obviously can't be ran in real time on single desktop. And again, making something comparable argument is irrelevant because running something comparable is not the same as running the original, and what is "comparable" is highly subjective. As you've pointed out you seem to think it doesn't look much better than UE4 or Crysis 3, while to me and many other people they very blatantly look worse.

Also, I don't know where you are getting the idea that the Dark Souls 2 trailer is "relatively basic" CGI in the first place. You shouldn't be insulting the people who made it when you clearly have little knowledge of the subject to make that sort of judgment.

720p doesn't matter that much. If your computer would take 3 hours to render a frame at 1080p and 2 hours to render it at 720p, it is still not rendering at real time.

How about something so you can see for yourself?http://www.luxrender.net/wiki/LuxMark#DownloadThis is luxmark, a pathtracing benchmark capable of using both the CPU and GPU in the rendering process. Download it and try it out. See for yourself how quickly your single computer is capable of rendering the stuff. And that is just lighting and basic materials. Not counting the particles, fluid effects, complicated materials, cloth, post processing, and the many other things that go into something like a cgi video game trailer.

You seem to have little in the way of reading comprehension.

Reread my posts, you are trying to convince me of something that I already know and have acknowledged.

I am not saying that current technology can render the CGI in realtime, because obviously it couldn't. I am saying that using the full power of current and future (DS2 era) hardware, something similarly appealing could be rendered with smart design decisions and a good art style.

I also never said that UE4 and Crysis 3 are GRAPHICALLY similar to the CGI, only that they are similarly appealing on a visual level. The DS2 trailer has too little color, being far too liberal with greys and browns.

The DS2 CGI isn't bad, but it is very basic compared to Blizzard's CGI and downright terrible when compared to the CGI used in movies like Avatar.

Avatar image for parkurtommo
parkurtommo

28295

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#45 parkurtommo
Member since 2009 • 28295 Posts

Leems segit.

Avatar image for deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab
deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab

17476

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#46 deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab
Member since 2008 • 17476 Posts

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="Riadon2"]

There are certain very demanding features that could be dropped or done more effectively that could make a game look comparable, though not identical. The 780/8970 and Haswell CPU line will be out by the time DS2 is released, giving further power to effictively run something close to that CGI trailer if run in tri or quad sli/crossfire.

We also don't know what was used in the rendering of the DS2 CGI. You can't really argue technical details if you don't know them, we can only discuss how the trailer was very liberal in its use of browns and greys and is therefore held back from being all that it can be.

And I never claimed that current hardware could run Blizzard CGI, which is FAR more advanced than the relatively basic CGI shown in the DS2 trailer.

And the game could make use of future hardware in the way that Crysis did, but again, this is From Software and it won't happen.

And again, 720p.

Riadon2

I don't need to know the exact techinical details when I see things that obviously can't be ran in real time on single desktop. And again, making something comparable argument is irrelevant because running something comparable is not the same as running the original, and what is "comparable" is highly subjective. As you've pointed out you seem to think it doesn't look much better than UE4 or Crysis 3, while to me and many other people they very blatantly look worse.

Also, I don't know where you are getting the idea that the Dark Souls 2 trailer is "relatively basic" CGI in the first place. You shouldn't be insulting the people who made it when you clearly have little knowledge of the subject to make that sort of judgment.

720p doesn't matter that much. If your computer would take 3 hours to render a frame at 1080p and 2 hours to render it at 720p, it is still not rendering at real time.

How about something so you can see for yourself?http://www.luxrender.net/wiki/LuxMark#DownloadThis is luxmark, a pathtracing benchmark capable of using both the CPU and GPU in the rendering process. Download it and try it out. See for yourself how quickly your single computer is capable of rendering the stuff. And that is just lighting and basic materials. Not counting the particles, fluid effects, complicated materials, cloth, post processing, and the many other things that go into something like a cgi video game trailer.

You seem to have little in the way of reading comprehension.

Reread my posts, you are trying to convince me of something that I already know and have acknowledged.

I am not saying that current technology can render the CGI in realtime, because obviously it couldn't. I am saying that using the full power of current and future (DS2 era) hardware, something similarly appealing could be rendered with smart design decisions and a good art style.

I also never said that UE4 and Crysis 3 are GRAPHICALLY similar to the CGI, only that they are similarly appealing on a visual level. The DS2 trailer has too little color, being far too liberal with greys and browns.

The DS2 CGI isn't bad, but it is very basic compared to Blizzard's CGI and downright terrible when compared to the CGI used in movies like Avatar.

The first post you made in this thread you directly stated that "It's either CGI or the PC version" and later you said "Two overclocked 690's and an overclocked 3770k should be able to do it at console fps" Also, what does its color pallete have to do at all with whether it could be ran in real time or not? Whether you think something is aesthetically pleasing has no relevance to anything.
Avatar image for Riadon2
Riadon2

1598

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47 Riadon2
Member since 2011 • 1598 Posts

[QUOTE="Riadon2"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]I don't need to know the exact techinical details when I see things that obviously can't be ran in real time on single desktop. And again, making something comparable argument is irrelevant because running something comparable is not the same as running the original, and what is "comparable" is highly subjective. As you've pointed out you seem to think it doesn't look much better than UE4 or Crysis 3, while to me and many other people they very blatantly look worse.

Also, I don't know where you are getting the idea that the Dark Souls 2 trailer is "relatively basic" CGI in the first place. You shouldn't be insulting the people who made it when you clearly have little knowledge of the subject to make that sort of judgment.

720p doesn't matter that much. If your computer would take 3 hours to render a frame at 1080p and 2 hours to render it at 720p, it is still not rendering at real time.

How about something so you can see for yourself?http://www.luxrender.net/wiki/LuxMark#DownloadThis is luxmark, a pathtracing benchmark capable of using both the CPU and GPU in the rendering process. Download it and try it out. See for yourself how quickly your single computer is capable of rendering the stuff. And that is just lighting and basic materials. Not counting the particles, fluid effects, complicated materials, cloth, post processing, and the many other things that go into something like a cgi video game trailer.

ferret-gamer

You seem to have little in the way of reading comprehension.

Reread my posts, you are trying to convince me of something that I already know and have acknowledged.

I am not saying that current technology can render the CGI in realtime, because obviously it couldn't. I am saying that using the full power of current and future (DS2 era) hardware, something similarly appealing could be rendered with smart design decisions and a good art style.

I also never said that UE4 and Crysis 3 are GRAPHICALLY similar to the CGI, only that they are similarly appealing on a visual level. The DS2 trailer has too little color, being far too liberal with greys and browns.

The DS2 CGI isn't bad, but it is very basic compared to Blizzard's CGI and downright terrible when compared to the CGI used in movies like Avatar.

The first post you made in this thread you directly stated that "It's either CGI or the PC version" and later you said "Two overclocked 690's and an overclocked 3770k should be able to do it at console fps" Also, what does its color pallete have to do at all with whether it could be ran in real time or not? Whether you think something is aesthetically pleasing has no relevance to anything.

And then I elaborated in further posts. I believe that through smart decision decisions, good optimization, good art style, and full utilization of the technology of its time, From Software COULD (but wont) produce something visually similar. I don't know how many times I have to say this.

I said that Crysis 3 and UE4 demos "look comparable" to this trailer, not that they are as impressive graphically. No matter how technically advanced the trailer CGI is, it is not aesthetically pleasing to me. You may disagree about the aesthetics, but that doesn't change what I think.

Avatar image for k2theswiss
k2theswiss

16599

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 1

#48 k2theswiss
Member since 2007 • 16599 Posts
you should know this by now. it's 100% trailer. games don;t look that good on console lol
Avatar image for mitu123
mitu123

155290

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#49 mitu123
Member since 2006 • 155290 Posts

A current gen console would die just trying to run that trailer in real time...

Avatar image for campzor
campzor

34932

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50 campzor
Member since 2004 • 34932 Posts
pre-rendered...obviously..