Support NeoGAF

[Shangounchained]

I already gave up and added him to the ignore list. He will keep spinning till the end of times.
Living in denial is a serious condition...

Digital foundry are not the measurement of whether graphics are realtime or not, they are simply people like us with a youtube chanel they dont work for ms or sony so when phil spencer says its realtime and digitak foundry says its not well im afraid id have to oick soencer on this

 

[Grand Theft Scratchy]

If it was real-time, Ninja Theory themselves would have said so but they didn't.

It was confirmed to be in-engine but that is not the same thing as actual real-time gameplay.

 

[ethomaz]

Digital foundry are not the measurement of whether graphics are realtime or not, they are simply people like us with a youtube chanel they dont work for ms or sony so when phil spencer says its realtime and digitak foundry says its not well im afraid id have to oick soencer on this

Moving the goal.
You lied saying DF said it was real-time.

And I believe more in DF than you and not they are are not people like us because it is their job to do these analysis.

Phil Spenser never said it was real-time... DF themselves showed the actual quote from Phil were “in-engine” and Gamespot did spin to “real-time”... unless you have a quote from Phil saying thatI will call you a liar again.

 

[Shangounchained]

Moving the goal.
Tou lied saying DF said it was real-time.

They said it was in engine and not pre rendered they where skeptical on it being realtime simply because of the amount of polygons per frame, if u want to make a discussion over sissy stuff go look for ur girlfriend or sisters and discuss it, im not hear all day to argue over silly statements

 

[ethomaz]

They said it was in engine and not pre rendered they where skeptical on it being realtime simply because of the amount of polygons per frame, if u want to make a discussion over sissy stuff go look for ur girlfriend or sisters and discuss it, im not hear all day to argue over silly statements

A lie is a lie no matter how you spin it.

What you said and is still trying to argue was not true.

 

[Shangounchained]

A lie is a lie no matter how you spin it.

What you said and is still trying to argue was not true.

Yeah whatever, now get on with it

 

[Shangounchained]

If it was real-time, Ninja Theory themselves would have said so but they didn't.

It was confirmed to be in-engine but that is not the same thing as actual real-time gameplay.

The left pic is last of us 2 so if thats possible in current gen what makes u think hellblade 2 isnt

 

[VFXVeteran]

You already know the answer to that question... NO

Ask that question in another 3 generations.

 

[Grand Theft Scratchy]

OP, it goes like this:

[] Pre-rendered (CGI)
[X] In-engine
[] In-game (Gameplay)

You are just comparing in-engine screenshots trying to say they are in-game when they are not.

 

[CyberPanda]

You already know the answer to that question... NO

Ask that question in another 3 generations.

Bingo. The amount of processing power needed to render CGI movies is insane. People never learn it seems.

 

[Grand Theft Scratchy]

I'm sure there is confusion with the term "in-engine" because developers like Naughty Dog mentioned in a tweet about their Uncharted 4 trailer (with the close-up of Drake lying on the ground with a fly on his forehead) saying it was "running in-engine real-time on a PS4". They're cutscene graphics. Same thing with the Hellblade 2 trailer. Did you see any actual gameplay? No. So why would you assume it is when Ninja Theory themselves say it is in-engine (not real-time, not in-game)?

 

[Shangounchained]

I'm sure there is confusion with the term "in-engine" because developers like Naughty Dog mentioned in a tweet about their Uncharted 4 trailer (with the close-up of Drake lying on the ground with a fly on his forehead) saying it was "running in-engine real-time on a PS4". They're cutscene graphics. Same thing with the Hellblade 2 trailer. Did you see any actual gameplay? No. So why would you assume it is when Ninja Theory themselves say it is in-engine (not real-time, not in-game)?

In engine means its running realtime on the machine but not playable it doesnt mean pre rendered, pre rendered is offline its a video file in engine means realtime.

 

[Grand Theft Scratchy]

In engine means its running realtime on the machine but not playable it doesnt mean pre rendered, pre rendered is offline its a video file in engine means realtime.

Real-time cutscene, sure, but not real-time gameplay. Again:

[] Pre-rendered (CGI)
[X] In-engine
[] In-game (Gameplay)

 

[Phunkydiabetic]

Video games - rendered in real time

CGI - can take hours upon hours to render a single frame depending on complexity

Videogames will never match CGI.

/thread

 

[Shangounchained]

Real-time cutscene, sure, but not real-time gameplay. Again:

[] Pre-rendered (CGI)
[X] In-engine
[] In-game (Gameplay)

Point is its realtime and not pre rendered whether its gameplay or not. Besides when have you seen anybody playing a game with a characters face full up n close up on screen its not possible and its meaningless, close up detail isnt hard as people think its just a data streaming thing, when playing you dont have to load all the data about senuas face you only load the data you need the closer the object is on screen its not even as impossible as people think. For consoles using ssds as vram and frame buffers im pretty sure hellblade 2 is the simplest graphics weve seen yet on next gen!

 

[Azelover]

I don't know if anybody is gonna agree with me, but.. I think we have reached "good enough" in terms of graphics.

Can we improve visuals quite a bit in the future? Sure. Do we need it? I'm not so sure. Personally, I don't want to play the same games with better graphics again. To me that was played out this past generation's transition already. True innovation is needed imo. I'm not satisfied with all these discussions about horse power. I need a little something more, mainly in terms of gameplay.

 

[magnumpy]

at some point the difference between real-time graphics and pre-rendered graphics will become negligible.

 

[Shangounchained]

I don't know if anybody is gonna agree with me, but.. I think we have reached "good enough" in terms of graphics.

Can we improve visuals quite a bit in the future? Sure. Do we need it? I'm not so sure. Personally, I don't want to play the same games with better graphics again. To me that was played out this past generation's transition already. True innovation is needed imo. I'm not satisfied with all these discussions about horse power. I need a little something more, mainly in terms of gameplay.

Gameplay doesnt really need horsepower its about design and nintendo wii showed that so i think ps5s rumoured haptic feedback will be a good tech forward and more indie games like the 360s live arcade would bring innovations, because big companies are scared to twist things and make art big companies want to be generic and the same as long as their method sells.......

My best gameplay for the past 10 years is batman games for the combat

2. Limbo for game design and gameplay very innovative

3. One finger death punch, youve got to try this game purely genius.

4. Beat hazard, a game where enemies flock according to the music ur playing.

5. God of wars one camera all game tech

6. Maxpayne 3 n all maxpayne games for bullet fight action and also splinter cell black list n convinction for same reasons

7.dreams and claybook for point cloud, volumetric rendering this volumetric tech can be used in war games to improve realistic destruction physics and improve gameplay but somehow they arent using it.

8. Crossplay, itll be awesome if we coukd play same games with multiple systems with friends or foes, it grinds my gears why we cant play fifa via ps, pc and xbox!

9.my wish a vr head set with rumble or haptic feedback plus a steering wheel with fans connexted around to simulate windspeed when racing and also a pseudo reality of my body arms and steering wheel rendered perhaps using photogrammetry to be visible inside vr so i can see what my body is doing outside the glasses and thats it if anybody can pull this off then were closer to gaming nirvana!

 

[Grand Theft Scratchy]

Point is its realtime and not pre rendered whether its gameplay or not. Besides when have you seen anybody playing a game with a characters face full up n close up on screen its not possible and its meaningless, close up detail isnt hard as people think its just a data streaming thing, when playing you dont have to load all the data about senuas face you only load the data you need the closer the object is on screen its not even as impossible as people think. For consoles using ssds as vram and frame buffers im pretty sure hellblade 2 is the simplest graphics weve seen yet on next gen!

You are right that's it's meaningless, other than to create fancier looking in-engine cutscenes. I would be more interested to see these next-gen games showcased in gameplay demonstrations because we would get an idea for how the game actually plays on top of how great it looks. Still, in-engine graphics are never 1:1 with the gameplay graphics.

 

[Shangounchained]

You are right that's it's meaningless, other than to create fancier looking in-engine cutscenes. I would be more interested to see these next-gen games showcased in gameplay demonstrations because we would get an idea for how the game actually plays on top of how great it looks. Still, in-engine graphics are never 1:1 with the gameplay graphics.

Sometimes they are depends how close the camera gets this is the same as lod, its no different and its why they invented vrs, in games like god of war in engine and realtime are almost always the same because u get close ups everytime in boss fights. Since ps2 days.

 

[petran79]

They can convert video game art assets to full CGI realistic movies at cinema res if they want to but to render that in real time, probably another 20 years is needed for consumer technology

Notice:

https://www.t3.com/news/high-resolution-cinema-4k-8k-and-beyond

The resolution of a movie shown in a digital cinema is measured by the horizontal pixel count, so 2,048 x 1,080 pixels for 2K or 4,096 x 2,160 pixels for 4K. Note that there's a slight difference between this and the consumer 4K standard used on televisions and streaming services, which usually refers to frames of 3,840 x 2,160 pixels. Confusing, right?


The quality of the movie your watching will depend on other factors, like the screen size and available lighting, but those resolutions are at the core.

For comparison purposes, 70mm film - still considered by many to be the gold standard - is roughly equivalent to a 12K resolution in digital terms, so digital's still got some catching up to do on that score.

The standards of digital cinema are controlled by a body called Digital Cinema Initiatives, which a lot of the major studios have a stake in. The idea is to put across a certain set of standards for projecting and displaying a digital movie that cinemas can then follow, guaranteeing a particular level of quality for the filmmakers and audiences.


For example, the best screens in most Odeon cinemas use 4K projectors producing almost 9 million pixels, but the difference between a projector and the smart TV you might have at home is that the screen size isn't fixed - it's up to cinemas how big the picture appears.


IMAX demonstrates this difference rather well: it can be used with 70mm film as well, but when recorded digitally, the screen resolution is only 2K or 4K. It's the huge screen, powerful magnification and other tweaks that make the IMAX experience so immersive.


And - as with your smart TV at home - it's only when the screen gets to a certain size that you can notice any difference between 2K, 4K, IMAX and film reel projections anyway. On smaller screens, the quality your eyes can detect will be more or less the same.

That said, it's inevitably going to happen one day, just as HD eventually made way for 4K: it's just a better, more detailed picture. There are a handful of 8K projectors and video cameras around, an even an experimental movie theatre or two, but it's still going to be several years before we see 8K hit the mainstream (the mainstream being the cinema you go to on a Saturday).


The maths isn't difficult, because you just double the length and width again. 8K means 8,192 x 4,320 pixels, so four times as many as 4K, and 16 times as many as 4K. Quite an upgrade, in other words.


Remember that when you bump the technology up another notch, all the other parts of the filmmaking process have to come along with it, from the software you're using to make your visual effects, to the computers you need to finish the editing on.

Even on gigantic, IMAX-style screens, the difference between 4K and 8K may not be noticeable, and we're starting to push the limits of the number of pixels our eyes can take. It may be that future innovations in display technology in cinemas take the IMAX route, focusing on extras like brightness and contrast rather than the numbers of pixels.

 

[rofif]

The left pic is last of us 2 so if thats possible in current gen what makes u think hellblade 2 isnt

Left shot is bullshot for The last of Us2. Right shot is target for hellblade 2. Below is Real Death Stranding
4:45 Most realistic shot from Death Stranding. I have some captures on ps4 and it looks real time to me. I think DF also said it is real time


Most of other actors look almost as good and scenery can look like a photo too sometimes.
So if open world game can do this, Last of us 2 should do it NO PROBLEM

 

[Shangounchained]

They can convert video game art assets to full CGI realistic movies at cinema res if they want to but to render that in real time, probably another 20 years is needed for consumer technology

Notice:

https://www.t3.com/news/high-resolution-cinema-4k-8k-and-beyond

The resolution of a movie shown in a digital cinema is measured by the horizontal pixel count, so 2,048 x 1,080 pixels for 2K or 4,096 x 2,160 pixels for 4K. Note that there's a slight difference between this and the consumer 4K standard used on televisions and streaming services, which usually refers to frames of 3,840 x 2,160 pixels. Confusing, right?


The quality of the movie your watching will depend on other factors, like the screen size and available lighting, but those resolutions are at the core.

For comparison purposes, 70mm film - still considered by many to be the gold standard - is roughly equivalent to a 12K resolution in digital terms, so digital's still got some catching up to do on that score.

The standards of digital cinema are controlled by a body called Digital Cinema Initiatives, which a lot of the major studios have a stake in. The idea is to put across a certain set of standards for projecting and displaying a digital movie that cinemas can then follow, guaranteeing a particular level of quality for the filmmakers and audiences.


For example, the best screens in most Odeon cinemas use 4K projectors producing almost 9 million pixels, but the difference between a projector and the smart TV you might have at home is that the screen size isn't fixed - it's up to cinemas how big the picture appears.


IMAX demonstrates this difference rather well: it can be used with 70mm film as well, but when recorded digitally, the screen resolution is only 2K or 4K. It's the huge screen, powerful magnification and other tweaks that make the IMAX experience so immersive.


And - as with your smart TV at home - it's only when the screen gets to a certain size that you can notice any difference between 2K, 4K, IMAX and film reel projections anyway. On smaller screens, the quality your eyes can detect will be more or less the same.

That said, it's inevitably going to happen one day, just as HD eventually made way for 4K: it's just a better, more detailed picture. There are a handful of 8K projectors and video cameras around, an even an experimental movie theatre or two, but it's still going to be several years before we see 8K hit the mainstream (the mainstream being the cinema you go to on a Saturday).


The maths isn't difficult, because you just double the length and width again. 8K means 8,192 x 4,320 pixels, so four times as many as 4K, and 16 times as many as 4K. Quite an upgrade, in other words.


Remember that when you bump the technology up another notch, all the other parts of the filmmaking process have to come along with it, from the software you're using to make your visual effects, to the computers you need to finish the editing on.

Even on gigantic, IMAX-style screens, the difference between 4K and 8K may not be noticeable, and we're starting to push the limits of the number of pixels our eyes can take. It may be that future innovations in display technology in cinemas take the IMAX route, focusing on extras like brightness and contrast rather than the numbers of pixels.

im not playing a game on a cinema projector! most of us play it on a 1080p screen. My point is games looking like cinema not games being cinema! What i want is smooth characters no visible polygon edges, believable fx awesome if its volumetric and physics close cinema like cloth physics animations and so forth, rendering at 10k or a 100000 k isnt my concern n its not what anybody is thinking of, i just want my gt sport or forza to look like its in a film and when i flip a car i dont see a flat plane, i see the transmission and other parts.

 

[Shangounchained]

They can convert video game art assets to full CGI realistic movies at cinema res if they want to but to render that in real time, probably another 20 years is needed for consumer technology

Notice:

https://www.t3.com/news/high-resolution-cinema-4k-8k-and-beyond

The resolution of a movie shown in a digital cinema is measured by the horizontal pixel count, so 2,048 x 1,080 pixels for 2K or 4,096 x 2,160 pixels for 4K. Note that there's a slight difference between this and the consumer 4K standard used on televisions and streaming services, which usually refers to frames of 3,840 x 2,160 pixels. Confusing, right?


The quality of the movie your watching will depend on other factors, like the screen size and available lighting, but those resolutions are at the core.

For comparison purposes, 70mm film - still considered by many to be the gold standard - is roughly equivalent to a 12K resolution in digital terms, so digital's still got some catching up to do on that score.

The standards of digital cinema are controlled by a body called Digital Cinema Initiatives, which a lot of the major studios have a stake in. The idea is to put across a certain set of standards for projecting and displaying a digital movie that cinemas can then follow, guaranteeing a particular level of quality for the filmmakers and audiences.


For example, the best screens in most Odeon cinemas use 4K projectors producing almost 9 million pixels, but the difference between a projector and the smart TV you might have at home is that the screen size isn't fixed - it's up to cinemas how big the picture appears.


IMAX demonstrates this difference rather well: it can be used with 70mm film as well, but when recorded digitally, the screen resolution is only 2K or 4K. It's the huge screen, powerful magnification and other tweaks that make the IMAX experience so immersive.


And - as with your smart TV at home - it's only when the screen gets to a certain size that you can notice any difference between 2K, 4K, IMAX and film reel projections anyway. On smaller screens, the quality your eyes can detect will be more or less the same.

That said, it's inevitably going to happen one day, just as HD eventually made way for 4K: it's just a better, more detailed picture. There are a handful of 8K projectors and video cameras around, an even an experimental movie theatre or two, but it's still going to be several years before we see 8K hit the mainstream (the mainstream being the cinema you go to on a Saturday).


The maths isn't difficult, because you just double the length and width again. 8K means 8,192 x 4,320 pixels, so four times as many as 4K, and 16 times as many as 4K. Quite an upgrade, in other words.


Remember that when you bump the technology up another notch, all the other parts of the filmmaking process have to come along with it, from the software you're using to make your visual effects, to the computers you need to finish the editing on.

Even on gigantic, IMAX-style screens, the difference between 4K and 8K may not be noticeable, and we're starting to push the limits of the number of pixels our eyes can take. It may be that future innovations in display technology in cinemas take the IMAX route, focusing on extras like brightness and contrast rather than the numbers of pixels.

im not playing a game on a cinema projector! most of us play it on a 1080p screen. My point is games looking like cinema not games being cinema! What i want is smooth characters no visible polygon edges, believable fx awesome if its volumetric and physics close cinema like cloth physics animations and so forth, rendering at 10k or a 100000 k isnt my concern n its not what anybody is thinking of, i just want my gt sport or forza to look like its in a film and when i flip a car i dont see a flat plane, i see the transmission and other parts.