NVIDIA CG DEMO @ gtc2013
- Thread starter Davros
- Start date
Now that's a proper 3d rendered head ;-)
This still does not help a bunch of games that can't just cast a bunch of actors for their likeness into the various roles. Anything scifi, fantasy, non-photoreal will still need to develop tech that works without a living person lending looks and facial expressions and such.
But it is impressive that they've managed to build a realtime approximation of Debevec's tech.
But it is impressive that they've managed to build a realtime approximation of Debevec's tech.
The ocean/ship demo was neat! The rest I was less impressed by.
Remember when games didn't have to strive to look real? I miss the Quake 3 / UT2K4 level of graphics, where there was an art style instead of a 'realism level'. I think we're wasting too many cycles on things that could be spent on better texture filtering / multisampling; maybe even use those programmable shaders for arbitrary filter kernels for texture filtering / antialiasing reconstruction. I don't think caustics, facial animation, god rays, physical cloth/hair, etc. are going to make a game enjoyable; graphics are important, but there's something to be said for the days before 'realism' was such a focus.
I'm in the completely opposite mind. I've been back into Skyrim lately on my upgraded PC and with all the modding it's an incredibly fantastic experience because it looks so real. Elder Scrolls series isn't really known for it's combat or gameplay but I don't think I've ever delved into something so much as enhanced Skyrim.
edit: I have to add that gameplay is still a factor in a game. Nobody (at least no PC gamer) wants shoot--QTE-cutscene-repeat. I think that all these new features which DX11/compute brought the developers (at least making it more accessible) is a good look to the future and once we have the CPU/GPU oomph to go along with it, we can have better texture filtering, AA and physics/cloth/hair etc.
edit: I have to add that gameplay is still a factor in a game. Nobody (at least no PC gamer) wants shoot--QTE-cutscene-repeat. I think that all these new features which DX11/compute brought the developers (at least making it more accessible) is a good look to the future and once we have the CPU/GPU oomph to go along with it, we can have better texture filtering, AA and physics/cloth/hair etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
Silent_Buddha
Legend
There's nothing that says a developer can't use all of the above and still have an unrealistic art style.
I mean have you watched any Japanese Anime? Wildly flowing locks of hair not reacting to any real weather phenomena known to man? Clothing being whipped this way and that? I don't think anyone would confuse that with realism, but it adds a level of dynamism that doesn't exist if you have just a solid brick for hair. Or clothing that is stiff and non-reactive. Etc.
Just because an effect can be used to make something more realistic doesn't mean it has to be used to make something more realistic. It could just as well be used to add unrealistic effects that heighten the dramatic effect of what is happening.
God rays coming out of a ball of energy being formed in the hands that are outstretched from the body while hair and clothing are being whipped this way and that in an unnatural wind (Dragon Ball Z-ish) as an example. Definitely not realistic, but would be freaking awesome to see and is definitely highly stylistic. Throw in some facial animation showing the level of exertion the character is expending to make that one last desperate powerfull super ball of destruction...
Compare that to the past when you'd have a static facial expression for everything. Hair and clothing that doesn't move. The ball of energy radiating a uniform light and maybe some electric effects around it. The only thing that can be used to try to show dramatic effect is the animation of the body.
The potential for more "realistic" effects for unrealistic styling is immense.
Regards,
SB
I'm using realism as per the definition: "the tendency to view or represent things as they really are", which doesn't necessarily strictly refer to visuals. Realistic animations and flowing hair wouldn't inherently make a game more enjoyable. Take Quake 3 Arena for example; if anything, it would subtract from the gameplay, because the gameplay comes from the simplicity of the controls that are "difficult to master", as they say. The closer games come to real life, the less of a game they become; game in this context using the definition as: "an amusement or pastime; diversion"; the less of a diversion from reality it becomes, the less of an amusement it becomes.
All games regardless of art style or genre strive for greater immersion. Would a game benefit from having no gravity? That's pretty unrealistic so should provide more amusement right? It doesn't.
Same goes for interaction with the environment. The more dynamic it is the more immersive it is. Realistic animation doesn't have to mean "walk like a human" but it should bear some semblance to natural mechanical or organic motion regardless of the fantasy setting.
Sweet! Cheers, downloading now.
