The First Game that reach CG quality?

only reason I say ratracing is because all of the effects that devs are struggling with now would probably be a walk in the park to implement with raytracing, things like caustics, soft shadows, and GI seems to come with raytracing
 
Soft shadows work quite well with depth mapped shadows as well.
Global illumination is a very wide term, there are many possible implementations for it. Generally far too slow even for movie VFX.
Caustics are easily faked with projected textures and are the least important IMHO.
 
i think the most important factor to make game look like CG quality is the polygon count, the more polygons the more CGish, correct me if im wrong though!
 
Laa-Yosh said:
Soft shadows work quite well with depth mapped shadows as well.
Global illumination is a very wide term, there are many possible implementations for it. Generally far too slow even for movie VFX.
Caustics are easily faked with projected textures and are the least important IMHO.

I got a question about The Chonicals of Narnia (I know it's spelled wrong). Are the animals 100% digital or did they just take a real animal and digitize their mouth?
 
!eVo!-X Ant UK said:
It would have to be this, with out question

http://img287.imageshack.us/img287/250/lair7mu.jpg
QFT. The trailer is really impressive.


LunchBox said:
There's thar clip of Lair (by factor 5)...the one with the dragon...which they claimed that footage was all "in game"...i've seen it at gamtetrailers.com...it looks quite good and i would say that it's nearing or maybe even around the proximity of CG...if anyone wants to see it but can't find the trailer i can upload it for ya :)
Got it! :p
http://trailers.gametrailers.com/gt_vault/t_lair_cam_tgs5.wmv
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mckmas8808 said:
I got a question about The Chonicals of Narnia (I know it's spelled wrong). Are the animals 100% digital or did they just take a real animal and digitize their mouth?

Depending on the scenes, AFAIK some of the wolves were real (so the CG ones had to look 100% similar), and the lion was a puppet in some of the scenes, when the kids hugged him and thus had to make physical contact. The rest were all CG, as I've heard.
 
the cgi of narnia was made from WETA the same company did king kong. now if they can fully digitize kong and interact with real human being and digitized human. why couldnt they do it with aslan and the kids? the part where those 2 girls holding on aslan's mane was definetly cgi to me.
 
ultragpu said:
the cgi of narnia was made from WETA the same company did king kong. now if they can fully digitize kong and interact with real human being and digitized human. why couldnt they do it with aslan and the kids? the part where those 2 girls holding on aslan's mane was definetly cgi to me.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The CGI work was handled by three companies: Rythm and Hues, ILM, Sony Pictures Imageworks. Weta Digital has been working on Kong all the time; Weta Workshop created armour and other 'real' props for Narnia.

Kong isn't 'digitized', but I would rather not go on to describe the full process... let's just accept that things aren't as simple as you think.
 
Laa-Yosh said:
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The CGI work was handled by three companies: Rythm and Hues, ILM, Sony Pictures Imageworks. Weta Digital has been working on Kong all the time; Weta Workshop created armour and other 'real' props for Narnia.

Kong isn't 'digitized', but I would rather not go on to describe the full process... let's just accept that things aren't as simple as you think.

So they had a real puppet like gorilla on the set doing all those crazy fighting and jumpind moves. Sounds confusing and I can understand why you don't want to go into depth about it.
 
the style of doa4 don't aim to realism, but the clean graphics call in some way the CG quality of titles as "toy story" (;D infamous toy story) "the incredibles" and so on

dead2312-%282%29.jpg

dead2312-%281%29.jpg

dead2312-%285%29.jpg

dead2312-%287%29.jpg
 
Back
Top