Toy Story versus... *spawn
- Thread starter PeanutButterOnPickles
- Start date
-
- Tags
- not beyond to infinity
PeanutButterOnPickles
Newcomer
The point was, if this game can't even get close to a 20+ year old CGI film, then how in the world is it "Pixar quality graphics"? For the record, those Rachet and Clank captures don't look nothing like modern CGI at all.
Isn't it how it goes. Mobile is behind console which is behind pc which is behind off line rendering.
The more power you can pour into a bigger chip and the more chips you can put with better cooling the better off your g oing to do.
Imagine what we'd have if Pixar dedicated a 200m budget to a 3 minute long movie
A great deal of Toy Story is faked. Like, all of it. The lighting is a truckload of lights placed. Modern realtime rendering can absolutely render better lighting than that. The surface shaders are non-existent. Your reference to a sub-surface-shading scene, if there is one, would be a single instance of the artists poking around with parameters to capture that one instance. Modern games can simulate SSS in realtime. Some of the facial rtigs are horrific too in their deformations.
If I had more time and less important things to do, I'd grab some Pixar screenshots and start a tech teardown to see what's actually going on based on modern gaming standards. Because no-one's actually doing that to a decent level of analysis and that's what this discussion really needs.
@PeanutButterOnPickles
Reading comprehension, lesson 1:
I wrote "closer to whatever Pixar-level people have in their mind". Closer means - you guessed it! - closer than what we've been seeing in the majority of games released until today. In that context, I stated that having no polygonal edges at all would probably get R&C even closer to a more CGI look. Because no CGI has shown polygonal edges since before Toy Story. We can add to that the obvious issues with resolution and IQ, which are so obvious they don't need to be stated again. As well as improvements in the lighting.
Even with the understanding that you did not actually read my post, you then state that that awful picture of the boy in Toy Story is still more "beautiful" than anything in R&C. Clarifying for everyone that you are simply talking out of a personal, subjective preference, which is fair enough, it's just one shot! Taste is taste. But it also means that perhaps you have not seen Toy Story in a long time, and more importantly you have not spent one second playing R&C. Yet you still give attitude that is completely unnecessary.
I don't see how we can have a decent discussion on these terms. No one is arguing that Toy Story or recent CGI is technically more impressive than realtime graphics - obviously! What is being discussed is how we can get closer to a certain level, compared to previous games.
My question, which was asked to progress the discussion into some kind of constructive direction, was very simple -"how hard can it be to get rid of those last few polygonal edges on realtime cutscenes?" - still hasn't been answered, because you were too busy being a condescending ass and took the thread into a useless already-seen-100-times-before bitch fest.
Well done.
Reading comprehension, lesson 1:
I wrote "closer to whatever Pixar-level people have in their mind". Closer means - you guessed it! - closer than what we've been seeing in the majority of games released until today. In that context, I stated that having no polygonal edges at all would probably get R&C even closer to a more CGI look. Because no CGI has shown polygonal edges since before Toy Story. We can add to that the obvious issues with resolution and IQ, which are so obvious they don't need to be stated again. As well as improvements in the lighting.
Even with the understanding that you did not actually read my post, you then state that that awful picture of the boy in Toy Story is still more "beautiful" than anything in R&C. Clarifying for everyone that you are simply talking out of a personal, subjective preference, which is fair enough, it's just one shot! Taste is taste. But it also means that perhaps you have not seen Toy Story in a long time, and more importantly you have not spent one second playing R&C. Yet you still give attitude that is completely unnecessary.
I don't see how we can have a decent discussion on these terms. No one is arguing that Toy Story or recent CGI is technically more impressive than realtime graphics - obviously! What is being discussed is how we can get closer to a certain level, compared to previous games.
My question, which was asked to progress the discussion into some kind of constructive direction, was very simple -"how hard can it be to get rid of those last few polygonal edges on realtime cutscenes?" - still hasn't been answered, because you were too busy being a condescending ass and took the thread into a useless already-seen-100-times-before bitch fest.
Well done.
Last edited:
And regardless of R&C, I don't even know how you can compare...
This is REALTIME! How can anyone even think of putting down the latest advancements, is just beyond me. Keep an objective mind of what is good looking and what isn't and be grateful for how tech has progressed.
Also, very important to clarify that the difference between the first Toy Story and the sequel was already quite huge... The jump from the first Toy Story and any Pixar movie that came after it is very glaring, the first film just hasn't aged very well. These are from the sequels and you can already see the vast difference in shading and pretty much everything else, from the shots I posted above...
This is REALTIME! How can anyone even think of putting down the latest advancements, is just beyond me. Keep an objective mind of what is good looking and what isn't and be grateful for how tech has progressed.
Also, very important to clarify that the difference between the first Toy Story and the sequel was already quite huge... The jump from the first Toy Story and any Pixar movie that came after it is very glaring, the first film just hasn't aged very well. These are from the sequels and you can already see the vast difference in shading and pretty much everything else, from the shots I posted above...
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure they re-rendered Toy Story for the Bluray release. Just better resolution but everything else stayed the same.
versus
And finally, let's not forget that no CGI or live action movie to date has had the Xtreme Door Handle Lighting exhibited in Quantum Break. Heck, even reality can't keep up.
PeanutButterOnPickles
Newcomer
Just to be clear, I did not make this thread. The original point was R&C not having "Pixar quality graphics" (and it doesn't). It's obviously a misunderstanding between us because you are putting words in my mouth to fuel this dumb debate.
If a discussion on how we're progressing in realtime graphics compared to CGI is dumb to you, you're welcome to ignore it.
PeanutButterOnPickles
Newcomer
haha, it seems like every console generation these discussions spawn "it's Pixar in real time this time!"
Boring people make for boring discussions.
Which is true. However, with each iteration we are getting closer to the original Toy Story. If we want this metric to have any intelligent merit, we need to define what's good (and bad!) about Toy Story to measure against. Sadly the opposition, fuelled by a reactionary realism every bit as strong as the hyped-up console gamers blinkered admiration for the latest game, just slam the lid down on the discussion without actually exploring it.
I don't mind coming back to this topic every now and then. Seeing how close real time is to 90's cgi, or how much better it can actually be in some aspects ( artist's know-how, shading, pbr...) is a healthy and interesting discussion.
What's boring, is how every-single time there's half a dozen smart-asses telling us how the actual poly counts of the models are higher, individual strains of hair, higher-res textures, better AA and etc... ( yawn ) As if a freeking registered user of Beyond3d wouldn't know that. It's not only a futile observation, its insultingly condescending. The intentions of the OP of these kinds of threads should be obvious to any sane person who is not too busy waiting to show how smartedy-smart they are and how much they now about how reyes Catmull-Clark subdivision surfaces work.
Then what usually happens is that most of the thread's lifetime is spent in this discussion over semantics and criteria and it dies before any anything intelligent comes out of it.
PeanutButterOnPickles
Newcomer
Yeah, I enjoy reading in-depth technical breakdowns to give prominence on the progression of realtime and the methods being applied in retrospect compared to an offline production.
I want to point out to you, that there is no thread here on my intentions, the op is a reply to a poster's claim, milk.