Maybe we can have a constructive discussion then? I'm still waiting for someone to kindly answer my question...
Toy Story versus... *spawn
- Thread starter PeanutButterOnPickles
- Start date
-
- Tags
- not beyond to infinity
Woody versus... Hayden Panettiere.
Hayden wins EASILY. She is incredibly more attractive than Sheriff Woody...and she still has her regeneration power...
@London-boy constructive enough?
Hayden wins EASILY. She is incredibly more attractive than Sheriff Woody...and she still has her regeneration power...
@London-boy constructive enough?
I'm aware of that Mr. OnPickles, this was a commentary about "real-time vs. toy story" threads in general, not specifically this one, and by OP I meant, whoever brings the comparison up or defends that real time graphics are pretty close to, or better than toy-story's. I for one, would much rather play any game with the types of graphics we get now, than something with perfectly subdivided and displaced models to sub-pixel level and individual strands of hair, with the kind of art and lighting present in toy story. I happily take our imperfect post-process AAs, cheap SSAOs, blurry textures and all, over those (now) amateurish looking assets of the first toy story. No disregard for pixar, nor the team that made that movie. I know that was all very high end back then, and I have great respect for all those involved. But the industry has moved on.
EDIT: In fact, this (starting at 7:30) is sort of what 90's cgi looks like on a game like environment. I'm glad we are not playing that.
Last edited:
It would be great to have a technical discussion and compare the early versions of rendering softwares with modern game engines on a feature-set level. The most interesting would be comparing an actual timeline of new features in production CGI softwares versus realtime game engines. There must be a historical chart somewhere.
A friend of mine started his first job on Softimage back in the Jurassic Era... I mean from when Jurassic Park was coming out. NURBS were brand new things to be used everywhere, inverse kinematics felt like magic, and the normal way to light a scene was thousands of tiny lights. All for a low low price of $100,000 per seat.
What's bugging me starting from the first post here... Why are we supposed to show respect for a corporate brand? It sabotages the discussion by implying disagreeing with OP means being disrespectful. I think TS1 looks bad compared to R&C. This is my impression, my perception, and definitely my prerogative.
I think Sid's character design and animation look horrible, while on the other hand, Ratchet is like all cute and furry and shit. Even more, a scene without depth of field looks as bad as a really old video game from like 2013.
A friend of mine started his first job on Softimage back in the Jurassic Era... I mean from when Jurassic Park was coming out. NURBS were brand new things to be used everywhere, inverse kinematics felt like magic, and the normal way to light a scene was thousands of tiny lights. All for a low low price of $100,000 per seat.
What's bugging me starting from the first post here... Why are we supposed to show respect for a corporate brand? It sabotages the discussion by implying disagreeing with OP means being disrespectful. I think TS1 looks bad compared to R&C. This is my impression, my perception, and definitely my prerogative.
I think Sid's character design and animation look horrible, while on the other hand, Ratchet is like all cute and furry and shit. Even more, a scene without depth of field looks as bad as a really old video game from like 2013.
Well I agree that Toy Story 1 looks terrible to today standards, and also agree we should not be afraid of stating that objectively, I do believe the artists and programmers involved in that film were pioneers in the field and do deserve respect. There is nothing disrespectful about being objective though. A lot of what they created then, looks bad today. It's just not about a corporate brand, but the people behind it.
I don't know that saying Toy Story is dated is being disrespectful. Technology moves on, Toy Story was the birth of what made Pixar the best in the business (and a lot of money!), and it will always be in a special place. It just doesn't look great by today's standards. No drama, no disrespect. I'm sure they also think that it looks a bit dated today. Look at what they've done after that!
Aki vs Tifa is a difficult choice...I think we can skip "Spirits Within versus modern games" and create "Advent Children versus FF7 Remake" thread before end of this year.
...for some.
Don't be such a knob......goblin.
PG Folks. PG.
Sorry folks. I'm just a One-Liner. Mostly.
Last edited:
The whole discussion spun off from a comparison to Pixar (no specifics).
The general look? I don't know the tech specifics other than ridunkulous polycounts vs shading models available vs art direction vs specific situations - "could Toy Story be emulated on the engine that R&C 2016 was made on???"
It seems to be just one of those "it looks" + "aged memory" situations (again no specifics). I was just reading on some forum how many art assets were reused from Gears 1 in Gears 3, and I had to shake my head because (memory < reality).
And at that point - hyperbole just... hyperbole for... excite reasons - unless it were a real technical and serious discussion, which it seemingly hasn't been (on no small part of my own, and I apologize. >_>)
That's a lot more than one line. Sit down, drink some water.
The things where the original Toy Story may still have an edge are the pure amount of geometry in a scene, and the motion blur / depth of field.
PRman is a REYES renderer optimized to handle these two things. Massive scene complexity is handled by what is similar to tile based rendering and occlusion culling; DOF and MB are very fast because of stochastic sampling and rendering out of focus / fast moving objects at lower sampling rates.
The artwork was obviously limited by the tools of that time. Lighting was primitive indeed, lots of small point lights instead of GI. No proper reflections either, only environment maps.
It is obviously natural that even realtime rendering technology has surpassed that early version of PRman; and that today's computers are fast enough to do a lot of the fancy stuff, particularly through the cheap approximation solutions.
PRman is a REYES renderer optimized to handle these two things. Massive scene complexity is handled by what is similar to tile based rendering and occlusion culling; DOF and MB are very fast because of stochastic sampling and rendering out of focus / fast moving objects at lower sampling rates.
The artwork was obviously limited by the tools of that time. Lighting was primitive indeed, lots of small point lights instead of GI. No proper reflections either, only environment maps.
It is obviously natural that even realtime rendering technology has surpassed that early version of PRman; and that today's computers are fast enough to do a lot of the fancy stuff, particularly through the cheap approximation solutions.
VFX_Veteran
Regular
It definitely can't touch CGI in terms of pure polygons (polygonal edges can be seen everywhere) but it gets pretty close in looking like CG sometimes (even though technically is inferior in every way), some of my shots during cutscenes:
No no.. and no.. LOL!
PeanutButterOnPickles
Newcomer
You don't know what you're talking about, that looks like CGI. And, if you don't think it looks like CGI then it's obvious you don't think Ratchet and Clank looks good also.
p.s. VFX, run while you can!
Looking "like" CGI doesn't mean is comparable to CGI. You have to be dense to read what I've posted and have that as your takeaway. Maybe I have to simplify things: What i meant was that R&C looks so much better than other games trying this style of visuals that it feels like you are watching something you are not supposed to on that hardware, therefore making a comparison to the only closest thing, 3D CGI movies. It's by no means on the same level as CGI (the hardware difference is just immense), and nowhere close to it technically, Insomniac even made a presentation on what assets they used for both and how much they had to "downgrade" them.
Last edited:
Gnomon presentation: http://livestream.com/accounts/13240902/events/4806196
Article covering R&C movie vs game assets: http://www.dualshockers.com/2016/02...ive-ratchet-movie-vs-game-character-compared/
Article covering R&C movie vs game assets: http://www.dualshockers.com/2016/02...ive-ratchet-movie-vs-game-character-compared/
Those screenshots look plenty better than a number of CGI TV series I've seen. Gameplay doens't look the same though.