what graphics to you expect fo the ps3

[Megadrive1988]

I expect first gen PS3 games to look similar to FF8 CG. later we might get realtime graphics on PS3 that are close to FF9 or even FF10 CG *if* PS3 is "good stuff" so to speak.

To think that: "PS3 will have much better than FF8,FF9,FF10 CG" is completely rediculas. film-CG is so much better than videogame-CG, and we have yet to see videogame-CG done in realtime.

I would say the best PC 3D cards out now, which are far better than PS2, are starting to approach old videogame-CG. but remember, film-CG is another order of magnitude or more beyond videogame-CG.

Toy Story quality rendering will not be done on PS3 at playable framerates. Toy Story polygon counts, probably yes, but the overall look of PS3 games will not be on par with Toy Story or any other film-CG.

on Playstation4 (not PS3) we might get quality similar to old CG films.

The fact is, real-time 3D engines have a long, long, long, long way to go before we reach the peak of graphics. we are talking beyond Playstation5, heh. Even Sony said there would be a PS6 and PS7. remember the bio-tech processing comment by Sony awhile back? they mentioned PS6 and PS7, probably half jokingly (all PS9 ad jokes aside).

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I hope that next generation the photorealistic fad will be over and cel shading will become the standard.

Fortunately, there are many possible styles between the two. For example, Pixar has its own unique style, which isn't photoreal at all...

Also, most of today's movies aren't really photoreal either... Starting with lighting, which is almost always artificial and enhanced, usually to emphasize or simply show off actors. This is already used in similar ways to create CG imagery, both for visual effects and fully animated material.
Camera filters and color grading in post production (anyone seen the LOTR extra behind the scenes stuff as an example?) are more obvious modifications to realistic imagery, which are also easily recreated with CG tools.

So, in short, there's a lot of stylized visuals in films today, which can be used to enhance 3D games. Then there are lots of possibilities to go even further, by creating stylized models, textures and lighting that's not possible to do in real life... and also there are paintery effect filters, brush strokes etc. which produce more complex results than cartoon shaders.

A nice non-photoreal example is Keith Lango's animated short Myopia.

But the problem is usually the publisher, who wants 'safe' projects, with little or no innovation and experimentation. However, the current problems of the game industry are an entirely different topic, and there's lots of discussion and articles to read about it elsewhere...[/url]

 

[passerby]

I case I sounded too aggressive...

My objective for posting is to point out that we may be readying ourselves for one hugh disappointment by posting CG pics, point to those and say "PS3/XB2/CG2 - two years' time".

So, let's try to be a bit more... modest when choosing a CG pic.

For all you know devs watching these boards may be feeling miserable at all this high expectations and demand.

Of course, this is just my opinion, and I could be proven wrong when next-gen rolls along.

OT, but personally I prefer stylish over photorealistic.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Also, don't forget that CG is full of cheats.
You can have a nice background that would fall apart if you rotate the camera. You can have shadows that are hand painted textures on an alpha mapped plane. You can have textures projected from the camera. You can have backsides of objects missing... etc. Recreating all this in full 3D so that the player can interact with it will require several times the work, if not an order of magnitude more...

 

[Megadrive1988]

My objective for posting is to point out that we may be readying ourselves for one hugh disappointment by posting CG pics, point to those and say "PS3/XB2/CG2 - two years' time".

So, let's try to be a bit more... modest when choosing a CG pic.

passerby, i wholeheartedly agree with you on this.

 

[pcostabel]

I hope that next generation the photorealistic fad will be over and cel shading will become the standard.

So, in short, there's a lot of stylized visuals in films today, which can be used to enhance 3D games. Then there are lots of possibilities to go even further, by creating stylized models, textures and lighting that's not possible to do in real life... and also there are paintery effect filters, brush strokes etc. which produce more complex results than cartoon shaders.

Exactly. I'm much more interested in this kind of effects than in traditional GC look. Unfortunately current hardware is designed for photorealism, emphazising speed over versatility. Luckily. the PS3 seems to be headed in a different direction, with a highly programmable pipeline that could be twaked to achieve all kinds of artistic looks.

A nice non-photoreal example is Keith Lango's animated short Myopia.

Cute. But I'm more interested in achieveing a comic-book look, like this:

http://film.toxic.no/superrune/hellboy_divx.avi

But the problem is usually the publisher, who wants 'safe' projects, with little or no innovation and experimentation. However, the current problems of the game industry are an entirely different topic, and there's lots of discussion and articles to read about it elsewhere...[/url]

Tell me about that. If there is something next gen needs, is better publishers, not better hardware.

 

[nobie]

Hell, look what current hardware can do. I think in two years time those images could be re-produced in realtime (with some corners cut).

 

[gmoran]

I envisage playing GT5, where there are no noticeable graphical artifacts to distract; where they include a superb looking virtual car interior (panned using RS) and includes a realistic looking (reflecting and refracting) windscreen; where the lighting outside looks real; with roadside borders that dont look like textured but flat geometry; and 3D spectators.

In short, in a racing game where there is limited up close and personal interaction I expecting something very close to movie style CG, verging on photorealistic.

 

[_phil_]

Exactly. I'm much more interested in this kind of effects than in traditional GC look. Unfortunately current hardware is designed for photorealism, emphazising speed over versatility. Luckily. the PS3 seems to be headed in a different direction, with a highly programmable pipeline that could be twaked to achieve all kinds of artistic looks.

a second that.I hope hardware to take the layering/compositing approach .The Screen is 2d space ,not 3d.I want more control on this.


edit:
Just played a little 3d editing in the Doom3 alpha leaked Radiant editor,on a quadro FX + topnotch hardware.It's just already pretty insane what you can achieve ,even if passed 3 lights (all dynamic in D3) it can make your scenery crawl pretty fast.

 

[London Geezer]

Call me pessimistic, but i fear that next gen will be all about photorealism, and very few games will have an important thing called STYLE. just like today really, just magnified to accommodate the capabilities of the hardware...

I mean, look at what everyone is worried about when talking about PS3/Xbox2/N5... the GRAPHICS. "How many polys? How many Flops? How many textures?"...

The market demands photorealistic graphics because the kids like to play "my d**k is bigger than yours" and sadly that will be at the expense of STYLE. Look at what happened to ICO, PDO, and all those games trying to achieve something without falling into the category of photorealistic-big-guns-big-boobs games.....

No-one is worried (apart from me and a few others, even here on these boards) about the animation and the physics. Well let me say this, one day even Joe Average (cough*Chap*cough) will get tired of shiny shine if the game still plays like a 2003 game...

 

[Fafalada]

somehow why do the psdudes feel that ps2 can create more realistic lively environments that the others, of which i ain seeing so..?

I remember old PR about it - but at the time of PS2 launch it was pretty much true, there was no competing hw out there that could do the same things as well. Things have changed with competition since, but I also don't recall people claiming that anymore, at least not for last 2 years.

from all i seen, don think STALKER looks photorealistic or CGish.lookie no more wow-wow than HL2 or D3 or DX9 games....

SOME vista flybies, NO character models.
Try watching that demo where they show accelerated daytime changes (it actually looks more convincing then static shots).

is Fafracer really 30fps + slowdowns + not so nice textures...?

Textures are exactly the same as they were in the screenshots you've seen before - so if you had an opinion about them before, that's all there is to it.
I could give you numbers for them too, but for those to be meaningfull you would need to know other PS2 game numbers - and if I gave you those as well I'd be acting like one of those kids comparing sizes of their daddie's ......
And yes there are a number of things improved upon in int. version, not all of them are in my hands however(framerate is though).

 

[_phil_]

london-boy:

true ,the sadest thing with indutry-driven creativity is... lack of creativity.

It's also sad that the goal seems to copy reality wihereas a so rich and unbound media have the potential to explore worlds with new rules.

This is to me a hint that tech is eating us , and standardizes creativity and imagination (outside of making people more stupid and feeling more intelligent in the same process .. . )

 

[London Geezer]

london-boy:

true ,the sadest thing with indutry-driven creativity is... lack of creativity.

It's also sad that the goal seems to copy reality wihereas a so rich and unbound media have the potential to explore worlds with new rules.

This is to me a hint that tech is eating us , and standardizes creativity and imagination (outside of making people more stupid and feeling more intelligent in the same process .. . )

Yeah, in the end it will be like the movie industry: LOADS of standard crappy movies with the odd work-of-art. And with time, the works-of-art are getting fewer and fewer, both in the movie and in the videogame industry. It's just a real shame that something like videogames, which have potentially NO limit in providing original and fantastic experiences, end up being "commercial" just to make a profit.
A bit like J-lo's movies (and music)...

Really sad...

 

[McFly]

A bit like J-lo's movies (and music)...

Really sad...

Most, not all. "U Turn" was simple amazing!

Fredi

 

[London Geezer]

A bit like J-lo's movies (and music)...

Really sad...

Most, not all. "U Turn" was simple amazing!

Fredi

i was just saying!!!

 

[chapback]

Faf,

Someguy wrote this VERY recently,

IMO, games like ZOE2 or MGS2 with lots of emphasis on effects like air, wind, textures, movement and animation reach a point that are far more realistic than I think a platform like Xbox could achieve due to the nature of that platform of pushing better textures and pixel effects

That be why im asking in this topic.

AND

STALKER is really hohoho. Yes i seen them all, even the latest with day cycle changes. It be good but not the CG-like im looking at with this topic, nor the real-life like i see around. HL2 aint baddie comparing to STALKER.

AND

No fafracer demo for me?
Good luck for the fps fix. You musta be overworked.

 

[London Geezer]

Faf,

Someguy wrote this VERY recently,

IMO, games like ZOE2 or MGS2 with lots of emphasis on effects like air, wind, textures, movement and animation reach a point that are far more realistic than I think a platform like Xbox could achieve due to the nature of that platform of pushing better textures and pixel effects

Oh i see what you mean...
Don't know who that was, but it does not mean "PS2 can create better 3D environments than the others" like you understood.
All it's saying is that those pieces of software are emphasizing on PS2 strengths and on aspects of the game that go beyond the PC-Style pixel effects-hi-res-textures.
If they were to be programmed properly (not sloppy-ported) i'm sure the Xbox could do a very good job with those 2 games...

 

[Fafalada]

IMO, games like ZOE2 or MGS2 with lots of emphasis on effects like air, wind, textures, movement and animation reach a point that are far more realistic than I think a platform like Xbox could achieve due to the nature of that platform of pushing better textures and pixel effects

That be why im asking in this topic.

Actually I don't think that remark is all that far off. It's just the reasons aren't so much in hardware but mostly due to nature of development philosophies that are prevalent on different consoles.

It's not unlike then say, load times issue, where by general opinion GC wins most of the time, and people automatically assume it's due to some hardware advantage(the fact that certain... ahem... "journalist" sites, actively promote false information about some hardware aspects isn't helping things).
But in the end of the day it doesn't matter that GC optical drive is slowest when games commonly load as fast or faster then other two.

Similarly PS2 indeed tends to have more games showcasing the aspects that quote talked about then XBox.

 

[chapback]

Thanks for clearing up faf.
Since that post seems to hinge heavily on the PS2 having the hardware special, so be asking you hardware guys for clearance.

ANYHOW, i be wondering if given a chance of Square or Konami(ya know, those high production values arty farty guys! ) doing an X game, game will end up as realistc-atmopsheric as realistic-atmospheric consoles today can do?

ACTUALLY, seeing the latest Jade Empire videos, they lookie really atmospherico, with all the floating mist, hazy lights, flowing cloth, windy wind, swaying lights, watery water, gentle animations .. etc....yummie!!!

TOO BAD, its a Bioware game, seeing KOTOR, me guess the final pro-value aint up there with the smooth. BUT the game should be Bio-lly-finetastic!

 

[London Geezer]

oh lord......

errmm...

Chap, it's clear it's not an hardware issue, rather a different approach of Xbox developers compared to PS2 ones...