What is Digg?147 Comments
- Sazime, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19It looks dead because it has no soul.
For the same reason it looks like Liam Neeson. - heatmiser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Very nicely done, but there are even better ones out there if one cares to look for them.. But it's not realism that makes games good - it's gameplay and quality.
Case in point: Final Fantasy the movie vs. The Incredibles. Which would you rather see again?
What the next generation of games REALLY need is not more polys and radiosity, it's more creativity. - PaulC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'm coming to this thread pretty late in the game, so hopefully someone will still read what I've got to say.
Although this is a pretty incredible rendering, I have seen even better pictures on the cgtalk forums. Here are just a few of the ones that caught my eye:
http://www.tkio.net/Images/Artworks/OldMan_000.jpg
http://www.tkio.net/Images/Artworks/TC_Color.jpg
http://www.tkio.net/Images/Artworks/BMale_001.jpg
http://www.cgnetworks.com/gallerycrits/36092/36092_1095187361.jpg
http://features.cgsociety.org/galleryimages/33249/morpheus.jpg
For those of you who are worried about increased production costs, why do you think this will raise them? Why would it cost more money to use uncompressed textures and higher polygon counts? Sure, there is more at work here than just those two techniques, but a lot of it is on the computing power, not the development side.
And for the few people claiming the PS3 is going to be able to render this in real time, you guys are in for a big surprise when it finally comes out. - goosedotnu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It's one thing to create a photorealistic CGI still image. It's quite another to animate it believably.
Still, that's one effing amazing pic. - lightyear4, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5heres why it looks creepy and fake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley
- graemee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Good, Duke Nukem Forever will look great.
- usermike2098, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4looks like liam neeson
- buss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I really don't know if there will ever be truly life-like animations of people. This is very close, but it still falls in the uncanny valley - that feeling that the person you're looking at is dead and creepy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
- drwiii, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You're fooling yourself if you think the PS3 can render something like that 30 or 60 times a second.
- neocitron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3actually i think within the next 5 years we will have something like that... the PS4 and Xbox whatever will be capable of stuff like that by 2010
- MassaYoda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I don't think games will look like this in 10 years (yea, I agree the guy pulled that comment outta his ass, but I'll refute it anyway). First off, games are costing more and more to produce as they become more complex technologically. To produce a game where this is what a normal character looked like would be ridiculously expensive, and they'd never manage to make a return on it.
Second, computer power tends to double, what, every 3 years? An image like this probably takes hours to render. How many times do you have to halve an hour before you get down to 33 milliseconds (30 FPS)? I'll tell you... 17 times. Now multiply that by 3 years... that's 51 years. And that's assuming this image only took 1 hour to render.
Now will it really take 51 years? I dunno, I can't see the future. I doubt it will really take that long, but I think it gives a pretty good estimate of when we should expect to see this in games, if it's not too expensive to make. - BionicAntboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2First, if anyone is impressed with this, check out cgnetwork's site (especially cgtalk). There's TONS more cool stuff like this.
I gotta disagree with massayoda...
If we use Moore's law as a baseline... at the slowest, speed doubles every 2 years. My Dual 2.8 Xeon box can generate an image much like this in about 12-15 minutes (doing anti-aliasing as a post-effect as opposed to in-render).
That, combined with the more rapid growth of graphics cards, and I think the original poster, who said 10 years, is probably closer than the 51 year estimate. ;)
rompom7:
Most game artists START by building hi-rez models/textures, and then scale down. For example, in the last Doom game, they built the models in Lightwave 3D at high polycounts, then generate the bump and normal maps from those high poly models, and apply said high-rez images to a lower polycount version of the model, to give it the subtle details of lighting and texture, not to mention the colour maps.
So the work is already being done (and this applies to most games these days). The biggest hurdle is rendering. - gorkish, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4ooh look subsurface scattering.
Yeah you can make it look real but I have yet to see a game where a talking player actually looks like they are moving their mouths in sync with what they are saying. That would go a long way to fixing that problem. Doom3 and Quake4 were the closest I have seen yet to properly synced speech, but they were still crap. - Zypher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Incredible! Would love to see a game come out with such graphics.
Unfortunately I think we're still far from realtime photoreallistic imaginary... - Spawnofbill, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4*shrug* I've seen better. It's just a pre-rendered CG photo. This has nothing to do with games what-so-ever.
- Jaymoon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://ic1.deviantart.com/fs8/i/2005/331/6/1/Equilibrium_by_henning.jpg
^painting... o.O - yournamehere, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1felchdonkey,
NO, not at all. I'm saying that the difference in 5 years of computer gaming is huge as shown by the pics. It's not quite there yet but given the strides in the last 5 years if pace keeps up we're looking at photo realistic games in 5 more. not to even mention what the latest incarnation of the Unreal engine is able to do.
compare the previous photos to something that came out in 2000... like Deus Ex which for it's time had a great graphic's engine (modified Unreal if I remember correctly):
http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/screenshots/gs/rpg/deusex/deusex_screen006.jpg
also, versus the soon-to-be released unreal engine's latest tech:
http://img218.exs.cx/img218/2628/ut76wp.jpg
if you can make that much of a difference in 5 years then it's easy to extrapolate what should be coming in the next 5. I mean, that last link already looks really close to life like. all that's left is to see how it 'moves' in real time. - Allenrb2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1sdf
- ph33d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As far as I'm concerned, this image is nicer:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/philippe.lemieux2/images/CGIAki.jpg
If you can find a higher resolution version of this image, it is extremely impressive. I remember e-mailing it to my wife and friends saying "It's hard to believe she's not real." - lordsandwich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Games will also take 10 years to create if they look like this.
- garagefighter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Dad?
- cunningstunt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What amazes me is that with all the processing power and research gone into creating realistic faces, the human brain can discern the fakes in an instance. I have yet to see a CG image of a human face that could be confused for the real thing.
- HiddenForce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh, and THIS image is infinitely more realistic looking than both of them, AND is plesant to look at (so much so that I had it as my desktop wallpaper for quite some time):
http://kjun.org/hue_1500.jpg - NancyV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I can't wait for those games to come out
- Vaken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Maybe in 20-30 years.... takes weeks to render something with this quality..
- yournamehere, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ohh, and unlike that image.. these are rendered in realtime.
- mwilke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What a terrible digg post. It is just a post of a cg image and a statement saying this is what games are going to look like. Way to state the obvious. Let me post a picture from Star Trek and be like "This is what space travel will be like!".
Definately no digg. - fornulf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For those of us who grew up with 8-bit graphics, it will do quite nicely, thanks.
- felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yourname here, I don't understand your comment. Are you saying those images you linked to are comparable to this?
- sandwichpants, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0very good work, not the best out there as some have said.
Too much sub surface scattering, it looks like he doens't have any bone in his head.
Better human than I've ever done though (but I spend most of my time rendering cars).
I don't know if games will be quite like that in 10 years, there's a LOT of processing that goes into an image like that, and that's just for one human bust.
And what are development times/costs for games going to be like as things get more and more detailed.... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i've never been affected by the uncanny valley as much as other people, i think it's a good render and good use of sss
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why would games look like this? I doubt it. That's not the direction game cut scenes are going. They don't want their characters to look like life size latex sex dolls.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0He's hot.
- martinus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0skin still does not look real
- funkytaco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Liam needs to use some moisturizer.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0errr, Guys, this has been already done before, nothing much impressive. I agree the model is quite nice, but nothing more than that. and by the way, we say CGA
since it's Computer Generated Art. - dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Graphic != Good Game
Gameplay = Good Game > All"
Todays game sales says different.. But yeh, I aggree..
As for games looking like that.. Sure, it doesn't look perfectly realistic, but when it's moving, and of in the distance a bit, it'll look quite belivable. If you stare at it as a still image it looks plasticy, but animate it, and give me several processors and it might look belivable..
"even with multiple computer sharing the processing"
I wonder if theres anygame you can use distrubuted processing.. *Silly idea*..
- Ben - tafty86, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0WOW!!! I can't even how long it took to render that sinlge image, even with multiple computer sharing the processing. BRAVO Max Kor.
- chillypepper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0OMG thATs nOt rEAl?!?!1! they've been makin cgi like this for years (this is hardly unbelievable)- just check out cgnetworks: its full of this (and much better)
- longman2g, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I would say this is a very good picture, show it to anyone out of the context of is this real or fake and they wouldn't notice it is not real. And for your piece of ***** three, no it will not do graphics that nice, screw-off turd.
- Chongo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0it's all about the mouth movements when talking in these types of films.....it just never looks right
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What mwilke said, just goto CGTalk.com and you get these kinda images weekly. I'm surprised people actually dugg this crap.
- griz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If it weren't for the crappy shadow rendering, it would look real. Looks like a wax figure.
- sam54m, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I'd say its not 10 years away, but whenever PS3 is released"-NeoTechni
which is 10 years :P - turgiddahlia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Looks like they accidentally used the "wax" texturizer instead of the "skin" texturizer. Ooops!
- CptnObvious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If this is what games are going to look like what would the production costs be?
- covrigel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0where did you get this idea, that in 10 years we will see this?
- maxwilson84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0a link with some info on how he made it: http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=219323
- settsu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0very interesting comments, especially the "Uncanny Valley" one.
however, i think it just comes down to a high level realization comparable to what I've often heard about bank tellers being "trained" by limiting their exposure to counterfeit money. the idea being that they are so familiar with the real stuff, that the fake is easily discernible.
i believe I've heard similar comments made about humans on this CG topic before. - yournamehere, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0sorry if i disagree with this post but this is last year's tech.. and it has full and believable lip synching:
http://www.ausgamers.com/screenshots.php?view=/Half-Life%202/HL2-eli_Q!02.jpg
http://halflife2.filefront.com/screenshots/File/46792/1
and then with a hi-texture pack last year's tech looks like this (from left to right):
http://www.filecloud.com/img/sized/00/00/29/00002905.jpg
and this post:
http://forums.facepunchstudios.com/showthread.php?t=46638&page=4
mind you, this is just with a higher texture pack. Nevermind all the things they've been working on under the hood.
10 years? nah, i say 5 years. -
Show 51 - 100 of 145 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
