>20 years past
>games still don't have the animation or graphics of the first Toy Story
What gives?
Cause they suck
You could probably get pretty close now, biggest difference would be anti-aliasing.
>raytracing
>prerendered
>downsampled with loads of AA
They shit. In 10 years they'll get there but then they'll just be way behind
>>319709750
Consoles happened.
>this thread again
Look at dem ground textures
>>319710729
im laughing with you.
&
its also funny that you have been in similiar topics as this often enough to be annoyed by it.
you 4chan so hard, bro
>>319709750
Weird that you'd post a picture from Toy Story 2 to make this point
>>319710729
still looks better than fallout 4
At least we have better looking dog models now.
>prerendered mapped-out scenes done with millions of dollars if budget should be replicated in a game where models and lighting need to react on the fly and considerations to gameplay and programming are key
Retard
The quality bump from 1 to 2 was pretty amazing though.
That whole "fixing Woody" scene was basically Pixar showing off.
We've already surpassed it in truth. It'll always be a great and timeless film, but the textures and animations are dated. Lighting, reflections, and shadows are still behind it though.
>>319710890
>its also funny that you have been in similiar topics as this often enough to be annoyed by it
That projection tho.
>>319711264
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7lq3qVbP_8
>>319711087
>>319711517
Seriously, this whole bit is just "HOLY SHIT look how good our technology got."
Films have existed far longer then Video Games, that's why
>>319711674
>>319711717
Bruh the game isn't that old
>20 years past
>3D games still don't have the animation of Darkstalkers
Because literally every frame of Toy Story was carefully created by hand and rendered for up to 30 hours.
>>319709750
>Toy Story looks 100x better than any PS4 game including The Order
The first Toy Story has been surpassed, but Toy Story 2 hasn't. You should go back and watch the first movie, it's not as amazing looking as you might think, but 2 still is.
>>319712109
>but Toy Story 2 hasn't
Go watch the first few minutes of 3.
>>319712203
I'm talking about games not surpassing 2
>this thread again
They haven't surpassed it in polycount or lighting, at least. Most of the environments of TS1 were pretty shit, so were the character models bar the main toy characters. Games aren't exactly supposed to spend 10+ hours rendering a single frame, FX and post processing is where it's at. There are games which look better than Toy Story now, we need to find another animated movie to shit on games.
>>319711880
I think Guilty Gear Xrd got pretty damn near, the characters stretch and deform quite alot during some animations, and they use plenty of effects to give the illusion of it being actually 2D. There are some images around that show that pretty clearly, May's winning pose has her actually pretty stretched to give an illusion of depth to the scene.
>>319712203
We're talking about in relation to games. Toy Story 3 is an incredible looking film and very obviously better looking than the second one. Pixar told themselves every time in that regard.
>>319712374
You could pick any modern 3D animated Disney film like Tangled or Frozen.
>>319712374
How about Toy Story 2? Incredibles? Tangled? Etc.
>>319711264
>>319711517
I love the music in that. And the part with the brush painting his boot. This whole scene really pleases my autism.
>>319710084
>>319710127
Oh man, you're right. The sheer amount of AA in these prendered movies must be insane. You never see aliasing artifacts.
>>319710729
parallax mapping tho
The new Ratchet & Clank looks way, way better than the original Toy Story.
Pixar shit ages well because they have a policy of using way too fucking huge resolution textures.
It's the reason dreamworks shit looks dated now, but pixar stuff is still pretty.
>>319711264
What's funnier is that it was suppose to be a straight to DVD movie
>>319714994
>1999
>straight to dvd
how many motherfuckers did you know in 1999 with DVD players you rich bastard.
>>319715152
I apologize, I meant VHS.
TS2 was suppose to be straight to home release.
>>319709750
The first one? It's definitely better now than the first one.
>>319715274
>clearly a boy
>no bulge
Animated moves have yet to surpass The Incredibles.
Prove me wrong.
>>319716170
>people always go on about "adult" themes in kids movies
>no one ever brings the suicidal guy in this
>>319716328
Rewatching it you realize that all those supers actually died at the hands of Syndrome, and it in no way sugar coats it.
In the jet scene, Brad originally wanted Helen's friend who got her the plane to die in the crash.
>>319715274
Nudes pls
>>319713945
post yfw you will never ever have a high school romance with pre-drug lindsay lohan.
>>319716085
>Sakura
>Boy
>>319717101
>He needs help finding nudes of Sakura
Have you ever played a video game before?
>>319716712
What, when does Brad mention that? That's cold as fuck.
>>319717385
post yfw you will never ever have a high school romance
You don't realize how much money, processing power and time it takes to render something like Toy Story
>>319717385
>>319717574
He said it in the directors commentary. He wanted there to be a 'cost'.
>>319717816
>>319710729
Of course it looks worse, it's obviously zoomed in! XD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGyaR2sSBkA
When will graphics look like this?
W H E N
H
E
N
>>319711539
>quick google image search
>he actually looks like that
holy shit that's like some ao oni level shit right there
>>319718812
>Real Life Mod
>This will probably look like pixellated diarrhea in 7-8 years
>>319716170
>Brad couldn't find anyone to do Edna's voice like he wanted so he did it himself
Will we ever have a guy as based as him?
>>319719860
I remember watching the extras on the incredibles dvd and it had a clip of Brad voicing Edna.
It was fucking amazing watching him do it, he had a pen in his hands holding it like the cigarette holder and he was getting really into it.
>>319716328
>Mr. Incredible sneaking over to the RV where henchmen are watching carnage on TV
>hear one of them say "every time someone runs, take a shot"
Can't think of any other kids movies that reference drinking games
>>319714172
That's not parallax mapping, nasty old school displacement.
>>319710729
>Boss, that Soviet sol-
>[ANALYSIS COMPLETE]
>-dier. What's that thing next to him?
>Bah God, it can't be...those are legs...
>sahelanthropus....
>>319720692
Has any other one ever had adultery as a subtheme either?
>>319721405
Not a movie but there was an episode of Pokémon with May's mom thinking Norman was cheating on her with Nurse Joy. I know it's cheating to bring anime into this but I thought it was worth mentioning since the dub didn't edit it at all.
>First Toy Story
The "graphics" of the first Toy Story actually kinda suck by todays standards if you actually go back and look. OP pic is from 2 or 3, I forget.
Actually we do
>>319724536
Yea, no, nothing in MK8 looks as good as even Toy Story 1.
>>319711517
HOLY SHIT! It's the old man from the Bug's Life short!
>>319709750
Star Wars Battlefront?
Just Cause 3?
Assassins Creed Unity and Syndicate?
>>319725018
Damn son, you're slow.
>>319725076
Well I haven't seen this movie since it was in theaters. I was like 6.
It's not like regular movies haven't regressed in terms of special effects also.
>>319725423
I want one of those smaller plant heads to suck my dick while Audrey sings a song about it.
>>319711517
>Third drawer he opens and quickly closes is chess pieces
Nice Pixar
>>319724760
lol
>>319725423
When I first saw this movie I thought he was saying 'feed me semen'
Look at Blizzard's cinematics from WoD. That's a proper comparison for how far CGI has come since Toy Story.
>>319728839
Pre-rendered Cutscene =/= in game play anon
>>319711935
>Implying this level of dedication shouldn't be used in games
If only
>>319729379
If it was used in games it would take a decade for one to come out.
>>319729278
I know that, which is why I said it's a PROPER comparison of the advance of CGI.
>>319720692
Planes: Fire & Rescue does. Although, I wouldn't ask you to subject yourself to the movie.
>>319709750
PS4 could do Toy Story in real time if Toy Story was optimized.
Only AA would visually differ from the actual movie. PS4 would have jaggies and probably be 30 fps
>>319729379
So you want games to be prerendered movies?
>>319729654
>PS4 can render a 20 year old tech demo built for Commodore 64s
Wow.......
>>319729572
Why does Pixar do Cars films? Surely they have enough money to do whatever they want or borrow some from Disney.
>>319729654
>30 fps
That's how most movies are done anyway. Toy Story was probably like 24 fps.
>>319729909
They don't have the talent to make amazing movies anymore, so they might as well make some money. Nothing since Wall-E has been 10/10.
>>319729909
>Why does Pixar do Cars films?
They make money.
> Surely they have enough money to do whatever they want
They do what Disney wants if they know what's good for them.
>>319729909
So itll be true to the experience
>>319729875
some stuff would look better, some would look worse
geometry would be worse but unnoticeable due to parallax, tesselation, and normal maps. Lighting may not be quite as smooth, and there would be jaggies. That fucking dog model would be way better thhough.
>>319729909
I never got the mass amount of shit Cars got. Aside from an unlikable and childish protagonist and an annoying deutrotagonist, it was OK at worst. Cars 2 on the other hand, I can see why that's panned...
>>319730032
Up was fantastic.
is port begging really a bad thing /v/?
pic related
>>319730165
Same as Bug's Life, it didn't reach the high standards of Pixar then.
Cars 2 didn't even reach the low standards of Pixar now. It's Dreamworks tier.
>>319730229
No it wasn't.
It's just the aliasing, everything else looks much better
>>319730290
Yes it was. Better than Wall-E and I really liked Wall-E.
>>319730304
>forgetting the path traced lighting
Games would look at least 120% better with better lighting homes.
>>319709750
>20 years later
>toys faithful to the movies haven't been made
I remember back then how you would never find a soft cotton doll Woody or a Buzz with a laser and pop up wings, Potato Heads were huge and looked different and so on. They were always shit plastic figures that didn't even have the same face they did as inanimate toys in the movie.
Because video games are dynamic and Toy Story was not.
>>319717385
The brown haired cutie on the right is much better, and didn't turn into an infamous slut.
the original toy story couldn't even handle liquids
and fox engine has animation just as good
>>319730271
They should for sales.. dude bros dont buy good games
![MV5BMTAyODc3Njc1NjdeQTJeQWpwZ15BbWU3MDQ3MDgyNDY@._V1__SX1857_SY901_[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/UK08C1J.jpg "MV5BMTAyODc3Njc1NjdeQTJeQWpwZ15BbWU3MDQ3MDgyNDY@._V1__SX1857_SY901_[1].jpg")
Have videogame surpass Shrek?
a shitty PC no ones even heard of does
>consolefags
>>319733257
is the game dead?
>>319733257
*pc game
by the way it took months for multiple computers to render the whole toy story movie despite it only playing at 24 FPS i think
>>319733464
>On 1995 computer hardware, the average frame of Toy Story took two hours to render.
>>319733450
its got like 7 full servers up right now but its not a lot for a launch
>>319733524
yeah we've come a long way
>>319733464
It was also using extremely costly render methods that have long since been outmoded, mostly in terms of lighting and anti-aliasing, and just the sheer unnecessary number of polygons and high res textures visible at any time.
There's this remarkably small gap in quality between realtime rendering methods that "approximate" realistic effects, and film studio rendering methods that get everything as accurate and highly detailed as possible for every frame. The difference in obvious visual quality is fairly small but in terms of processing power it's massive, because they don't often use those shortcuts in movies, and have to deal with the diminishing returns of super accurate rendering.
Just look at ambient occlusion for example, in every game it's either baked into the map, or more likely, applied with a cheap post-processing effect, while in CG rendering that's all handled with advanced raytraced lighting that simulates how every light particle in the scene bounces around (you can technically call this global illumination too, but in most renderers they aren't two different effects, they're just natural offshoots of simulating physically realistic lighting). It's a totally different technique that requires a massive amount of power to get a small boost to the visuals, but the hollywood standard for CG animation is to make things as perfect as possible no matter what it takes (to an extent of course).
Render times should not be mark of visual quality, they're pretty much irrelevant in a practical sense. You can easily make something that looks 99% as good as the first Toy Story while using a fraction of the processing power, just through various PP rendering and optimization techniques. Yes it's not 1:1 but it's more than ideal as tradeoffs go.
New ratchet game looks pretty good senpai
>>319734780
>Nonbiased GI solutions don't actually make anything look that much better
Nigga, are you joking? Lighting is everything in visuals.
>>319735184
![rub9l[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/0p3UBbN.jpg "rub9l[1].png")
Like others have said, the lighting is infinitely better in offline renders. We really need to get good path tracing in games. There's Brigade that keeps showing shit off but we still have no games that are entirely path traced. Some simple games use ray tracing to some extent, like Toribash for its reflections, but that needs to be done more. And once we get path tracing we get a lot of things for free essentially, like reflections. Brigade for instance can by default to up to 8 times nested reflections on even oddly shaped things. We wouldn't need ambient occlusion anymore either as the path tracing would take care of that too.
Though even when we have the technology on PC to do games with path tracing it will still be forever before any games use it because the majority of games are made for consoles.
>there will never be another ILM animated movie
>>319709750
Consoles
o
n
s
o
l
e
s
>>319710127
>>319710084
>>319713945
Bunch of faggots on here thinking it's AA making those images so good and not the sheer size of the models and poly count themselves.
>>319737225
Aliasing really does destroy image quality though. Even in good looking games if you have a bunch of aliasing it makes it look much worse.
>>319709750
Just to put this in perspective for those who have no idea how this works.
These movies take thousands of hours on sets of server farms to render.
With these movies. they dont have to hinder the models to look like shit so the weebstation can run them. and the pseudo-global illumination that pixar is known for is all but impossible to render real time on ANY computer that exists.
>>319737317
I'm not saying anti-aliasing is bad. I'm just saying the renders in toy story would be so large they wouldn't visibly need AA. Because the poly count so higher, the edges are so smooth to begin with.
test
>>319737547
This guy gets it.
>>319737676
I'm pretty sure that adding more polygons and detail doesn't reduce aliasing. In fact it's the opposite. If by "renders would be so large" you mean that they're rendering at a really high resolution and that's why they don't need aa then that's true but downsampling is essentially aa anyway.
>>319713945
I wish girls stopped aging past 20
>>319736858
That's a good movie
>>319724760
You're forgetting how ugly the original version of Toy Story 1 is
>>319737847
fuckin wot. If you create a curved like using lego blocks and stand back. If you use 10 big blocks you see the "steps" but if you use 1 billion smaller blocks you wouldn't see anything but a smoother line. blocks = polygons.
And rendering at a "really high resolution" wouldn't do shit is the models and textures weren't huge to begin with because then it creates a blur as a bi-product of stretching.
For some reason people think AA smooths a line bit it just blurs the shit out of it so it appears smooth.
>>319738305
You have no idea what you're talking about.
>>319738401
Neither do you.
>2011
>Toy Story was originally rendered back in 1995, and to our best estimate probably had frame render times which averaged in the range of 4 hours or so. When we went to rerender it, we obviously didn't want to be forced to use the same kinds of machines that we used back in 1995, so we made an effort to port the software that we used forward to more modern machines. In testing, we discovered that some minor incompatibilities that had crept into RenderMan since 1995 made it better to target an intermediate version of RenderMan, notably, version 12.5. Similarly, menv had gone from its original architecture to one based entirely upon hooks. ("Hooks" were a way of including models and such in a shot via reference, and replaced a C-like #include/function call paradigm.) We reverted to the last version of menv that was still capable of loading the original models, which was version 22. The rendering provided an interesting test of Moore's Law. Well, not the real Moore's law, but the one that says that computing power doubles every 18 months. In 15 years, we'd get 10 doublings, which would make modern computers 1000x faster. Our original toy story frames were averaging four hours, which is 240 minutes, so we might naively expect that we could render frames in just 15 seconds. We didn't really achieve that: our average render times were probably on the order of 2-4 minutes per frame (the original productions weren't instrumented to keep accurate statistics on rendertime, and we never bothered to really reinstrument them to do so.) The renders were fast enough that most of Toy Story was rerendered in "render farm white space", we never had any sizeable backlog of work queued on the farm. TS2 was substantially more complex: we averaged rendertimes of maybe 20-30 minutes per frame, with some especially difficult scenes taking maybe 40 minutes.
>>319709750
Is this a meme? It's been established a thousand times that Toy Story looks pretty fucking garbage and has been surpassed in video games for a long time now.
>>319711539
It has a funny face xd
Think about how incredible Nintendo games will look if the NX is as powerful as they say
As for games looking like Pixar, the new ratchet and clank remake is the closest I've seen.
>>319738565
It just works well for the theme they chose, the models still look good because everything is supposed to look like plastic, everything besides the models (outside environments, carpet, furniture) looks pretty crap though because it looks like plastic too
>>319739164
The dumb person talking about things doesn't understand is obvious here
>>319738491
Why are they wrong.
Explain.
Lighting and anti-aliasing is pretty much the biggest advantages that Toy Story has.
I find it particularly funny that we went from blurry "post-AA" on the N64 to better forms of anti-aliasing like MSAA and now we're back to "post-AA" with blurry garbage like FXAA.
I think N64 was the first consumer level graphic device to include anti-aliasing, and the only reason it was there even though the technology wasn't ready at the real-time rendering stage was so Silicon Graphics could have another bullet point on their brochure that the N64 "has every feature a 3D workstation has".
There's literally no excuse for modern GPUs to be doing FXAA all the damn time.
>>319739728
The guy talking about polygons might have a point if we didn't have to rely on pixels to render things. As it is it doesn't matter how many polygons you shove into something, it's still going to have aliasing because pixels are square, which is what causes aliasing. His analogy is closer to rendering games at a high resolution as this is what gets rid of the "stair steps". If we didn't use pixels this might actually work, but I don't know enough to say whether or not it would.
Also I don't really know about textures, as I think at some point if you get too high a resolution without increasing texture quality you will get texture blurring. But this doesn't happen with models. Rendering GTA3 at 12k wouldn't make the models look anymore shit than they are. It wouldn't blur them because they're being rendered at that resolution, not stretched to it.
The second guy is retarded because while post processing aa is essentially blur, ssaa and msaa are not.
>>319739743
Today's post processing aa is much better than what was used on the N64. And plenty of games still use msaa, but due to deferred rendering it's a bit more tricky to implement. Both GPU companies now have a downsampling implementation so if you don't like it you can just crank up the resolution and forego the "blurry garbage" while playing your game at 20 fps to downsample from 4k.
>>319718812
This is awesome looking. Too bad the animations looks like ass.
>>319740229
>Today's post processing aa is much better than what was used on the N64.
That's because the algorithms are much more complex. They have things like different color value weighing depending on what the color is. Older "post-AA" like N64 treats every color equally and just interpolates them with nearby colors.
But they both fundamentally work the same way and that's to avoid additional overdraw like what you get with MSAA.
>>319737869
I wish girls wouldn't get hooked on smack
