/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.8283270]

When will 3d games look as good as 3d promo rendering from retro games?

[Anonymous No.8283284]

They already do, have you not heard of RTX?

[Anonymous No.8283292]

there's a fan project to make sm64 look like the silicon graphics renders but iirc it's been subverted by e-politics and general incompetence
theoretically there's nothing stopping devs from making games that look like this

[Anonymous No.8283293]

>>8283284
Post pics, I don't believe you

[Anonymous No.8283301]

>>8283292
this image is not bad but looks approximately 50x worse than >>8283270

[Anonymous No.8283315]

>>8283292
So much for having the code now, the fire and other FX still don't have glow or have addictive blending effects.

[Anonymous No.8283332]

>>8283270
"As good" is a weird way to call it but if it floats your boat, keeping the shaders and lighting simple and disabling screen-space effects such as AO/Contact Shadows and so forth could manage a pretty close look. Maybe a bit of post would be necessary to get it exactly right though, but that could also be done in real time.

[Anonymous No.8283380]

We could have had this with the M2, but you didn't believe in its power. You didn't believe in the heart of the REAL 3DO. Now, thanks to you, we will never have this totally awesome 3D FPS with soulful CG graphics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2tnKdmvG2E&t=7m30s

[Anonymous No.8283421]

>>8283270
They already do, the difference with your pick is more geometry and over use of post processing muddying the image.

[Anonymous No.8283458]

>>8283270
Textures have gotten much better than that

[Anonymous No.8283495]

>>8283421
>>8283458
post proofs

[Anonymous No.8283557]

>>8283270
Nothing will look like this because some parts of it are high tech and some parts of it are very low tech. Sort of like quirky 70s sci-fi, the present limitations blocked your sight of how advanced things would actually become.

[Anonymous No.8283580]

>>8283270
When they stop using PBR magenta puke

[Anonymous No.8283631]

>>8283380
>the scene where the guy looks at the mirror
This is so prerendered it hurts.

[Anonymous No.8283649]

>>8283631
How dare you. It is 100% real 3DO M2 gameplay footage courtesy of Panasonic and Matsushita.

[Anonymous No.8283664]

>>8283649
What a shame, it'll be at least 10,000 years before such a lost technology will be rediscovered.

[Anonymous No.8283696]

>>8283270
Those so called textures are just a bunch of shitty bump and displacement maps. Get some tastes.

[Anonymous No.8283712]

>>8283270
About 15 years ago, give or take.

[Anonymous No.8283929]

>>8283284
theres no rtx game with hi poly models as good as that mario. and theres more to it than just turnign on rtx
>>8283292
looks like ass

[Anonymous No.8283937]

>>8283270
They're far ahead already. The entire background is very dated. Simple geometric objects with some low res textures stretched over them that awkwardly sit on top of each other with no feeling of fitting together. The fire is very basic and their is no dynamic lighting as you can see by the shadow next to the foreground torch not being affected. If you want mirrored surfaces that look like that and respond to the world in real time the same way look at raytracing in something like Doom Eternal.

[Anonymous No.8283938]

these mfers acting like you could just make the main character of a platformer fully reflective and the playstation wouldn't explode meanwhile every game that comes out now all the mirrors are broken because they can't figure that shit out
get real

[Anonymous No.8283941]

>>8283270
What do you get out of reposting threads?

[Anonymous No.8283942]

>>8283929
>nurbs

That explains so much about silicon graphics workstations.

[Anonymous No.8283943]

>>8283938
>he doesn't have a pc with a 3070/80/90
Lmao

[Anonymous No.8283952]

>>8283943
I keep my 2080ti because it's the last card to support my 3D vision glasses and monitor and that's too kino to give up

[Anonymous No.8283965]

???

[Anonymous No.8283978]

>>8283937
>>8283712
post a game that looks as good then

[Anonymous No.8283985]

>>8283965
>no lighting or shadows anywhere
nintendo , hire this man

[Anonymous No.8283994]

>>8283985
That's the point, dipwad.

[Anonymous No.8284020]

>>8283270
>this lifeless shit with preexisting textures haphazardly stretched over geometry so it looks like a print on a piece of plastic
>"looks good"
Almost none of this 3D stuff made for promotional shots and advertising looks even a little bit good. It looks shiny, and I guess you're thinking back to when you were a kid and were wowed by the shiny, but it's not a good shiny, because it's discriminate and all over the place. Either the author of this render was lazy as fuck, or had a poor grasp of art.

See that stone wall in the foreground? It has one texture on it, and it's a completely generic stone texture that doesn't make any visual sense, ostensibly this could have been a monolithic stone object carved into this shape, and that could be pretty cool in concept, but it doesn't look like it in any way, there's nothing to suggest any kind of carving or chiseling was done to make it this shape, nor does it look like it was some kind of casting or molding. It doesn't look like anything that's real, and it doesn't look aesthetically pleasing.

In spite of being a three dimensional object with volume, the texture choice manages to make this wall look oddly flat and fake.

[Anonymous No.8284021]

>>8284020
Filtered.

[Anonymous No.8284023]

>>8283292
>THIS WILL BE VIDEOGAMES IN 2013 B-)

>>8283380
>We could have had this with the M2
No we fucking couldn't, because the 3DO priced itself out of the market to an absolutely ridiculous extent, they had dug their grave on launch, there was no future for it.

[Anonymous No.8284031]

>>8284020
It actually looks hella good.

[Anonymous No.8284037]

>>8284021
>>8284031
It actually looks like trash garbage, and you have the tastes of a vasyan from 1997.

[Anonymous No.8284038]

>>8284037
>>8284020
this is what it feel sliek to have no soul

[Anonymous No.8284041]

>>8284020
>How to out yourself as a braindead zoomer

[Anonymous No.8284049]

Original RE remake with prerendered graphics
VS
New one full 3D in engine

I rest my case

[Anonymous No.8284091]

>>8284049
The guys who put together the mansion renders for REmake were actual educated artists with training and talent though, so of course they knew how to make that shit look extremely good.
Look at how they pay attention to the lighting and the shadows, look at the materials of the metal birdcage, the wood furniture and stair railing, the wallpaper, look at the blooming 'corona' from the ceiling lamp.

REmake wasn't some single crude promotional render rushed out in a month's work, these dudes here were professionals who worked very hard.

[Anonymous No.8284093]

>>8284049
the new looks better and worse at the same time
what's the answer?
what is this

[Anonymous No.8284126]

>>8284093
>new looks better

[Anonymous No.8284145]

>>8284126
Aspergers is strong with this lad here, be wary of him...

[Anonymous No.8284259]

>>8283929
>theres no rtx game with hi poly models as good as that mario. and theres more to it than just turnign on rtx

The image you have looks like a Donkey Kong Country 2 rendering. All off the Kong characters were updated with fur shaders for the DKC2 promotional renders.

https://youtu.be/Rv_YCSbWP78?t=367

https://youtu.be/Rv_YCSbWP78?t=367

[Anonymous No.8284276]

Would you suck on Donkey's Kong?

[Anonymous No.8284287]

>>8284145
For every nice looking remake 10 can be named that look worse. For example the newly censored gta3.

[Anonymous No.8284538]

>>8284093
My understanding is that the original uncompressed renders for REmake were lost along with some of the original assets which required the HD Remaster to recreate new assets for some of the renderings. Zero's were maintained which is why you don't see the same difference between the GC version of that game & its Remaster.

[Anonymous No.8284554]

>>8283270
yes and no

[Anonymous No.8284592]

>>8283292
>>8283965
>>8283301
>>8283929
>>8283985
>>8284023

Whenever /vr/ asks a question with a clear answer the whole fucking thread goes in denial when its answered and it becomes clear the actual point of the question is to be a contrarian moron. These modders remade the prerender models nearly flawlessly and even found source textures for world geometry to look almost exact. People will never be pleased they just want to say OLD GOOD NEW BAD like /v/tards. If you guys think it looks 50 times worse, learn 3D modeling and do one better

[Anonymous No.8284597]

>>8284592
>prerender models nearly flawlessly
no they didnt

[Anonymous No.8284603]

>>8284597
OK, look at the Mario 3D model in >>8283965
and tell me whats different from the prerender pictures?

[Anonymous No.8284608]

>>8284603
you mean besides to 100x poly count and far better shading and lighting? im sorry you cant see the difference

[Anonymous No.8284614]

>>8284608
The polycount is basically identical, the shading and lighting is different because the stage its on. Its the same thing

[Anonymous No.8284616]

>>8283380
Homie, I'm good.

[Anonymous No.8284617]

>>8284608
There's absolutely no 100x difference in polycount between those two images. You're delusional.

[Anonymous No.8284620]

>>8284608
>the arms and face on the left

[Anonymous No.8284628]

>>8284617
>>8284614

you can easily see the lower poly count kinks in his hat visor. get glasses. it snowhere near close

[Anonymous No.8284635]

>>8284628
You might not be able to tell in the jpeg but its exact in gameplay. If it was actually the same model you would be saying the same thing

[Anonymous No.8284641]

>>8283938
mario isn't even reflecting the area around him in that image

[Anonymous No.8284646]

>>8284608

[Anonymous No.8284649]

>>8284592
You're right. See that "why aren't games experimental anymore?" thread.

[Anonymous No.8284652]

>>8283965
i wish render96 actually looked like this

[Anonymous No.8284659]

>>8284649
exactly. glad to see sane people in this thread

[Anonymous No.8284660]

>>8284652
That is Render96 with Reshade.

[Anonymous No.8284665]

>>8284660
really? the hell are those star keys? any video of it in motion?

[Anonymous No.8284670]

>>8284665
They're to unlock playable Luigi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gt4A25RWeI

[Anonymous No.8284674]

>>8284670
wow, that's really something. it's a shame the official remaster is such a halfass

[Anonymous No.8284676]

>>8284660
>>8284670
I've never seen ReShade fit something so well, might have to try that out myself

[Anonymous No.8284681]

>>8284676
if this could ever be combined with the finalized raytracing version of Render96 it would be genuinely in spitting distance of the original renders

[Anonymous No.8284707]

>>8283965
>>8284660
hey whats the shader setting called

[Anonymous No.8284719]

>>8284676
The colors just need to be slightly darkened and then you just a bit of ambient occlusion

[Anonymous No.8284730]

>>8284719
Thanks!

[Anonymous No.8285271]

>>8284592
There's nothing contrarian here, these old promotional renders are ugly, and the typical fan remaster project looks exceptionally ugly.
These aren't things which are made by people who have artistic talent.

If you want to see top of the line pre-rendered 3D graphics that look good for real, then the original release of the Resident Evil remake is the very best example.

[Anonymous No.8285286]

>>8284608
>>8284628
There's actually no "polycount" in this early SGI visuals. They used spline-based models, not meshes. A somewhat simplistic comparison would be vector-art vs bitmap/pixel-art.

Even Pixar didn't cross over to meshes until a couple feature films in iirc, and that eventually became the standard. I don't think this amounts to the clearly noticeable difference, but it could be a factor.

[Anonymous No.8285352]

>>8284719
Well technically there wasn't "generated" ambient occlusion at all in the original renders. This one >>8283965
gets it closer imo

[Anonymous No.8285373]

>>8283557
this, plus the fact that a staged still photo will always look better than video of actual gameplay.

[Anonymous No.8285518]

>>8283270
Ray tracing is getting there. If GPU prices were not inflated right now there would be a lot more games utilizing it. However, even the most powerful RTX cards still only do partial real-time ray tracing of lighting.
Maybe five to ten years from now games will finally start looking like those CGI renders. But they won't be Nintendo games. That will take 20 years for Nintendo to finally catch up unless the new guy radically alters course for the company.

[Anonymous No.8285528]

>>8285286
I think you could use a combo of high poly, super resolution, and downsampling to simulate this now.

[Anonymous No.8285531]

>>8285518
Anon, the goal of realtime Raytracing is implementing bounce-lighting/GI and accurate physically-based lighting. All these classic SGI renders very specifically lack that sort of thing (including other "realism" elements such as contact/AO shadows) because the methods didn't even exist at that moment. It's all point-by-point directly setup "handcrafted" lighting.

[Anonymous No.8285546]

>>8285531
I know but to get the same practical result of having very round surfaces you'd use super resolution now. With a high enough poly count the difference will be minimal.

> It's all point-by-point directly setup "handcrafted" lighting
I don't think that's correct. I think the lighting was ray traced.

[Anonymous No.8285606]

>>8285546
It WAS ray tracing; the key concept though is the level of sophistication involved. Ray tracing at that time didn't include an implementation for indirect lighting (or "global illumination"), which was the major breakthrough in realism that didn't really begin proper until the 2000s. The rays basically stopped where they hit something without resulting in follow-through complex bouncing (to a massive computational cost). Stuff like mirror/reflecting surfaces were exceptions that involved increased computational cost as well.

Back then, if you had a big bright red ball on a concrete floor in your direct-sunlit scene and you wanted red bounced light bleeding into the concrete as would happen in the real world, then you manually set up a small red point light in the ball's position that achieved this job. That's what I meant with "handcrafted" lighting.

Rasterization-based methods (i.e. what you use if you don't do raytracing, like in videogames until now) evolved at the same time, with increasingly sophisticated ways to quickly fake photorealism and complex shading that used to be exclusive to ray tracing: bounce lighting, reflections, ambient occlusion, depth of field, etc.

Long winded explanation but the bottom line is: what could be achieved with ray tracing in the late 90s can be almost perfectly mimicked now with rasterization workarounds. In fact, you need to AVOID lots of the available features in order to actually get the look right.

[Anonymous No.8285791]

>>8285531
>Anon, the goal of realtime Raytracing is implementing bounce-lighting/GI and accurate physically-based lighting. All these classic SGI renders very specifically lack that sort of thing (including other "realism" elements such as contact/AO shadows) because the methods didn't even exist at that moment. It's all point-by-point directly setup "handcrafted" lighting.


This CG art for Wave Race 64 seems to use some form of ray tracing for the reflections on the Jet Skis, it seems.

[Anonymous No.8285803]

>>8285531

I love the CG promotional art renders from the N64 era.

[Anonymous No.8285817]

[Anonymous No.8285819]

>>8285817

[Anonymous No.8285827]

>>8285819

[Anonymous No.8285846]

Why can these nerds get anything even close to dkc2? Even their mario is immediately visibly different from the 90s cgi, and as the other commenter says, you can even see the lack of polygons , let alone the obvious inferior lighting.

What’s pathetic are the faggots making excuses and acting like they can’t see the difference, probably in denial about the years of work wasted making render64 or just don’t like to admit that they lack the talent to solve this problem

[Anonymous No.8285891]

>>8285271
>Theres nothing contrarian here
>these old promotional renders are ugly
>fan remaster project looks exceptionally ugly
So not only have you said a contrarian take on prerenders but you unintentionally said the fan recreations are faithful

[Anonymous No.8285908]

>>8285827

The most noticeable difference between the Donkey Kong Country 1 and DKC2 renders is the lack of a fur effect. Rare must have upgraded their SGI machines , or moved to newer models after the money they made from DKC1.

[Anonymous No.8285913]

>>8285846
Its not wasted if people like it. Tell me, do YOU have the talent to make something like that?

[Anonymous No.8285917]

>>8285908

[Anonymous No.8285923]

I think the texture pack for Super Mario 64, while not exactly at the quality of the renders, is close enough, and shows that the renders would look awful in gameplay. Remember that the renders were made a for a picture/poster and the polygonal models were made for a game. That's why modern mario games don't look like the renders; the renders look bad when put in a game.

[Anonymous No.8286608]

>>8285923
NUH-UH! You're just a contrarian zoomer with bad taste, these renders have SOVL!

[Anonymous No.8286636]

>>8286608
this but unironically

[Anonymous No.8286678]

>>8284538
the Zero remaster looks fantastic honestly

[Anonymous No.8286690]

[Anonymous No.8286691]

[Anonymous No.8286695]

>>8285803
>
I can't believe Wario is fucking dead

[Anonymous No.8286697]

[Anonymous No.8286818]

>>8286678
>>8284538

[Anonymous No.8286821]

>>8285803
25 years later and mario kart still looks nowhere near this good

[Anonymous No.8286827]

>>8285923

[Anonymous No.8286895]

>>8286827
oddysey looks pretty good but i wish they would adjust the white balance so that you get some black in the image. that first SGI pic uses a full range of tones

[Anonymous No.8286901]

>>8286827
I actually think if the colors were darker on the switch game it would look like the left

[Anonymous No.8287194]

>>8283270
Heart Chain Kitty

[Anonymous No.8287201]

>>8287194

[Anonymous No.8287203]

>>8287201

[Anonymous No.8287207]

>>8287194
not retro and it looks like unity shit

[Anonymous No.8287216]

>>8287207
get taste

[Anonymous No.8287274]

>>8287216
lighting and polycount are shit. get some taste

[Anonymous No.8287331]

>>8287274
>polycount in heavily stylised game
get brains

[Anonymous No.8287347]

>>8287331
not a fan of the ui design

[Anonymous No.8287356]

>>8287216
the shiny ball monster and the walking particles are pushing it

[Anonymous No.8287390]

>>8287356
love these guys

[Anonymous No.8287513]

>>8283270
how is this picture so high res?

[Anonymous No.8287517]

>>8286827
they're using some old technique to shade this I think, you'd have to go back through the tech to see how they did it.

[Anonymous No.8287521]

>>8284670
they need cube maps or ray tracing and the look will nearly be complete.

[Anonymous No.8287769]

>>8283985
blobs under characters and objects

[Anonymous No.8287772]

>>8284049
for the in-engine version only the lighting is wrong.

[Anonymous No.8287783]

>>8285803
>pictures you can hear

[Anonymous No.8287928]

Many replies and so far NO ONE actually posted any screenshots of a game that looks remotely better as the 3d render pic.

You're just all delusional.
Games will look as good maybe in year 2060.

[Anonymous No.8287945]

>>8287928
see >>8283937

[Anonymous No.8287976]

>>8287928
nobody ever does. just a bunch of dumb consoomers who think any game with ray tracing is the same thing

[Anonymous No.8288041]

>>8287203
>>8287201
>>8287216
>>8287390
>>8287331
wtf this is actually a shill thread for some game maker bullshit?

[Anonymous No.8288154]

>>8284049
>>8284091

It's so strange, did CAPCOM really lose their original assets? That can't be upscaled.

[Anonymous No.8288208]

>>8288154
It happens sometimes. Maybe backups weren't made, maybe storage media went bad, was damaged, or even lost.

[Anonymous No.8288216]

>>8288208
But judging by that pics it can't be possible.

[Anonymous No.8288264]

I must be the only one who thinks the renders were typically a good representation of the actual game. The actual graphics of Donkey Kong Country don't look all that different from the promotional materials. Yes, they characters are digitized 3D models converted into sprites and the backgrounds aren't dynamically-rendered but you're still seeing the same assets displayed on a 2D plane, which is what made these kind of games so impressive looking for the time. In the case of a real 3D game like SM64 or Banjo-Kazooie, I would still argue the game looks a lot ike the renders. The poly count is obviously much different but the textures were all sourced from 3D SGI renders and many in-game objects like the coins in mario or notes/feathers/eggs in Banjo were, like DKC, pre-rendered models converted to sprites and strung together into an animation, providing the illusion of 3D. You can argue that it's all a trick, but isn't that what video games are to begin with? A trick to deceive the mind into seeing something which is really nothing more than a blob of colors? If the game uses visual tricks to "look" like something that it isn't, it doesn't matter, because it has still accomplished the goal of fooling your eyes.

[Anonymous No.8288338]

>>8288264
You must be 18 to post on these boards.

[Anonymous No.8288348]

>>8288338
So leave then.

[Anonymous No.8288360]

>>8288348
ho, poor little guy got his feelings hurt. Want a candy?

[Anonymous No.8288403]

>>8288360
poopy head

[Anonymous No.8288736]

Blow me, jannies.

[Anonymous No.8288751]

>>8288736
Very based.

[Anonymous No.8288760]

>>8288736
>got his gay post deleted
rekt

[Anonymous No.8288764]

>>8288760
>got so butt-hurt by being found to be an underage artsy tryhard he needed to report to mommy(male)

[Anonymous No.8288851]

>>8288264
this.

[Anonymous No.8288938]

>>8288338
>>8288348
>>8288360
>>8288403
>>8288736
>>8288751
>>8288760
>>8288764
What the hell is going on?

[Anonymous No.8288945]

>>8288938
I said something extremely based and our blessed janitors cleaned up the opposing filth.

[Anonymous No.8290238]

>>8285606
>The rays basically stopped where they hit something without resulting in follow-through complex bouncing

is that why the shadows are so dark? This stuff looks like blender before they got the caustics renderer a few years ago.

[Anonymous No.8290254]

>>8287772
no look at the polycount in the mirrors

[Anonymous No.8290560]

>>8283270
>>8283270
Amid Evil

[Anonymous No.8291130]

>>8290560
look at the sword. you clearly see that it looks worse. so why are you trying.

everyone in this thread failed to address the original question.

[Anonymous No.8291325]

>>8285923

if that were true you wouldn't be repeatedly fucking failing at copying the renders you fucking retard. whole thread is fucking pathetic. everyone making excuses. all the examples given are shit compared to 90s rareware silicon graphics and everyone can see it with their own eyes if they are not deluding themselves

[Anonymous No.8291483]

>>8283965
this one I like it

[Anonymous No.8291541]

>>8283292
I reached them on Twitter a while back and attempting to change the level geometry for more sculpted texture and such was in the list
>but iirc it's been subverted by e-politics
Of fucking course it happened. Can't have shit lately without this happening and destroying everything

[Anonymous No.8292186]

When will people learn.

[Anonymous No.8292194]

>>8291325
why is that then? I assume we still just can't match the polygon count of renders?

[Anonymous No.8292195]

>>8286827
Looks like a case of tone mapping.

[Anonymous No.8292204]

>>8283332
That's practically a Thief 3 screenshot. That violet light striking wood and forming black shadows is characteristic.

[Anonymous No.8292283]

>>8291130
>look at the sword. you clearly see that it looks worse. so why are you trying.
you clearly don't get it.