[regawdless]

WIll watch later, very interested in this comparison. We've come so far.

 

[Yawnson]

Video on point, amazed how far we've come since, does it look better than Toy Story? Back in the day.

Also

I don't know what it is, I like the astetics and style of 16 more than 15, but sometimes I feel like 15 looks better than 16, am I crazy?

 

[regawdless]

Video on point, amazed how far we've come since, does it look better than Toy Story? Back in the day.

Also

I don't know what it is, I like the astetics and style of 16 more than 15, but sometimes I feel like 15 looks better than 16, am I crazy?

On PC, FF15 looked pretty damn good with all the advanced effects turned on. Huge impressive looking areas, detailed characters. Could look kinda bland sometimes though and from what I've seen in videos, FF16 has some significant advantages like the insanely good material quality or the great shadows.

 

[VFX_Veteran]

Not even close. FF13 is so far ahead of FF16, I don't see how anyone would make a comparison video. The main key factors that still make 13 jump out way ahead of 16 is the lighting. Period. If your lighting model is not correct, nothing in the render will be correct. I can easily tell the fidelity from 13 vs. 16. I'm sort of surprised that DarkX thinks it's close.

 

[regawdless]

Not even close. FF13 is so far ahead of FF16, I don't see how anyone would make a comparison video. The main key factors that still make 13 jump out way ahead of 16 is the lighting. Period. If your lighting model is not correct, nothing in the render will be correct. I can easily tell the fidelity from 13 vs. 16. I'm sort of surprised that DarkX thinks it's close.

One thing that is a big deal as well is the physics, which look amazing in the FF13 videos. Hair and clothes especially. A long way to go to reach this kind of fidelity.

 

[VFX_Veteran]

One thing that is a big deal as well is the physics, which look amazing in the FF13 videos. Hair and clothes especially. A long way to go to reach this kind of fidelity.

That's another aspect that pushes it way too far ahead. I'm just happy if we can get semi-correct CG visuals in realtime cutscenes. Hair/Cloth physics just pushes the requirements that further ahead.

 

[Vyse]

Not even close. FF13 is so far ahead of FF16, I don't see how anyone would make a comparison video. The main key factors that still make 13 jump out way ahead of 16 is the lighting. Period. If your lighting model is not correct, nothing in the render will be correct. I can easily tell the fidelity from 13 vs. 16. I'm sort of surprised that DarkX thinks it's close.

Final Fantasy XIII CG has high contrast lighting that looks more unnatural compared to Final Fantasy XVI. Final Fantasy XIII CG to me hasn't aged well with all of the white light, dark shadows and artificial skin. Final Fantasy XIII CG still looks very artificial whereas there is a little more nuance in Final Fantasy XVI.

I agree that the hair and cloth physics aren't really anything like what we see in the Final Fantasy XIII CG, but one very noticeable advancement with Final Fantasy XVI visually is the sub-surface scattering of light on skin and physical based rendering for clothes, weapons etc.

That said, I think he makes an interesting point that, while it was something we would look forward to in previous entries, we really don't need CG cutscenes in these games anymore because real-time graphics mostly look good enough now.

 

[VFX_Veteran]

Final Fantasy XIII CG has high contrast lighting that looks more unnatural compared to Final Fantasy XVI. Final Fantasy XIII CG to me hasn't aged well with all of the white light, dark shadows and artificial skin. Final Fantasy XIII CG still looks very artificial whereas there is a little more nuance in Final Fantasy XVI.

I agree that the hair and cloth physics aren't really anything like what we see in the Final Fantasy XIII CG, but one very noticeable advancement with Final Fantasy XVI visually is the sub-surface scattering of light on skin and physical based rendering for clothes, weapons etc.

That said, I think he makes an interesting point that, while it was something we would look forward to in previous entries, we really don't need CG cutscenes in these games anymore because real-time graphics mostly look good enough now.

The high contrast darks and lights in the CG of FF13 is an unfortunate artistic choice and not any limitation of the rendering. They simply directed it that way. However, the continuous occlusion across every nok and cranny is simply above what in-game cutscenes can do today.

Buuut, I agree with you - today's games don't need CG renders as cutscenes. The in-game cinematics are certainly good enough IMO.

 

[regawdless]

The high contrast darks and lights in the CG of FF13 is an unfortunate artistic choice and not any limitation of the rendering. They simply directed it that way. However, the continuous occlusion across every nok and cranny is simply above what in-game cutscenes can do today.

Buuut, I agree with you - today's games don't need CG renders as cutscenes. The in-game cinematics are certainly good enough IMO.

Final Fantasy XIII CG has high contrast lighting that looks more unnatural compared to Final Fantasy XVI. Final Fantasy XIII CG to me hasn't aged well with all of the white light, dark shadows and artificial skin. Final Fantasy XIII CG still looks very artificial whereas there is a little more nuance in Final Fantasy XVI.

I agree that the hair and cloth physics aren't really anything like what we see in the Final Fantasy XIII CG, but one very noticeable advancement with Final Fantasy XVI visually is the sub-surface scattering of light on skin and physical based rendering for clothes, weapons etc.

That said, I think he makes an interesting point that, while it was something we would look forward to in previous entries, we really don't need CG cutscenes in these games anymore because real-time graphics mostly look good enough now.

The in game cutscenes being good enough... Mhm depends on what you mean with good enough.

They're serviceable, I'd say. But watching the video, the FF13 cutscenes look way more cinematic, bombastic, engaging and thanks to the physics, more lively. While the FF16 cutscenes fail do make me feel things, they're just there.

Might be my very personal impression, but the old CGI cutscenes look kinda special, I like the look. Maybe the different settings play a role here as well, they aren't really comparable.

 

[VFX_Veteran]

Might be my very personal impression, but the old CGI cutscenes look kinda special, I like the look. Maybe the different settings play a role here as well, they aren't really comparable.

Good enough will always mean better than gameplay rendering. We aren't there yet for 1:1 comparisons of in-game cutscenes rivaling actual CGI (won't be for quite a long while).

And you are correct, they shouldn't even be compared in the first place which is why I was surprised that DarkX did that video.

 

[XOR]

Not even close. FF13 is so far ahead of FF16, I don't see how anyone would make a comparison video. The main key factors that still make 13 jump out way ahead of 16 is the lighting. Period. If your lighting model is not correct, nothing in the render will be correct. I can easily tell the fidelity from 13 vs. 16. I'm sort of surprised that DarkX thinks it's close.

Good enough will always mean better than gameplay rendering. We aren't there yet for 1:1 comparisons of in-game cutscenes rivaling actual CGI (won't be for quite a long while).

And you are correct, they shouldn't even be compared in the first place which is why I was surprised that DarkX did that video.

It wasnt until monsters inc university that the first fully path traced cg film came from hollywood iirc. Soon your average game will have some manner of path tracing.
Monsters was 2013 so ffxiii whatever it had in 2009 was likely faked.As for ff16 wouldnt surprise if they partner with nvidia for pc release and make it path traced ala cyberpunk.

 

[VFX_Veteran]

It wasnt until monsters inc university that the first fully path traced cg film came from hollywood iirc. Soon your average game will have some manner of path tracing.
Monsters was 2013 so ffxiii whatever it had in 2009 was likely faked.As for ff16 wouldnt surprise if they partner with nvidia for pc release and make it path traced ala cyberpunk.

Path tracing is fairly new. Monsters' Inc. didn't use path-tracing. But I get your point.

 

[XOR]

Path tracing is fairly new. Monsters' Inc. didn't use path-tracing. But I get your point.

maybe not path tracing but it was said to be the first fully ray traced cg film iirc.

 

[VFX_Veteran]

maybe not path tracing but it was said to be the first fully ray traced cg film iirc.

For Pixar yes. Ray-traced films were happening a lot sooner than that. I worked for Blue Sky Studios who was the only studio in town using pure ray-tracing for Ice Age.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Not even close. FF13 is so far ahead of FF16, I don't see how anyone would make a comparison video. The main key factors that still make 13 jump out way ahead of 16 is the lighting. Period. If your lighting model is not correct, nothing in the render will be correct. I can easily tell the fidelity from 13 vs. 16. I'm sort of surprised that DarkX thinks it's close.

Some people just don't see lighting, it seems. A poor implementation is the main thing that makes even the best looking games look game-y and not even close to CGI. On the other hand, a game with mid tier assets but great lighting can look really awesome imo. Lighting is king.

 

[XOR]

For Pixar yes. Ray-traced films were happening a lot sooner than that. I worked for Blue Sky Studios who was the only studio in town using pure ray-tracing for Ice Age.

Cars had ray tracing but it wasn't full ray tracing.

I do know that monsters university did look notably better than anything else i'd seen at the time.

The cars have ray-traced reflections (maximum reflection depth 4) and sharp shadows, while the ground is shaded with ray-traced ambient occlusion. This gives a mix of coherent and incoherent rays. The image resolution is 2048×1536 pixels.-cmu.edu

Ice Age could use ray tracing, but are you saying they used full ray tracing for everything?

If so maybe their materials weren't as good. Cause this past decade a lot of cg films look like real world physical objects something that didn't use to be the case during early 2000s, only films with a few cg characters like pirates had that property