How more expensive games will be then? Games are already way to expensive for us and for developers to make.
I wish we focused more on gameplay instead on graphics...

That along with 3D Studio Max or another rendering program = amazingness. I wish I could afford those programs. Most I've worked with is Blender.

::jaw drops::

*still dropped..................

those trains looks too real. scary.

GOBAMA!

for anyone who wants to see more images:
http://cg.tutsplus.com/arti...

these aren't photorealistic though and you may recognise some

edit:
some photorealistic ones
http://www.marcofolio.net/i...

^_^

Yo I love Max. I haven't used v-ray, I use Mental Ray. I hear that a lot of people really like v-ray though.

makes me laugh when games devs say "we can do CG quality gfx in our engine" there is a very good reason why a single pass of a single frame of good quality CG can take several minutes to render (those images are usually made up from several passes rendered separately). Game engines simply cant do stuff like sub surface scattering and true ambient occlusion on the fly.

If ...you... are a student, you can purchase full versions of Maya or Max at huge discounts. All you need is a valid student ID at these websites.

www.academicsuperstore.com
www.journeyed.com

Both come with Mental Ray built in, many of these images were achieved using mental ray.

in media arts and animation (if no one has seen me mention that)...and I can tell you it's exciting and amazing to create that stuff but can be daunting and time consuming perfecting such images. My demo reel had camera fly by's and I remember spending 100 plus hours just on that fly by in the end.

You are spending a lot of time playing with the lighting or mapping to get it just right, then you finally have a scene, and that's what a frame render is. Think about putting that scene into motion, and transferring it into a living, breathing world like a movie, key points in animation, rigging any characters to a "bone-structure", lip syncing any vocals, timing things, audio, etc... And beyond that, an interactive one, and that's the final destination, and the ultimate challenge (and would involve more than just artists as you'd have programming, etc..)....that'd be the future of gaming, I just wish there was a quicker way to automate so it wasn't so costly (time is money, manpower is money).

These gorgeous scenes themselves are just a single frame that may or may not be "staged" where if you rotate the camera, for example, it's not even textured or lit fully "behind the camera"...so imagine the focus and time that would go into creating a sandbox or open world that is interactive in the vein of this quality. It's indescribable to think of running around in a world like that, but I feel it's inevitable. We have the tech I believe (which is in the renders as proof), it's the money and manpower to do it in mass scale that is in question for making that happen.

Whoever disagreed with TOO PAWNED should hand in their gamer license. You're doing it completely 100% wrong.

Im not getting why people are so impressed.
The pictures are stunning. But in todays action movies 20% is CGI and it looks real in motion.

If you see a group of helicopters in a movie today chances are it's CGI. It was just cheaper to do on a computer than in real life.

I disagree with him because what he is saying is silly. Graphics and Game Play go hand in hand. Graphics in many cases will submerse the gamer in the story and in the case of games like Heavy Rain, realism is very important. Once the graphics get cartoonish or poorly coded, the game loses its realism. I'm not going to say that Graphics are better or more important than Game Play but I will say they both build on each other. And anybody IMHO that disagrees with that needs to hand in their gamer license.

NOBAMA!

if they will be able to or can already create video out of graphics which mimic real life... imagine the processing required for that...

These renders are super hi-poly, and the backgrounds they are using are HD pictures, which makes the whole render look more real. These could eventually be in games, but it will take a LOT of processing power to be able to do it.

I thought the car images were screenshots from Gt5 but then I notice they didn't look as good as Gt5.

I was going to say this yesterday, but I felt the need to take a dump, was much more important than actually responding to your idiocy------similar to HR? Wow. You're officially the saddest boy ever.

not like we haven't seen realistic CGI's before.

LOTR, Tranformers 2 etc...

So I'll wait maybe until last year to buy one, I'll have "more" money by then. Right now, I only have Bryce 5.

http://fc06.deviantart.com/...
This was years ago, but... yeah, Bryce 5 is decent. Not nearly as good as Blender (which I use now..., still working my way around it)

@1.15

Of course they go hand in hand. I'm just saying that his post implied that gameplay > graphics, which IS true. I don't care what anyone here says. Otherwise you'd all be playing Crysis and Killzone over Halo and CoD.

Jolly1 yea I'm with you Love max dont have v ray (dont have a current version of max eithe yeah I'm poor).

Friend of mine Told me once He charges 100 dollars a hour gets so many project he has to down some down. Here's the part thats going to blow everyones mine he works 24 a day 7 days a week literally. For everyone has no way not possible well he charges 100 dollars a hour for render time too. So when he done and wants to go to bed or a hour of just go out with friends he just renders out what he has done (or x hours worth) hit the render buttom. This guy might as well be telling his computer to print money. The people on that site are some of the best artists/animators in the world.

nycredude btw congratz you just prove that you are the stupidest fanboy on the planet. There are retard people that reading your post and laughing at how stupid you are there are even monkeys out there are laughing at how stupid you are. gt5 doesnt come close to those pics in fact some of those pic on that site (not sure about the one on the list) have to be downgrade to even be display on a blu ray format. If I wanted to I could render something from max at 10 times that used by blu ray. Of could my computer cant even dispaly anything at that res (not sure an pc could) and if I want a video at that res I dont know of any program that could play it.But its easy to do a rendering of something over your lil 1080.

Actually, I do play Crysis and Killzone over Halo. Not over COD, I play that too. Graphics and Game Play go hand in hand. One without the other is silly so to me they are both equal.

stuff in movies like LOTR and Transformers: It's one artist most likely doing this work, not a team of pro's who have worked their way up the "food chain"....these are people trying to work their way up a lot of times, so for one person to pump out a scene like that is impressive. When you're a studio with millions to budget for visuals, of course it'll be a nice end-product: these renders didn't come from a highly budgeted piece of entertainment from ILM or Pixar, and I'm familiar with the dedication and talent needed...hence my being impressed personally.

we used to render realistic buildings, but it took us days to finish a single scene. Now it only takes a few minutes with a high-end computer with a high-end graphic card. Isn't technology grand? ;)

That's why I think people are blowing the "games are getting really expensive to develop" thing out of proportion.

It's true that with every generation the development cost increases but the tools they use are also improved on by those who make them. That seems to be something people forget to factor into it.