ELI5- why can movies make CGI human faces and movements that look 100% real and normal but video games always look fake even with large budgets?
In: 0
A video goes at a minimum of 60 frames per second. This means that all the game’s code, all the graphics and everything else needs to be processed in at most 16 miliseconds. Anything less than 16 ms and the game seems slow or seems laggy. Obviously, 16 ms isn’t a lot of time, so often times you make a tradeoff between features (gameplay) and graphics.
With movies, each frame is played back at 60 frames per second, **but** each frame doesn’t need to be processed in that time. With movies, each frame can be rendered in as much time as the producers want. Which means that you can have stunning graphics simply because a single frame took maybe, idk , 30 minutes to render. Because movies are interactive, you can take as much time as you want to draw the frame, which allows you to have better graphics.
A video goes at a minimum of 60 frames per second. This means that all the game’s code, all the graphics and everything else needs to be processed in at most 16 miliseconds. Anything less than 16 ms and the game seems slow or seems laggy. Obviously, 16 ms isn’t a lot of time, so often times you make a tradeoff between features (gameplay) and graphics.
With movies, each frame is played back at 60 frames per second, **but** each frame doesn’t need to be processed in that time. With movies, each frame can be rendered in as much time as the producers want. Which means that you can have stunning graphics simply because a single frame took maybe, idk , 30 minutes to render. Because movies are interactive, you can take as much time as you want to draw the frame, which allows you to have better graphics.
In movies (and cutscenes in videogames) each individual frame takes up to several minutes to generate. In videogames you need to generate at least 30 individual frames per second.
In movies (and cutscenes in videogames) each individual frame takes up to several minutes to generate. In videogames you need to generate at least 30 individual frames per second.
imho where at the point where video games overtake movies in quality.
Movie quality has generally degraded over the past years imho.
But video games keep getting better and better …
imho where at the point where video games overtake movies in quality.
Movie quality has generally degraded over the past years imho.
But video games keep getting better and better …
Think of it like a flipbook.
A movie is a completed flipbook, you’re just flipping through and seeing the end result.
A video game is like a blank flipbook, you have to draw every picture in the book as you go to get an end result.
Drawing those pictures takes a long time, video games do that as you sit there and wait for it to draw, movies do it before you ever see the movie and just show you the end result.
Think of it like a flipbook.
A movie is a completed flipbook, you’re just flipping through and seeing the end result.
A video game is like a blank flipbook, you have to draw every picture in the book as you go to get an end result.
Drawing those pictures takes a long time, video games do that as you sit there and wait for it to draw, movies do it before you ever see the movie and just show you the end result.
Video games are rendered in real time, movies aren’t. An example is PS1 games that look better in their cutscenes. Games like Final Fantasy VII and the Resident Evil games used Full Motion Video, which were basically pre rendered CGI cutscenes. Still 90s CGI, but it wasn’t limited by the power of the system itself, just by the computer that made and rendered it. They basically just interjected the files into the game and said when to play it.
Now that games render their own cutscenes, they still won’t look as good as movies MOST of the time. The frame rate is definitely part of it; movies and TV are 24fps consistently. Games are 30 or 60fps. Games often don’t aim completely for photo realism, there is an element of stylization.
But, there are recent examples of games that not only look amazing, but look real. Forspoken was supposed to be one of these, but that… didn’t happen. The Dead Space remake and The Callisto Protocol were pretty impressive too. But the 9th gen Call of Duty games have been the most impressive. I’m not a COD player, but I’ve seen some cutscenes from the remake (I think it’s a remake) of Modern Warfare 2, which is 2022’s annual COD game, and I gotta say, it doesn’t have that “game-y” look that you’re describing nearly as much as other games. You really have to see it for yourself.
Video games are rendered in real time, movies aren’t. An example is PS1 games that look better in their cutscenes. Games like Final Fantasy VII and the Resident Evil games used Full Motion Video, which were basically pre rendered CGI cutscenes. Still 90s CGI, but it wasn’t limited by the power of the system itself, just by the computer that made and rendered it. They basically just interjected the files into the game and said when to play it.
Now that games render their own cutscenes, they still won’t look as good as movies MOST of the time. The frame rate is definitely part of it; movies and TV are 24fps consistently. Games are 30 or 60fps. Games often don’t aim completely for photo realism, there is an element of stylization.
But, there are recent examples of games that not only look amazing, but look real. Forspoken was supposed to be one of these, but that… didn’t happen. The Dead Space remake and The Callisto Protocol were pretty impressive too. But the 9th gen Call of Duty games have been the most impressive. I’m not a COD player, but I’ve seen some cutscenes from the remake (I think it’s a remake) of Modern Warfare 2, which is 2022’s annual COD game, and I gotta say, it doesn’t have that “game-y” look that you’re describing nearly as much as other games. You really have to see it for yourself.
Latest Answers