Texturing

File: t-w-06-mp5a4.jpg (33KB, 750x452px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 750x452px

>>514120

Also this was obviously meant in context of games.

yes.
i liked unreal 2 engine alot,quake 4 engine was easy on the system

>>514120
Lazy cunt.

>>514120
not rly

We're on the cusp of the photoreal VR porn age, so no.

>>514120
>Anyone else misses the times when there was only one texture, a diffuse texture, and that's it?

No. Programmable pixel shaders are fucking awesomer than diffuse only in every conceivable way, they're the best thing to happen realtime rendering since the advent of the polygon.
You even suggesting the days before them was somehow preferable is sacrilegious, it's a good thing this site in anonymous cuz you just lost all your CGI credibility anon.

>>514120

No, now fuck off with your shitty 'retro' indie pixel platformer you stupid smelly hipster cock suck faggot.

File: 2187894-3355227818_212e65eb5e_z.jpg (96KB, 640x512px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 640x512px

I argue that Resident Evil 4 and Silent Hill 2-4 are all aesthetically more pleasing than any current generation game using PBR shaders.

>>514152
I feel its kinda like a excellently drawn animation when its just diffuse.

File: Screen Shot 2016-02-26 at 10.07.32204 AM.jpg (437KB, 2260x815px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 2260x815px

>>514152
>>514153
I would argue, that, done well, diffuse only /can/ look really great. The problem is that it takes a lot of time to make straight diffuse textures that look awesome. I am working on a game right now that is straight diffuse, and texturing is by far the largest time consumer when it comes to the asset creation. I personally feel that diffuse has more of an artistic slant to it as well, in that a lot of grim dark modern PBR workflow stuff is done with things like Substance or NDO/DDO, and while tools like that can produce beautifully realistic materials, you loose the artistic interpretation you get with diffuse materials that are done with an artist, Photoshop, and their time. Neither is better, but in the same breath nor is one worse than the other. Like anything else, your artistic vision is going to define your technical decisions when it comes to asset creation.

>>514152
damn thats sexy

It's a question of what you do with it. Silent Hill had it's own aesthetic which generic western pbr look at our shiny metal textures don't try to emulate. This is why PT being cancelled was heartbreaking, I couldn't wait to see what they were going to come up with. Games now are also excessively modular and don't have the nice custom finishes a lot of old games had. Resident evil is also a good example of taking photo sourced textures and telling a story with them. I think visual storytelling has just gone out the window and it's more about realism now.

>>514177
In my mind, it sees that as AAA gaming has risen over time, the level of unique detail in the environments has dropped, mainly because of the time involved in creating that detail vs. the sped up production cycles and asset bloat AAA games have required. When you need albedo, normal, spec/metalness, gloss/reflectivity, dirt/cavity/occlusion maps on every damn thing in the game to get your ‘realism’, of course you sacrifice the idea of unique detail for speed in production- thats why procedural generators like NDO/DDO/Substance are gaining traction, they do it even faster, but at what cost? If I put the same settings into Substance or another generator and you do the same, it’s going to generate the same thing. I am willing to bet, however, if I give a good PS artist a folder full of base photo sources and tell them to make me a building with them using just a single diffuse texture or two, we are each going to come out with two different interpretations, even given the same basic concept. Hell, I was playing The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, walked into the church, looked down and realized that they used the same base photo for the floor that I used in my schoolhouse (thanks, CGTextures!), BUT the unique work they did to alter that base photo was totally different from mine so while there was some base similarity, their interpretation of that floor was utterly different. Just a thought.

>>514155
ah yes, i've been watching you progress on that game for a while. i too have studied "the masters" of the diffuse texture and quite love the look that can be achieved with their techniques. you got any pictures of fuller environments? i feel like i've only seen assets without much context.

>>514120
texturing nowadays in big games can be damn complex and take a very long time, but they focus on being high-detail, generic and resuable.
silent hill and such on the other hand made individual textures for like every damn room. while doing things the way they're commonly done now doesn't prevent artistry, the old way (at least the silent hill way) was much more encouraging to artistic expression in the textures, and by the nature of them required a better artist to look good. and it did look great. i feel like the textures in those games were made more with a painter's perspective, and i think it's still a great style even now with stuff like pbr being "the thing".

I feel you guys in this thread being nostalgic about RE4 is just fooling yourself into thinking it's 'so good' to excuse yourself being lazy and tempted to
make your stuff 'diffuse only' claiming it as an artistic option on your part rather than your lack of knowledge how to compose a nice current generation shader.

RE4 is kind of the best of the old photo draped campcom games, and I agree they have a very nice look - for their time.
In RE6 you can see how capcom have a hard time making the transition into new shader capability, it still looks alot better than RE4 if you look at them side by side.
But not very impressive stacked up to its current competition as it used to be, too shiny and a lot less unified aesthetic than RE4.

But just ask yourself this, would games like Rockstar and Dice games that do PBR shaders very well look better than they currently do with diffuse only? yeah right, GTFOH...

>>514120
Yes and no. Yes because it's a lot more time-consuming to make all the maps you need nowadays.

No because it looks like shit.

File: Screen Shot 2016-02-27 at 8.13.47342 AM.jpg (718KB, 2261x825px) Image search: [Google]

718KB, 2261x825px

>>514204
Sure, I’ll post a few here, although if you’ve been flowing you’ve probably already seen them.
>>514218
>>But not very impressive stacked up to its current competition as it used to be, too shiny and a lot less unified aesthetic than RE4.

I think you just proved the point I was trying to make here.

>>But just ask yourself this, would games like Rockstar and Dice games that do PBR shaders very well look better than they currently do with diffuse only? yeah right, GTFOH…

No one is arguing that they look better. At least I am not. Just that it is a different aesthetic, one that seems to be lost nowadays to ‘muh realism’. Don’t get me wrong. I love the look of games made by the masters of PBR workflows, hell, I am very good friends with the lead animator on GTA V, we graduated together, and I have the utmost respect for the work that those guys do. I just personally wish that the uniqueness of the old diffuse masterworks could somehow be incorporated into the newer tech. This is, as mentioned above, why the loss of Silent Hills was such a terrible thing- we were finally gonna experience this, because the large American companies are to worried about speed and maximization of profit to waste time with texturing for aesthetic unification purposes.

File: Screen Shot 2016-02-27 at 8.28.32111 AM.jpg (722KB, 2261x827px) Image search: [Google]

722KB, 2261x827px

>>514223

File: Screen Shot 2016-02-27 at 8.29.23705 AM.jpg (549KB, 2269x827px) Image search: [Google]

549KB, 2269x827px

>>514224

>>514218

>GTA

Yes sure old GTA PS2 games are ugly as fuck, but I personally don't like GTA 5's look very much. It's high detailed, but bright colored and "plastic" looking or a bit like shiny clay.

The whole PBR thing doesn't seem to totally matured yet, things look too shiny even at minimal shine. The fresnel thing doesn't seem to work properly and is just over the board most of the time. I don't know much about programming so I can't speak on that part.

File: KY29q3.gif (3MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x270px

>>514223
dude, diffuse only works well if the sky is always cloudy or there is fog all the time (basicly what RE and SH do), if you have a sunny day then diffuse only looks very weak.

Basicly if the scene has barely any reflections then no wonder not putting any looks better then overdoing it (all those early 7gen games).
But then try to have a futuristic corridor with nothing but diffuse, it will look dry and stale instead of slick and smooth.

PS: That mp5 will look shitty in motion since the baked reflections stop making sense and will show that they are simply pasted on.

Also, PBR has more range, try to do pic related with diffuse, you cant. The reflections help give details even in dark areas

>>514233
I completely agree with what you are saying. There are limits to what it can do. What I am working on is how to gain the advantages of detailed unique albedo/diffuse maps and bring them into the modern age of PBR lighting. Wether that can be done without requiring ridiculous GPU requirements remains to be seen. What I am trying to avoid is using tiling textures, I would rather sacrifice realism for unique detail. I believe that it is possible to make a world that is just as or more engaging than games with hyper-real graphics if the detail tells a story. As I have said, I don’t believe one technique is better than the other, they each have their place, and each requires sacrifices to achieve- it’s all about wether the sacrifices required are the ones you are willing to make. Any aesthetic choices you make when creating art are going to require carefully weighing the pros and cons of those choices.