>2017 >games still dont look as good as Tory Story

well, no shit, do you know how long that shit took to render?

>>379255716
Unless you want your vidya to be pre-rendered frame-by-frame and 100% non-interactive, that will probably continue to be the case.

Good, "realism" and adding an unnecessary amount of polygons and texture are cancer and hold back games, by turning them into tech demos, because the majority of consumers are fucking stupid.
This is why video games are associated with escapism and an actual art style is better.

that's toy story 2 though.

Ratchet & Clank PS4 looks pretty nice.

>>379255842
I was wondering why there was a bug's life reference in a supposed screenshot of 1

>>379255716
Toy story 1 looks like shit now
2 looks okay I guess

>>379255802
So you're saying our visual novels should be that way, get on that buddy.

>>379255716
Fuck off, I don't wanna see a bunch of Overwatch graphics clones.

File: 34279712284_16a8e8b871_o.jpg (2MB, 1080x1440px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1080x1440px

Are you sure about that?

>>379255716

ps4 has plenty of video game movies just like disney movies

File: 35091046826_b42871f587_o.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>379256058

>>379255716
>this ps2 pr is what killed the dreamcast

>>379256058
nice skyrim screenshot fag

>>379256058
that looks like absolute crap

>>379255716
>Tory Story

Corbyn's nightmare

>>379256058
>>379256153
toy story is more interactive than this 'game'

It'll be at least 50 or so years until games can even look like Luxo Jr. from 1986. You have to understand that these animated films have exorbitant polygon counts going into the hundreds of millions that used giant render farms to animated 1 second over the course of a couple days. Video games have gotten really good at emulating the looks with the use of shaders of other sorts of technologies.

File: ratchet and clank review gamecrate newegg (38).jpg (428KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 1920x1080px

>>379255716
Ratchet & Clank 2016 is the closest game to look like that that we have.

>>379255716
>CGI movies are enormously detailed and require days and days of rendering on farm PCs
>Video Games have to compromise on shitty hardware and rely on industry-old tricks to make it look decent AND play decent
Stop with that reasoning

Toy Story game with movie assests when?

>>379256831
>used giant render farms to animated 1 second over the course of a couple days
>people are actually this fucking retarded
Even just assuming 1 day per second, a 90 minute film would require 5,400 days according to your dumb ass, IE over 14.5 YEARS to render. But your stupidity goes beyond that, believing it takes "a couple of days" for that one second.

Indeed, I too remember Toy Story requiring over 25 years to render. I'm so glad they began the render process in 1970 so they could successfully bring this masterpiece to theaters in 1995.

Fucking idiot.

File: Toy Story 2.png (622KB, 537x640px) Image search: [Google]

622KB, 537x640px

>>379257319
It better be the same kind of game as this

>>379257557
Motherfucker, you think I'm going to sit here without sleep at 4:22am doing the math like your sad fucking self did? Obviously I was exaggerating you fucking autist.

>>379257816
No, I expect you to be more knowledgeable. A heavier frame in Toy Story was reported as taking even up to 39-fucking-hours to render. For one frame. The overall average was 7 hours per frame.

With your half-formed knowledge of what's actually taking place, you used this to form the idea it takes days for a single second. That's you showing your cluelessness.

What you are entirely ignorant of is the fact that they could render multiples frames in parallel. That's why over 1,000,000 CPU hours of rendering (117 years) was actually done in just 1084 days (just under 3 years).

Get your facts straight before blowing up in your defensive autismo fit.