NeoGAF’s member ‘ShamePain‘ has shared the following image that compares Need For Speed’s cars and environments with the real thing. This comparison proves that Frostbite 3 can really produce photorealistic graphics that top every other racer available. However, there is a catch here. Need For Speed’s images are in-engine and not in-game. This basically means that while the engine is capable of producing such visuals, the actual game may not look THAT good. Still, it’s a really impressive accomplishment.
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
Honestly, we don’t care if they engine can do it, it’s in-game what counts and more often than not the game doesn’t look nowhere as good as the in-engine shots because they’re not limited.
Crysis did this in 2007 but they actually produced that in-game.
http://i.imgur.com/va0yfnw.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/oDi7lNa.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/q9Ie17R.jpg
I came for this. well. not crysis. but the in-engine vs ingame.
it’s nice and all the engine is tecnically capable of doing that. but we are talking about a game. ingame! we want ingame!
No they didn’t Crysis was nowhere near to reality. And games like FarCry 4 still are not nailing it, but they are pretty close, now..in 2015.
My point is Crytek did this sort of thing back in 2007 with Crysis.
yeah but I’m saying that they didn’t. Euclideon is doing a pretty nice job with the 3D lasers.
Photogrammetry produces much more impressive results than anything that Euclideon has managed to show. It’s also actually used in games, such as The Vanishing of Ethan Carter and the upcoming Star Wars Battlefront.
Thanks for pointing that out.
“Honestly, we don’t care if they engine can do it, it’s in-game what counts…”
I see what you’re saying, but speak for yourself (:
In all fairness, I doubt this NFS pic was released for publicity or marketing, but rather by the devs for internal use.
The presence of a Macbeth colour chart is a hint that it was produced for reference comparisons and calibration: as in, to assess either the quality of assets given an established rendering set-up, or to use validated assets to inspect changes in lighting or rendering features.
You don’t need to see it in a game-play setting because you’re trying to ascertain whether what you’re rendering is objectively accurate given the engine’s rendering capabilities.
When you shrink down the image to 400×300 that’s kind of cheating.
Crysis doesn’t actually look like that though. At least not in play.
Maybe it’s all the imperfections you pick up on when the game is in motion, but it sure as heck doesn’t look borderline photorealistic like it does in those screens.
Your view is tainted, I’m talking about 2007, not how it looks now. Cryek did the same thing back in 2007 and compared real life shots with Cryengine shots.
Tainted by what exactly? Actual first-hand experience playing the game? Normally we call kind of viewpoint “informed”, not “tainted”.
I’m comparing Crysis the game to those shots of Crysis (the game), and it doesn’t look as impressive in those shots once the whole thing starts moving. Didn’t in 2007, doesn’t now. “When” I played it is utterly irrelevant (if anything it only becomes more relevant as playing it on higher/max settings is easier to do today).
Point being, it looks photorealistic or close to it (with a bit of squinting) in those shots. But that’s not at all representative of how it looks in motion.
You’re missing the point, it doesn’t matter what your opinion is about the images, point is it was done with Crysis back in 2007 in-engine Crysis assets with real photos, never said anything about movement, that is not the point. Tainted meaning that you cannot look at Crysis in the same way now as 2007, it’s been discussed, no point in going over it again.
Too bad it plays like sh*t.
photorealistic thumbnails maybe.
30 fps locked on PC, I can’t get around that. The car list has to be super impressive.
Nobody has confirmed that it’s 30fps locked.
always online…….
30fps confirmed
Source ?
it’s an inb4 lol.
what did you expect?
Chawarma falafel confirmed.
oh yeah baby
Capable Of Photorealistic Visuals AND 30FPS!!!!
so?
Or 1fps, depending on the settings in this “in-engine” scene.
well that gameplay video from E3 wasn’t that photorealistic and how this user have access to these stuff ? NFS dev ? anyway with this DRM and always online crap no one can unlock or mod anything, it’s DOA
Lookin’ good… cant wait to see what Battlefront and Battlefield 5 look like later this year and next. FrostBite can produce some great visuals. Just wait till we see the DX12 version of the engine next year with BF5.
In engine 😀 get it get it
And with 30 fps with choppy car movements
It doesn’t look so extremely beautiful… Battlefield 4 is as good as this in terms of graphics (or almost). I think this level is very plausible.
Exactly, when people claimed that FIFA’s in-game trailers were pimped up, I wondered if they lived in a different reality.
Graphics always look better on screenshots and directed trailers, the same thing with photos and movies that look better than real life.
More like close to photorealism, not complete realism. Games won’t be photo realistic until full real-time global illumination and per pixel rendering occur – none of which are possible with current consumer technology.
You can see the lack of depth in lighting inside the alloys / rims where you can’t see much of the brake discs in the real image but are clearly visible in the rendered image. The shadows are less accurate around the rail-tracks, while the windows also don’t reflect light properly.
The texture quality is too low, notably the ground – and even normal / bump mapping or tessellation probably couldn’t replicate all the gravel pieces on the road.
Yes I’m being picky here as there renders look great and I’m looking forward to the game – I’m just responding the claim of “photorealistic visuals”
This is shot in Gothenburg, Sweden… I noticed the Däckia companys sign 😛 Anyway, Frostbite 3 is impressive as usual! Pity the game wont look this good.
So which pic is real life? Because I just see 2 post processed doctored images one in day and one in night.
the ones on the left are the fakes. for one thing the dont have the little stand thing wrapped around the color pallete in front of the wheel since the yarent real and didnt need to be phsyically held up. they also didnt reproduce the grass at the rear of the car shown in one pic.
i’m confused
All this is impressive, and I think it will be pretty much playable because frostbite engine is known for nice optimization, I even hope that we will get 60FPS option, but the question is how good the game will be overall … Driving physics for example, or sounds. I’m 100% about 60FPS because they will add graphical FX’s more like instagram filters so that graphics wont affect performance that much .. but I hope they don’t mess up the multiplayer and players wont be laggy as hell. Also November release means, the release after DX12 so I think they might be hiding something from us.
GTA 5 can look realistic too in some places but that doesn’t mean the whole game looks that way. 🙂
holy crab
Wow excellent.
i love frostbite engine !