Is this the end of CGI characters in gaming?

L

Last Hearth

Member
So this group can now generate a talking or singing person with realistic lip movements and facial movements from a single frame picture.

humanaigc.github.io

EMO

EMO: Emote Portrait Alive - Generating Expressive Portrait Videos with Audio2Video Diffusion Model under Weak Conditions
humanaigc.github.io humanaigc.github.io

Here is Audrey Hepburn signing from a single photo.
https://humanaigc.github.io/emote-portrait-alive/content/video/赫本16_9.mp4

Here is a singing video create from an AI created photo

https://humanaigc.github.io/emote-portrait-alive/content/video/16比9视频结果/talk_yomir.mp4 This from an anime picture using the audio from Nier Automata.

Pretty soon any indie developer can make a high production cinematic cutscenes in a game.
 
Last edited:
That technology could be incredibly cool applied to a remake of the original Metal Gears or Metal Gear Solids. Very interesting. Can't wait till I can use it to create a video of my brothers singing Katy Perry and send it to their kids.
 
poodaddy said:
That technology could be incredibly cool applied to a remake of the original Metal Gears or Metal Gear Solids. Very interesting. Can't wait till I can use it to create a video of my brothers singing Katy Perry and send it to their kids.
Click to expand...
Or Fallout, or a game like BG3 where you pull in to a closeup whenever you have conversation with an NPC, now you don't have to animate those scenes are all, and they will all be photorealistic.
 
Last Hearth said:
Or Fallout, or a game like BG3 where you pull in to a closeup whenever you have conversation with an NPC, now you don't have to animate those scenes are all, and they will all be photorealistic.
Click to expand...
Absolutely yeah. Very excited to see what they do with it.
 
All of the new diffusion-based generative tech is coming for gaming, in time.

At some point--not far in the future--most of the current stack of technical expertise for 3D gaming (manual 3d modeling, animators, wiring, textures, lighting etc) will be obsolete, and many careers will be up-ended by this sunsetting of the old expertise.
 
AI is gonna be the "end" of a lot of things. I mean, we'll always have the old ways of making art, but anything commercialized usually goes for the most cost-saving solution. It's not gonna be long before this is the norm for a LOT of stuff.
 
Dacvak said:
AI is gonna be the "end" of a lot of things. I mean, we'll always have the old ways of making art, but anything commercialized usually goes for the most cost-saving solution. It's not gonna be long before this is the norm for a LOT of stuff.
Click to expand...


Art requires consciousness, machines cannot be conscious, ergo they are unable to produce any art. They will be sophisticated copy machines that steal actual art from actual artists. The day those people don't exist, AI will come up with error 404 as the only response.
 
not realtime, cant rotate a camera around it and its just a floating head. still years away from what it needs to be for use in games and cg
 
Stooky said:
not realtime, cant rotate a camera around it and its just a floating head. still years away from what it needs to be for use in games and cg
Click to expand...



Most of these pass the eye test better than 80 years of cumulative Hollywood effects/cgi. Hollywood couldn't render a cgi monkey 10 years ago without it looking fake half the time. Millions in budget.
 
Last edited:
Romulus said:


Most of these pass the eye test better than 80 years of cumulative Hollywood effects/cgi. Hollywood couldn't render a cgi monkey 10 years ago without it looking fake half the time. Millions in budget.
Click to expand...

none of this looks as good as Thanos or recent cg in films. In that video i saw monkey with 3 arms. I cant match a camera or lighting to it for a live action plate for an fx shot. Its not realtime so its no good for games. its too random to art direct in detail. Everything looks like its moving under water. its a pretty good motion clip art generator. Its cool for a 10 second clip. Its not there yet.
 
Last edited:
For a moment, I thought it was a high-poly thread. I don't know if he endorses A.I. or hates it.

I dunno, I have a gut feeling that something is off about the future of generative A.I.
 
Romulus said:


Most of these pass the eye test better than 80 years of cumulative Hollywood effects/cgi. Hollywood couldn't render a cgi monkey 10 years ago without it looking fake half the time. Millions in budget.
Click to expand...

sorry dude, if you think that you`ve probably only seen those vids on a small screen or you`re comparing it to the cheap bullshit CGi in the latest marvel/DC movies.
These vids are the worst uncanny valley I´ve seen in a while. Very impressive for what they are, yes...far from besting the big budget hollywood CGI though (yet).
 
Last edited:
Schmendrick said:
sorry dude, if you think that you`ve probably only seen those vids on a small screen or you`re comparing it to the cheap bullshit CGi in the latest marvel/DC movies.
These vids are the worst uncanny valley I´ve seen in a while. Very impressive for what they are, yes...far from besting the bigh budget hollywood CGI though (yet).
Click to expand...

Hard disagree. They can't even de-age a person without it looking ridiculous as hell with massive budgets. The Irishman and even the most recent Indiana Jones looked silly.
 
Last edited:
Stooky said:
none of this looks as good as Thanos or recent cg in films. In that video i saw monkey with 3 arms. I cant match a camera or lighting to it for a live action plate for an fx shot. Its not realtime so its no good for games. its too random to art direct in detail. Everything looks like its moving under water. its a pretty good motion clip art generator. Its cool for a 10 second clip. Its not there yet.
Click to expand...

I mean it's not even out yet and most people if they were actually honest would think this is real. I think it does scenes with heavy complexity well.

 
Last edited:
Romulus said:
Hard disagree. They can't even de-age a person without it looking ridiculous as hell with massive budgets. The Irishman and even the most recent Indiana Jones looked silly.
Click to expand...
Schmendrick said:
or you`re comparing it to the cheap bullshit CGi in the latest marvel/DC movies.
Click to expand...
Disney is in the same boat. CGI in a lot of current blockbuster movies is WAY worse than it was 10 years ago. Cheap rushed out the door crap with all the budget going to a few famous faces.
The CGI in the first Pirates of the caribbean movies looks better than what we have in 95% of current productions.
 
Last edited:
Schmendrick said:
Disney is in the same boat. CGI in a lot of current blockbuster movies is WAY worse than it was 10 years ago. Cheap rushed out the door crap with all the budget going to a few famous faces.
The CGI in the old Pirates of the caribbean movies looks better than what we have in 95% of current productions.
Click to expand...

So who's actually good then? I've hardly ever seen cgi that blew me away and it's 30+ years of advancement. OpenAI has went from ridiculous videos that made no sense to fooling the human eye in a year.
 
Romulus said:
So who's actually good then? I've hardly ever seen cgi that blew me away and it's 30+ years of advancement. OpenAI has went from ridiculous videos that made no sense to fooling the human eye in a year.
Click to expand...
Right now? beats me. Everything I´ve seen in the last ~3 years ranged from crap to maybe mediocre and a far cry from a decade+ old stuff.
and @fooling the human eye.....nah, not yet. Same as with PS, you can see the flaws / recognize the style if you know what to look out for.
 
Last edited:
Angry_Megalodon said:
Art requires consciousness, machines cannot be conscious, ergo they are unable to produce any art. They will be sophisticated copy machines that steal actual art from actual artists. The day those people don't exist, AI will come up with error 404 as the only response.
Click to expand...
What kind of silly take is this? Art [creation] does not require consciousness. If something resonates with someone in an artistic way, that's art to them. It's subjective. It's not like people need to know about or identify an author in order to appreciate art and have it elicit an emotion.

And if you think that AI art will suddenly 404 if "actual artists" stop producing original art, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how generative AI even works.
 
even if it's made by AI, it's still CGI because it's still computer generated imagery.

These tools have limited applications in production environments because artists value the ability to fine tune settings as they are constantly making adjustments. These tools have difficulty generating the exact same thing repeatedly since it's based on randomly generated seeds. They are good for making one off short clips for fooling people on social media. They are ill-suited for production until it can be integrated into the pipeline in such a way that artists can retain full control of what's being generated.
 
Look this is a double edge sword


It sucks people's jobs will be gone yes. But the industry did this before Ai was moving to popularity


But games will be made faster and with less downtime...


So pick your poison
 
Even though it's technically a form of CGI, that word is generally used in a way to refers to the process of manually building 3D models, textures, lighting, etc and rendering in that way.

AI like this will gradually be a total replacement of the entire tech stack of what currently is called CGI--and even a total replacement of the existing tools, skills, careers that are involved in it.

And I agree that its potential already far exceeds anything from the old world of CGI. It is lightyears beyond in so many areas, and while it has flaws, those feel like a confused dream mistake, but still real in a way that's totally unlike the feeling of constructed fake scenery of any current CGI tech.

newtypepilot said:
These tools have limited applications in production environments because artists value the ability to fine tune settings as they are constantly making adjustments. These tools have difficulty generating the exact same thing repeatedly since it's based on randomly generated seeds. They are good for making one off short clips for fooling people on social media. They are ill-suited for production until it can be integrated into the pipeline in such a way that artists can retain full control of what's being generated.
Click to expand...

There are already many tools that allow for someone artistic to control the direction of diffusion models like Stable Diffusion, from using a reference image to transfer the style or the object, to enforcing a structure or extending seamlessly from a prior image. This will be the kind of tooling that game & film artists are using. Direct construction of scenes in eg. Blender will be antquated throwback.
 
Last edited:
ReBurn said:
Technically all video game visuals are cgi
Click to expand...
Dirk_the_daring.gif


??
 
Stooky said:
none of this looks as good as Thanos or recent cg in films. In that video i saw monkey with 3 arms. I cant match a camera or lighting to it for a live action plate for an fx shot. Its not realtime so its no good for games. its too random to art direct in detail. Everything looks like its moving under water. its a pretty good motion clip art generator. Its cool for a 10 second clip. Its not there yet.
Click to expand...
Yes, but look at how new this tech is, the improvements in such a short time is nothing but incredible. In a couple of years it's going to be photorealistic that humans can't tell the difference.
 
Another GAF AI thread, where most of the posts are people revealing themselves as not keeping up with where things are up to, or fundamentally misunderstanding the technology.

It'll be fun to revisit these in a few years.
 
Schmendrick said:
Right now? beats me. Everything I´ve seen in the last ~3 years ranged from crap to maybe mediocre and a far cry from a decade+ old stuff.
and @fooling the human eye.....nah, not yet. Same as with PS, you can see the flaws / recognize the style if you know what to look out for.
Click to expand...
Disagree, avatar 2 cgi is the most impressive I've seen in years.
 
ResurrectedContrarian said:
There are already many tools that allow for someone artistic to control the direction of diffusion models like Stable Diffusion, from using a reference image to transfer the style or the object, to enforcing a structure or extending seamlessly from a prior image. This will be the kind of tooling that game & film artists are using. Direct construction of scenes in eg. Blender will be antquated throwback.
Click to expand...
It's not gonna replace programs like Maya, Nuke or Houdini. They will integrate some type of AI tools that will make tedious tasks a lot faster, but it's not going to create a fully functional asset with a simple prompt, because that's what OP seem to believe.
 
With the money all sorts of companies inject into expensive server farms, it either could end in a big bang with huge loses or cutscenes will be possible from cartoony Cuphead cinematics to the next Diablo trailer.

I wonder if eg Media Molecule should not work on some Dreams NextGen. Personally I think they should not do another editor game, but a game where you don't have to go through all the mechanical steps of creating characters and a world, but adapting something step by step with further voice input. That could have a much better appeal than clicking like a maniac on a controller. The package was just too complex and time consuming for average Joes, and pointless for anyone with the talent, mindset and time to not do it in an actual Editor, but if you can just talk some colorful dragon with hairy spiderlegs, big boobs and a fedora hat into digital existance... as I understand its animation tool was already quite easy, so some AI algorithm could deliver good enough functionally for probably a plethora of Super Mario Bros clones all over again.

And pro AI tools generating an earth size open world, filling every building in every city with proper insides, giving a billion people individual dialogs.
It might not be great, but just for the novelty it would have some value, with people flocking towards big games anyway more than to actually good ones.
 
Romulus said:


Most of these pass the eye test better than 80 years of cumulative Hollywood effects/cgi. Hollywood couldn't render a cgi monkey 10 years ago without it looking fake half the time. Millions in budget.
Click to expand...


You do know 10 years ago was 2014 right? ….and you do know Rise of the Planet of the Apes was made in 2011 right?

Hell… 2005 there was another movie that featured a Giant ape that still stand pretty impressive today, should I give you a hint?
 
Jetpac said:
You do know 10 years ago was 2014 right? ….and you do know Rise of the Planet of the Apes was made in 2011 right?

Hell… 2005 there was another movie that featured a Giant ape that still stand pretty impressive today, should I give you a hint?
Click to expand...

But it doesn't come close to fooling the human eye. The cgi was an incremental improvement over movies before it but immediately apparent it wasn't real.

This is essentially in beta and anyone can use it versus multimillion dollar studios. A year ago, if AI did this video clip it would have looked like an acid trip that made no sense.

 
Last edited:
Romulus said:
So who's actually good then? I've hardly ever seen cgi that blew me away and it's 30+ years of advancement. OpenAI has went from ridiculous videos that made no sense to fooling the human eye in a year.
Click to expand...
Cooooome ooooon man, that T-Rex scene where it mosey's on out of that fence perimeter. That had to blow you away? Of course this is of course you were alive and well and at an age you knew what was going on.
2 years before that we had T2….
Both these movies use of CGI blew my mind in the theater.
What came after Jurassic Park where CGI was heavily used?
 
The thing with AI is that it doesn't matter how amazing it looks, it's always weird ass shit. There's always some weird thing that makes you think "scary"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The end of clipping? Maybe?
19
137
IFireflyl replied
[ActMan] The Inevitable End of Xbox
2
59
340
Det replied
GameStop declares the end of the console wars
2 3 4 5
226
301
ByWatterson replied
Echoes of the End extended gameplay trailer
2
93
2K
DavidGzz replied
Will we achieve Matrix Awakens level visuals by the end of this gen?
Opinion  2
70
1K
CGNoire replied
Top Bottom