Could KH3 possibly look like this?

[ajmrowland]

I think the graphical style will remain the same, but look a little smoother and more polished. The reason why it wouldn't look right for the entire game to resemble the CGI scenes is because of the human Disney characters. The in-game graphics are made to look more cartoony so the main original and FF characters can fit in with the human Disney characters. In CGI Sora, Riku, Kairi, etc. are made to look more 'real'. They would look totally out of place and awkward if the graphics resembled that and they were with a character like Peter Pan or Ariel, etc.

Once again, I feel the need to point out that the disney humans in the game dont always fully resemble their movie selves and still can be improved and fit in even if the backrounds had a lot more (small) details. that's a point I've been trying to make since BBS came out. Yes, the CGi look would not necessarily be the best choice, but we gotta acknowledge they're probably using more reference material than just what was done in the other games.

I don't understand why people complain about the Disney characters. Do they look bad in KHII and DDD? Noo...What's this 'if they', they already have and we already know how it looks.

KH2 a lot of ppl say looked kinda awkward with MDG, and for good reason. Here were 3 cartoon characters designed for economically sound short films done on paper, and now they're dropped into this nearly photoreal digital environment with more complexities than the ones they're usually in.

I wouldn't say KH3D's CG style was "poor". It was a different stylistic approach to doing the shading, and it fit the whole storybook + 3D feel Visual Works was trying to go for. SE has hit the point where they can get realistic but honestly the company needs to start taking a creative twist on things sometimes.

Bravely Default: Flying Fairy also had a more unique CG style, which was a nice breath of fresh air from the typical realistic look most recent Final Fantasy games have.

I didnt even get most of that when I saw it many times. I also probably didnt read the interview or article regarding Visual Works. It looks good, and I'd like to learn a little more.

 

[curlychuck]

If want want any idea of what KH3 might look like, I don't think we should be looking at older games, but instead at games that are clearly in development for next gen consoles. Watch Dogs and Phantom Pain (MGS 5 in all likelihood) should be the minimum of what we should expect. As they are currently in development. KH3 is most likely not in development yet, so it has the potential to look at least a fraction better than these two games.

Which frankly to me look freakin amazing. Did you guys see the IN GAME FOOTAGE of Phantom Pain?

 

[Oracle Spockanort]

If want want any idea of what KH3 might look like, I don't think we should be looking at older games, but instead at games that are clearly in development for next gen consoles. Watch Dogs and Phantom Pain (MGS 5 in all likelihood) should be the minimum of what we should expect. As they are currently in development. KH3 is most likely not in development yet, so it has the potential to look at least a fraction better than these two games.

Which frankly to me look freakin amazing. Did you guys see the IN GAME FOOTAGE of Phantom Pain?

Phantom Pain is also running on Kojima's in-house engine, Fox Engine, which is an achievement of graphical strength of its own.

I would expect much less from the graphics in a Kingdom Hearts game, so the best examples we do have are Square Enix FF games.

 

[curlychuck]

Phantom Pain is also running on Kojima's in-house engine, Fox Engine, which is an achievement of graphical strength of its own.

I would expect much less from the graphics in a Kingdom Hearts game, so the best examples we do have are Square Enix FF games.

True, KH3 will most likely not look that good. But I still think it makes more sense to look forward at newer graphics instead of backwards.

 

[AdrianXXII]

True, KH3 will most likely not look that good. But I still think it makes more sense to look forward at newer graphics instead of backwards.

What do you mean not that good? Just because it's not realistic looking doesn't mean it looks worse. On the contrary KH always had a very cartoon/anime like look to it, which in my opinion let it age way better then most other games. I'm quite fond of this look, seeing it kind of makes it look timeless, like so many Disney movies do.

But you're right we should look forward and not backwards, when trying to find out how it'll look. Personally I'd say Days HD is probably the best sneak peek at KH3's Graphics that we'll get.

 

[curlychuck]

What do you mean not that good? Just because it's not realistic looking doesn't mean it looks worse. On the contrary KH always had a very cartoon/anime like look to it, which in my opinion let it age way better then most other games. I'm quite fond of this look, seeing it kind of makes it look timeless, like so many Disney movies do.

I mean not as graphically powerful/ impressive as Phantom Pain. I've always been a fan of the KH art style and prefer it over ultra realistic games like MGS and Uncharted. The great thing about games now and how they look, is that you can have an amazingly stylized art direction (Borderlands, I'm looking at you) which takes away the need for ultra realistic graphics.

 

[ajmrowland]

That's because the ending cinematic was really poor CGI. Atleast compared to other Square CGI. The quality I want if they end up doing it is what Advent Children looks like. That is some of the best CGI I've ever seen, was in awe 1080p 10bit bluray. Amazing. It's either perfection or terrible when it comes to CGI. Do it right or don't do it at all.

Here's an example: http://i.imgur.com/xSkbi.jpg

That's arguing for realism, not simply good. If it werent for the distinctively japanese animation designs and physics, square might as well have gone live action with that. Otherwise there's no point in having it CG.

What do you mean not that good? Just because it's not realistic looking doesn't mean it looks worse. On the contrary KH always had a very cartoon/anime like look to it, which in my opinion let it age way better then most other games. I'm quite fond of this look, seeing it kind of makes it look timeless, like so many Disney movies do.

But you're right we should look forward and not backwards, when trying to find out how it'll look. Personally I'd say Days HD is probably the best sneak peek at KH3's Graphics that we'll get.

I mean not as graphically powerful/ impressive as Phantom Pain. I've always been a fan of the KH art style and prefer it over ultra realistic games like MGS and Uncharted. The great thing about games now and how they look, is that you can have an amazingly stylized art direction (Borderlands, I'm looking at you) which takes away the need for ultra realistic graphics.

Both of these. People are short sighted when it comes to good graphics. New hardware and software push the limits of what technology is capable of, but with more realism, the limits of the hardware and rendering become more apparent. Ironically this makes less realistic designs look more powerful in that they could build say a city made entirely out of candy and the differences between the background and foreground rendered entirely in 3D would be significantly less jarring.

 

[skyfoxx]

The more that I look at it, the more I'm wondering why it would seem "non-Disney" to use the same graphic style as the KH CG cutscenes. I mean, that's basically what the CG cutscenes are. They're the same art style as the game's, just much smoother and with more detail.

I don't know about you guys, but Mickey, Donald, and Goofy look exactly like the in-game models when displayed in CG. Just a lot smoother and with more polys.

The whole "it looks too realistic" argument doesn't really make sense to me. I remember people saying that the opening to KH3D looked like clay. I wouldn't say that they look like "clay" but they definitely look smooth. But I think we can all agree that it looked GORGEOUS! Now I know that the PS3 wouldn't be able to handle that much, but I really don't see any problem with going this direction. I think people imagine things and it doesn't turn out well in their head simply because it's hard to imagine something that hasn't really been demonstrated yet.

Of course, I wouldn't object to using the graphical style they're going for in KH1.5 HD Remix. Really, I don't care what direction they go. As long as the games are good, that's all I care about.

 

[LMNOP]

IMO KH3 is going to have graphics much improved from KH 1.5 but not quite at the level of the KH2 secret ending cutscene. I have a feeling they are going to keep the same style usead throughout the Kingdom Hearts series but they are going to be so refined that they are going to look atleast 2 times better than the graphics in 1.5.

KH3 is looking more and more like it will be released on the PS4 so you cant realisticly expect us to have just a small margin of graphic enhancements. I honestly expect to see what we are seeing something 2-3 times better looking than what we are seeing out of 1.5, and in no way am I saying that 1.5 looks bad because it look gorgeous comparitively.

 

[ajmrowland]

I don't know about you guys, but Mickey, Donald, and Goofy look exactly like the in-game models when displayed in CG. Just a lot smoother and with more polys.

It's not really about the models, imo, as it is about the lighting and environments.

The whole "it looks too realistic" argument doesn't really make sense to me. I remember people saying that the opening to KH3D looked like clay. I wouldn't say that they look like "clay" but they definitely look smooth. But I think we can all agree that it looked GORGEOUS! Now I know that the PS3 wouldn't be able to handle that much, but I really don't see any problem with going this direction. I think people imagine things and it doesn't turn out well in their head simply because it's hard to imagine something that hasn't really been demonstrated yet.

I dont recall anyone saying that about 3D looking a bit like clay, but It was used to describe the pic taken from the Disney World 4D movie.

 

[skyfoxx]

It's not really about the models, imo, as it is about the lighting and environments.

No, sir. If you had excellent lighting and rendering, but a terrible model, it would not look good. All elements are important, but if any of them are the more important, it's easily the models.

I dont recall anyone saying that about 3D looking a bit like clay, but It was used to describe the pic taken from the Disney World 4D movie.

Trust me, TONS of people have said that. Both in this thread and in countless others when the 3D CGI stills were first being posted.

Also... I STILL don't understand why people think it looks like clay. If that looks like clay, then apparently ALL 3D animated movies from Pixar and Dreamworks must look like clay :/

I dunno. Personally I don't see why there's this huge debate on the graphics. Whatever they choose to do is what they choose to do. And honestly, there really isn't that much of a difference between the PS2 graphic style and the CGI graphic style other than the rendering and higher poly count.

 

[ajmrowland]

No, sir. If you had excellent lighting and rendering, but a terrible model, it would not look good. All elements are important, but if any of them are the more important, it's easily the models.

When did I say the models didnt matter? I meant to say the character *designs* didnt fit in that environment. Nothing about the models themselves. They simply didnt redesign the characters for that level of detail.

Trust me, TONS of people have said that. Both in this thread and in countless others when the 3D CGI stills were first being posted.

Also... I STILL don't understand why people think it looks like clay. If that looks like clay, then apparently ALL 3D animated movies from Pixar and Dreamworks must look like clay :/

You have to look closely at donald. His texture does look a bit like clay, and I know tons of people said it already. I just though you confused that with what's actually in the 3D intro, which I think doesnt look like clay at all.

I dunno. Personally I don't see why there's this huge debate on the graphics. Whatever they choose to do is what they choose to do.

There's a debate because this series uses a lot of Disney material as reference, and unfortunately people have come to expect realism in decent game graphics. I've even seen an idiot complain about the simpsons game having "PS2 graphics" which is a stupid complaint you might as well aim at all cel-shaded games. Point being that inevitably some big changes are gonna be made in the graphics, it's only a matter of what and how it will impact the game's look.

And honestly, there really isn't that much of a difference between the PS2 graphic style and the CGI graphic style other than the rendering and higher poly count.

But those two make up a huge difference in themselves. the rendering has much more lights(of all kinds), textures(not in the Disney characters, but looking at the sets), hair and cloth simulation, and other things. And that's just the rendering side. Basically the same things that go into PS3 in-game graphcs, and then some.

 

[Hillboy]

Then again, after seeing pictures like this it changes my mind

 

[skyfoxx]

You have to look closely at donald. His texture does look a bit like clay

...Nope. Don't see the similarity.

There's a debate because this series uses a lot of Disney material as reference, and unfortunately people have come to expect realism in decent game graphics. I've even seen an idiot complain about the simpsons game having "PS2 graphics" which is a stupid complaint you might as well aim at all cel-shaded games. Point being that inevitably some big changes are gonna be made in the graphics, it's only a matter of what and how it will impact the game's look.

Well, idiots like that will always be around. That's inevitable. But again, I don't see the problem here. Just do what they did in Disney Philharmagic, which is basically just the style of the original Disney movies, but in 3D... soooo basically what we already have, but better. :/

But those two make up a huge difference in themselves. the rendering has much more lights(of all kinds), textures(not in the Disney characters, but looking at the sets), hair and cloth simulation, and other things. And that's just the rendering side. Basically the same things that go into PS3 in-game graphcs, and then some.

I can guarantee you that the PS3 in-game graphics would not use hair and cloth simulation. They're too much work and nearly impossible in a video game, even in today's standards. And again, the differences aren't that big asides from one looking much better than the other. Hillboy's BBS comparison is proof enough for me. They're the exact same character in the exact same environment, but one has a lot more polys and is rendered better. And even then, the PS3 can only handle so many polys, so it won't have the same number in the in-game graphics.

Heck, most of the effect is with adding Global Illumination and Ambient Occlusion. I can even show proof if you want by showing renders of my KH models without the Global Illumination and Ambient Occlusion. They then look just like the PS2 ones but with a higher poly count. But with Global Illumination and Ambient Occlusion applied to the lighting, it looks that much better.

 

[aspenvenom619]

I'm highly skeptical that it would be released for ps3 but even if it is I'd expect it to look better than the hd remakes. ratchet and clank come to mind style/feel wise
[video=youtube;m1XkQtHWFBM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1XkQtHWFBM[/video]

 

[Norpthalomus]

I think it would be a welcome upgrade to the series. I'd be interested in seeing how the graphics change. I think more realistic graphics would be good. I feel even with them, they'll be able to keep a sort of cartoonish feel that the series has always had at the same time. I guess we will see!

 

[ajmrowland]

...Nope. Don't see the similarity.

There is some sort of texture in Donald though that just isnt normally there. I know it's probably supposed to be feathers, but it looks like some form of material that you sculpt nonetheless. It just has that feeling.

Well, idiots like that will always be around. That's inevitable. But again, I don't see the problem here. Just do what they did in Disney Philharmagic, which is basically just the style of the original Disney movies, but in 3D... soooo basically what we already have, but better. :/

I havent really seen phillharmagic, but if it's anything like Twice Upon a Christmas(which Ive seen the trailer for and looks a little....off in some way I cant describe. I guess I'll have to watch it in full though), there is probably still room for improvement.

I can guarantee you that the PS3 in-game graphics would not use hair and cloth simulation. They're too much work and nearly impossible in a video game, even in today's standards. And again, the differences aren't that big asides from one looking much better than the other. Hillboy's BBS comparison is proof enough for me. They're the exact same character in the exact same environment, but one has a lot more polys and is rendered better. And even then, the PS3 can only handle so many polys, so it won't have the same number in the in-game graphics.

Heck, most of the effect is with adding Global Illumination and Ambient Occlusion. I can even show proof if you want by showing renders of my KH models without the Global Illumination and Ambient Occlusion. They then look just like the PS2 ones but with a higher poly count. But with Global Illumination and Ambient Occlusion applied to the lighting, it looks that much better.

I dont expect them to use hair and cloth simulation in-game on any PS3 game. I know a thing or two about cg. Ive been obsessed with it-and animation in general-since I was about 11. I'm not trying to sound rude here, so forgive me for being blunt, but I was talking about the FMVs and the main argument was the environments. I threw in characters effects as an aside.

I also emboldened the one sentence simply because it seems to contradict itself.

But we overall seem to agree where it matters, with the exception of the donald thing which Im not even sure I care that much about. I still think that texture looks unnatural on him-and whether or not it even looks like clay, it still looks a bit stop-motiony-but I've always argued that's more because he was made for 2D and not CGI.