If all the assets and models are actual game models, why can't we call it real time ? What difference does it make ? It's exactly how they will look in final game. There is a whole article about it, youtube does not let me share the link, but just type this in google search - Blizzard Artist Corrects Geoff Keighley’s Gears Of War Mishap
Statement from Microsoft: "The Gears of War: E-Day trailer was made in collaboration across The Coalition, Blur Studios and GNet developed using in-game models, textures and environments - all captured in Unreal Engine 5".
@@Jsfilmz There is an article that sheds more light on this. RU-vid won't let me post a link, but you can type in google search - Blizzard Artist Corrects Geoff Keighley’s Gears Of War Mishap. I think the bottom line is what we see in this trailer we shall see the same graphics during gameplay. At leat's that's what they claim.
@@Jsfilmz Developers say it was real time, not pre rendered. RU-vid won't let me post links, but you can find the article yourself- Blizzard Artist Corrects Geoff Keighley’s Gears Of War Mishap. They clearly state that's ingame graphics .
@@gnchannel5368 Microsoft clarified that trailer was made using ingame assets, that we'll see in a final game, that's how final game will look, but the trailer, though made entirely of ingame assets, wasn't real time, it was pre-rendered in unreal 5. So, for all practical purposes you can call it ingame, cause that's how game will actually look, but technically that particular trailer isn't real time.
Well of course it's a render to be presented but i don't think they crancked up the settings and believe it's running this smooth in editor, can't know for sure until we got the project of course. Can't compare their realtime with yours or mine, metahumans and a handful of high end quixel assets is enough to loose performance big time in editor. A good point of comparaison would be The Slay Animation Sample, as well as the Meerkat demo and the Sequencer Subway, the 3 of them done by pro team trying out the soft and optimizing every asset and scene to the brim for it to run realtime in editor. This trailer is pretty much the same settings, one small space, few assets, controlled lighting, would love for them to release the UE project for the trailer.
The standard for "In Engine Footage" or any similar statement would be "real time" game play. If the engine is rendering it but it is not "real time" and then to call it "In Engine Footage", that's just lying (IMHO). However, I can't determine from this footage whether or not it is real time game play. Additionally, stringing together edits of game play would still be acceptable.
Most likely MRQ. definitely all realtime assets, probably the cinematic versions of the character models vs gameplay models, the fidelity is higher than gears 5 but you can still spot it in a few shots. probably nice prebaked destruction sims from houdini for the floor collapse, so it stays consistent and runs fast in sequencer. I would say MRQ simply due to the fact they probably had to do a ton of post work rather quickly like color grading in da vinci where they could quickly adjust things like lighting and grading per shot rather quickly instead of having to go back and tweak it in engine. that would be my guess having worked on some game trailer stuff before in unreal, which were also done realtime in engine but edited together and tweaked in post and working with MRQ files with different depth passes etc makes it way more efficient on a tight timeline. Either way it is really impressive that game assets look this good these days. gears 5 on xb1/pc also looked really nice and had some of the best looking cinematics for that console gen. wouldnt be surprised if the final ingame realtime cinematics look close to this.
It's not confusing. It's either 60fps console mode, or 1fps pretty render mode. Ever since Final Fantasy cinematics on PS1, this should be clear to everyone by now. (and those were probably 1 frame per minute)
Ahh don’t know but may be I be lived in a. Lie my whole life but to me real time means lumen not path tracing , meaning you can move and see everything in real-time in viewport and it does not have anything to do with rendered or not in MRQ , even if there’s sampling count and stuff , because otherwise nothing posted to RU-vid as movie is real-time since people use mrq or legacy to render , don’t know you’re the master but I ce always got real time as being created (be it on vuewport or mrq) with lumen and not real time is just path tracing ( same being it un vuewport or mrq )
well like this video its realtime cos i screencaptured it and it shows fps so its realtime in engine. rendering with mrq by default uses 8 samples so thats really not realtime
@@Jsfilmzoh got your point ! But then nothing produced as a movie (not explanation or tutorial) for RU-vid or games is real time then , I have no idea for the game industry for example but I m not sure that they will scene capture their screen for game cinematic it was surely rendered, but I get what you wanted to say and could be fair enough but real time as I thought it was meant lumen because calculation is done in vuewport and you see it (unlike vray or Corona for example where even in interactive vuewport you will wait a bit for denoise) I think they may have meant this way but it was good to know your point too I have never thought about it this way !
It should say "60fps in engine gameplay" and also list the gpu. Eg, "in engine gameplay 4k 60fps geforce 4080/xbox one X. " Otherwise it's just a render out of sequencer which could get rendered at 8k with 32x samples for DOF and motion blur and ultra high non realtime settings etc. Also you could just path trace render it in sequencer if you can't move the camera. Seems wierd. "Gameplay" is the term they should use. We are rendering feature films in Unreal this year. Super not realtime but "in engine." Means nothing.
yeah, I really enjoy this cinematic, but I don't like it being called real time when who knows how long every frame took to render in MRQ. Also at 0:50 when he's coughing against the wall, there's a slight skinning issue on his elbow armor thingie when he's rising his hand :D
Well if it is scripted or sequenced. (or cached) you can precalculate each raytrace before (I thnk, don't quote me). now if you could take control of the character in the last scene THEN it would be real time. (as that would require physics and smoke to fill the pipeline), To me it looks rendered with too many passes, but they didn't say on what hardware. there are some renderfarms that can to this pretty much realtime. It was clearly a cinematic. if you play it again and stuff changes (lights, smoke) then I would say they it was real time.
It looks awesome, and yes it didnt say in-game but its in engine though, and if you played gears 5, that game looks stunning to date and it was with Unreal 4, so I completely trust in this people
The og Gears trailer for the 360 release changed my view of what video games could look like. Over time, Halo 3 aged better, but Gears had that awe factor.
Not a huge fan of the style and vibes, looks quite cartoonish, almost like a WoW trailer. The 2006 one was so much better despite the inferior technology. Also the wall breaking in the beginning looks pretty bad to me, the wall pieces looks fake
