The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I watched LotR yesterday, and whilst your average punter would be pretty amazed if they found out where some of the CGI was, my Gaming trained eye spotted the Computer Generated Images fairly easily. How? Because it was too perfect.
I could tell that the guys in the studio had spent ages trying to get the fluidity and movement of the models just right, but that is where my problem lies, the stuff was too good. Some of the running and fighting sequences showed the characters from above running down a corridor, or over a bridge, and the only way I could tell it was CGI was because the running was paced *just so*. It wouldn't happen like that in real life, the strides would differ ever so slightly, the artists just gave the game away by being to good at what they do.
I remember reading somewhere that when sequencers came out, the drum beats that they generated were perfect to within such a miniscule amount that a human could not compete, and that was a selling point. But then people realised that the man on the street could spot a drum machine a mile off, so they started to actually program in to the drum machines very tiny off-beats, to mimic how a human would drum slightly off time (Maybe Goatboy knows something about this...). Humans are not perfect. So why strive so hard to make generated graphics of us so perfect?
Some games pride themselves on pushing into "realistic" graphics, but now they are getting a little too real. Humans have birth marks, spots, pock faces, scars, scratches, bags under their eyes and stuff like that, so why, then, spend days getting a texture for skin just right? Surely you should get it a little wrong? I think the makers of Final Fantasy did think about this and actually give skin textures a more "human" feel. This can apply to games as well as films.
Can we not learn from the people who built the "errors" into the drum machines, and build some "character" into computer models of ourselves?
I could tell that the guys in the studio had spent ages trying to get the fluidity and movement of the models just right, but that is where my problem lies, the stuff was too good. Some of the running and fighting sequences showed the characters from above running down a corridor, or over a bridge, and the only way I could tell it was CGI was because the running was paced *just so*. It wouldn't happen like that in real life, the strides would differ ever so slightly, the artists just gave the game away by being to good at what they do.
I remember reading somewhere that when sequencers came out, the drum beats that they generated were perfect to within such a miniscule amount that a human could not compete, and that was a selling point. But then people realised that the man on the street could spot a drum machine a mile off, so they started to actually program in to the drum machines very tiny off-beats, to mimic how a human would drum slightly off time (Maybe Goatboy knows something about this...). Humans are not perfect. So why strive so hard to make generated graphics of us so perfect?
Some games pride themselves on pushing into "realistic" graphics, but now they are getting a little too real. Humans have birth marks, spots, pock faces, scars, scratches, bags under their eyes and stuff like that, so why, then, spend days getting a texture for skin just right? Surely you should get it a little wrong? I think the makers of Final Fantasy did think about this and actually give skin textures a more "human" feel. This can apply to games as well as films.
Can we not learn from the people who built the "errors" into the drum machines, and build some "character" into computer models of ourselves?
slaveunit wrote:
> They still have a lot of lip sync things to learn, and though it's very good,
> the characters will still need a voice, so the actors are still in a job for a
> while.
Only now they can eat all the pies, and get real fat.
> They still have a lot of lip sync things to learn, and though it's very good,
> the characters will still need a voice, so the actors are still in a job for a
> while.
Only now they can eat all the pies, and get real fat.
They still have a lot of lip sync things to learn, and though it's very good, the characters will still need a voice, so the actors are still in a job for a while.
Meka Dragon wrote:
> I saw a feature on the movie, and they were really on
> location there, in the snow, with a nice blue sky. D'oh
> is me.
Yeah, it's hard to tell a lot of it. I try not to spot things like that because it ruins the whole atmosphere, but sometimes things do seem to stick out.
I'm sure a lot of the long sweeping camera shots were CGI, plust the bit where the elf jumps on top of the mountain orc thing to try and stab it, but that was particularly impressive.
> I saw a feature on the movie, and they were really on
> location there, in the snow, with a nice blue sky. D'oh
> is me.
Yeah, it's hard to tell a lot of it. I try not to spot things like that because it ruins the whole atmosphere, but sometimes things do seem to stick out.
I'm sure a lot of the long sweeping camera shots were CGI, plust the bit where the elf jumps on top of the mountain orc thing to try and stab it, but that was particularly impressive.
Mind you, when I saw the Fellowship walking along the snow, blue sky behind them I was like "Blue screen! stuck on!" Then I saw a feature on the movie, and they were really on location there, in the snow, with a nice blue sky. D'oh is me.
Meka Dragon wrote:
> Interesting.
I thank you.
> I guess my eyes aren't quite as trained as yours though,
> but having the feeling of it not being quite right, is
> probably down to perfections,rather than the perfections
> that we all have?
What really gave it away was seeing Gandalf from the top, sprinting down a corridor like a 20 year old. I don't think so. Sir Ian would not be up to that in his old age, then I paid attention to how they were running, and it all just clicked into (or out of?) place
> No wonder creatures born out of fantasy often look better
> than anything realistic?
Maybe that is why Shrek was so good? We cannot apply what we already know to a fantasy creature eh?
> Interesting.
I thank you.
> I guess my eyes aren't quite as trained as yours though,
> but having the feeling of it not being quite right, is
> probably down to perfections,rather than the perfections
> that we all have?
What really gave it away was seeing Gandalf from the top, sprinting down a corridor like a 20 year old. I don't think so. Sir Ian would not be up to that in his old age, then I paid attention to how they were running, and it all just clicked into (or out of?) place
> No wonder creatures born out of fantasy often look better
> than anything realistic?
Maybe that is why Shrek was so good? We cannot apply what we already know to a fantasy creature eh?
All FMV and no game make Grix a mad boy.
All FMV and no game make Grix a mad boy.
All FMV and no game make Grix a mad boy.
All FMV and no game make Grix a mad boy.
All FMV and no game make Grix a mad boy.
All FMV and no game make Grix a mad boy.
All FMV and no game make Grix a mad boy.
And that's why my animation rocks so much, then. :0)
Agreed with what you say mind. I would go into how much I hate FMV, but I don't want it to happen again...
Agreed with what you say mind. I would go into how much I hate FMV, but I don't want it to happen again...
Interesting.
I guess my eyes aren't quite as trained as yours though, but having the feeling of it not being quite right, is probably down to perfections, rather than the imperfections that we all have?
No wonder creatures born out of fantasy often look better than anything realistic?
I guess my eyes aren't quite as trained as yours though, but having the feeling of it not being quite right, is probably down to perfections, rather than the imperfections that we all have?
No wonder creatures born out of fantasy often look better than anything realistic?
I watched LotR yesterday, and whilst your average punter would be pretty amazed if they found out where some of the CGI was, my Gaming trained eye spotted the Computer Generated Images fairly easily. How? Because it was too perfect.
I could tell that the guys in the studio had spent ages trying to get the fluidity and movement of the models just right, but that is where my problem lies, the stuff was too good. Some of the running and fighting sequences showed the characters from above running down a corridor, or over a bridge, and the only way I could tell it was CGI was because the running was paced *just so*. It wouldn't happen like that in real life, the strides would differ ever so slightly, the artists just gave the game away by being to good at what they do.
I remember reading somewhere that when sequencers came out, the drum beats that they generated were perfect to within such a miniscule amount that a human could not compete, and that was a selling point. But then people realised that the man on the street could spot a drum machine a mile off, so they started to actually program in to the drum machines very tiny off-beats, to mimic how a human would drum slightly off time (Maybe Goatboy knows something about this...). Humans are not perfect. So why strive so hard to make generated graphics of us so perfect?
Some games pride themselves on pushing into "realistic" graphics, but now they are getting a little too real. Humans have birth marks, spots, pock faces, scars, scratches, bags under their eyes and stuff like that, so why, then, spend days getting a texture for skin just right? Surely you should get it a little wrong? I think the makers of Final Fantasy did think about this and actually give skin textures a more "human" feel. This can apply to games as well as films.
Can we not learn from the people who built the "errors" into the drum machines, and build some "character" into computer models of ourselves?
I could tell that the guys in the studio had spent ages trying to get the fluidity and movement of the models just right, but that is where my problem lies, the stuff was too good. Some of the running and fighting sequences showed the characters from above running down a corridor, or over a bridge, and the only way I could tell it was CGI was because the running was paced *just so*. It wouldn't happen like that in real life, the strides would differ ever so slightly, the artists just gave the game away by being to good at what they do.
I remember reading somewhere that when sequencers came out, the drum beats that they generated were perfect to within such a miniscule amount that a human could not compete, and that was a selling point. But then people realised that the man on the street could spot a drum machine a mile off, so they started to actually program in to the drum machines very tiny off-beats, to mimic how a human would drum slightly off time (Maybe Goatboy knows something about this...). Humans are not perfect. So why strive so hard to make generated graphics of us so perfect?
Some games pride themselves on pushing into "realistic" graphics, but now they are getting a little too real. Humans have birth marks, spots, pock faces, scars, scratches, bags under their eyes and stuff like that, so why, then, spend days getting a texture for skin just right? Surely you should get it a little wrong? I think the makers of Final Fantasy did think about this and actually give skin textures a more "human" feel. This can apply to games as well as films.
Can we not learn from the people who built the "errors" into the drum machines, and build some "character" into computer models of ourselves?