Oblivion megamovie

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I didn't "fall back" on Killzone, I merely used it as yet ANOTHER example of next generation graphics, and how no FMV sequence has been created to surpass the visuals in that game, and the rest of list I gave in my previous post.  Hell, you clowns just love to dance around, if I mention all X360 game, you scream fanboy, and ignorantly try to discredit everything that's said.  If I mention games from both consoles, you claim I'm "falling back" on the PS3, and use that as your crutch to discredit what was said.

 

If I make a post slamming the PS3, you are all ready to pounce like children.  If I make posts showing off cool aspects/demos of the PS3/cell, nobody responds.  Makes me even more confident that you don't know what you're talking about, since, if you were the diehard PS3 fans that you display in all your PS3 defense, you'd post stuff in the "positive" threads.

 

Sounds like you need to get some of your own opinions, and leave the G4TV tech analysis at home, as it's no good here.  Responding with "YOU ARE WRONG PS3 OWNS!  IT IS BETTER!" isn't going to prove you know what you're talking about, especially when you can't carry on a conversation about your beloved console when the same person you love to whine and cry about posts something positive about it.  You either know what you're talking about, and can talk about the good/bad of everything, or you don't know what you're talking about and you just need to stay quiet.

 

Make your choice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes but since I'm not a fanboy I dont have to defend anything I just tell it like it is. It just happens that Sony is doing things right and MS is doing things wrong when it comes to next gen. Full backwards compatibility - right Iffy backwards compatibility - wrong. A new storage media - right. An obsolete storage media which leads to people running out of room before the console even hits the streets - wrong.

Sorry if you cant deal with that but thats how it is.

 

The only reason people pounce is because you slamming tends to be innacurate and just plain wrong. "

[Noceur]

Epiphany, are you seriously saying that next-gen graphics can out-do a pre-rendered sequence?

 

The reason an FMV sequence is able to surpass what any machine can do in real-time is because the FMV sequence is PRE-rendered... that means that when the machine must spit out AT LEAST 24 frames per second for it to look smooth real-ltime, that same machine can spend hours on just one frame if you make it into an FMV.

 

Lets say that the machine in question can render a million polygons on screen at 24 frames at second... if you put more polygons in the pipeline, the FPS will decrease.

If, however, you choose to pre-render the sequence into a full-motion video, then you can up that polygon count much as you want... or as much as the development cycle allows.

 

It's of course much more complicated than that, with relfective shaders emulating ray-tracing and "hacks" for making radiosity work either baked or realtime.

And while real-time rendering engines and hardware go forward, so does the "normal" renderers.

 

I mean, do you seriously think that these next-gen games look as good as, say the 3D stuff in LOTR? The stuff in the LOTR movies are rendered with Pixar's RenderMan. My point is that any company can license/buy Pixar's RenderMan and use that to render their FMV sequences. Meh, just look at the best looking music video or movie or whatever... That technology can be used in an FMV.

 

You seen crappy FMVs? Well, blame it on time, money or the artist. Don't blame it on the technology, because it's the same tech except for FMVs that tech ain't trying to squeeze out enough frames per second to please us.

 

And I ain't saying this because I like this console over that. Heck, I don't even own a console, nor will I buy one. Not because I think I'm h4xx0r, it's just that I also work on my computer and I think it's better to concentrate my money on one piece of equipment. If I was a pure gamer, I'd certainly look at consoles.

[Epiphany]

Yes but since I'm not a fanboy I dont have to defend anything I just tell it like it is. It just happens that Sony is doing things right and MS is doing things wrong when it comes to next gen. Full backwards compatibility - right  Iffy backwards compatibility - wrong. A new storage media - right. An obsolete storage media which leads to people running out of room before the console even hits the streets - wrong.

Sorry if you cant deal with that but thats how it is.

 

DVD-9 is not obsolete, that's the basis of your pathetic stance on this argument. Full backwards compatibility is also not entirely accurate, as there are a few games in the PS1 library that do not work on the PS2. That aside, BC is only important during the begining stages of a new console lifecycle, as there is a void of quality games for a few months.

 

Regardless, the X360 is fully compatible with all Xbox games minus the few dual layer games that aren't "popular" - by whatever standard Microsoft is judging popular. So, you, as usual, make this slight flaw in the BC library and blow it out of proportion, when you yourself don't even acknowledge that there are a small handfull of PS1 games that don't work on the PS2.

 

Try again, for the 2000th time.

 

The only reason people pounce is because you slamming tends to be innacurate and just plain wrong.  "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Says the guy that can't carry on a single debate on the subject of next gen consoles. All you did was go "YEAH! LOLZ! HAHA HE TOLD YOU!" on conversations that went entirely over your head.

 

The entire debate on the cell's practicle functionality in gaming was correct, and is not "inaccurate". But the fanboys here, that can't post in positive threads because they don't understand everything regarding the console believe otherwise. Anything detrimental to the PS3 in their minds is instantly "wrong" or "inaccurate".

 

Enjoy typing your reply, I'm finished with you now, your ignorance no longer my co-workers and I, so I'm going to add you to my ignore list to filter out the silliness in threads.

[Noceur]

I still say FMVs are overrated and has no place in games.  Play the game, watch the movie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, that supports my post. The FMV is a movie. That was my point.

And I totally agree... I prefer less FMVs. The Warcraft games had an OK FMV ratio, with some in-game scripted cut-scenes if it happened in the middle of a map and FMVs when a map was finished.

 

And if the developer is using the game assets for an FMV, why the heck don't they just have the cut-scene render in-game?

 

I'm not arguing for more FMVs in games, I'm just saying that next gen games -cannot- do what an FMV can in terms of image quality, etc. Potentially, of course. Just because a developer choses to use an FMV doesn't mean it'll look great.

[Epiphany]

Epiphany, are you seriously saying that next-gen graphics can out-do a pre-rendered sequence?

 

I'm saying with the visual quality of next-generation graphics, and the fact that production values on almost all next gen games are so high, and the engines are so phenomenal, FMV is not important, and no longer serves a purpose. Story telling can be done just as well in game now, since the models and physics are such that hair can be individually done on characters.

 

The reason an FMV sequence is able to surpass what any machine can do in real-time is because the FMV sequence is PRE-rendered... that means that when the machine must spit out AT LEAST 24 frames per second for it to look smooth real-ltime, that same machine can spend hours on just one frame if you make it into an FMV.

 

The reason it was done was because of hardware limitations and the inability to show things on such a massive scale. Say, for instance, the Onimusha 3 intro. With games like N3, having 20,000 characters on screen at once, simply put that limitation to shame. Again, they can do IN GAME what previously required FMV sequences.

 

Lets say that the machine in question can render a million polygons on screen at 24 frames at second... if you put more polygons in the pipeline, the FPS will decrease.

If, however, you choose to pre-render the sequence into a full-motion video, then you can up that polygon count much as you want... or as much as the development cycle allows.

 

When using middleware like the UE3, polygons aren't an issue, since you can take 5,000 polygon models and make them look like they were rendered with 500,000 polys. Just take a peak at the interview with Factor 5 over Lair. It's not a matter of mapping textures to models to achieve the realistic look that FMV's have. It's possible, in game, on screen, in real time.

 

It's of course much more complicated than that, with relfective shaders emulating ray-tracing and "hacks" for making radiosity work either baked or realtime.

And while real-time rendering engines and hardware go forward, so does the "normal" renderers.

 

When you have unified architectures (Xenos) or brute poly pushing force (RSX), you no longer have to worry about these previously worrisome details.

 

I mean, do you seriously think that these next-gen games look as good as, say the 3D stuff in LOTR? The stuff in the LOTR movies are rendered with Pixar's RenderMan. My point is that any company can license/buy Pixar's RenderMan and use that to render their FMV sequences. Meh, just look at the best looking music video or movie or whatever... That technology can be used in an FMV.

 

Visually, many of the "top tier" next gen games that have been shown (and remember these are FIRST GEN GAMES) - nearly match what is shown in $300,000,000 budget motion pictures. When you see PGR3, and the racing sequences, and then watch the CG footage shown in Bad Boys 2, or Matrix Reloaded, then you can see 40,000k models, with the proper mapping applied, match up to these titles.

 

But to answer your question specifically, yes, PROJECT OFFSET looks identical to the LotR movie CGI sequences. It's possible, as it's already been shown, in real time.

 

You seen crappy FMVs? Well, blame it on time, money or the artist. Don't blame it on the technology, because it's the same tech except for FMVs that tech ain't trying to squeeze out enough frames per second to please us.

 

I don't blame anything on them, because budgets, engines, and general technology simply wasn't as high as they are now.

[LoneWolf16]

Um...the last of the LOTR and Matrix movies were out in like 2003. Certainly, FMV technology in movies has advanced beyond those particular examples in recent times...

 

Games evolve, and so does CGI for all our blockbusters...unless I'm mistaken.

[LoneWolf16]

I have to agree with Epiphany there, FMVs are not important any more.  Graphics are so good that there is only a marginal improvement and in some cases they are worse than in game engine graphics.  Example of that is in KotOR 2.

 

I have this funny feeling that if Enchant Arm's FMVs were all rended within the game engine instead of pre-rendered they wouldn't have ran out of room.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Weren't KOTOR 2's FMVs rendered in the game's engine? Save for a few, which actually weren't, and did look better than the in-game visuals.......an opinion, to be sure, but whatever point I was trying to make still remains...I guess.

[Epiphany]

Um...the last of the LOTR and Matrix movies were out in like 2003. Certainly, FMV technology in movies has advanced beyond those particular examples in recent times...

 

Games evolve, and so does CGI for all our blockbusters...unless I'm mistaken.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What movie has come out in the last two years that surpases the stunning effects used in the LotR movies though? There is only a certain level of realism that one can achieve, and that has already happened in film - with the right budget of course.

[LoneWolf16]

Um...the last of the LOTR and Matrix movies were out in like 2003. Certainly, FMV technology in movies has advanced beyond those particular examples in recent times...

 

Games evolve, and so does CGI for all our blockbusters...unless I'm mistaken.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What movie has come out in the last two years that surpases the stunning effects used in the LotR movies though? There is only a certain level of realism that one can achieve, and that has already happened in film - with the right budget of course.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Give it a while, new films do have a tendency to come out now and again. "

[Epiphany]

Um...the last of the LOTR and Matrix movies were out in like 2003. Certainly, FMV technology in movies has advanced beyond those particular examples in recent times...

 

Games evolve, and so does CGI for all our blockbusters...unless I'm mistaken.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What movie has come out in the last two years that surpases the stunning effects used in the LotR movies though? There is only a certain level of realism that one can achieve, and that has already happened in film - with the right budget of course.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Give it a while, new films do have a tendency to come out now and again. "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, and it's been two years, Sherlock.

[Noceur]

[sNIPPED WHERE YOU REPLIED TO MY LONG POST ABOUT FMV VS INGAME]

 

Yes, I agree with you... with today's technology we can have visual quality at such level that FMV sequences are rather pointless... as you say, mostly because they are expensive.

 

On normalmapping, however... it's a marvel, yes, but the model still only has 5000 polys (using your example). The normalmap is primarily (why, exclusively I'd like to say) used for lighting and shading of a model. The contours of the model will still show the low polycount.

The question is, does it matter? In a movie it does, but in a game... not really, no.

 

Most of this new tech is, as some would say, "cheating"... You've got LODS and sprites and stuff for trees when you want to show 20k characters on-screen. And it's ok, by me.

 

I'm just saying that it shows. Perhaps it's because I'm working with CGI, but I'm not really that impressed with the next gen graphics.

Neither am I that impressed with most CGI in movies... the Matrix is probably the best example of obvious CGI.

(EDIT: I meant to say that maybe it's because I'm working with CGI/3D Animation that I can see and/or guess how stuff is built in 3D... like spotting polygons on a low-poly normalmapped model, spotting LOD models etc... I'm not saying I'm better than anyone, I'm just saying my job's ruined it for me... I can't enjoy a good CG sequence without looking for edge-loops, contours and bad deformation (and intersecting geometry!))

 

Anyway, I agree with you... FMVs are not nescessary anymore (they haven't been for quite some time, actually). But it's not because the next gen stuff can do in real-time what a renderfarm can do in a week... because it can't. It can take short-cuts and produce something that's good enough, however.

And that's a real moneysaver.

 

Hades_One:

Yeah, KOTOR2 could've gone without using pre-rendered stuff... Splinter Cell 1 for PC was even worse... not only did they use in-game assets (or close to), but they compressed to videos so much that it looked FAR worse than the game itself.

 

Anyway, yes: The same feelings and cinematography can be displayed using in-game render engines as can be with a hardware renderer, so there is no NEED to use FMVs in games. In fact, it's probably smarter not to, since they take up large amounts of disk-space (disc-space for consoles) and its generally more expensive.

Edited October 11, 2005 by Noceur

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Enjoy typing your reply, I'm finished with you now, your ignorance no longer my co-workers and I, so I'm going to add you to my ignore list to filter out the silliness in threads.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Go bury your head in the sand like the clueless loser you are.

 

I seriously doubt your old enough to have co workers since you regurgitate your technical information from other sources

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Anyway, I agree with you... FMVs are not nescessary anymore (they haven't been for quite some time, actually). But it's not because the next gen stuff can do in real-time what a renderfarm can do in a week... because it can't. It can take short-cuts and produce something that's good enough, however.

And that's a real moneysaver.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Good enough for some, not good enough for others. Otherwise you wouldnt have pretty much every game using them to get across dynamic scenes, especially intro movies.

 

Kong is going to surpass LOTR simply on the fur effects.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"When using middleware like the UE3, polygons aren't an issue, since you can take 5,000 polygon models and make them look like they were rendered with 500,000 polys."

 

That is true only to an extent. I don't know about you, but I can tell the difference between a real highpoly model and a one that's had all sorts of funky mapping techniques applied to it.

 

"Anyway, yes: The same feelings and cinematography can be displayed using in-game render engines as can be with a hardware renderer, so there is no NEED to use FMVs in games. In fact, it's probably smarter not to, since they take up large amounts of disk-space (disc-space for consoles) and its generally more expensive."

 

This is true only with games that already have a hardware renderer capable of the funky stuff

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

"When using middleware like the UE3, polygons aren't an issue, since you can take 5,000 polygon models and make them look like they were rendered with 500,000 polys."

 

That is true only to an extent. I don't know about you, but I can tell the difference between a real highpoly model and a one that's had all sorts of funky mapping techniques applied to it.

 

"Anyway, yes: The same feelings and cinematography can be displayed using in-game render engines as can be with a hardware renderer, so there is no NEED to use FMVs in games. In fact, it's probably smarter not to, since they take up large amounts of disk-space (disc-space for consoles) and its generally more expensive."

 

This is true only with games that already have a hardware renderer capable of the funky stuff

[Noceur]

ShadowPaladin: Yeah, of course... taste and stuff differs and stuff, so I can't argue with you there.

 

Sarjahurmaaja: Yeah, again I agree. There's no room for facial animation and stuff like that in the Warcraft3 engine. They COULD make an engine to have all the spiff, but Blizzards wants people with low-spec computers to be able to run their games. I think Warcraft is a text-book example of games where FMVs ARE still required if they want that extra spiff in a cut-scene.

 

I'm just saying that if you've got The Engine of Mighty Graphics, then you might as well use it for the cut-scenes.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"Yeah, again I agree. There's no room for facial animation and stuff like that in the Warcraft3 engine. They COULD make an engine to have all the spiff, but Blizzards wants people with low-spec computers to be able to run their games. I think Warcraft is a text-book example of games where FMVs ARE still required if they want that extra spiff in a cut-scene."

 

Could they? All these fancy next-gen games I see people frothing over for their graphics are not very large scale. I'm not at all too sure something like UE3 engine, for example, could actually work in an RTS with, say, battles with 200 units fighting, and look even half as decent as a comparable game with an engine built for those 200-man battle scenes, but lacking in the spiff.

 

And, even if they could, would it necessarily make any sense at all? I suspect that at some point it would be just cheaper to use FMVs.

 

"I'm just saying that if you've got The Engine of Mighty Graphics, then you might as well use it for the cut-scenes."

 

Of course, as long as your engine truly is capable of what you want to do.

Edited October 11, 2005 by Sarjahurmaaja.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I'm just saying that if you've got The Engine of Mighty Graphics, then you might as well use it for the cut-scenes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Even if you do, unless your trying to cut costs then your still going add some specialness with FMV simply because its set appart from everything else. I've also never seen a in engine scene that can approach the dynamism and emotion of an FMV and I've played a lot JRPGs where both are pretty common.

 

I think in a lot of cases too it's probably easier to go the FMV route than trying to get your engine to do something it may not have been designed to do. For example I'm sure FFXII's engine could handle the ship cutscenes, but I doubt it could do the speed blur effects or the explosions in quite the same way. As the saying goes , the devil is in the detail. So unless your someone like Hades who has an irrational hatred of FMV it's just too good and too versitile compared to in engine cutscenes. I mean for a recent example Jade Empires FMV blew the engine cutscenes out of the water, that temple escape done with the engine would have been laughable.

[mkreku]

DVD-9 is not obsolete, that's the basis of your pathetic stance on this argument.

When will you ever understand the point of this debate.. It's like trying to explain Shakespeare to a rock.

 

Noone has said DVD's are obsolete now (except for you putting words in everyone elses mouths). But the fact is that one DVD is not enough space for some games even when the Xbox360 launches. Unless Microsoft is planning on releasing a new Xbox every year, the DVD player in the Xbox360 is going to become completely obsolete within a year or two after release. A console is supposed to have at least a 5 year life cycle. We'll see in a couple of years how clever it was to stick with DVD..

[LoneWolf16]

Um...the last of the LOTR and Matrix movies were out in like 2003. Certainly, FMV technology in movies has advanced beyond those particular examples in recent times...

 

Games evolve, and so does CGI for all our blockbusters...unless I'm mistaken.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What movie has come out in the last two years that surpases the stunning effects used in the LotR movies though? There is only a certain level of realism that one can achieve, and that has already happened in film - with the right budget of course.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Give it a while, new films do have a tendency to come out now and again. "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, and it's been two years, Sherlock.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That was uncalled for

 

And does Spiderman 2 (2004) count? SW: EP III (2005)? Or Serenity (2005...slightly cheesy, but still pretty impressive)? Or even look at game trailers...many of those out-do the next-gen games we've seen so far.

 

Anyway, I agree with you... FMVs are not nescessary anymore (they haven't been for quite some time, actually). But it's not because the next gen stuff can do in real-time what a renderfarm can do in a week... because it can't. It can take short-cuts and produce something that's good enough, however.

And that's a real moneysaver.

 

Agreed. A determined and skilled team with adequate time and resources can produce an FMV or CGI sequence that could easily beat the current next-gen games. (Inluding Project Offset...which I've been following quite closely...and Gears Of War)

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

One word Kong

Edited October 11, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[Noceur]

Sarjahurmaaja: I bet they could (if they had Finnish codemonkeys going Assambler on the engine's arse), but would it be feasible? And more importantly, what kind of machine would you need to get more than 10FPS out of it?..

 

ShadowPaladin: What I'm saying is that you can make a good cut-scene with today's real-time rendering technology. Period. I've already made a mega-post about how superior a pre-rendered sequence can be to something made with real-time rendering in terms of image quality so don't you go putting me in one of your Filing Cabinets.

 

You know, I think cut-scenes at all can be a droll... especially in games where I'M supposed to be in control of my character.

 

Just imagine how different Half-life would be with cut-scenes (FMV or not). Some might like it better, but I think it'd take away one of the things that make Half-life... you're always in control of Gordon.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Actually Mreku, Shadowpaladin said that DVD is obsolete for consoles not too far back. 

 

Shadowpaladin,, FMV does add specialness to a game.  It adds annoyance.  It gets in the way of me playing the game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is for a console I mean it's a no brainer that a console has a 5 year life span isnt it ?

 

No more than an in engine cutscene of the same length would.

 

Heres two interesting little titbits for you anyway and you be the judge.

 

1. Microsoft is endorsing HDDVD yet the Xbox 360 dosnt have one.

2. Toshiba were way late getting HDDVD ready

 

Now if you still think that DVD was first choice for the 360 your not as smart as I thought you were.

Edited October 11, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

You know, I think cut-scenes at all can be a droll... especially in games where I'M supposed to be in control of my character.

 

Just imagine how different Half-life would be with cut-scenes (FMV or not). Some might like it better, but I think it'd take away one of the things that make Half-life... you're always in control of Gordon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sons of Liberty, the only game I would rather watch than play.

 

Interactive cutscenes are nice too RE 4 did some interesting things in that area. But if your not going interactive and you want the best like you said you really cant beat the quality of an FMV.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Oh, I know that the DVD wasn't their first choice but that doesn't make it obsolete.  There are still PCs that use regular CD-ROM and DVD-ROMs have been available for years.  When Blu-Ray or HD-DVDs become more available it will take even more time for that technology to take hold.

 

DVDs have at least another 5 to 10 years of life to them.  That doesn't make them obsolete.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It works differently with computers since your storage medium is mostly just that. The bluk of the files play from the HD anyway. Besides you only have to look at the size of those decompacted files to see where things are heading.

 

Really how long did it take for DVD's to take hold,and you have to remember blu ray is in no way going to be like the change from Video to DVD (which were two very different media) ? Since the PS3 is shipping with a Blu Ray thats going to be a lot of Blu Ray players out there next year. Six of the seven studios are jumping on the Blu Ray wagon and it's only MS and one other as far as I'm aware which are in the HDDVD camp as of now, which like I said seems dumb since MS dosnt have a product which uses HDDVD anyway.

 

Somehow I dont see MS giving you a HDDVD out of the kindness of their hearts in a couple of years do you ?

 

If you really think that , then I suggest you ask around retail just where DvD is heading. Video wasnt obsolete at the time of the PS2 release, do you buy videos now ? Your delluding yourself if you think DVD's will last even 5 years let along 10.

 

Stil i've done my bit and if in two years (or less) your moaning about your obsolete DVD and having to swap between four disks I'll probably just chuckle.