|
| T O P I C | |
|
Eł 2005
May 7th 2005, 13:30 CEST by Squeaky The games, the boothbabes, the noise! Just to keep it all in one place. |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Eł 2005
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
|
Er, humpbacked troll. Not humbacked toll. |
|
Not only that, but creating cycles of animation that house keyframes in specific intervals is what makes the old Disney films so pretty and fluid. Fantasia? Everything was animated on 12's. All important changes happend in intervals of eight frames apiece. Tom and Jerry? Chuck Jones features? All on 8's. This type of tight animation is derided by today's animators who call it, "Mickey Mousing," but it's more because of how intimidatingly hard it is to do 'cause you can't argue with the results. FOR THE LOVE OF GOT MAKE IT STOP!
|
|
Can't really animate any better than motion capture. That's what bipedals look like in motion. Exactly, in fact. Meh. I'm not a big fan of mocap in general, mostly because it's really the lowest form of animation and far from the best way to animate something. After all, if exactly reproducing the movements of a real life actor/animal/whatever were, then rotoscoping would have been used a lot more back in the traditional animation days. There's a reason that Bashki's rotoscoping work looks shitty, and that's because art is not about reproducing, in exacting detail, the physical reality. There are nuances and subtleties and expressions of character that the animator puts in to whatever it is he's animating that you completely lose by depending on mocap. I'd recommend some good books on animation history and theory, but I know you wouldn't read them anyway. Instead, skip straight to you best Bailey imitation and we'll move on. Accipere quam facere praestat injuriam...
|
|
Warren, it applies to all the above examples. Cartoons characters, animated 'realistic' humans -all of them. In order to pack extra punch into twelve or, at best, 24 measly cycles of animation per second you need to break the rules. There's a great book by the guy who directed the animation unit of Who Framed Roger Rabbit named The Animator's Survival Kit. It goes into much deeper detail than would be possible to impart in a few posts online, but it's worth a read if this is something you have an interest in. The guy who wrote the book trained with, literally, all the greats in American animation. It's the single best resource for animators I've found and it widely touted by animators. FOR THE LOVE OF GOT MAKE IT STOP!
|
|
Warren, you reduced all of animation in games to regular humans with your mo-cap statement. Given the number and frequency of nonhumans we all know appear in videogames, I don't see how Penguin was the one at fault here. You made a narrow point that's completely true in one set of cases, and not so true in many others. |
|
Mo-cap is excellent at what it does, which is capture the motions of humans. If you are then going to apply those motions to something inappropriate, then that isn't mo-cap's fault. Obviously lots of things need tweaking, and some things will be impossible to mo-cap, but that doesn't make it useless. To hold it up as being artistically inferior is, well, poo. You might as well say photography isn't as good as painting. |
|
It IS artistically inferior. FOR THE LOVE OF GOT MAKE IT STOP!
|
|
The creators of Gollum are angry at your naughty mouth-words. |
|
You all know how often I staunchly defend unproveable points -never. So, obviously, this is something I feel passionate about. I'll post some excerpts from the book I referenced later today if I have a chance. FOR THE LOVE OF GOT MAKE IT STOP!
|
|
Games should, by and large, strive to create what can't be found or experienced in the real world. I keep hoping for the day to come where the game industry will stop wanting to be the movie industry and instead start to explore the immense possibilities that lie in creating totally unique and artistically expressive games. I'll go back to WoW to illustrate how, in spite of its graphics being fairly low tech when compared with, say, the next Unreal incarnation, they are vastly superior because there's actual art direction there and a dedicated attention to creating a uniform vision of this alternate world. All of the normal and parallax mapping in the world isn't going to make, for example, a sewer grate interesting if all you do is re-create what we can see every day on any city street. Give a true artist the ability to give you his interpretation of the grate, however, and you'll be on to something. Accipere quam facere praestat injuriam...
|
|
I don't feel it's useless. Just not a tool that provides the best solution in all cases, and one that the industry overuses/misuses to some extent. |
|
I agree with Jeet. Bursting into flames... FOR THE LOVE OF GOT MAKE IT STOP!
|
|
It's not useless, but it is inferior. FOR THE LOVE OF GOT MAKE IT STOP!
|
|
JEETPILE |
|
Gollum was a blend of mocap and keyframing. Contrast it with The Polar Express, where the mocapped right down to the facial animations, and tell me which one you think ended up better. I also don't think that mocap is the best way to animate even humans. Why? Because of what I mentioned in my previous post - it's not about exactly mimicking the real world. We see people walk around all the time, so what's interesting about that? Instead, it would be nice to see each character animated in a way that reflects, in some small way, their personality. What we get with mocap is somebody going through the movements, then it gets applied to all the models and it's just, well, boring. However, if you rough-and-tough character walked with a slightly exaggerated swagger and your timid and shy character walked with faster, shorter steps or something, then the animation becomes as much of an important part in character development as any amount of dialogue and backstory does. Accipere quam facere praestat injuriam...
|
|
yeah monty, I can't really contribute to the conversation either. When LP says he's bringing Armageddon, he brings fucking Armageddon. - Caryn, 6/01/2004
|
|
I really want to learn to model in 3D to have a chance to create unique, simple models. I have a host of 3D Buzz tutorials and a few books burning holes in my pockets. I really ought to do that one of these days. FOR THE LOVE OF GOT MAKE IT STOP!
|
|
Jeet, you should read the book I mentioned -if you haven't already. I've stockpiled tons of animation resources if you're interested in having a gander as well. FOR THE LOVE OF GOT MAKE IT STOP!
|
|
I just feel that's a kind of luddite position, dude. There was a period of my adolescence when I wanted to be an animator, and I still have a great deal of passion for it. But mo-cap is a different beast, and much of its artistry relies on the physical interpretation of those being mo-capped. Such as with the example of Gollum. |
|
Mo-cap is not simply the act of sticking ping-pong balls on a guy and having him move around. The resulting data requires a lot of massaging before it's usable. It's often just as much work as traditional animation. Some animators swear by it, others don't. As for this dribble: I'd recommend some good books on animation history and theory, but I know you wouldn't read them anyway. Instead, skip straight to you best Bailey imitation and we'll move on. I don't work with some of the best animators in the business on a daily basis or anything like that so I'd love to hear your recommendations since you're the best animator I know. PenguinX That book sounds cool, I'll look into it. Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
|
|
I disagree, by the way, with the notion that game worlds need to be realistic or unrealistic. I feel realism is great, if the setting calls for it (of course don't make the setting WW2 all the damned time). I just hope people have a plan as to where to go within the industry once photorealism is a closed issue, technically speaking and "realistic" isn't a marketing point. Once apon a time, you could market TV shows and movies on the basis of them being in color. Now, who cares? Use color, or not, or mess with color, depending on your artistic needs alone. I feel the same about realism in video games. I don't dislike it per se, in fact I think it's neato, in the games that do it well. But I like cartoony as well, and surrealistic, and..everything else. So long as it's pretty/interesting. |
|
Jeet Gollum was a blend of mocap and keyframing. Contrast it with The Polar Express, where the mocapped right down to the facial animations, and tell me which one you think ended up better. I have not seen The Polar Express - though the tralers looked uncanny and horrible. But, as I said, motion capture is in no way mutually exclusive with parts of traditional animation. |
|
And there's no point in being proscriptive about what games should entail in any respect. |
|
Also, remember that Epic tends to make games based around humanoid characters so my experience with it lies there. I've never worked with someone who did Tom & Jerry cartoons so I can't argue those points. Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
|
|
Warren, that I can agree with. I know I was over simplifying to insinuate that motion cap goes, unfiltered and untouched, straight into a final game animation. I'm sure that the better animators (and likely the type of animators you work with) tinker with the results heavily in an effort to create better animations. I'm actually curious to hear if they break joints, though. FOR THE LOVE OF GOT MAKE IT STOP!
|
|
#52 by Warren Marshall Mo-cap is not simply the act of sticking ping-pong balls on a guy and having him move around. The resulting data requires a lot of massaging before it's usable. It's often just as much work as traditional animation. Some animators swear by it, others don't. Then you just reinforce PengX's original point, that the industry needs to get better at animation, no matter how they accomplish it. |
|
Well, my luddite tendancies have been well established. However, I'm not saying that mocap is useless or that it doesn't have its place - rather, all I'm saying is that compared to by-hand animation it is, by and large, inferior. When you want to mimick the real world, however, it's the obvious choice. In movies, it's a wonderful thing. Gollum needed to move "realistically" in order to blend into the real environment and interact with the actors in a convincing way. If the animators started adding in those subtleties (which are really just slight exaggerations to emphasize character) I was talking about earlier, then Gollum would have just started to look wrong because he would no longer be grounded in reality. Games, however, aren't limited by that intereaction. If the whole game world is presented as an artistic interrpretation of either reality or of a totally unique vision, then it should the same prinicple that made mocap important for Gollum to blend with the reality of the film, only in reverse. In a completely interpreted representation of a world, then the mocapped "reality" movements would (or at least should) stand out and then start to look either wrong or just mundane. In other words, games shouldn't limit themselves by narrowing their focus on one particular tool such as mocap. Yes, it's faster and cheaper and easier, and the results are passable. I just think that there's a lot more room for the industry to grow and explore and, dare I say, mature by opening up the floodgates of artistry and unleashing the art departments to interpret reality rather than mimick it. Accipere quam facere praestat injuriam...
|
|
I'm actually curious to hear if they break joints, though. I don't know for sure, but I would doubt it. In games like ours, if something moves in an unnatural way it stands out like a blinking red "LOOK, THEY FUCKED UP!" neon sign. Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
|
|
It's actually much harder to spot broken joints in animation than you'd think. The only limit I see to breaking joints in something like today's games is that the original, 2D artisans knew exactly how someone would view their work. With the advent of 3D, the animations could be seen from any number of angles, and that might detract from the overall effect. I really need to get off my ass and learn 3D modeling. FOR THE LOVE OF GOT MAKE IT STOP!
|
|
In other words, games shouldn't limit themselves by narrowing their focus on one particular tool such as mocap. Yes, it's faster and cheaper and easier, and the results are passable. I just think that there's a lot more room for the industry to grow and explore and, dare I say, mature by opening up the floodgates of artistry and unleashing the art departments to interpret reality rather than mimick it. The decision to use mo-cap rarely hinges on "cheaper and faster". It's generally because the artist in question feels the results would be better. As for the artistic cock blocking you refer to ... I don't see it. If your game has humanoid characters in a recognizable environment, they're going to need to move like humanoids would. For other types of creatures, I don't see any such limitations being imposed. Do you have examples? Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
|
|
I don't work with some of the best animators in the business on a daily basis or anything like that so I'd love to hear your recommendations since you're the best animator I know. That was your best? Anyway, I wasn't talking about your animators, or any in the games business, with any sort of implication that they aren't talented. I'm not sure where you got that from, except just for the sniping sake. In fact, I'm pretty certain that the animators and artists across the industry are damn fine at what they do - it's not their fault that they're kept on a leash held by the "creative" types dictating the games design and art direction. Also, working with people or knowing people doesn't make you more informed on the subject. I work with some great programmers, but I don't really know dick about coding, for example. What I do know is that I've always had a great interest and fascination with this history and theory of animation. As such, I've read volumes on the subject which, if I might be so bold, probably qualifies me to speak on the subject just a wee bit more than just knowing some animators would. That said, I welcome the discussion and am enjoying participating it with those who are contributing, including yourself. Let's just try and keep it a discussion rather than a Zing? Zong! back and forth. After all, we all know you make games and, were that a deciding factor in any and all discussion on the subject, we wouldn't ever talk about much, would we? Accipere quam facere praestat injuriam...
|
|
Jeet was onto something when he said character's movements should be indicitave of their, er, character. All the great animators created walkcycles that reflected the subjects personality. If they can get better motion cap actors to interpret that level of interaction and movement great; bottom line is, the industry, as a whole, sucks at animating. FOR THE LOVE OF GOT MAKE IT STOP!
|
|
As for the artistic cock blocking you refer to ... I don't see it. If your game has humanoid characters in a recognizable environment, they're going to need to move like humanoids would. For other types of creatures, I don't see any such limitations being imposed. Do you have examples? As I said, if your game takes place in reality and you're goal is to mimick the real world, then yes - mocap is a good solution. I thought I was pretty clear on that. However, in your games where humans move around at blistering speed and jump/double-jump amazing heights alongside aliens and robots, all through non-real environments such as alien landscapes and space stations and the like, are we really still talking about reality? If even your human models are capable of moving in non-realistic ways, then the superiority of mocap starts to decline. It will work just fine, there's no argument there, but I'm suggesting that it would be much better if there were more of an interpretation of reality for the character animations in much the same way as the rest of the game is an interpretaion (and exaggeration) of reality. All that said, since there's really little to no story in UT and UC, and the models are little more than moving targets, then my whole idea of artistic expression really doesn't hold a lot of water in this specific example. As long as the game is fun to run around and shoot in, then nobody is really going to care how much the targets either reflect or interpret reality. Assuming we are speaking in a larger context, however, applying to the term "games" in a general, broad-stroke sense, then going beyond multiplayer first person shooters and into the other genres, such as platformers, rpgs, adventures, etc...where story and character development are very important parts of the game, then what I'm saying starts to have more relevance. Accipere quam facere praestat injuriam...
|
|
That was your best? No. Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
|
|
Well, I clearly ASKED for your best. Why must you disappoint me so? Accipere quam facere praestat injuriam...
|
|
I'm returning the favor. Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
|
|
Zing? Zong! Accipere quam facere praestat injuriam...
|
|
or, more appropriately, zzZzzzzZzzzZing? zZzzzzzzZzzzzzzzzwha? Accipere quam facere praestat injuriam...
|
|
Keep swinging. Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
|
|
LPMiller (#48): yeah monty, I can't really contribute to the conversation either. Contributing to the conversation is overrated. |
|
Here we go again. "So they don't even want to assassinate Comrade Bastya...? Am I worth shit now?!"
|
|
And you shut your pie-hole, aknacker. |
|
LEAVING FOREVER... BACK! "So they don't even want to assassinate Comrade Bastya...? Am I worth shit now?!"
|
|
I never picked up the bat, slugger. Accipere quam facere praestat injuriam...
|
|
So, woot.com. Discuss. |
|
This was an interesting discussion until Warren and Jeet starting dick-waving. "I work with animators" "Yeah? Well I've read books!!" I don't need a platter I'll take it straight from the shelf
Give it to me raw I'll take it home and cook it myself |
|
I've purchased things from them before. I've entered a few of their extracurricular, weekend contests and won. Nothing bad to say about them. FOR THE LOVE OF GOT MAKE IT STOP!
|
|
Personally I think game models cutting through scenery/other models is much more of an illusion-breaker than the state of their animation. It'd also be prudent to point out that animating stuff for TV is somewhat different to in games. Generally in games the animation can potentially be viewed from any angle, it may take place in any of a thousand surroundings and, in the end, it's quite likely that spending a couple of extra months getting the "reloading while running" animation perfect rather than just good enough isn't the best use of limited development time. Anyway, I never noticed animation lagging behind any of the other aspects so whatchooalltalkin'bout? Guest MP3OTW: Bomb The Bass - Bug Powder Dust.mp3 (Thanks Deadlock!)
|
|
You're not watching it right. FOR THE LOVE OF GOT MAKE IT STOP!
|
|
This was an interesting discussion until Warren and Jeet starting dick-waving. It got even better when deadlock threw in a pithy comment. Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
|
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Eł 2005
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
| P O S T A C O M M E N T |
|
|
| C R A P T A G S | ||||||||
|
|
| There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details] |
Powered by blah 0.9.1-dev •
PlanetCrap is © 1997-2035 Hendrik "Morn" Mans
|