Bloodrayne Gets Her Bits Out For The Lads, Playboy Deal Revealed!
> News Comments > SPOnG Comments Index
Topic started: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:20
Click here to view the news article this topic refers to.
Click here to view the news article this topic refers to.
Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:38
DoctorDee wrote:
[re:playboy]
>Yeah, lots of people "buy it for the articles"
>but just as many buy it for the huge plastic
>tits.
The Brazillians! Let's not forget the Brazillians :)
>>I still find it strange that Hollywood has yet
>to
>>produce a serious CG film when FF was done a few
>>years ago now and technology has progressed.
>
>But FF lost so much money that Hollywood will be
>shy of the technology for a while yet.
I'm certain that a massive pile of that money went on R&D and hardware. IMO Square was crazy to shut down the studio. The CG wasn't the failing of the movie - it was the seemingly far flung plot that the "mass market" found indigestable. Square should have tried another movie on the back of the same R&D, or at least stepped back and replenished its coffers on TV commercial CG work.
>Pixar will
>help break down the barriers, but they still see
>it as "cartoon" technology.
Pixar are, IMO, CG gods - though their lighting and shaders are occassionally out, leading to "tells" that would shatter the illusion if they tried to pass stuff off as realistic. Pixar purposefully chose to stick with cartooney human characters for thi very reason.
>And big name avatars would mean the same. Let's
>face it, no-one ever gets to really meet these
>people. An avatar could do adverts, 'making of'
>features,
The Shrek DVD already has one as a features.
>talk show appearances,
Interaction with real hosts in real time would be the issue here.
>guest TV appearances, cameos in rock videos (the
>corporations that own the movie studios also own
>all the music studios now).
Well, Smeagol/Gollum did the MTV awards acceptance.
>Joji wrote:
>>Tell the truth I believe
>>Hollywood restricts CG films from going any
>>further deliberately, because the technology is
>>there and all that's needed is the ideas,
>
>No way! The technology is not there. The thing
>about TSW was that although it was awesome, the
>fact that it was meant to be realistic made the
>small faults all the more obvious.
The two big failings in TSW were the skin, which was waxy and didn't have the right translucency. The other, killer fault was the lip synching, which was just terrible. EVery character seemed to be suffering from lockjaw and a Bottox shot in the lips.
Today, I reckon there are shaders that can handle the multi-layer, semi-opaque qualities of human skin. Pixar have damn good model and shaders for eyes, another essential for "reading" a character. The lip synch and lack or over emphasis on character anims will continue to be the prime suspects in the whistle blower lineup, IMO. Once you've got character models and a host of shaders, putting together believable human characters would be a breeze, but there still won't be a "walk and talk" option under properties drop down menu.
[re:playboy]
>Yeah, lots of people "buy it for the articles"
>but just as many buy it for the huge plastic
>tits.
The Brazillians! Let's not forget the Brazillians :)
>>I still find it strange that Hollywood has yet
>to
>>produce a serious CG film when FF was done a few
>>years ago now and technology has progressed.
>
>But FF lost so much money that Hollywood will be
>shy of the technology for a while yet.
I'm certain that a massive pile of that money went on R&D and hardware. IMO Square was crazy to shut down the studio. The CG wasn't the failing of the movie - it was the seemingly far flung plot that the "mass market" found indigestable. Square should have tried another movie on the back of the same R&D, or at least stepped back and replenished its coffers on TV commercial CG work.
>Pixar will
>help break down the barriers, but they still see
>it as "cartoon" technology.
Pixar are, IMO, CG gods - though their lighting and shaders are occassionally out, leading to "tells" that would shatter the illusion if they tried to pass stuff off as realistic. Pixar purposefully chose to stick with cartooney human characters for thi very reason.
>And big name avatars would mean the same. Let's
>face it, no-one ever gets to really meet these
>people. An avatar could do adverts, 'making of'
>features,
The Shrek DVD already has one as a features.
>talk show appearances,
Interaction with real hosts in real time would be the issue here.
>guest TV appearances, cameos in rock videos (the
>corporations that own the movie studios also own
>all the music studios now).
Well, Smeagol/Gollum did the MTV awards acceptance.
>Joji wrote:
>>Tell the truth I believe
>>Hollywood restricts CG films from going any
>>further deliberately, because the technology is
>>there and all that's needed is the ideas,
>
>No way! The technology is not there. The thing
>about TSW was that although it was awesome, the
>fact that it was meant to be realistic made the
>small faults all the more obvious.
The two big failings in TSW were the skin, which was waxy and didn't have the right translucency. The other, killer fault was the lip synching, which was just terrible. EVery character seemed to be suffering from lockjaw and a Bottox shot in the lips.
Today, I reckon there are shaders that can handle the multi-layer, semi-opaque qualities of human skin. Pixar have damn good model and shaders for eyes, another essential for "reading" a character. The lip synch and lack or over emphasis on character anims will continue to be the prime suspects in the whistle blower lineup, IMO. Once you've got character models and a host of shaders, putting together believable human characters would be a breeze, but there still won't be a "walk and talk" option under properties drop down menu.
Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:55
config wrote:
>characters would be a breeze, but there still
>won't be a "walk and talk" option under
>properties drop down menu.
Not for a while. But humans have a very well understood anatomy, that is subject to well understood laws of physics. It is only a matter of time until Viewpoint's basic human has a full skeleton, relistic kinematics, and a set of rules that make it obey "real-world" physics.
The talk thinging is a bit trickier, but subject to he same issues. Everyone has the same muscles, but with different strengths, thicknesses, flexibilities and weights. The time when a head model comes with the ability to edit these values (plus those that define the underlying bones structure) and create a different face, that animates realistically is not soon, but it is not inconceivably distant either. Skin is a problem, but as you acknowledge, shaders that will make this a possibility are here, or will be soon. I think the "synthespian" will not just happen in my lifetime, but will come to be commonplace.
>characters would be a breeze, but there still
>won't be a "walk and talk" option under
>properties drop down menu.
Not for a while. But humans have a very well understood anatomy, that is subject to well understood laws of physics. It is only a matter of time until Viewpoint's basic human has a full skeleton, relistic kinematics, and a set of rules that make it obey "real-world" physics.
The talk thinging is a bit trickier, but subject to he same issues. Everyone has the same muscles, but with different strengths, thicknesses, flexibilities and weights. The time when a head model comes with the ability to edit these values (plus those that define the underlying bones structure) and create a different face, that animates realistically is not soon, but it is not inconceivably distant either. Skin is a problem, but as you acknowledge, shaders that will make this a possibility are here, or will be soon. I think the "synthespian" will not just happen in my lifetime, but will come to be commonplace.
Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:58
config wrote:
To bring us right back on topic.
Would it not be interesting if Bloodrayne's appearance in Playboy is not some crack addict porn-star wannabe, as I think we have all assumed, but actually was a 3D modelled photospread.
To bring us right back on topic.
Would it not be interesting if Bloodrayne's appearance in Playboy is not some crack addict porn-star wannabe, as I think we have all assumed, but actually was a 3D modelled photospread.
Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:06
DoctorDee wrote:
Would it not be interesting if Bloodrayne's appearance in Playboy is not some crack addict porn-star wannabe, as I think we have all assumed, but actually was a 3D modelled photospread.
Well, in the end it was all a big nothing. Not a real model pretending to be Bloodrayne, not a computer generated model of Bloodrayne, just some crappy illustration for an article on gaming growing up...
But then this is the mag that had Half Life 2 down as one of their favourite games of 2003!
Wed, 29 Sep 2004 08:11
Dude! What's with the space invaders? Let's see Bloodrayne's puppies.
I know I could always buy a copy of Playboy, but I'm in Singapore right now, and they don't sel it over here.
In fact, they even censor Maxim!
I know I could always buy a copy of Playboy, but I'm in Singapore right now, and they don't sel it over here.
In fact, they even censor Maxim!
Log-in or register to permanently change your layout setting.
3960 comments
Some suits act like those Ferengi from Star Trek. Always chasing new acquisitions for themselves, LOL. Working with a company is one thing, but taking them over is another quite another. I believe Atari are suffering because of this, now by pushing for Driver games and little else different. What's wrong with another Shadow of the Beast game?
They might be sitting comfortably on their cash for now, but I really believe a shock to the system is due for them. And with more consoles on sale within the next two years I keep wondering where all these games are gonna come from. I know Nintendo, Sony etc will have things covered on that front, but as for softcos outside of japan, I really don't know.
If this industries bubble one day bursts we will know who to blame, the souless suits and money chasing, chairman ass kissers. And to think I once wanted to enter the industry to make good games. With all this going on I'm probably glad I didn't.
Hope you like my previous post though it was a bit long, do you guys agree on Hollywoods holding back CG bit or not? And what about the games characters bit? Feedback is welcome.