Laovniux wrote:
I'm just saying popular games like mass effect use similar levels of cgi and that's enough for most of the players to say it had good graphics so having played a lot of games its really weird for me to see people complaining about cgi when the current graphics leading in gaming are all to similar to what we see in the movies now.
The CGI used for action is basically the same, yes. It's the CGI used for exposition and expressing actor emotion that's the problem.
The vast majority of exposition and character behavior in games is
not expressed via CGI cutscene (for good reason). This is eminently not true for movies.
Quote:
As for preventing bad examples from being bad... I think that in saying don't use CGI your just closing off any further development on the subject. Its all trial and error. We should really rate whats bad and emphasize everything that is moving in a remotely good direction so that later on something can be developed that is GOOD.
There's a difference between developing new CGI techniques and/or improving old ones, and releasing a comercial project with crappy CGI.
Ever see a food company release every attempt they make at creating a new flavor? Perfume companies releasing every new scent variation that they're testing? Tech companies releasing their alpha versions of software/hardware as commercial products? No? There's a reason for that.
Do your commercial development and research outside the public sphere. If it works/succeeds,
then can you release it and demand money for it. Trying to sell people your abject failures or alpha test cases is just a dick move.
TLDR;
releasing a demo as a complete product is moronic and completely unnecessary (the aforementioned
Spirits Within should have taught this lesson).
