Why don't they make..

[Dog--]

GOOD CGI movies?

Think about the best CGI you've ever seen in a movie (It doesn't matter if it's an explosion or whatever).

Now think of the best CGI entire cutscene you seen in a game.

The game wins hands down, now why don't they make an all CGI movie (like Final Fantasy, but good) that looks amazing like video game cutscenes?

I mean, CGI cutscenes aren't even the focus of video games, yet they are better then even the best CGI in movies, where IT IS THE FOCUS!


I'd like an all CGI movie done by some game devs, to be honest.

 

[Qonfused]

Best CGI... that could really vary from person to person. Are we counting movies like The Incredibles, Finding Nemo, and Wall-E? Those movies have some fantastic CGI, and not just texture and clarity, but smoothness as well.

 

[Dog--]

I should've clarified, I meant 'realistic' CGI.

Those movie are more like cartoons.

For example, what inspired this thread - Rage.

Go to that thread, watch the trailer.

IT'S A TRAILER, yet it looks amazing, as well as VERY realistic.

 

[Pesmerga]

Toy Story
WallE
Shrek
Finding Nemo
Cars
Every other Pixar movie
300 (basically)
The Incredibles
etc

Game developers are not, first and foremost, story tellers. Nor do game developers actually MAKE CGI cutscenes- their modellers do. And it takes a huge, hollywood huge, budget to make something like The Incredibles.

The reason why game cutscene CGI is so "cinematic" is because it's just an addition to the experience you've been having in-game. If the entire game was just a cinematic, it wouldn't be a game, and it wouldn't be all that entertaining.

"Realistic" CGI like 300 is done in almost every movie, but real actors and real environments are 1) better looking 2) cheaper. The CGI is just to replace what can't realistically be done in real life.

 

[Absinthe]

I was disappointed when I heard the Warcraft movie would be relying on real-life actors instead of the amazing Blizzard CGI.

I just hope that doesn't mean actors with purple pointy ears and green skin makeup.

 

[Qonfused]

It will be and this pisses you off.

 

[Absinthe]

GOD DAMN IT.

Cancel the film. It all sounds dirt any way.

 

[Bad^Hat]

I have this thought all the time, but I'd rather mature CGI than "realistic." Realistic can be done with actors just as well - just look at Beowulf. Yeah, it looks pretty, but watching it you can't help but think what's the point? Why not just do it with real actors if that's what they were aiming for anyway?

But there are so many things in the realms of fantasy and sci-fi that could be done with good CGI, and not just kid's movies, but stuff with real depth of plot, three dimensional characters (in both respects), and a liberal dosage of violence where necessary. It's probably not going to happen any time soon though, there's not really an audience for it at the moment I guess.

Agreed with Absinthe on the Warcraft movie, as well. I really can't picture it as anything but CGI, I'm so sure they're going to **** it up.

 

[soulslicer]

Something like this?

I guess it's not very economical:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=IeapucGrAD4&feature=related

 

[Lucid]

Because, most cutscenes in games are usually only 5 minutes long and if they were any longer it would probably cost a fortune to make it.
Plus, most game devs, as said before, are not the story tellers... they just read what their writers give them and give them a thumbs up or down and then the cut scene artist adapts the script to the cutscenes and so on and so forth.
Not really sure how the cycle works.

 

[Sam]

Why don't they make a Looney Tunes version of The Dark Knight? Daffy Duck as the Joker.

 

[CyberPitz]

Man, I loved the FF Movie. I think everybody hated it because of the name, even though it had nothing to do with it \=

Plus, Pixar = not good CG? Wtf, are your standards at the moon?

 

[Lucid]

The FF movie was trippy as hell.

 

[Lizardizzle]

all the cutscenes in diablo II and it's expansion pack were REALLY nice looking. IT had, Drippis of drool off the old guy's face, The evil robe's guy robe which would be all awesome and stuff, All those things.

 

[Dog--]

Obviously the devs wouldn't be the story tellers, idiots. I'm talking about everything done by Hollywood, except the animations - those are done by the game devs.

Even though I don't see why game devs WOULDN'T be good storytellers (everyone says they'll be bad?), they make games with.. what? STORIES!

Obviously if it was a movie it'd have a movie budget and everything else, but it seems the CGI is best done to the game devs, as it's.. better.

P.S. I didn't mean to sound mean in that first sentence.

 

[Jintor]

Starship Troopers Roughnecks ftw.

 

[Combine_Advisor]

The Final Fanstasy film was good

 

[Sedako]

The Final Fanstasy film was good

Advent Children yes, Spirits Within no. I can't wait for the Blu-ray release. FF13 demo! (in Japan at least )

 

[Pesmerga]

Advent Children was a terrible "film".

Spirits Within was awesome.

 

[blahblahblah]

I think there is actually a real reason why realistic CGI movies are not made more frequently. I can't remember the exact name, but in AI theory, there is a concept that as an AI advances to become more human like, it will be more accepted by society until the point it is almost like a human, but then will be rejected by human society because it is too "eerily" similar to a human (and supposedly as the theory goes, once that "eerily" threshold is crossed, society will then go back to accepting the AI). I think something similar exists for CGI. As it stands right now, if I'm watching a movie that is grounded in reality, I will always pick out a CGI character (as realistic as they try to make him or her). However, when it comes to CGI scenery I'll only notice it if it is poorly done in the movie. For me personally, I hated watching the Beowulf trailers because I hated how "odd" all of the CGI actors looked since they were supposed to be normal people. CGI doesn't bug me in movies such as Shrek because I already know to suspend my disbelief for an animated movie. It doesn't even bug me in 300 because all of the human actors are real, it is just everything else is CGI.

As for video games, even the best looking video game cutscene doesn't even come close to looking like a real movie scene. It may look good, but it just doesn't compete.

 

[Pesmerga]

What you're referring to is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

But that's not entirely accurate. 3D modelling hasn't been "perfected" as it's incredibly difficult to realistically simulate human skin. But progress is being made in many subdivisions of CGI study, and there are already images of computer generated humans that look nearly exactly like humans (and, trust me, it is not easy to tell the difference).

Beowulf is not the peak of 3d modelling, nor have we seen that peak. Like any technology, it will continue to grow and amaze us and in time, will ultimately replace entire characters in cinematography.

 

[Absinthe]

You're referring to the uncanny valley.

I only find it jarring if they're trying to pair it with real-life actors. In an all CGI context, not so much.

 

[Kadayi]

The Rage footage is all in game, it's not CGI in the same way as the final fantasy movie or the usual FMV sequences you have in ingame cutscenes, it's more machinema tbh.