..And now, for a montage clip of every cliched sequence from the past ten years of action cinema.
Way to be original, asshats.
Mmm, I dunno. The parkour featured was an original addition, if a bit unrealistic and cliched in parts. Like when he's sliding on his back for about 10 feet while shooting--over corrugated aluminum.
The teleport cliche with the knives at the end was dumb. 'Oh he's over there, wait, he's gone' *gets stabbed from behind*.
And what was with the end. It's like he kills someone then he walks out on the balcony, completely drops his guard, and lights up a post-murder smoke to watch the sunset--until he's dispatched as easily as taking out a snail.
Seems like a good pre-E3 trailer. It doesn't tell you jack shit about the gameplay and it doesn't show you any gameplay. Much like the 'eye' trailer from last E3. The pudding now will be for them to live up to the trailer by showing us the game during E3 and given Splash Damage's history -- they have a ton of work to do before I would even consider purchasing one of their products.
How dumb would we look if they ship the game and the gameplay looked exactly like that and they're are all "we did show you gameplay!" >_>
That is, of course, impossible. Funny that we can still quite easily tell CGI from RT (real-time) after all these years. RT will never catch up completely, and why did we ever expect it to. A frame rendered in a fraction of a second will never stand up to a frame that is compiled prior to its being needed with virtually no limit on its render time.
CG will always be better. We will always be able to tell CG from real time. As graphic techniques improve, the best, most computationally expensive ones will always appear in the CG and not as much in the RT.
Even the term 'CG / CGI' is outmoded: "Computer Graphic Imagery"? It's all that, there's no distinction between rendered and RT within that phrase. You might say we should use 'rendered,' but a video game must also 'render' every frame it outputs in RT :P
It intrigued me enough to watch the whole video, mainly because I was waiting for something to give me an idea of what the game was about, beyond some kind of TF type framework.
I saw some cool moves which may or may not be in the game, but I'm sure they are gimmicky anyway and probably not worth using.
CG will always be better. We will always be able to tell CG from real time. As graphic techniques improve, the best, most computationally expensive ones will always appear in the CG and not as much in the RT.
Actually, the real-time ray-tracing crowd is doing a good job of catching up. Most of the interactive 3d graphics we see consists of a lot of hacks to make things look close to right at a steady 30-60fps. Real-time ray tracing uses actual physical equations, so the quality is much better, but the frame rates drop to like 1-2/sec for pretty light scenes.
Basically, I'd say that the quality of interactive graphical content in games is beginning to top out do to the immense costs (money, human resources) to develop them. Games aren't selling more copies to coincide with the rising costs to develop them, and 60 dollars is already very expensive for a game. The increase in visual quality will have to come from new tech. It's just a question of when gpu based ray-tracing will hit interactive frame rates.
/derail
Nifty trailer, but it told me nothing about what the game was about or why I should care about the people fighting. I don't mind tit for tat killing, but I'd like to know why people are fighting. A two sentence voice over could have provided that background and made this a much more powerful trailer.
Ray tracing is even more computationally expensive than our current rendering methods. But you forget perhaps that a lot of CG already uses ray tracing. In fact, that's one of reasons for their high quality. Toy Story has ray-tracing on every frame, very high quality, and that was what, the '90s?
