>spend fucking days on a few seconds of animation>every single aspect is given so much thought and work>fuck up this badDid they just use the video game model and not the special one they made just for this animation? I know that eyes are really really hard to get looking "right" but this is just bad. You can almost count the polygons on the eyes, the eyebrows don't have any depth to them, the eyeliner is just a solid black color, and theres a weird error on the bottom of the eyes.I'm just kind of ranting here, but thats a huge problem that most people here, if they could model well enough to make anything similar, wouldn't just settle for "this is good enough". Especially after the sheer amount of work it seems went into him taking a piece out of the pie
>>648556I dunno, the eyes look a little blurry to me. But that could be due to the lighting.
Heres the cowboy guys eyes in comparison. I think they just didn't think it was important to use really high resolution eyes and set up with actual depth like a real eye, instead going for the "shiny ball" look with glare spots just in the texture. Probably not the best idea to do that and also do a zoom in of the eyes.Its just crazy in comparison to how hard they worked on literally everything else to zoom in on these low resolution shiny ball video game eyes.
It looks cheap and bad. What is this from?
>>648563https://youtu.be/PKYVvPNhRR0Its the new overwatch short. Its like they spent the whole budget on the gunfight scene and the opening shot of him slicing a pie.
>>648564>Its like they spent the whole budget on the gunfight scenemate...it's a shooter...
>comparing it to the eyes in the trailer for the fucking mobile diablo game>night and fucking dayIf the Blizzard guys can get away with those eyes then I guess theres nothing stopping any of us from getting into the industry.
Blizzard doesn't really care because they plan to continuously churn out heroes like Heroes of the Storm.
FTR: Not a fan of Overwatch. Indifferent to it, not into hero shooters and all that. I follow the cinematics every then and again, they're usually pretty well-done and a good watch. I really wish they didn't just lock it into a multiplayer-only hero shooter though. The overall story has good value and I'd like to have seen it properly spun out into a bigger feature.Anyway, gonna post some screenshots just to add to the discussion.>intro sequenceI don't know why the level of detail's all over the fucking place in the diner. Looks like they had some issues with textures or something, because the record label is blurry as fuck (not a resolution issue: look at all the scratches on the jukebox towards the edges).
>>648624More stuff about level of detail. The porcelain tiles just look bad here.
>>648625Compare that to all that grunge detail on the bell and the door as McCree leaves. Indication that they didn't want to skimp out on the diner's props and all, but I guess they cut a few corners here and there while making it.
>>648627This one pisses me off. The eyelashes. They're just a strip of fucking clay. They went through all the trouble of giving the characters hair particles and shit for the eyebrows and everything but they just went "fuck this" on the eyebrows. Why? It's not like realistic eyelashes look bad on these kinds of "stylisations". Also to note: He doesn't have that bad of the weird blurry eye issue >>648555 and >>648562 pointed out. You can tell there's some depth to his irises, through the iris-sclera edges are a little blurred.
>>648628>"fuck this" on the eyeLASHESMy bad.Gotta say McCree looks pretty good here. Same shit though, you give him so much detail yet you just do such a pathetic attempt at eyelashes. They gave him all the weird fibers on his cloak even.
>>648629Last of the spam. Close up on McCree showing how much attention they gave to grooming his beard and making it look all haggard. Also better look at that fucking strip of clay excuse for eyelashes. What kinda stylistic choice is that, holy shit.>letterboxed 21:9 videoThese screenshots are all direct from the video feed. Still can't believe it's acceptable to do this.
>>648629Christ I didn't notice the fibers/sunlight interaction they added. That's very well made
Normies don't notice or care
>>648630i think they look serviceable from a distance, but considering all the close shots they did, i'd concur and say it's a puzzling choice at least
>>648630>Still can't believe it's acceptable to do this./v/ kids pls leave
>>648643??I don't use a widescreen monitor but I still find letterboxed 21:9 to be fucking stupid. Just upload in native aspect ratio if you're not going to be using the space (yeah I know they ended off with copyright text at the end as well as a splash screen but fuckin still 99% of the content didn't deserve the letterboxing).
>>648555it's called "style"looks fine when you're not an autist
>>648564Would totally put my dick in that pie
>>648555>>648562>>648628The eyes bugged me too, although I liked the short. I'd assume it's a stylistic choice to go with what looks like flat textures rather than a modelled eyeball with a shader capable of modelling the caustics of the cornea. But then they've done a lot of detailed groom work, so I dunno.The faces bugged me more though, I don't think it's anything more than a linear delta blendshape and I feel like perhaps the animators were sticking to safe shapes to avoid bad interpolations. Or the rig was set up that way to avoid those situations. Who knows.
>>648673>The faces bugged me more though, I don't think it's anything more than a linear delta blendshape and I feel like perhaps the animators were sticking to safe shapes to avoid bad interpolations. Or the rig was set up that way to avoid those situations. Who knows.no idea what ur talking about but I do know that blizzard uses the same rig and I believe even mesh for all humans to save time with the rigging process.
>>648679I'm not surprised to hear that. I don't think the facial work is as good as it could be and I think it's probably because of the underlying tech.
The dialog and delivery was much worse than the eyelashes, it's like they forgot how humans speak for a second
>why dont these cartoon faces look realisticGosh I wonder
>>648805It's more they're taking shortcuts that make the animation look cheap.
>>648846Might be because the animation is cheap.
It's a short animation. Why the fuck does it matter? It was plenty good for what it is. If this were a feature length movie or something then yeah I'd be unhappy.
>>649110The problem is that this is Blizzard, and regardless of it being cartoony, people expect SOME sort of quality behind it. Especially if its from a company known for its cinematics.
>>648564makes sense tbqhfmlamzoomers has attention span of a fly. So you gotta have to make absolute best impression the first few seconds.
>>648628This is how the eyelashes look on every character in every short mate.
>>648555I can't stand that psuedo-Disney style a lot of cartoony Western AAA games use. Blizzard's models do have a quality to them, but those faces look so cheap.
>>649166Overwatch isn't photorealistic, be still your autism
Despite disagreeing with OP and agreeing with the budget and design decisions Blizzard chose to make here I love this thread and would like to see more like it.
I think they said that they use the game models as a base and then use displacement maps to fix them.
>>648555>>648562last bastion was made from scratch from what I recall. other like this and sombra were not
>>648648This.It's called working smart not working hard. There is no point to spend even more time on an eyebrow if a 'strip of clay' would suffice. Tiles weren't even the focus of the shot here>>648625Dont put in more effort into CG than what is required. They clearly don't skimp on the detail in other areas that are the focus. eg the door and Mccree's clothes. Spending time on the extraneous details yall are pointing out is needless to executing a project in a more efficient manner. Sure they could have, but really I don't think it would've been worth the time.
>>650954Can tell you didn't even watch the short for yourself.>Tiles weren't even the focus of the shot hereFine, I guess that's valid. But that shot lingered as long as the door shot.>the doorWhich was just barely seconds.>Mccree's clothes. That extra detail was pretty much only visible in that one shot the anon pointed out.>There is no point to spend even more time on an eyebrow if a 'strip of clay' would suffice.The eyebrows though? They were prominently featured throughout. It's clearly a stylistic choice they went for. And really, what takes more time: grunging up a door for the few seconds it appears for/texturing a hat that only gets the spotlight for a glimpse/simulating realistic apple pie fork cutting, or grooming just a few hairs for eyelashes for the many shots in which they're visible? It's more consistency in level of detail than anything.
>>648580They want the graphics to be not too far off from the game I guess, unlike most other games where the cinematic does not reflect the game at all whatsoever in the slightest.I think only perhaps TF2 and Warframe use basically purely in-engine stuff for their trailers, I guess Battlefield stuff too, though they probably touch up the effects a bit more.
>>648555honestly no one cares, you should let it go
>>648564>Its like they spent the whole budget on the gunfight scene and the opening shot of him slicing a pie.the pie is the real focus element here, in fact entire short is just a wrap for that gorgeous pie