The Uncanny Vally in Videogames :: My Look into the Wii VS PS3/360 (Long and 56k)

There has been something bothering me as both a Gamer and a Game Designer for a long time now.

I hate how we pride ourselfs in technology, throwing buzzwords around that half of the people we know do not understand. 1080p! Normal Mapping! Per-Pixle Lighting! Mip-Mapping! Vertex Shaders! Multi-Core! We pride ourselfs if we can se every pore in a character and how many shadows can be rendered in a sceen.

However, there is one thing that we keep on missing every time. Its the reason why most games I have ever played in 3D look like Rockem Sockem Robots to this day

Character Animation and Design.

What happend to it? Why did good Character Design and Animation leave? Doing numbers of test and interviews I would like to make this statement: People would rather watch something that is animated amazing than renderd amazing.

Think of Shrek. Why do people like Shrek? Ask most people if they care that you can see every grove in Fiona's Lips, or that you can see every hair on Donkey. I have asked this, most people do not even remember this stuff! They like Shrek because of the silly scotish accent and the way he belows around. Donkey is himself because of the hyperactive voice Eddy Murphy brings to the table, witch is matched by the large mouth movements and sparatic facal characters.

The design is perfict too. I mean, look at this and tell me by the layout of his face and the huge eyes you do not get a responce:

We rarely have this in games today. We miss out in this because we are too focused on "teh 1337 graphix!!!"

Normally when I show people that Heavy Rain tech demo about how "real" the PS3 can render stuff, peoples first responce is how fake and not real she looks. I mean look at this picture, it looks like she is wearing a mask. We don't feel sad or happy, we just feel that this image is not genuine. We have no emotional attachment to the character. Look at the lips and how perfictly formed they are, lok at her eyes and how they are to clear, look at her horribly plastic skin. Who outside of plastic surgery do you know that looks like this:

Now, here is the funny part. I show these two images to people:

Obviously, they are not as renderd real as that woman above, but I get instant results from people on the last two images....normaly discust and giggling. They identify with the relieved expression of the rabbit, the suprised gulp of the worm, and the shear maddness that is in Wario's eyes.

Both examples expecally fall apart when adding motion. Look:

(look at the horrible lips, stiff motion and the arms/hands in the video)

Why dose this happen?

Here are some samples of a blog I agree with that for the most part, explains why:

If you checked out the Newsweek article that I mentioned last time, you were subjected to the above image, with multiple Oscar-winning actor Tom Hanks all dolled up in hi-tech mo-cap gear. Here is where Warner Bros' marketing was really banking on the prestige of Hanks getting all dirty, showing that he's willing to go the extra mile to give us, the audience, something worth watching. But, unfortunately, we are given the actual image from the movie from where this performance was captured. A "before and after" scenario, I guess. It's all too telling, if you ask me. Do you see what's happened from Point A to Point B? Somehow they spent millions of dollars to literally take the soul out of an Oscar-winning actor's performance. That's quite a feat!

I sat there just staring at this image, trying to figure out what happened. What exactly is going on here? Why does the image on the top look so engaging, so vibrant, so full of life, but the image on the bottom - which is supposed to be the exact same performance of the actor "captured" by the computer - look so dead and puppet-like? I went around the internet searching for anyone who might've tried to explain this. I found nothing. There were many who talked about it, who went on about The Uncanny Valley and such (which I mentioned in my previous post), but never anyone who really sat down and analyzed the movie and its characters, frame-by-frame. This is when I decided to do some investigating on my own.

With a vigilant eye, I studied Hanks and his avatar, nit-picking all the most minute details. I noticed several things. First, his brow and the area around the eyes did not have that same subtle intensity that you see from the original image. (What's happening here in the story is Hank's character, the Engineer, is singing into an intercom, while the children on the train are being served hot chocolate. Oh, and keep in mind that this is not a scientific study, just me having some fun, trying to figure some stuff out. And I feel I should say that all images from the film are copyright Warner Bros. So there.) There's a slight twinge in Hank's eye that you cannot make out in the Engineer's image. I know that the glasses are in the way, but even still. Also, the area around the mouth is not as emotive either. There's some stretching going on with the real Hanks that is not picked up in the fake Hanks, just outside the edge of the mouth. I understand that they added some weight to the Engineer, and it's reflected here, but I also know that bigger people are just as capable of emotion, so I'm not going to let that by. Even with weight, you should be able to feel the intensity of the Engineer singing into the intercom. And I'm not seeing that here.

Also, when Hanks pulls his head up to belt into the mic, there's some straining going on in his neck area. This, again, is lost in the digital version. The way he thrusts his head up and out, with his shoulders going down, and the way his right arm is positioned all get mussed up, and become stiff and weak. There must be something in the way that the characters are created, or "modeled", that no matter how much the digital artists tried to tweak to get the body just right, the CG model would still win. All the characters I've seen in FINAL FANTASY and THE POLAR EXPRESS have a puppet-like, marionette-style of construction. The shoulders, the way they walk, the way the head is held in turns, etc. - even when you are capturing real live action for the performances - all have a stiffness to them that apparently cannot be tamed.

My experimenting did not stop with Tom and the Engineer. I decided to grab some images from the film of the main Hero Boy (yes, that's his official name), and his friends to see if I could do better. Now, I am not a CG animator, nor have I ever done any CG modeling or shading and lighting, so these experiments are just that - experiments. I know that there are many many things involved when the animators and digital artists created these scenes in the movie. I'm very familiar with the CG realm as I see it in action on a daily basis here at Primal Screen. So, I'm just going into Photoshop and tweaking the characters to see what could've been. That's all.

Here we have our Hero Boy, just getting on the train and looking out at his neighborhood. For this scene he's unsure about this strange vision of a huge steam locomotive barreling through his town, and so he's excited, yet very wary. So what's up with his face? He looks like he's pissed off at the Engineer for forcing him to get onboard.

Here is my version. Nothing too major, just some subtlety added to the eyebrows and mouth. Now he looks like he's engaged with what's going on, and not angry.

This was a doozy for me. I got this image from the teaser trailer, when the boy is gazing out at the lights and sounds of the train going by in front of his home. Since this trailer came out a full year before the movie was released, there's a slight possibility that they had changed some details in this particular scene, so I dunno. The boy looks downright freaky. Here, you see what I was talking about his irises being lit up to the point that they are oddly illuminating. Almost like they're about to vaporize you.

After many attempts, I finally came up with something that was halfway decent to me. After working on this one, I came to the conclusion that this character was simply designed poorly. I understand that the filmmakers used real kids for the look and image scans for all the characters, but sometimes what is real does not transpire well into animation, or rather, digitally. There has to be some tweaking to get it to look right. And my main problem with the Hero Boy (besides his eyes) were his eyebrows and his mouth. Maybe the original boy from whom they used to model for the CG character had downturned eyebrows, but I guarantee you that he did not look pissed off and mad at everybody all day. If the filmmakers could've just raised the eyebrows a bit, especially in this scene as he's watching in amazement at this fantastical event, then there could've been some more humanity put into the boy. Just these subtle touches make all the difference in the world.

Here, the boy has gotten his ticket and is apparently mesmerized by the darn thing. He looks so vapid. The one thing that I noticed in the movie, was that it seemed like they wanted to light Hero Boy's eyes with such intensity that we would be in constant awe of them. But in reality, they looked like doll eyes. It's just not natural to be able to see all of the iris all of the time. There will always be some shadows present, even with the most dramatic, intense eyes.

And thus, I softened the intensity of his irises and pupils by adding a little bit of shadow just underneath the upper eyelid. Also, I widened his mouth, and again, tweaked his eyebrows.

You get the picture.

We get the same sort of thing in videogames. Have you notice when you look around with a gun in a First Person Shooter your aim is always pixle perfict strait even when running at full speed. Try aiming a gun in real life. Look at the way you are holding the gun and how it shifts around while still being aimed at the target zone.

In everygame I have ever played, the terain is all the same too. No matter if you are walking into a puddle, mud, dip, grass, wood, you always run flat like you are on a floor in Ikea!

If this is the "amazing advancement" in videogames, I am not impressed.

For more stuff, take a look at real boxing:

Note the fluidty in the movement. There is a certant sponinanity, a messyness that makes it humane. Look in the faces, you can see the emotion boil as they punch and the suprise look when they get clobberd in the face.

Now look at Fight Night Round 3:

Oh good lord, it looks like two T-800's fighting. Look at the jerkyness, everything is pre-programmed and pre-robotic. And we are talking about the 360 here!

To me, this is not Next-Gen. It might be Next-Gen technology, but its not Next-Gen design.

I think the Wii will be very interesting in influencing stuff on this. Without the buzz term gloss, developers will have to focus on the character designs and animation rather than the detail of the image itself.

My example are the Rabbids. They look all wacky cartoony, and they are expressive as heck even without realistic rabbit faces. That to me, is why I can connect and enjoy them. The animation and the character design had unlocked a whole new world to me, one that I wanted to dive into.

Looking through that wonderful book, The Art of The Incredibles, I came across some interesting quotes:

"In my opinion it's always been a fallacy, the notion that human characters have to look photo-realistic in CG. You can do so much more with stylized human characters. Audiences innately know how humans move and gravity works, so if a human character doesn't feel right, they'll feel something's wrong. But if the weight works for stylized characters, the audience doesn't question it - like the Dwarfs in SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS, which were so cartoony and stylized. In THE INCREDIBLES, the characters are cartoony heroes but they can be hurt and they have this family dynamic that makes them believable." Ralph Eggleston, Artistic Director for THE INCREDIBLES

There is so much leeway given to stylized human characters, so when you get into that uncanny valley of photo-real digital humans, the audience will notice even the slightest of quirks. Here's another quote:

"From the beginning, we all wanted the cast of characters to look like cartoon people instead of photo-realistic people. In animation, it really takes a bit of exaggeration to make something look convincing. The great caricaturist Al Hirshfeld most typified this. He could perfectly capture a person's identity by simply sketching curlicues for hair and pinholes for eyes. The faces and attitudes he drew were often more recognizable in the abstract than if they had been rendered out realistically." Teddy Newton, Character Designer on THE INCREDIBLES

Now I am not condemming at all photo realistic characters. There are some games and situations were real is the way to go.

The problem is that I feel that with such real rendering, we are lacking in real motion and real acting. Voice Acting and Animation has always been sticklers in videogames, and I am out to say that if we need to truly make a revolution, to push gaming to the next level....

This HAS to change!

( Edited on 21.02.2007 13:11 by Sidepocket )

( Edited on 21.02.2007 13:12 by Sidepocket )

( Edited on 21.02.2007 13:13 by Sidepocket )

( Edited on 21.02.2007 13:15 by Sidepocket )

Great read. The face in Falling Rain is just not right somehow, the animators seem to have a moving jaw but forgot about the dozens of other muscles in the human face and the result is that she looks like a ventriloquist doll.

Especially loved your tweaks to the movie images, it's odd how they missed that when each second of film takes many hours of work, and yet you make it seem more engaging by adjusting eyebrows and tweaking the light and contrast.

Have a few stars.

Excelent post, and I've got to agree. I'm not an artist but the way I see it is if games are a form of art, in comparison for instance you don't judge a painting by the number of colours it uses. Greater technology of course gives more freedom and options to designers (like more colours would to a painter, I guess) but that alone doesn't make games look any better. Infact sometimes in art less can be more, there are some SNES games that still look great.

( Edited on 21.02.2007 17:20 by beamrider2600 )

You've made them look like gormless anime characters.

We get the same sort of thing in videogames. Have you notice when you look around with a gun in a First Person Shooter your aim is always pixle perfict strait even when running at full speed. Try aiming a gun in real life. Look at the way you are holding the gun and how it shifts around while still being aimed at the target zone.

In everygame I have ever played, the terain is all the same too. No matter if you are walking into a puddle, mud, dip, grass, wood, you always run flat like you are on a floor in Ikea!

If this is the "amazing advancement" in videogames, I am not impressed.

I've played games that don't have either of those things...

But if everything was completely realistic, it would compromise the gameplay. Just because a game doesn't have cartoon graphics doesn't mean it's striving to be entirely realistic.

( Edited on 21.02.2007 17:35 by Grumblezorz )

I personally prefer stylised games. I mean...I so badly wanted to play SFA

I want to GO there.

For a game to be successful, as with all other entertainment mediums, you have to feel emotion playing the game. Whether it's fun, fear, happiness, relief, whatever, the game needs it. Graphics, sounds and the storyline all do this in games. I don't see how a game that relies on gameplay alone can ever do anything more than simply being fun. And personally, I prefer games where I come away with a sense that I've done something special. Of course, I love games like shmups, but as fun as they are, I'd take something like Metroid Prime or Halo any day.

Games are almost spiritual. Unlike any other entertainment they give you the opportunity to decide what to do. You can be whatever you want to be. You can actually get a connection to the game. Why do people play WoW? Because it doesn't matter who you are in real life. You can be a shrivelled geek but in the game you can be the hero.

To me, games are an escapism from the reality of life, which in all honesty is boring. For this reason, I've never understood why games aren't accepted like film and music. They're still something that is seem as very geeky if you're above the age of 12.

( Edited on 21.02.2007 17:46 by knighty )

very good post!

I'll be honest, I couldn't continue reading after I saw perfict, responce and "teh l337 graphix!!!" but I'll assume that I pretty much agree with some of what you're saying.

Animation is bloody important. I absolutely can't stand games with horrid looking, jerky animation, or animation that looks really stiff. I mean if every game was animated as well as Street Fighter 3: Third Strike I probably wouldn't bother playing them, I'd just sit there staring. I love the design of games like Okami and Viewtiful Joe too, I think there's just something about them that make me fall in love every time I see a screenshot, and it's even better when you're actually playing it.

Basically anything else I say would just be copied and pasted from Knighty's post, so just read that >.>

GR781 said:
I have to say, you seem to change your point half way through- firstly, you talk about a lack of correct animation in terms of the movement of characters in games like raving rabbidds etc- that clearly is not a problem if motion capture is used, which is part of the appeal to games like halo which use motion capture for actions. Then all of a sudden were in CG films- which doesnt have that much to do with games! The problem all of a sudden changes, and we arent talking about motion animation anymore, but facial expression - I dont see your point here. You might disagree with the facial expressions that animators have chosen for a particular moment, but that has nothing to do with a technical ability to create facial expressions. Equally, taking a screen capture from a moving picture and saying that the look is wrong for the scene is silly- in combination with the looks before and after it may be conveying something that the still alone does not, and perhaps they wanted him to look determined in that scene etc.

*sigh*

I dunno if it got accross from you talking about The Polar Experess, but the main reason that the movie failed look wise was all they did was use motion capture. That is the main problem expecally in games, they only use motion capture. They just capture the body motions and throw it in there.

There are huge limitations to motion capture, the reason why Gollum in Lord of the Rings worked well is that they used Motion Capture as a base and THEN hand animated the face. They exadurated the expressions and movements, wich even more so than the rendering, made him look real.

If this high tech cannot save crappy animators doing stupid things, then how can we expect games to do as good or better?

Technology is tools. You can have a sword, but it would not do you much good if you have no idea how to use it. That is were the talent comes in, same with animation.

One of the huge problems today is that game worlds and characters feel like empty sets with puppets running around. There is no life, there is no reactions, everything is a puppet. Its 2007 now, you would think we could even get to close to the same animation quality as Finding Nemo, but you would be very hard pressed to find such a thing.

(the corrected one)

See the diffrence between the kid and the renderd one. There is no genuinity in the look in the face on the renderd image. Expecally when you look at the context of the sceen were he is watching something amazing, and he says its amazing, but it dose not match is face. At all.

Ohhh, here is a better one.

Ok, I am going to show you two videos. One is from a videogame, one is from a movie. Look at the acting, the sound effects and the voices. Wich one makes you FEEL the dred of war instantly?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EDV1aIqM7w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k6kTmNue3M

Like I said, we have a LOOOOOONG fricken way to go, and if this obsesion over seeing pores and per-pixle lighitng is going to continue...dont expect stuff untill we overcome this. Witch would be 2020 at the earlyist.

( Edited on 21.02.2007 19:55 by Sidepocket )

( Edited on 21.02.2007 19:59 by Sidepocket )

Play some better games.

And...I mean...ffs, lighting is one of the prime things that conveys a good atmosphere, now you want to stop them improving it?!

I hate fanboys who think betters graphics = worse everything else.

( Edited on 21.02.2007 19:40 by knighty )

knighty said:
Play some better games.And...I mean...ffs, lighting is one of the prime things that conveys a good atmosphere, now you want to stop them improving it?!I hate fanboys who think betters graphics = worse everything else. ( Edited on 21.02.2007 19:40 by knighty )

The sad thing though is that its mostly true. In a movie, you screw up the acting, end of movie.

Lighting is a good thing to improve on but like I said, people would rather play a game that moves well instead of renders well. The motions and reactions of the character as well as the scope and 'playfullness' of the world is what connects people to a world no matter how good its renderd.

P.S. I cannot play better games that has this problem solved, because barely NO ONE HAS SOVED THIS PROBLEM IN ANY TIME. That is like teling me to move to a diffrent location to avoid a global plauge.

( Edited on 21.02.2007 20:02 by Sidepocket )

Oh my...
Why for the love of god are you comparing a cut scene in Gears of War to a scene in Saving Private Ryan? Have you ever played Gears of War?

It's a game where you control a ridiculously butch man and shoot aliens who come from underground...

Go away, play some fucking games!

I suppose we shouldn't expect any more from a person mysteriously sporting a network adapter in their signature...

You know it would be possible to make better animation AND better lighting... As far as I'm aware there's no law that you're only allowed to improve one thing about games at once

Megadanxzero said:
You know it would be possible to make better animation AND better lighting... As far as Im aware theres no law that youre only allowed to improve one thing about games at once

Haven't you heard?!?!

Grumbler said:
Oh my...Why for the love of god are you comparing a cut scene in Gears of War to a scene in Saving Private Ryan? Have you ever played Gears of War?Its a game where you control a ridiculously butch man and shoot aliens who come from underground...Go away, play some fucking games!I suppose we shouldnt expect any more from a person mysteriously sporting a network adapter in their signature...

Cry me a river.

I have played Gears of War. Epic Games promoused an Epic story were you would care about what is going on...

And I am still waiting.

Not to mention, there is supose to be a WAR in Gears of War. Like I said in that sceen and many others....were is it?

P.S. You have a horribly photo shopped (I hope) DS gamecase that a one year old could do better with a horribly colored in JSRF logo...just letting you know, your do not look inteligent eather. *gives you big middle finger*

Oh, and you should care. Half-Life 2 was just runing around shooting aliens, but because of the livelyness of the characters via movements and the pysics system, I wanted to explore and enguage myself in the world. Anyone can make a game were you are running around shooting, but to make a true experience out of it, that takes some real skill.

I often talk to a wide range of people, people who know videogames and people out of the loop. Everything you read here is based on what I have found about peoples reactions, expecally people in film; you know, the ones we are trying to imitate. Here is a real quote.

"I have been excited about videogames for a long time. I love the interaction, the artistry, if the media type truly took off then it could surpass film eazily. However, most games don't. All those games I have ever seen like that Fantasy stuff, they all look like puppets. Bad dialog with no emotion, why am I investing time in a world and characters I don't even care about. Most of these games, if they were shown as films, would be worse than what Ed Would could pump out if he tried realy hard. That is why I do not accept games just yet."

I agree with my proffessor. Heck even my animation proffesor who worked on videogames for Rockstar told me this kind of stuff!

( Edited on 21.02.2007 21:11 by Sidepocket )

knighty said:

Megadanxzero said:You know it would be possible to make better animation AND better lighting... As far as Im aware theres no law that youre only allowed to improve one thing about games at once

Havent you heard?!?!

They can do it, but most companies chose to do one thing better in one aspect than another. Its very rare to find a jack of all trades. They can still make a game as good render-wise as they can, but what I am pointing out is the sevear lack of animation in todays games. I mean, Next-Gen PS3 stuff still moves from one animation to another without transition.

Compared to other forms of animation, its very sad and I think its a reason why outside of hardcores it puts people off.

Erm...yeah your sig leaves a lot to be desired >_>

Anyway, I'm pretty sure the cutscene you posted had been updated for the final release. Aaaanyway, it's widely agreed by GoW fans that the story didn't deliver in GoW1, but that it laid the stones for GoW2.

^ you love it really

Games with good animation do exist.

You must remember that animation in games is MUCH harder. Everything has to be dynamic. In CG it's easy. You don't have to worry about the player doing different things. It just plays.

I have played that game, I have already seen that ending. Its horrible.

Look at his face. He has the same fricken emotion through the ENTIRE GAME, not to mention this sceen. Ok, think about this: You are on a train, you figure something out, you set a bomb up and you are convinced that you are ready to die. Then the chopper shows up, you feel a glimmer of hope, you see the impossible odds. You jump and you struggle on board the hellicopter.

Did at all he looked like he was thinking he was going to die, or his struggle. Why should I care about him, he is not even human, he is just a robot renderd as a human.

There was no diffrence in the quality of the animation in that "next-gen" Gears of War ending than there was in that horribly robotic "current-gen" movie.

We have the tools now, if the industry realy had any skill, you would not see such problems. But we do not right now, right now we can only talk the talk and not walk the walk.

Oh, and in terms of trying to be in that bland robot world, I have one image that can topple that entire video clip.

Now THAT is how you design a robot character that you can connect with!

How about this for a point: We are creating game characters that in terms of lighting and textureing are real, but are design wise and animation wise are not real. That is why the Uncanny Vally pops up. To overcome this, all fronts must be done hand in hand.

If you ever can, rent the Terminator Specal Edition. There is the great peice were Arnold discusses on how he was studying his movements to try to make them unreal so he could play the character off on that uneazy edge. A simple example on what he did is that when humans look around, the direction of there eyes folow there head. To make it unreal, to the Uncanny Vally, he would first move his eyes, then his head.

I see stuff like that in games all the time.

( Edited on 21.02.2007 21:31 by Sidepocket )

Insult metal arms and you can just gtfo.

Marcus Fenix is a butch hardened military fella. You want him to cry or something?

Oh my gawd that little robot is cwying. awwwww look at the animation. awwwww

As I said in my previous post, games are much harder to make than CG films, animation wise.

( Edited on 21.02.2007 21:42 by knighty )

SO basically you want everything to look cute. right.

knighty said:
Insult metal arms and you can just gtfo.Marcus Fenix is a butch hardened military fella. You want him to cry or something?Oh my gawd that little robot is cwying. awwwww look at the animation. awwwwwAs I said in my previous post, games are much harder to make than CG films, animation wise.( Edited on 21.02.2007 21:42 by knighty )

You tell him Knighty!

Dont snipe GOW or I will Pwn Jyoo!

pwn* j00* Come on man, speak 1337 proper.

GR781 said:
Sidepocket, you can post up as many pictures of that expression as you like, a kids face is still capable of making a determined expression. This is your personal preference about their choice of expression, I can guarantee you that the artists behind polar express were animating the faces themselves.. mainly because, there are no motion capture devices on the face, clearly evident in your own picture. You just dont like the expressions they chose, but thats your problem, not a fault in design itself. Equally, the pictures you posted were of younger children than the one portrayed in Polar Express. And that doesnt change the fact that your argument is totally split down the middle, half to do with facial animation in movies, and half to do with character animation in games, two very different topics. Dont get me wrong, better animation is a good idea in games, thats certainly true, but I also think its self evident. As for movies, we are already more than capable of mimicking human expressions, you just dont like the design approach of anyone who doesnt make things look cute it seems, and sorry but thats not what its all about.

You are totaly confused on the issue man.

I am not saying movies are the same as games. Quite the contrary, I am saying that movies have suprassed the games. With all this tech we boast about, you would think most games would have similar impact. We can do it, I have seen games that can do it, they are just few and far between because they are lazy.

I am using Polar Express as an example of the puppet-like nature in games. The scenes in the scrip and in the film require the kids to have a sence of wonder. You are telling me when you look into those kids faces you see wonder, delight, and frustration? There is a huge diffrence between mad and frustration. The topic is not if a kids face can do that look, but it what is the emotion of the sceen. Is the kids emotions real? Most people who have seen Polar Expres find it creepy and void of life, the reason is because the characters are not expressive enough.

If we are more than capable of mimmicking human expressions and movements, why do most movies involving digital doubles look crap? See, this is what you are missing out on.

Oh, while its on my mind, that face is not determined, its rage. Look it up in an animation book, there is a diffrence. The kid is supose to be determined, but he looks angry and even worse, his anger face is non-convincing at all.

Lastly, why are you fanboys so protective over Gears of War? Every game has flaws man, if GOW was perfict, there would be no improvements in the sequil. Duh!

Suprisingly, the people who have responded in my thread seem less inteligent and more confused than this same post on nSiders.

Oh, and I want to give you a chalange GR. Using pictures or artwork, I want you to prove me wrong. If I am making a mistake, you have to show me on animation terms. Hence why I provided photographic and image examples. Come on, prove my 4 years of Animation and praise at GDC on the subject is bogus.

P.S.S.

Wanna try to blab your way out of this one?

( Edited on 22.02.2007 07:38 by Sidepocket )

Sidepocket said:
Suprisingly, the people who have responded in my thread seem less inteligent and more confused than this same post on nSiders.

Sidepocket, why do you insult anyone who disagrees with you?