Now I see why so much games animation is crap

#1 I'm sure once I get to that point with GEV I'll have alot to talk about. Like the grey hair and ulcers I'll be developing. Do you have a site where I could check out some of your work?

Aaron

#2 Are you talking about in-game animations or the cinematic animations (your message is poorly worded and thus difficult to tell)?

If you are talking about in-game animations it is my belief that it is limited due to fact that skeletal systems are relatively young in computer games. 3D packages have had them for years but it has taken them a long time just to get those to where they are at now.

If you are talking about the cinematic stuff, well then I agree that there is no excuse for bad movements in the animation.

Logan

#3 I mean both - animation in the games industry in general whether cinematic or in game.
i understand the requirements (and limitations) of animating for games - but my point is that a good animator will be able to make a decent animation dispite any limitations set (I mean ,most 2d animation in cartoons etc runs at 12 frames per second - this *could* be regarded as a limitation - but doesnt limit good 2d animators) -
I mean that most games animation strives for *smoothness* over character and wieght as smoothness is much easier to achieve (anyone with a 3D package and some time can learn to animate smoothly...its what computers do best and requires the least amount of knowledge or talent to achieve).

#4 I think you will find that soley relise on your animator's abilities, rather then the 3d package your using.

#5 sorry - i dont get what you mean.


BTW Aaron - if you want a link email me and Ill reply a URL to you.

#6 2D hand-drawing animators have the advantage that they automatically take real-world physics into account when they draw. For example, if a character jumps down a three foot "cliff," the animator has a pretty good idea how much the character's knees need to bend to absorb the fall... where a computer needs to compute the character's weight, load-bearing capabilities of the various joints, keep the character on balance, etc etc, all without a general knowledge base to compare to. (If a hand-drawn animation looks wrong to us, we simply redo it, but how can a computer system define what "looks wrong"?)

As Logan said, skeleton systems are still fairly new for games, but even with them there are problems that hand-drawn animations don't have to worry about, such as inverse kinematics etc. (Sure, they're solved problems, but they take a lot of work to implement.)

I'm going to be working hard on the problem sometime soon, as I'm making a game in which animation is of prime importance. I'm thinking of using semi-stiff joints to allow movements to take momentum into account, and hopefully that accomplishes something.

#7 this just addresses the issue of realism - not expression and character (which is realy what I am talking about).An animator is a choreographer and actor - he/she deals with movement and emotion - to an animator realism and physics are tools that can be used or disgarded.

#8 Ahh yes, I see what you're getting at, and I agree totally. I am most dismayed when I see a game whose engine can obviously handle decent animation, but it's wasted. I can only suppose the costs of tuning the animations is deemed too high, and doesn't add enough "gameplay."

To be fair, however, skeletal animation should help at least a bit, as (I am led to understand) it is easier to animate once the skeleton is in place. One game (I can't remember the name, but it's the upcoming one involving driving through London) is already trying it for their cinematics, so hopefully they accomplish something.

Tell me, Etienne, what do you think of the animation in Metal Gear Solid? (If you've seen the game.) The animation there has inspired my own creations.

#9 Hi,
Skeletal animation has been in games for quit sometime now. I agree that it is in the hands of the animator. Attention to detail, the little quirks and weight etc. of the character is the difference between good and great.
Now having said that you should also realize that 80% of the animation that you are looking at that you think is great is likely motion capture.

#10 this is true - but then again even motion capture data looks floaty and wieghtless unless the person that applies it to the models is a good animator - as is the case in something like the FF movie - often realy good looking motion capture stuff only looks good because it has been augmented by someone with an eye for dynamic motion and timing.

#11 And the differance between motion capture and model animation is....? You guys lost me there. :)

#12 very bsically

motion capture is usind data *captured* via rigs and trackers that are attached to real actors - you capture thier movement and transfer it to a 3D model.

Then theres keyframe animation which is more like traditional animation just not as time consuming - you move the model (usualy using a skeleton )and place keyframes along a timeline.

is that what you where asking?

#13 That explains it exactly. Thanks. ;)

I've seen that sort of technology used by was under the impression that only sports games have really been using it. I guess I was completely wrong there.

#14 its true that most games dont use motion capture - but many do.

#15 Motion capture is mostly used by EA for their sports games. Most companies don't use motion capture due to the sheer costs involved with renting a facility. This coupled with the fact that most motion capture data has some erronious data in it that needs to be cleaned up (to give a more fluid movement... something the human body doesn't really do) keeps motion capture from being used in many games.

Most games that use skeletal animation, such as Neverwinter Nights, use animation data setup by the animator. Usually this animation is based off of video taped movements (in the case of NWN they went out and captured hours of martial arts practices at local houses). If done correctly with enough effort you can get some great looking animations for characters (that are on par with the technology limitations).

One thing that we shouldn't forget is the development time for games. Many of the popular games that we see today take years to develop and the animation for characters is done somewhere in the middle of that time.

As long as the animation action looks natural and believable (and doesn't clip through the model) I don't think many people will care if it has weighting, speed, and things like that too it.

Logan

#16 I must say that I disagree with your point on wieght and character not being necessary -I think you may find that one of the reasons its hard to sell games to a wider audience is axactly because of the lack of wieght and character in games animation in general - this is why japanese games are some of the most popular in the world and often are the games that attract mass market audiences.Without wieght and charcter it is not animation -its just things moving.