[lvspiff]

Hair, water, and wind - its crazy how those elements are the things that continue to have levels of improvement for these animated films yet for my eyes i keep thinking "well thats looks pretty solid to me" only to be outdone by the next movie and go "oh yeah that looks better somehow".

[zeroonetwothree]

It doesn’t seem to matter much for my enjoyment of the films though. Makes you wonder why we are investing in it.

[al_borland]

20 years ago I was saying this about video games. However, when I go back and look at video games from 20 years ago, I now see why they kept pushing things forward. Graphics were serviceable, but they're so much better now. That said, the game (or movie) still needs to be the most important thing. When a studio tries to lean on graphics as the selling point, it always ends up poorly.

[Loughla]

>That said, the game (or movie) still needs to be the most important thing. When a studio tries to lean on graphics as the selling point, it always ends up poorly.

Counterpoint: Avatar. I have never heard someone say they loved that movie because of the amazing story. They like it because it's very, very, very pretty to look at.

[al_borland]

I've never seen Avatar for this reason. It seemed like all 3D hype. However, after 3 movies and 2 more planned, with the 3D hype long dead, are the visuals going to carry a 5 movie franchise from a director with over 20 Academy Awards under his belt?

I've been debating watching the movies now that there a few of them out, thinking there must be something there. However, I've never heard anyone actually talk about these movies in real life, which is still a concern.

[rjh29]

Even with 3 films out the visual spectacle is what brings people to the cinema. That and the fantasy of living in a different world. The second film focused on previously impossible in-water filming techniques.

[nomel]

3D? 4DX is the way to watch Avatar movies!

I don't really enjoy the stories all that much, but the experience is fun.

Although, I usually turn off the water while I'm eating my popcorn.

[shepherdjerred]

I really didn’t enjoy the latest movie, but I’d see the next just because it is visually quite interesting

[somat]

True, I was trying to play starcitizen and after a bit all that was in my head was that this would be a much better game if they had simplified the graphics and instead invested that time spent into systems. Hell I think this any time I play a so called triple A game.

And even with great graphics why are they always so sterile. Where are my dynamic damage models, deformable terrain, procedural content. One tiny thing that bothered me more than it should have was Doom(2016). Great gameplay but the way the monster corpses disappear just upsets me "How can I be knee deep in the dead if there are no dead?" I mean the original doom and quake kept the corpses around. But now 20 years later they can't?.

[al_borland]

> dynamic damage models, deformable terrain

The new Donkey Kong game has this. You can smash pretty much everything. However, just like with leaning too much on graphics, it felt like they leaned too much on this. The game was very boring and repetitive. I kept waiting for it get better and eventually gave up on it. Being able to smash everything got old by the time I made it out of the tutorial area.

Contrast this to the newer Zelda games. You can climb pretty much anywhere and go pretty much anywhere. It’s the first game I ever played with that much freedom to explore. But instead of subtracting from the gameplay it added to it, as it opened up new (and seemingly infinite) ways to approach and solve a problem. There were also enough varied game loops that felt distinctly different to not feel repetitive.

[542354234235]

Is that true though? Most quality animated features included quality animation. The visuals of the beautifully hand painted early Disney movies were part of the art form. Toy story looks basic to us now but it being the first totally computer animated movie and the visual style that came with that was part of it. Movies are a visual medium, so I guess saying that the visual part of the movie doesn't matter much to you is like saying that the words a writer uses doesn't matter much to your enjoyment of a book.

[mjevans]

The fact that Toy Story or Incredibles stand up even today, as much as we notice the limitations of the time, speaks to the art and effort applied to what was possible at the time. For as simple as they can be in places, they still used the tools they had access to well. Classics.

[a_e_k]

In the words of Mr. Plinkett, regarding certain movie details: "Some so subtle you might not have noticed. But your brain did." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqYx0cqy0WA&t=1266s)

I'd also argue that it's much like movie editing: you tend to only notice it when it's crappy.

[gpderetta]

For the art I suppose.

[cyberax]

Try watching the first Shrek movie to see how far we've progressed!

[maherbeg]

I totally agree. I love watching a small set of animated films over the holidays in time order to really see the technical progress. It's especially fun to go from something nostalgic I loved as a kid, to something I can really see the technical underpinnings of today.

[cubefox]

It helps looking at CGI with a known reference point, like human characters. Every flaw is much more visible than in a "cartoon" like Zootopia.

[bicepjai]

Learning about these improvements gives incredible respect and appreciation for our eyes evolved over millennia.