Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Prerender isn't even a word

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 3:45:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

The term "prerender" isn't even a real word and is actually quite a
stupid term upon examination. It figures the xflop 1.5 full circle
fanfairies would seize on it as a badmouthing tactic. What does
prerender actually mean? Pre as in before and render as in drawing. So,
when you use the term prerender, you are saying "before drawing". It
doesn't even make any rational sense. No wonder the xflop 1.5 full
circle fanfairies have taken it and spread it wherever they can, until
the whole Internet has been flooded with this idiotic term. What is
interesting is that the people that are actually in the industry have
seen this confusion factor effect and this is the first attempt to
correct what the retarded xflop 1.5 full circle fanfairy mob have tried
to spread. This is the latest Quake 4 video. Yes, it is a movie of
in-game footage:

http://trailers.gametrailers.com/gt_vault/t_enemyterrit...

A movie of in-game footage does not make it "prerendered". To make it
clear, they are starting the trailer with this statement

THE FOLLOWING TRAILER IS COMPRISED ENTIRELY OF IN-GAME FOOTAGE

It is really bad when a company like id realizes the ignorance level
of the game playing public is becoming so stupid that it needs a notice
like this preceding a movie trailer of an upcoming game. It is so
bizarre that so many people cannot grasp the slightest concepts of
computer graphics and will come up with the most twisted, confused
perceptions of it, bleeting like brainless sheep as if their distorted
concept was some kind of "fact".
There is a correct way to distinguish between the generation of these
images and movies: software-rendered or hardware-rendered. Software
rendering is used for many game cut scenes and intro cinematics. In
fact, most game intro cinematics are software rendered. This is where a
piece of software with a software rendering engine renders each frame
of a movie, or animation, not in real time. It is taking many minutes
or even hours to render each frame. Hardware render is what the in-game
engine uses, rendering each frame 10's or hundreds of times per second.
Even this distinction isn't black and white, there are now software
render engines that will make use of hardware accelerated rendering and
hardware accelerated render engines that will use software render
routines. Also, because an intro cinematic is software rendered does
not preclude the scene elements from being used as game assets or for
game engine in-game cutscenes.
But if anything, the term "prerender" is just totally stupid and
doesn't mean anything except demonstrating your stupidity if you are
using it as being descriptive of anything.

More about : prerender word

Anonymous
June 26, 2005 4:56:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Blig Merk wrote:

> The term "prerender" isn't even a real word

Capturing in-game footage is one thing. Nobody is referring to that as
prerendered, you stupid tool.

Constructing CGI cinematics and trying to pass it off as gameplay footage,
as Sony did for some of their PS3 demos, is quite another. In other words,
visuals that were *rendered* *in advance* as opposed to created on the fly
by a game engine, eg. the Killzone 2 and Motor Storm "demos".

Sorry to shoot down your unnecessary little spittle-drenched essay with a
quick dose of common sense, Bligsmear. As you were.

-Z-
June 26, 2005 6:19:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"Zackman" <zackman@SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote in message
news:FeidnRN2rKmwZyPfRVn-rA@giganews.com...
> Blig Merk wrote:
>
>> The term "prerender" isn't even a real word
>
> Capturing in-game footage is one thing. Nobody is referring to that as
> prerendered, you stupid tool.
>
> Constructing CGI cinematics and trying to pass it off as gameplay footage,
> as Sony did for some of their PS3 demos, is quite another. In other words,
> visuals that were *rendered* *in advance* as opposed to created on the fly
> by a game engine, eg. the Killzone 2 and Motor Storm "demos".
>
> Sorry to shoot down your unnecessary little spittle-drenched essay with a
> quick dose of common sense, Bligsmear. As you were.
>
> -Z-
>

If the Killzone2 footage was indeed "ingame" then why did it not have an
ammo counter or healthbar?
Strychnine
Related resources
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 6:19:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"Strychnine" <BeERm3@b33R.IcYEKoLD.N3t> wrote in message
news:Mq-dnfGiO9FRYiPfRVn-iA@centurytel.net...
>
> "Zackman" <zackman@SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote in message
> news:FeidnRN2rKmwZyPfRVn-rA@giganews.com...
>> Blig Merk wrote:
>>
>>> The term "prerender" isn't even a real word
>>
>> Capturing in-game footage is one thing. Nobody is referring to that as
>> prerendered, you stupid tool.
>>
>> Constructing CGI cinematics and trying to pass it off as gameplay
>> footage, as Sony did for some of their PS3 demos, is quite another. In
>> other words, visuals that were *rendered* *in advance* as opposed to
>> created on the fly by a game engine, eg. the Killzone 2 and Motor Storm
>> "demos".
>>
>> Sorry to shoot down your unnecessary little spittle-drenched essay with a
>> quick dose of common sense, Bligsmear. As you were.
>>
>> -Z-
>>
>
> If the Killzone2 footage was indeed "ingame" then why did it not have an
> ammo counter or healthbar?

Zack wasn't saying Killzone 2 was "ingame." His sentence structure was a
little brutal, so it's not surprising you read it that way. But if you read
any of Zack's posts since E3, you'll see that he's always referred to the
Killzone demo as prerendered.

Not that the lack of UI elements like you mentioned would mean the footage
wasn't "ingame" on its own. Ingame in this case means rendered on the fly by
the game engine (basically what Zack said.) It doesn't mean that all
elements are necessarily final or even present at all.

And congrats to Blig for continuing to find new ways to make himself look
dumber. That is not an easy task.
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 7:20:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Xbot wrote:

> Zack wasn't saying Killzone 2 was "ingame." His sentence structure
> was a little brutal, so it's not surprising you read it that way.

LOL, you're right. Sorry for the confusion.

-Z-
June 26, 2005 9:18:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"THE FOLLOWING TRAILER IS COMPRISED ENTIRELY OF IN-GAME FOOTAGE"

No, it's not. Not a single second of the trailer is from a first person
in game perspective. This is the same thing I was telling all the Halo
2 fanboys before Halo 2 came out. Rendering a series of events with the
engine is NOT the same as playing something in game. The in game
results won't look anywhere near that good.

All they did was take some of the "in game" cutscenes and make a
trailer out of them. Reserve judgement until you see the actual game.

- Jordan
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 11:22:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Strychnine <BeERm3@b33R.IcYEKoLD.N3t> wrote:
>If the Killzone2 footage was indeed "ingame" then why did it not have an
>ammo counter or healthbar?

Games can easily turn those off for screenshot purposes. And you
know, if KZ3 (cause 2 is supposed to come out for PS2 or PSP) was
prerendered, they could easily have slapped on a HUD as well.

That said, I think it was prerendered. Which is sneaky, since
they went to the trouble to make it look like a player-controlled FPS
camera and included a few glitches that looked like what happens to
realtime renderers.

--
"Many people in this room question, legitimately, whether we should have
gone in [to Iraq] or not,"
-- Senator John McCain, April 2, 2004
Anonymous
June 27, 2005 12:30:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"Blig Merk" <blig_murk@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119811502.981937.155410@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The term "prerender" isn't even a real word and is actually quite a
> stupid term upon examination. It figures the xflop 1.5 full circle
> fanfairies would seize on it as a badmouthing tactic. What does
> prerender actually mean? Pre as in before and render as in drawing. So,
> when you use the term prerender, you are saying "before drawing". It
> doesn't even make any rational sense. No wonder the xflop 1.5 full
> circle fanfairies have taken it and spread it wherever they can, until
> the whole Internet has been flooded with this idiotic term. What is
> interesting is that the people that are actually in the industry have
> seen this confusion factor effect and this is the first attempt to
> correct what the retarded xflop 1.5 full circle fanfairy mob have tried
> to spread. This is the latest Quake 4 video. Yes, it is a movie of
> in-game footage:
>
> http://trailers.gametrailers.com/gt_vault/t_enemyterrit...
>
> A movie of in-game footage does not make it "prerendered". To make it
> clear, they are starting the trailer with this statement
>
> THE FOLLOWING TRAILER IS COMPRISED ENTIRELY OF IN-GAME FOOTAGE
>
> It is really bad when a company like id realizes the ignorance level
> of the game playing public is becoming so stupid that it needs a notice
> like this preceding a movie trailer of an upcoming game. It is so
> bizarre that so many people cannot grasp the slightest concepts of
> computer graphics and will come up with the most twisted, confused
> perceptions of it, bleeting like brainless sheep as if their distorted
> concept was some kind of "fact".
> There is a correct way to distinguish between the generation of these
> images and movies: software-rendered or hardware-rendered. Software
> rendering is used for many game cut scenes and intro cinematics. In
> fact, most game intro cinematics are software rendered. This is where a
> piece of software with a software rendering engine renders each frame
> of a movie, or animation, not in real time. It is taking many minutes
> or even hours to render each frame. Hardware render is what the in-game
> engine uses, rendering each frame 10's or hundreds of times per second.
> Even this distinction isn't black and white, there are now software
> render engines that will make use of hardware accelerated rendering and
> hardware accelerated render engines that will use software render
> routines. Also, because an intro cinematic is software rendered does
> not preclude the scene elements from being used as game assets or for
> game engine in-game cutscenes.
> But if anything, the term "prerender" is just totally stupid and
> doesn't mean anything except demonstrating your stupidity if you are
> using it as being descriptive of anything.
>

I'm glad I don't have to waste my time shooting your fruitless theories
down, Muk, as I see others have already done that pretty well.
June 27, 2005 2:56:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

there is no debate about killzone 2 it was already confirmed that it was not
in game or pre-rendered but it was CGI.
"Strychnine" <BeERm3@b33R.IcYEKoLD.N3t> wrote in message
news:Mq-dnfGiO9FRYiPfRVn-iA@centurytel.net...
>
> "Zackman" <zackman@SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote in message
> news:FeidnRN2rKmwZyPfRVn-rA@giganews.com...
>> Blig Merk wrote:
>>
>>> The term "prerender" isn't even a real word
>>
>> Capturing in-game footage is one thing. Nobody is referring to that as
>> prerendered, you stupid tool.
>>
>> Constructing CGI cinematics and trying to pass it off as gameplay
>> footage, as Sony did for some of their PS3 demos, is quite another. In
>> other words, visuals that were *rendered* *in advance* as opposed to
>> created on the fly by a game engine, eg. the Killzone 2 and Motor Storm
>> "demos".
>>
>> Sorry to shoot down your unnecessary little spittle-drenched essay with a
>> quick dose of common sense, Bligsmear. As you were.
>>
>> -Z-
>>
>
> If the Killzone2 footage was indeed "ingame" then why did it not have an
> ammo counter or healthbar?
> Strychnine
>
Anonymous
June 27, 2005 11:45:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"steven" <stevep@tscotsman.plus.com> wrote in message
news:42bf247e$0$41921$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
> there is no debate about killzone 2 it was already confirmed that it was
not
> in game or pre-rendered but it was CGI.

confirmed?
I have never read anything but conflicting reports of whether it was
"ingame" vs/or "prerendered".




begin 666 p.gif
M1TE&.#EAH0`1`( ````3S/___R'Y! $```$`+ ````"A`!$```+_C(^IR^T/
MHYRTVHNSWKS[#X9B!I0.D*"(JJBL]"[ES,54;#_Y>>P!GF*X*C[#JSA:!9._
M)>UGZCFC-%34>+4VH;9CTY6%8J7;K_BL-&)96JYZ+0VWR$ E^TU];Z_ENCJ/
M!X:G9R581M@WEC@4. AW=\@UT[:'Z+0D,VE9:<EHMHD("4E'ZABG&0DDNHG:
MQ:=')NFYNAC;M=>Z`DC+&3>7YNO(Z_D;:UM,>S=Z2PP;/'R<F!J4S&CHYQ?=
MFQPLC0G]UVG\!*?H#,:FQ6?2[(8Y+B>=SJX-['[X-%_/Q-_OCS$IH,"!! L:
:/ (@PH<*%#!LJ_ <QHL2)%"M:o (@Q8X8"`#L`
`
end
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 12:03:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

let's drop the "Pre-render" first.


"real-time render". Basically the in-game cutscene is rendered on the fly.

"pre-render" just opposite 'real-time render' except the cutscene is just,
well, 'pre rendered', saved as mpg file, and the machine just play it out
like normal video file. I hate 'pre-render' of course, since the machine
can render it real time, I don't see any reasons why they want to
'pre-render' the scene.

and last one, not sure how you call that, but basically it is 3D cinematic
scene, usually contains high polygons and high resolution, made with 3D Max
or something along that line. Think of it like Blizzard's Starcraft,
Warcraft III, intro, cutscene, and ending.
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 12:03:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Kancil Killer <fookk@hotmale.com> wrote:
>"pre-render" just opposite 'real-time render' except the cutscene is just,
>well, 'pre rendered', saved as mpg file, and the machine just play it out
>like normal video file. I hate 'pre-render' of course, since the machine
>can render it real time, I don't see any reasons why they want to
>'pre-render' the scene.
>
>and last one, not sure how you call that, but basically it is 3D cinematic
>scene, usually contains high polygons and high resolution, made with 3D Max
>or something along that line. Think of it like Blizzard's Starcraft,
>Warcraft III, intro, cutscene, and ending.

Going back to FF7, there's a long history of gamers talking about
the last category -- CGI rendered on a completely different pipeline from
the in-game engine -- as "pre-rendered".


Also, if a game uses the realtime renderer to output to a video
capture, we still call it "realtime". There are reasons to do this --
maybe you don't want random events in your game to mess up a press demo;
you'd tape until you got the best footage and only show that.

The only time the distinction is made is if a game rendered out
each frame not quite in realtime. (I can't really think of any examples
of this off the top of my head, but see next paragraph.) For example, if a
game wanted to be 30
fps but the current build could only sustain 15 fps, if we saw a video of
it running at 15 fps, we'd call it realtime. And if they rendered out a
30 fps video by setting the game to run at half speed, then sped up the
video 2x, then that would be "cheating" enough that it should be called
"pre-rendered", though it's still somewhat different from rendering a
scene on a render farm.

There was a vaguely similar situation with Bungie's Halo pictures
for print magazines - those were rendered by the XBox, but in a special
debug mode that captured the image at (I think) 9 times the size of the
regular screenshot to provide high enough resolution for magazine images.
Of course, I don't believe Bungie ever tried to hide that or pretend you'd
see such sharp images on a real TV.

--
Brad, for fourteen years, I've been a whore for the advertising industry.
The only way I could save myself now would be if I start firebombing.
-- Lester Burnham, AMERICAN BEAUTY (1999)
July 2, 2005 2:16:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"Blig Merk" <blig_murk@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119811502.981937.155410@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The term "prerender" isn't even a real word and is actually quite a
> stupid term upon examination. It figures the xflop 1.5 full circle
> fanfairies would seize on it as a badmouthing tactic. What does
> prerender actually mean? Pre as in before and render as in drawing. So,
> when you use the term prerender, you are saying "before drawing". It
> doesn't even make any rational sense. No wonder the xflop 1.5 full
> circle fanfairies have taken it and spread it wherever they can, until
> the whole Internet has been flooded with this idiotic term. What is
> interesting is that the people that are actually in the industry have
> seen this confusion factor effect and this is the first attempt to
> correct what the retarded xflop 1.5 full circle fanfairy mob have tried
> to spread. This is the latest Quake 4 video. Yes, it is a movie of
> in-game footage:
>
> http://trailers.gametrailers.com/gt_vault/t_enemyterrit...
>
> A movie of in-game footage does not make it "prerendered". To make it
> clear, they are starting the trailer with this statement
>
> THE FOLLOWING TRAILER IS COMPRISED ENTIRELY OF IN-GAME FOOTAGE
>
> It is really bad when a company like id realizes the ignorance level
> of the game playing public is becoming so stupid that it needs a notice
> like this preceding a movie trailer of an upcoming game. It is so
> bizarre that so many people cannot grasp the slightest concepts of
> computer graphics and will come up with the most twisted, confused
> perceptions of it, bleeting like brainless sheep as if their distorted
> concept was some kind of "fact".
> There is a correct way to distinguish between the generation of these
> images and movies: software-rendered or hardware-rendered. Software
> rendering is used for many game cut scenes and intro cinematics. In
> fact, most game intro cinematics are software rendered. This is where a
> piece of software with a software rendering engine renders each frame
> of a movie, or animation, not in real time. It is taking many minutes
> or even hours to render each frame. Hardware render is what the in-game
> engine uses, rendering each frame 10's or hundreds of times per second.
> Even this distinction isn't black and white, there are now software
> render engines that will make use of hardware accelerated rendering and
> hardware accelerated render engines that will use software render
> routines. Also, because an intro cinematic is software rendered does
> not preclude the scene elements from being used as game assets or for
> game engine in-game cutscenes.

....er- you ARE kidding me right?

Prerendered footages are pre-... well- pre-generated footages, video
footages that were generated earlier by some other hard or software - think
of it as being like a DVD or a video tape that is being played. And
"in-game footages" or similar things are scenes created in real-time by the
game's engine - think of it as being like a live play at a theatre, or maybe
a live broadcast on your tele...

Many intros and cutscenes in games were usually pre-rendered, because it
would enable better looking cinemedics. For the game to generate the
cinematics in realtime would take wayyy too much time and resources...
actually why am I wasting my time writing this? Surely anyone with even
quarter of a monkey brain should know what the difference is...

You ARE kidding/trolling right? RIGHT?!

<=[BC]=>
!