Better look out Nexuss, since you don't agree with UrbanSmooth, he's going to call you an MK fan boy.
-Fuj

Just because we don't agree with him, we are just fan boys? Nevertheless, it's him who is against any evolution in MK, by wanting to return actors digitized in tights without interest...

UrbanSmooth Wrote: We've seen real-life actors in the Mortal Kombat game series already, so, we all know that it's possible. Sweet fancy Moses, the technology was in Mortal Kombat! The very first MK game! Way back in 1992!

If they used the 2D sprites style that was used for the old games in a 3D game the characters would be flat as a sheet of paper, you would be able to see them from the front only.
If you were to look at them from the right, they would be so flat that they would be invisible.
For example hold a picture in your hand, now turn it, It's flat from the side.
That's what the characters would look like if they used the technology from MK1 in a 3D game.
Like I said before, the best thing that can be done is to make the 3D models realistically proportioned but use a med polygon count so that it runs smooth in real time.
Then use images of real people to texture the models.
Like that head I posted before that I made.
That's the best thing they can do to make the characters look real.
They won't be as detailed as a picture of a person, but it would look very real from a distance and when they move.
Like the guy from Doom 3 or the characters in wrestling and boxing games.
That's they only thing they can do, that's all there is to it.
They can't use video footage of a person doing moves like in the old games because that only works well for 2D games.
If they did it for 3D, the characters would be flat.
Actually, you know what. I'm gonna use the 2D technique you are asking for and put it in a 3D world and you will see what I trying to explain.

Thank you, Bleed. You're putting in a lot of effort, it's appreciated.
Everyone else in the thread defending technology and using logic, thank you as well.
Like Bleed, I've been using and studying 3d technology for some time (I've used 3d studio more than anything.. I have used but have very little experience with Lightwave, Maya, or other programs) I'm currently attending school to become a graphic artist. Games, specifically.
Consider technology for just a moment, UrbanSmooth. Games are evolving into living, breathing 3d worlds. The higher the polygon count rises, the longer it takes to render. One scene, a photograph with such a high poly count can take hours to render without a renderfarm (A series of a computers dedicated to rendering a given scene.. Thank you Bleed)
Consider a movie such as Toy Story, Shrek or even Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.. These movies have polygon counts FAR beyond what games are capable of and still don't capture the realism that you envision.
Consider Doom 3. Look what it has accomplished. Id Software has spent the last five years developing an engine capable of running such a game. That takes a lot of manpower and man hours (Bezou, thanks for pointing this out earlier) to accomplish. There isn't a system in a home yet that can run Doom 3 on it's maximum settings. It's impossible, technology cannot handle it. Not in real time. (We need graphics cards with 512mb of memory, etc.)
While CG has come a long way over the last few years, we haven't even scratched the surface of realism. It just isn't going to happen any time soon, if ever. Even with an engine capable of real life effects, I doubt we would see this in a video game. "Realism" is one thing. "Being Realistic" is another thing entirely.
--
UrbanSmooth, when you speak of digitized acting and characters in a 3d environment, I envision the games of old. I'm not speaking of the Classic Kombat Series... I'm thinking of something different entirely:
Sega CD.
This system, among others (3DO, Phillips CDi) tried to include real actors in their video games. In fact, the Sega CD tried to capitalize on this. It was something that Sega stated proudly. "Games comprised of several hours of Full-Motion Video!"
Sewer Shark. Night Trap. Tomcat Alley. I know these games, I have them. I'm one of the people who bought into the 32X and the Sega CD. These games were not what they were imagined to be. Despite the real actors and footage, the games weren't realistic.
They allow no real gameplay, they rely on a point and click interface. Tomcat Alley, while it was made from real film footage, was not as realistic as the Ace Combat series that released on PSOne/PS2..
This is just one of many examples...
--
This was much longer than it was originally intended to be.. For that, I apologize. I'm done with my rant and my facts.
It's late. I'm done.

Here check this out.
Movie example
The 3D head I made with the picture of a real person used as a texture map.
then Scorpion on the bottom using the 2D video capture technique from MK1.
The only way to use a 2D image to make a person in 3D is to map that image on to a 3D model.
Or as a texture map. A texture map is a 2D image that is put on the 3D model. Its basically like if you were to paint on a toy or a sculpture, or if you were to put a sticker on your body.
That's how textures work. You take a 2D image and stick it on a 3D model.
That's basically the way to make a 3D model look real.
Using textures.
You can't just have the 2D image by it self, because it's flat.

wow to the thread maker: drugs are bad kid
now back to the topic im gonna have to agree with bezou the benefits are none existant infact it just gets worse u could play it for probably 1 hour at the most with so much power going into it
and also like someone said mk would probably get banned due to the blood & gore in it were lucky that mk5 didnt get banned
im personally againts it, the thread maker might need to go and see a counsler (sp) or something

Now i'm not the most knowledgeable in the matter of 3D modelling/graphics, but i do believe i understand enough to explain this....
First you have to understand how the games were/are made to understand why they can't put 3D life-like models into a game the way you are talking about. The characters for the 2D MK's were filmed (therefore 2D) and then the film was digitized. All the separate frames made up the characters movements. There is no way of filming in 3D (that i know of anyway). The closest you can get to recording 3D motion is motion capture (which is what they use!). Thich captures the motions of the actor (much like filming in the old games). But that is no use by itself, so they add a polygon mesh (which is nothing amazing to look at), then add a texture to that mesh which makes the model look like the character!!
From what i know there is no way of putting a life-like model into a 3D game without using texture mapping (at least on current/next gen hardware). Bleed, you might be able to confirm/deny this. And like Bleed said the closest you can get is using very high resolution textures on high polygon count mesh's = slow play due to not enough processing power (even in the next-gen hardware)
So there's my little rant for the day, hope that explains clearly why what you are requesting won't happen anytime soon!!

Right, without the texture on the model, the model just has one solid color.
Like the entire model will be white like a sculpture.


you can change that color to whatever you want, but if you don't use texture maps, all you have is a basic flat color.

I just want to know where the hell is Temp or Crow when you need them. This guy is swearing in this thread along with another thread and got no warnings or skulls. Imo, this guy needs to be banned.
Btw, I'm talking about the famous swearing UrbanSmooth.

I like the new graphics of MKD better than those of MKDA........ and MKDA was like, 1000 times better than mk4 ! So... my point is: MKDeception characters are the best they could look !

Yes, I'm back for more!
Alright, this may be a long post, so, please read:
First of all, I'd like to apologize to everyone that I've flamed and swore at. You're entitled to your opinions, and I appreciate you keeping this thread alive. You may or may not be MK fanboys. However, if you are, just respect the opinions of people that want to constructively criticize things (me).
As for you '3D computer students/experts,' I know all about 3D meshes, textures, wireframes, etc. I was not thinking about using computers to make the 3D that way.
Also, I know that 2D is different than 3D! If you were to capture the characters in 2D and put them in a 3D game, you would have a Parappa the Rapper result. I know!
This is my theory on how real-life actors could be digitized into a 3D gaming environment in 3D:
Has anyone here been to an iMAX theatre? There was an iMAX film about Michael Jordan, and in it, they used a 3D camera technique that I will use as the basis of my theory.
How they did it:
They (the makers of the film) placed several cameras around a 'green room' (green circular wall and floor) and had Michael Jordan do several actions, which were captured, in 3D, onto those cameras.
I'm sure that this could be applied to, or at least, experimented with to move toward real-life actors in 3D game worlds! Has anyone seen the Superbowl? I'm sure most of us have. They surround the field with a lot of cameras and are able to playback fully-3D replays!
Now, Midway wouldn't have to use a lot of cameras, because they wouldn't be filming on a football field. They would use a smaller amount, because to capture one person in a small area into 3D, an area small enough in which the actor could execute MK-like moves, would not require a lot of cameras.
So, the actor would stand in the middle of the small area, surrounded circularly by cameras, in a measured pattern, and would execute several moves.
A computer would record the video to a video file in a 3D video-type program. This program would be able to be told what degree to rotate on, according to its Y axis, when programmed into the game. That way, when someone is side-stepping up or down in the game, or the scene is rotating in the game, the 3D video file would be able to be told what degree and/or angle to rotate to.
Basically, with the characters, I'm talking about using a 3D video file in the 3D gaming environment, not polygons! The backgrounds, artwork, and special effects look good enough, they do not need to be real-life places or objects. The characters, however, do.
Also, think about how great it would be to see live-action character endings (when you beat the game), acted out by real actors. They could add special effects with computers.
Now, this is some pretty deep stuff, so, if you're confused, or have any questions, or even, any doubts or positives, please let me know. I will be happy to respond to you in a more controlled, cool manner.
Long live innovation!
Long live constructive criticism!
Long live the fowarding of technology!
And by God, love live UrbanSmooth!

HELL YEA URBAN! That was an excellent post. Keep em coming like that and no one should be bickering anymore.
-Fuj

Technology is there but not in the console yet. The technique you are asking for Midway to do cost money and time. Your point about the several camera around the green room where a character is digitized cost alot of money to do, for example the first Matrix where Neo bent backward in slow motion cost about 2 million just for that shot and it was done with the same technique. Now let say game console is powerful to do this right and let say Midway want to use this technique in MK7. If their 34 character in the game and three fighting style for each character and it cost them 2 million for each digitized each character and their three fight style, now add that up. The amount would be 102,000,000 million dollar just to shoot 34 digitized character with their move.

You have a very good idea there.
I think that would work.
Not as well as a real 3D game, but It might work.
Actual 3D is much easier to work with and gives you more freedom.
There would also be problems with rendering light and shadows on the characters when special effects happen and with different light sources in every stage.
The characters would look out of place.
But I can see what you are talking about in my head and it looks pretty good.

UrbanSmooth Wrote: Yes, I'm back for more! Alright, this may be a long post, so, please read: First of all, I'd like to apologize to everyone that I've flamed and swore at. You're entitled to your opinions, and I appreciate you keeping this thread alive. You may or may not be MK fanboys. However, if you are, just respect the opinions of people that want to constructively criticize things (me). As for you '3D computer students/experts,' I know all about 3D meshes, textures, wireframes, etc. I was not thinking about using computers to make the 3D that way. Also, I know that 2D is different than 3D! If you were to capture the characters in 2D and put them in a 3D game, you would have a Parappa the Rapper result. I know! This is my theory on how real-life actors could be digitized into a 3D gaming environment in 3D: Has anyone here been to an iMAX theatre? There was an iMAX film about Michael Jordan, and in it, they used a 3D camera technique that I will use as the basis of my theory. How they did it: They (the makers of the film) placed several cameras around a 'green room' (green circular wall and floor) and had Michael Jordan do several actions, which were captured, in 3D, onto those cameras. I'm sure that this could be applied to, or at least, experimented with to move toward real-life actors in 3D game worlds! Has anyone seen the Superbowl? I'm sure most of us have. They surround the field with a lot of cameras and are able to playback fully-3D replays! Now, Midway wouldn't have to use a lot of cameras, because they wouldn't be filming on a football field. They would use a smaller amount, because to capture one person in a small area into 3D, an area small enough in which the actor could execute MK-like moves, would not require a lot of cameras. So, the actor would stand in the middle of the small area, surrounded circularly by cameras, in a measured pattern, and would execute several moves. A computer would record the video to a video file in a 3D video-type program. This program would be able to be told what degree to rotate on, according to its Y axis, when programmed into the game. That way, when someone is side-stepping up or down in the game, or the scene is rotating in the game, the 3D video file would be able to be told what degree and/or angle to rotate to. Basically, with the characters, I'm talking about using a 3D video file in the 3D gaming environment, not polygons! The backgrounds, artwork, and special effects look good enough, they do not need to be real-life places or objects. The characters, however, do. Also, think about how great it would be to see live-action character endings (when you beat the game), acted out by real actors. They could add special effects with computers. Now, this is some pretty deep stuff, so, if you're confused, or have any questions, or even, any doubts or positives, please let me know. I will be happy to respond to you in a more controlled, cool manner. Long live innovation! Long live constructive criticism! Long live the fowarding of technology! And by God, love live UrbanSmooth!

Yes that was certainly a more civilized post, although others may disagree with you still, at least they will be more likely to respect your oppion when displayed in a respectful manner.
I agree that would be spectacular if it could be implemented, but it sounds to good to be true. That would mostly likely cost large amounts of money in terms of equipment and devlopment, one that perhaps a video game company is not ready to invest in yet. Im not saying it's a bad idea, but there are reasons to why they are not doing it, weather it be finanical, hardware, or someother reason.

Well, mkraiden didn't wanna say it, but I will...
That's a bad idea.

I hate it when that happens...

Urbansmooth:
What you're suggesting in theory is o.k. but:
1.As mentioned -Lighting
Every stage has different lighting and is often dynamic/moving/random/changing.The problem with your method is the lighting on your real actors is set or "baked into" the actors' surfaces.The lights' direction/colour/intensity/movement is set when you film the actors.This is fine for a film where it is not an interactive experience,but in a game you cannot read just the original lighting using your method.As you know with 3D models the lighting can either be baked into the surfaces and/or generated in live/on the fly/in realtime.
Even with Sega's holographic games from the late 80s (which is the nearest thing to your idea in terms of game inplementation),the lighting on those characters is fixed.
2.To actually get around this problem,and here's why 3d models are more flexible,is:
(Presuming technology of the future was in your hands to do it by the way)
You would have to film your actor placed inside a sphere,on the sphere at evenly spaced out points you place cameras(think Matrix bullet-time style),you then shoot your actor doing every frame of every move,under all lighting possibilities-direction,dynamic movement of light etc,and get this...to allow for camera zooming in etc you would need to film it all again for each zoom factor or it's gonna look pixelly when you zoom in in-game.You also have to add shadows that would fall from one character to another afterwards!
That's alot of data just for one frame of footage.
no. of cameras on sphere x frames per second x lighting options
The above method works.
3d tv uses less cameras and interpolates between the data,but the data is not interactive like a game.So even using that method you would still have to film even lighting possibility and add the shadows of character interaction.Also the interpolation between cameras would have to be very good.
Games have budgets and are only viable if they will make a profit so it's unlikely a technology as progressed/advanced as the traditional 3d method will be abandoned.Staff will have skills "ready to go" on 3d programs etc,they would need retraining or new staff would be required,new equipment would be needed,current equipment would be redundant.It's just not practical and companies are not going to gamble with a tried and tested method that people are happy with.

Any of you remember a game called War Gods? No? Well niether do I! :-O

theeldersin Wrote: Any of you remember a game called War Gods? No? Well niether do I! :-O

Yeah, I always thought that was midway's way of giving consumers a MK in 3d test.. I dunno I really hated that game... I played it, not sure why, always felt dissapointed, probbly cause of the KOOL '3d button' :-s I thought that last boss was lame.

yea the characters do seem too cartoonish.. i think the mk team needs to study the human body alil more.. cuz most of the fighters r too buffed..sumtimes i feel like im playin wit arnold swarzenegger in yellow ninja suit... i dont want to feel that way when im playin mk...most of the fighters look like body builders and its an ugly site

mkraiden Wrote: Yeah, I always thought that was midway's way of giving consumers a MK in 3d test.. I dunno I really hated that game... I played it, not sure why, always felt dissapointed, probbly cause of the KOOL '3d button' :-s I thought that last boss was lame.

There was one thing in that game that I thought was kool and well thought out. I THINK it was the final boss, maybe not, that did a Fatality to you where you turned to stone. Well, if you picked the guy who was already made of stone, let's call him Thing since I can't remember his name, well when they went to turn him to stone he jumped around laughing or some shit, then they had to end up doing something different to kill him. I think they stomped him or something to make him crumble. That was wicked stuff!

mkraiden Wrote: Yeah, I always thought that was midway's way of giving consumers a MK in 3d test.. I dunno I really hated that game... I played it, not sure why, always felt dissapointed, probbly cause of the KOOL '3d button' :-s I thought that last boss was lame.

If I'm not mistaken.... wasn't War Gods a 3-D fighter with digitized actors? O_o I could be wrong. It's been YEARS since I've played that piece of garbage. But my point is, if they used digitized actors for THAT game, and that was long ago, why couldn't they do it again and make it look better? And I'm not saying I would want that. I like Deceptions graphics. No matter how good digitized actors in 3D looked, I can't stop thinking it would be a step backwards. I mean, I don't think the majority of us want reality. I don't know. I like my bloody, gorey, "cartoony" games.

If they had the ability to put digitilized actors into, I'm sure we would've seen it already done by now in another game if not in one of the recent MK's, (keep in mind this isn't to hard to achieve with 2d, but I don't think we have the technology or know how, or even time, to do it in 3d.)

Yeah War Gods was billed as being made by digitising actors into 3d.Just hype really.
Basically they probably cyberscanned them and then mapped them onto wireframes.It was not too good.The current standard is the way forward.
I agree with the other comments,the characters need to be less bodybuilder shaped.Robin Shou(Liu Kang) has extremely muscled yet he has not got steroid pumped arms or torsos like some of the MK guys.
Maybe this is something Boon needs to know is important to the fans along with improved gameplay mechanics etc.