that was very informative.
Almost all the things in "unmentionables" are things I want to make. I'm still going to, but maybe I'll leave them out of my portfolio.

Doing something clichéd = bad by default?

I dunno if it's necessarily bad to do something that people are used to see, some solutions are popular for a reason, for example I think the majority just likes to watch female warriors in skimpy outfits rather than grannies in wheelchairs.

>>243128
Yes.
Cliché is by definition, bad.
If you want a job, you'll hve to be better then the competition, and being boring as the next guy won't help you.
You can work on cleches all you want, after you get hired.

>>243130
Ah, well, I'm already hired. As a general principle for potfolios/reels/whatever that might do. Usually people make the preferences sound way more harsh than the reality is, some of the "cliché" things are actually just 1 guy's opinion of what's better than the other, and the rest think what you've done is awesome. Usually the thing plays out by that 1 guy's opinion though.

>1. Placed all of the objects in your render along a single focal plane

Someone mind explaining what this is?

>>243138

I think they mean having all objects the same distance from your camera. Makes the scene feel flat.

Regarding the Animation one (lifting a heavy object), more often than not this will want to be seen. Of course, include more than it, but it is a fundamental skill.

http://www.3dworldmag.com/2011/02/11/the-a-z-of-cg-cliches-part-2/

part 2 there.

I could write a fucking book on this. my main gripe is, and this will just fly over the heads of everyone here but.

applying the latest movie trend to every other popular trend. At the moment its tron. so blue fucking everything. blue my little ponies, blue batman, blue every other thing thats 5minutes old.

also the words, concept and humanoid.
I saw a fucking grassy rock labelled concept rock. Its not a fucking concept, its nothing new its just a shitty render of a grassy rock.

but people do this when theyre shit or just want to be cool.

humanoid. its not, its just a really shit attempt at making a human that doesnt look human enough so you pretend its a fucking alien.

I could go on but fuck you for making me rage.

>GI
>AO
>SSS

They forgot CA.

ever notice how in bullet time, the bullets never spin?

>>243158

CA?

Also

>Bodybuilder demons whose faces are skulls

Lol'd

tl;dt There's a reason why cliche exists.

1/2

Once again someone made me read a an article that spans across 5 pages for no other reason than to generate more clicks and ad views. If your article is GOOD, it WILL generate a revenue without you being dicks, you greedy bastards! Anyhow...

>>243130
>Cliché is by definition, bad.
By definition its not bad. Its very good at caching attention, its a common place, instantaneous impression... It doesn't require anything in addition to be understood. Most importantly, it sells. If you expect high standards from everyone who looks at your work, youre gonna get very disappointed when faced with reality. If you're applying for a job at Pixar, Sony, Aardman, Ghibli, Animal Logic, ILM, Square Enix, Blur etc. etc. of course you'll have to present some astonishingly good and original work as well as be very well known among the right people, but those are not people this article talks about. People who post their work on forums and video sharing sites are mostly beginners or just regular "sweatshop workers". Cliche will actually be their safest option at advancing farther than the first creative blockade phase.

2/2

Just to be clear, i am all for originality - originality is good, its interesting and entertaining... all power to anyone who pulls it off, BUT dont try to reinvent the wheel just because someone says too many cars already use it. Some of you might know a bit of art history, and know what happened when avantgarde roamed wild in an attempt to recreate art itself. Some of the shit they came up with is so removed from common sense, its utterly meaningless to anyone except themselves. And no matter what you think about film, games and advertisement, its not about you, its about the viewer.

>>243132
>some of the "cliché" things are actually just 1 guy's opinion of what's better than the other
Well, no, not really. If one guy claims something is overused, you can estimate yourself (if not immediately, than after a bit of research) if its true or not. In most cases, it is true. He noticed the pattern and knows this leads to a repetition cycle, thats all.

>>243167
Chromatic aberration.

>>243168
>a few bullet points
>tl;dr

Wow

>>243177
it might be the slowest board around but never overestimate the famous 4chan attention span

You know what bugs me about this article? It reads like it was padded. Desperately. Like the writer really just wanted to complain about one or two things, but he realized he couldn't spread those out into an entire article. So instead, he just started trying to scrape together anything which bothered him even slightly, and thus the entire thing reads like somebody bitching a lot about trivial thins.

>Fan Art
How is wanting to make something (often a person project) of a franchise you enjoy a fucking cliché?

>You can't do 100m+ dolly tracks in real life so don't do it in renders
Well gee, you can't do a lot of shots in real life, thanks for letting us know.

Half of these are inane "I don't likes". Not clichés.

>>243117
So this is essentially an A-Z of everything. CG is now forbidden.

>>243186
I'd say it depends on:

1) the subject in question
2) how much similar fan art there is

I'm sure if you were to do some funky ass work inspired by Alice in Wonderland instead of Space marines of duty gears 5, you'd be fine

>>243162
actually in you're gif it spins

>>243186
Especially considering how in film they're constantly trying to figure out ways to do shit that was impossible in the past

>>243186
>>243207
this freedom you have with camera in 3d is tempting, but to make a shot believable it is often wise to restrict your movement to what is physically possible. thats why we add grain and camera shake, thats why "found footage" movies are successful and so on. sorry, but it is truly a sign of newfaggotry when you see slow-mo 360°s, going-through-the-wall shots and flying cameras everywhere. it is what i did first chance i got. but you get it... eventually

>>243204
That's a real bullet, fuck.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg
The bullets spin to remain frontwards.

Photographers try to remove optical errors from images to achieve more realism.
3D-artists try to add optical errors to achieve more realism.

>>243214
Of course it can be overdone shittily just for the sake of it, but I don't see why "Impossibly smooth continuous camera moves" alone is raping cinema any more than all the other millions of "impossible" illusions used in film making

>>243223
Based on a hundred years of going to the cinema, we have a pretty good idea on how camera behaves. Based on a more than 50 thousand years of various religions and gullibility, we can suspend our judgment on what goes IN FRONT of the camera. Easily.

>>243221
it's about the balance, amigo.

>>243231
its about covering up as much of the content with lens flares and depth of field as you can get away with so as to have your audiences brain fill in the gaps with awesome.

>>243315
no scifi would be complete without moar bloom and anamorphic lens flares, yo

You know what grinds my gears.


Indoor renders where people don't have skirting boards.

>>243322
Eve Online much?

>>243171
>>243167

OH BOY DO I FUCKING HATE CA IN RENDERS.

HEY LETS PUT IN THIS ARTIFACT THAT ANY QUALITY OPTICAL SYSTEM WILL ELIMINATE. YEAH. THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.

>don't do these things because I don't like them

>>243158
What?!
Does this mean we should all just use Blinn shaders for everything?
An omni light for the sun?

FUCK! the renders of the future will suck...

>>243610
>blinn shaders
10/10

use gouraud shading

>>243611
Shading is for bitches.

Wireframe fo life, dawg.

>Journey to the centre of the heart

but that's cool as fuck. Especially if done high level like in the fight club

>Once you have modelled a character who has more polygons in her nipples than her entire head, it is time to consider a change of career.
Faggots.

>>244391
>to a professional nipple modeller

>>244391
so what if your character is like a tiny parasite walking around a nipple, and the only reason you have face and body geometry is occasionally you see these things in the background.

>>244413 If your character is like a tiny parasite walking around a nipple, it is time to consider a change of career.

What is wrong with the animation one? I would want to see that someone knows how to the basics. If they can do that, then I trust to handle other things too.

>>244430
>to game designer

>>244430
>To professional parasitic nipple creature modeller

This is less 'cg cliches' and more 'art cliches' in general.

>demons in lingerie
>smtg bad
Fuck no.

Also
It would be fun to read about renaissance cliché. Stuff was pretty unoriginal in choosing themes.

All half-naked female warriors/demons/creatures/actual females only exist for posters and trailers, to cause boners and make males go and watch movie or buy game.
The biggest cliche in 3DCG is a belief that you must spend years mastering modeling/texturing/everything --> BEFORE <-- you can start modeling for any projects. If you want to make small 3D indie game, you don't need to know every feature in 3ds Max 2015 or how to animate a kawai character in a sea of hair under three suns. Means and ends, people.
Also,
>Wrinkles and pores
OH YEAH STOP THAT SHIT NIGGAZ

>>Wrinkles and pores

YES FOR FUCKS SAKE YOUR CHARACTER'S SKIN DOES NOT NEED TO LOOK LIKE GOD DAMN SAND PAPER.

IT IS NOT COOL

IT IS NOT "REALISTIC"

IT DOES NOT TAKE "SKILL"

SO

STOP

FUCKING

DOING

IT

>>244444
Quints says sandbox nipple exploration is the future of gaming

>>244520
>>244881
>Implying pores and wrinkles aren't realistic and the actual problem isn't people without any sense of subtlety in their modeling.

>>244959
that's probably what they meant.

>>244881
then you won't like the recent NfS game because i think when it comes to disgusting pores they've reached totally new level

> “It makes no sense for warriors to have no armour on their chests.”

And this is the reason books, film and games suck nigger dick nowadays - WHY THE FLYING FUCK DOES IT HAVE TO MAKE SENSE RETARDS ? IT'S A FUCKING FANTASY, I WILL MAKE WHATEVER THE FUCK I WANT, HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT ? MAKE YOUR OWN SHIT.

>>244881
I think the problem is they put the pores in the normal or the bump map slots when it's obviously to shallow surface detail to be anywhere besides the spec slot.

>>245600
>WHY THE FLYING FUCK DOES IT HAVE TO MAKE SENSE RETARDS
This. I'm tired of people saying it's (no matter what the subject actually is) bad because it isn't realistic. Way to kill all imagination and creativity.

>>243158
>>243167
>>243536
I hardly ever see chromatic aberration in pieces of work. I must be looking at the wrong renders.

>>245600
Although it does make sense.
1.It presents a known target.
If you know they are going to aim there you can more accurately predict an oncoming attack and parry it. In any form of fighting a smart fighter will place intentional targets as a trick.

2. Less weight = more mobility.
This is why you see the smaller stealthier characters in lighter armor, although as we've all learned from recent movies, even big manly men would fight with little armor (to prove their manliness)

3. Distraction tits are distraction tits.
You give your enemy a raging boner, not only is he going to be visually distracted, and mentally distracted, but that's less blood flow to the brain.

Plenty of good reasons for female heroes to dress down for combat.

Seems like this was written by a whale who hates seeing females more attractive than she is. you can tell because she notes how all male renders have to be ugly and she wants the reverse. What a sick cunt. That or a sad sad man who has had his testicles removed by feminists til he's pumped full of male guilt.

>>245600
Hey know what didn't make sense, ignored all reason, and consisted of a director making whatever the hell he wanted?

Transformers 2.

He ignored any sense of reason, his plot made no sense, and he threw shit-tons of money at it

My god. That CLEARLY was the best movie ever.

>>245670
Not only is this stupid, it's insulting to both genders. There isn't a single person on this planet who shouldn't tar and feather you.

>>245680
again, male guilt or dumb woman. go back to reading your yaoi shit. There is NOTHING wrong with using attractive forms in art. People have been doing it for centuries because it is aesthetically pleasing.

>>245680

this is like asking romance novel cover artists to start drawing drew carey instead of fabio. women would shit themselves in rage because the fantasy of the romance novel is to insert yourself as the woman and be swept away by some handsome hero of some kind.

the fantasy of male targetted fantasy is to be a badass hero and get hot chicks.

this thread is too relevant to die.

>hurrr why does it have to be realistic fuck you realism is unfun
Why do I hear this arguement ONLY when it comes to women going into fights naked?
Face it faggots, realism on the level of common sense at least is mandatory and you're just a bunch of faggots suffering from sperm toxicosis.