I think C&C - Tiberian Sun uses 720p cut-scenes. No idea about how compressed it is, but it sure looks pretty.

I assumed that they want to have the in-game and pre-rendered scenes look similar, but also want to have a few scenes that the engine *cannot* render. I mean, it's obvious in console exclusives like FFXIII that they don't really cater to the lowest specs… and the pre-rendered scenes look much more impressive, but the characters look very similar. I just bet that they could do even better these days with their rendering farms, though.

Uncharted 1 & 2, as I said, also uses pre-rendered in-engine cut-scenes so that the game can load the next level without the player noticing it. Okay, so I'm talking about console games now, but those are the reasons why those pre-rendered cut-scenes look so much like the actual game.

There was one scene where armor did not match, yes, but that scene was also in engine and not pre-rendered.

You could be right, though the game is pretty ancient for that resolution.

I don't know the game in question, but on PC - it's standard to record realtime rendering for presentation purposes.

I'm sure there are many exceptions, but I'm not sure what this is about anymore.

I'm speaking from my own experience - and in my experience, for the PC platform, they don't use in-game rendering movies because the engine isn't capable of real-time rendering at the same level - but because they need to ensure that even minimum spec PCs get the "cinematic" experience required of a cutscene.

Are you really trying to make a connection between my observation of different armors in a cut scene and that of ugly shadow dithering?

Anyone have a 3D Vision enabled setup? It is absolutely amazing to behold and you just get sucked into the action. Highly recommended.

This is about pre-rendered cut-scenes looking so much like real-time cut-scenes in modern games. It is something that I've noticed in console games over the last few years and I'm pretty sure it's mostly for continuity. Having a cut-scene suddenly looking 10x more detailed and prettier is *so* '90s. ;)

I really can't see why they would cater to the lowest specs, unless they do it because it is the majority. Still stupid, because that would be jarring for those with the highest specs. Make your game look pretty, damn it!

Anyway, the point to all this is that sometimes, these in-game looking pre-rendered cut-scenes create the illusion that the engine is more capable and advanced than it really is.

In a similar vein, Fallout 1 talking heads were AWESOME for their time :)

If you take a look at quality CGI trailers, there's still a long way to go before engines get to that point.

The reason they're using engines to render cutscenes is because it's cheaper and easier. After that, it's because the engines are capable enough to make cutscenes pretty good. Personally, I tend to think most engine rendered cutscenes are way behind quality CGI - but in games like The Witcher 2, it's beautiful enough to not really matter. It would be superfluous with CGI movies.

I don't agree with the illusion bit - and you're the one incapable of making the distinction. Nothing wrong with that, and it's not important.

They don't cater to lowest specs - as it makes no difference to those with high specs. They simply ensure that everyone can enjoy cutscenes of a certain standard.

If you want to keep on and on about all kinds of things not relevant to The Witcher 2 - then be my guest, but it'll be without me :)

The Witcher 2 has graphics, so it IS relevant!! ;)

Yes I do. And yes it is absolutely amazing! I can't play the game right now though because I'm having problems with frame rates in interior locations, which spill over into the cutscenes with interior locations.

For instance, wandering around the siege camp in the prologue plays just fine, but go back to Triss' tent and the frame rate immediately drops to (I'm guess-timating) 15fps. Then once I'm in the siege tower following the King the frame rate drops below 15fps. Once that's over, everything is good again until I get to the solar where the king's children are, and the frame rate literally drops to around 10fps or less, including the cutscene. At that point I gave up and am hoping the next patch fixes whatever the h*ll is wrong.

Okay, okay. I concede. Flotsam is absolutely beautiful and reminds me a lot of how Gothic felt… only more real.

Apparently the ugly shadow dithering is DX11 related. Does anyone know if the game can be forced to DX10 or DX9?

I also think the Flotsam forest is beautiful, btw. Textures, and lighting etc. are awesome to behold. I think the forest textures are pretty well done.

The shadow dithering really bothers me in certain areas, I must agree with that.

AFAIK, TW2 is DX9 only.

Yes it's DX9 only.

Lack of DX10/11 is kind of the reason, as in, they provide cheaper methods for shadow transparency and smoothing, but in DX9 there's an unacceptably high cost for doing so.

*cost/cheaper computationally I mean

Now that 2.0 is out, it's working very well! I've only just started in Flotsam and I've already got about 50 screenshots. Is this really using just DX 9 still??

I've got the uber textures turned on which does bad things to my framerate but… too bad. I'll take the 20fps for the extra shiney! (Best to turn 3D off in battle, though. The framerate can get low enough that the game misses clicks.)

I don't think the framerate has anything to do with TW2 missing clicks. Responsiveness has been a problem since this game was released.

Thanks for the tip. I had forgotten all about using 3D in Witcher 2. I had problems with it in the beginning, but they've seem to be ironed out now.

Hope my machine can handle the battles because I want my 3D combat. :)

Yes they finally got 3D working. It's awesome. I'm not trying to use ubersampling though - I'd rather keep 3D throughout rather than have to switch it on and off for fighting.