Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Mayo Master

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 26
26
I'm still not getting the hate.
No game will ever be the original FF7.  Because it is literally impossible for any other game to have the exact same dialogue, characters, and art style without it being the original.  What SE is doing is remaking (see re-imagining) the original.  For everyone already complaining about it before we know anything, you're not going to like it.  Not because it won't be a good game, but because it won't be frame for frame and line for line the same as the 1997 one.  There is literally nothing they can put out that will make you happy.

It's basically the same reason DLPB's Beacause retranslation gets hate.  It's not EXACTLY what we played a decade ago so it's terrible and blasphemous.  Thing is, REimaginings and REtranslations aren't horrible if you approach them with an open mind and see them as a chance to revisit old friends.  Will it be exactly like what you played a decade ago?  Nope.  What would the point of that be if not a lazy cash grab.  But that also doesn't mean it can't be good in its own right.  Sort of like the whole compilation.  By no means am I praising it, because at least one of the games seems to me to be a ridiculous cash grab, but by not expecting the same old FF7 with a new bow on it allows them to be enjoyable..... Like i said about catching up with friends you haven't seen in years, you can't expect the relationship to not have changed.  It's been over 15 years.  You've changed. They've changed.  The dynamic is going to be different, but that doesn't mean you have to hate them or be upset that they aren't the same person they were a decade ago.  They're going to be a little different, and that's ok.

If you could only buy and play one: A remake with only updated backgrounds and models OR whatever the current remake becomes, I think you'd be a fool to choose the former.  We've already played it.  Some of us dozens of times.  Why on earth would you pay for the same game you already own? 

I feel very much the same way. I remain very curious about how they're going to handle all the various aspects of the remake. There's also much which can be expanded on.
Quote from: Wade from Dragon Age Origins
Think of the possibilities!!!

27
Team Avalanche / Re: I guess that's it, guys
« on: 2015-06-23 04:29:07 »
Before the announcement was made, here was the best case scenario I had been hoping for:
With the small release of my sector 5 slums scenes, try to get on some "advertising campaign" in order to have people joining the project. As Kaldarasha and I sorely found out last year, merely advertising for TA can turn out to be a very difficult exercise (actually, back then most of the people outside qhimm had a very negative prejudice about it, with reaction ranging from "leave that game in the past where it belongs" to "nobody's ever going to join a project which is doomed to meet a Cease & Desist by Square at one point or another"). Anyway, the goal would have been to try to form a team of at least 10 productive people, shift up the gears and have a cruise speed of 10 scenes per year per person, and complete that in 5-6 years. That schedule would be pushing hard on everyone, and going at it with a professional attitude where deadlines would have to be set and met. And that would have been the very best case scenario.
I could see myself being committed to something like that if it were the only possibility to have some kind of "remake", but now its purpose would just be (at best) an attempt from an amateur to leave a mark which Square would have to surpass. Let's face it, it's not a kind of purpose which would have me motivated for working hard during the next 5 years, and I don't see that kind of scope motivating anyone else for that much time either. I'm not preventing anyone from working on it (hell, I can still be of advice on the modelling side), but personally I see very little point in it.

Of course, the remake will be different from what we do here. But why "being different" would necessary be "worse"? After all, the trilogy of the Lord of the Rings movies was an adaptation of the books, and I believe it was an adaptation for the better. In all my time working on TA, I've been often thinking "how can I make that scene actually better than what it was, and not just a an upscaled replica?". I would hope that idea of improvement would animate the devs. I believe that plenty of aspects can be made differently from the original, and better. For example, what if you could roam around the entire city of Midgar like in an open world game, where you could visit Sectors in the slums or on the Plate, whereas the original game didn't get you to see any of that? What if the game started around the times where Tifa finds Cloud on the train platform, and then you spend some time free roaming in Midgar doing small jobs before joining Avalanche for the Bombing mission? What if you'd carry out the first Bombing mission with Biggs, Wedge and Jessie as additional party members? All this would certainly be different from the original game, but wouldn't these changes actually be cooler? It's in the hands of Square to make things like that happen (or not), and in any case such changes are way beyond our capabilities.
 
I believe that many fans feel a sense of ownership over the game. The idea of being able to mod the game probably strengthened that feeling. It seems many are upset by the announcement of Square because it would deprive them of that sense of ownership, because a different version would not conform their own vision.  But the game has to change, in my opinion. A lot of elements in the original game were acceptable back then, but they would feel lousy now (examples: the split/merge of the characters for dialogs, random battles, how Cait Sith joins the party, the hard baked chibis in FMVs, etc.) - wouldn't we better off without these? I personally see no sense in sticking to every aspect of the original game (as a seasoned RPG player, I've always found it somewhat depressing that many players consider turn-based system - a transposition of old D&Ds mechanics - as the alpha and omega of gameplay). However, everybody can have a different opinion of what should be kept, what should be edited, what should be removed, what could be added (hell, maybe I should make a huge poll about it :P ). I think people fear having these decisions out of their hands. Personally, I do not have the pretension that what I can do would surpass what Square can do on the artistic side, so I prefer to just let go.

So, what now? I guess all we can hope for is that Square decides to interact with its fan as the development is underway, and look for constructive advice us fans would make.

28
Team Avalanche / Re: I guess that's it, guys
« on: 2015-06-22 21:49:37 »
In my opinion, if all you wish to have is a HD upscale of the original fields, you can find it already thanks to the project of yarLson. It's a very good project which has the distinct advantage of being complete (unlike the 2-3% of the project I've made in 2 years of hard work). Omzy also completed something very similar, just with other image filtering techniques, so you're welcome to check that too. Personally, I have not been interested in getting through the process of 3d modelling and rendering to yield an exact replica of what yarLson accomplished.

Instead, in my 3d modelling work, I wanted to bring out more details, and use mode advanced modelling and shading techniques to provide a more pleasing and coherent rendition of the fields, while trying to be faithful to the spirit of the original. I wasn't shying away from reinventing some portions of it. This is probably the same path that Square is going to take for the remake, except they have much better resources and much better artists to do it. That doesn't leave me with much (if any) motivation to go on.

29
Team Avalanche / I guess that's it, guys
« on: 2015-06-22 17:57:21 »
Hi folks,

I just wanted to "confirm" that, as far as I'm concerned, the announcement of the FF7 remake pretty much cans the Team Avalanche project. Personally, I see very little point in continuing this endeavor. I'm not motivated to strive for a graphical overhaul with my very limited means (in hardware, software, talent, and time) as Square can deploy a team of very talented people for that, with all the resources to go with it. It's in their hands now, all we can do is hope for the best.
As for me, well it was a fun ride  :)  I certainly learned a ton of things in the process, so I'd never consider the huge amount of time I've spent on this as a waste. Maybe I should get started on a new project of my own then.
Thanks to all the people who provided support and feedback in all this time  :)
Cheers,

- Mayo

PS Doesn't mean that I'll be leaving qhimm forums though :P

30
[...]
I disagree with a number of points that you made (in particular, the degree of realism the game was originally aiming at, and how technical limitations constrained how the environments would be rendered). It also looks like neither of us is going to convince the other of the superiority of his viewpoint. I guess it goes to show that, no matter which direction FF7 takes, it's going to leave many people dissatisfied.

31
AC isn't true to the original because of its crazy endless battle sequences and CGI fests - and I'd say that is an art style also?  or at the least, CGI seems to make developers go that route.
In my opinion, these crazy endless battle sequences have their origin in the storyboarding/script, not CGI. You could very well execute crazy endless battle sequences with a drawn anime style.

32
This is irrelevant unless you presuppose that the spirit of FF7 is entirely subjective, which it isn't. The experience of it is, but the game is made up of individual components that have specific qualities. Saying that AC is true to the spirit of the original, when it's radically changed the art-style for instance, is a pretty meaningless statement to make.

It's very easy to preserve the spirit of the original, if that's what you set out to do - let's not pretend otherwise. The real issue here, is whether or not it makes sense for SE to preserve the spirit of the original, if doing so runs the risk of harming sales for a new iteration of the game that is going to be extremely costly to make.

I agree - this is a reboot, more than a remake. But let's not pretend that a reboot is going to be true to the original in any meaningful sense of the term in regards to anything but the rough strokes, such as the general story, setting, and cast.
It doesn't seem like we would use terms such as "spirit" or "true to the original" with the same ideas in mind. IMO, AC isn't "true to the original" because of its plot and character development, not because of its art style.

I though the new rendition of Midgard was pretty nice in its own right, but I really don't think it makes sense to say that it's true to the spirit of the original, because the original Midgard was not just a dystopian metrolopolis - it was also filled with vibrant colors, and quirky throwbacks to real-life 90's Tokyo, and anime/street-fashion influences - whilst the new one seems to be going for a much more subdued post 2005 architectural spin, and a much more "realistic"(western) look to it with the exception of the road-way systems, and the trains.
Not saying it's bad - but it's certainly not much like the original except in its basic concept.
I do believe it's true to the original, personally. I don't think that Midgar is so "filled with neons and vibrant colors". Some elements are (Honey Bee Inn, Don Corneo's mansion), but many scenes are made with piles of rusted beams and worn corrugated sheets (I've been examining the Sector 5 scenes for a while). 

Nobody said this though - and besides, advanced graphics does not equal realistic graphics. There are plenty of cartoony games that have extremely advanced graphics. Realism is a style, not a sign of graphical fidelity or quality. The argument people are making is that the new art direction is going to jar with the original narrative and plot, unless they change things up - and chances are that the things they end up changing will not necessarily be good for the plot, and it certainly doesn't bode well for how true it's going to be to the original (which can pan out either way - good or bad).
I do believe that the original art style for the fields was aiming at a "realistic" rendition of the environments, with the technological limitations of the times (lighting techniques, shading techniques, limited color palette, etc.). In my opinion, the chibis of the original game were jarring, and I always thought it needed to be addressed. With that in mind, I don't think that a "realistic" art direction is detrimental, or vastly deviating from the spirit of the original.

The PS1 games had very good graphics for their times, but with the exception of FF8, the other PS1 FF games all went for a more stylistic look, rather than a realistic one, and their character designs, and story scenarios reflect this. The two are therefore tied together, so if you change one, the other must too for the sake of consistency.
Sure, I appreciate that I don't really know how the Choco/Mog summon will turn out with realistic art style :)

The Last of Us shouldn't be put next to the Witcher in this regard, seeing as The Last of Us is an enormous AAA production that is emblematic of exactly what a lot of people don't like about the AAA industry (bland game-play that ends of being a "jack of all trades, master of non") whilst the Witcher started out as the first-time a passion product from a relatively small, Polish company.
The Last of Us being emblematic of what people don't like about AAA industry? Sorry, I can't agree with that.

Besides, just because each single component in a development cycle is developed with care and lots of time, does not mean that the entire product isn't lazy or shoddy. That's a fallacy of composition right there.
It goes without saying that the person on the floor who makes the animations for a character or something to that effect is working their ass off, and probably really invested in that work.
However, when the game itself has been compromised by publishing pressure, and financial concerns, that's going to take its toll on the finished product regardless.
The writers and producers might have great intentions, but when they're working within a corporate structure that rewards recycling of old material and puts out dictates based on way too broad focus groups and market studies enforced on threats of withdrawal of founding, then it's difficult not to view the end-product as passionless.

If anything, if most developers had true passion for their medium and cared about making a product as true to their vision as possible, they'd take their projects to crowd-funding platforms and bypass the greedy publishing mafia altogether - which, many of them have started to do.
In that respect, what I'm rather hoping for is that the devs of the remake of FF7 won't be constrained by some kind of "20th anniversary deadline". I believe we would agree that they'd take their time to polish this one (it's not like waiting for 1 or 2 more years will matter, and for the anecdote, it is actually possible to polish a turd).
Otherwise, I believe that the comparison "Greedy publishing companies" vs "Friendly crowd-funding platforms" is a lot less "black & white" world than what you described.

I will grant you this though - SE, especially those in the department dealing with FF products have become better, it seems, at listening to their fans.
In the case of FF7R though - my worry is that the real fans of the original games don't actually make up enough of the market they need to cover, to make it worth listening to them to begin with.
They're more likely to listen to the "average consumer" instead, and make this a game for people who want this game to essentially be a playable version of Advent Children, not FF7 - and with that being said, that's not a game I would be interested in playing, nor a game I think would be very good.
But, we'll see. Again, it might become the next best thing since sliced bread.

It's still better to go into this negative, and be positively surprised, than to go into this positively and get negatively surprised - especially after you dished out 60 bucks for it, and maybe even bought an entire console for it.
Well, the FF7 community of "real fans" is so broad that it exhibits the signs of the unpleasable fanbase. If you prefer to be negative so that you won't get disappointed, I can appreciate that. But if people decide to dislike it, or be dissatisfied by a product "for the masses" in order to assert some kind of intellectual superiority, I don't find it very constructive.
I'll be remaining reasonably optimistic, but that's just me. If the remake doesn't turn out well, I'll still have plenty of other games to play.

33
SE announced a FF7 Remake at the E3 Sony Press Conference, so we're having a conversation on how glorious the game will turn out.

Errr wait, that's a little off. More like, how glorious the game could turn out IF....

Errr wait, that's not all of it. More like also, how glorious the game will not turn out beacause....

You have a lot of reading to catch up on :-P

I think you summed it up pretty nicely though :P

Personally, I'm really looking forward to it. Of course, I'm already aware that it may not conform my own vision of a remake. Additionally, I think the announcement pretty much cans the project I was leading with Team Avalanche (IMO there's little sense for me to pursue a graphical overhaul with my very limited means if SE deploys the resources for it) - I guess I'll just have to find something else to do with my time :)

[My 2 cents]
- For numerous reasons, I believe that a full-fledged remake cannot be a simple overhaul of the original. Graphics have to be overhauled, animations have to be overhauled, gameplay has to be modernized (IMO turn-based is obsolete), and the story has to be edited. What is essential is to preserve the "spirit" of the original game. But how do you do that? That's the big problem, because everyone has its own interpretation of what the spirit of FF7 should be like.
- However, speaking of the "spirit" of FF7, I believe that what was shown in the trailer was promising. Midgar was completely revamped, but you could still feel the atmosphere of the dystopian metropolis, with a very strong "Blade Runner" vibe to it. Additionally, we got glimpses of some details (such as the playground slide in the Sector 5 slums) which rather suggest a faithful re-creation of the environments. So far, so good.
- I strongly disagree with the notion that advanced graphics are detrimental to storytelling. As everybody seems to agree with the fact that the golden era of Final Fantasy games were in the PS1 times, remember that these games had such an impression on us back then because they looked amazing. Visuals are essential to get the player immersed in these fantastic worlds (or to display emotions).
- I do not think it is fair to say that there's no passion in the gaming industry anymore. Productions such as The Last of Us or the Witcher 3 show how much heart was put into these games. Heck, even when watching the active time reports related to FFXV, you should see it. Saying "developers are lazy" when these guys are probably above 50 hr/week on it, it's disrespectful at the very least.
- I'm aware there's a lot of potential for derailment, and it's out of our hands, now. And even if they manage in the future to pull off the best remake which could ever be made, it will make some people unhappy. However, part of the reasons why I'm on the "optimistic bandwagon" is that it seems like SE listens: how they turned around FFXIV and how they made the survey on the FFXV demo are signs of that.
[/My 2 cents]

So, in summary, Yay :)

34
Hey guys!
I'm back from my two weeks trip. What did I miss?

 :mrgreen:

35
Team Avalanche / Re: [HD Remake] Nibel Mountains
« on: 2015-06-06 16:57:34 »
Quick update... still working on the background landscape. Here's the latest render...



However, I'm not really happy with the results, and I find it a bit difficult to put the finger on what "doesn't work". If you have some feedback on this, it would be much appreciated. Among the possibilities I'm considering:
- Have more variety in the shapes of the geological formations which stick out from the base level of the ground
- Harmonise the textures between the ground and the geological formations
- Introduce several layers of clouds and mist, not just one
- Introduce depth of field, to slightly blur the elements of the landscape located further away
- Reboot my background texture for the clouds, because at the moment it doesn't follow how perspective should stretch the clouds towards the horizon.

That's all I can think of for now, but if you have other ideas it will be good for me to have that input. Note that I'll be away for the next two weeks.

36
From my experience, modelling in Blender using boolean operations on objects (addition or substraction of meshes) isn't the best way to go (while I'd believe solidworks handles that better), although I think Blender has improved in that area recently. I'd recommend other modelling approaches - I guess it's just for you to have in mind alternate ways of constructing your mesh. For example, in the mds5_w scene (weapon shop in a bus), you'll find some "grids" which are like some big plates with many circular holes in them to frame the baggage rack. I didn't model that by object subtraction. Instead, I modeled a 8 point circle within a subdivided square, where I'd leave the inside of the circle empty and make faces between the edges of the square and the "circle". Then use 2 array modifiers to replicate the pattern in both direction, use a solidify modifier to model the thickness and then a subsurf modifier to smoothen the circular holes.

Now, about giving you a better impression of how your model would look like and visually appreciate the curvatures, I recommend 2 simple options:
- You can switch to "real time render preview" on your 3d viewport (in the same tab where you can alternate between "solid view" and "wireframe view"), and if you have a good lighting setup, it gives you a good idea. However, if you don't have a good graphic card, it may be pretty slow.
- You can use a matcap. A matcap is essentially a basic shading preview with a boost in gloss, which often give a better appreciation of curvatures. It's extensively used in sculpting (for instance when you'd like to make wrinkles on a face or folds on a cloth).
Hope that helps :) 

37
I guess it just depends on what kind of software you're used to! It's often about knowing the tools you need to use in order to get to your result. Often you can model something with 4 different ways, but one way will take you 4 hours and another 5 mins.
If you can import solidworks models into Blender without a problem, go for it. However they might be a bit difficult to UV unwrap (if you end up with fine triangulated mesh, it might be a pain to select the UV seams one by one).
What aspects of meshing you're not too comfortable with in Blender? I might know a couple of tricks which could make your life easier.

38
Team Avalanche / Re: [HD Remake] Nibel Mountains
« on: 2015-06-02 15:44:41 »
You make this look so easy!
Well, if it makes you feel better, I spent more than 3 hours fiddling and experimenting with it :P
In more details: The model is based on a giant subdivided annulus, where the central circle of the annulus was given more elevation. Add to this more subsurf levels and 2 displacement modifiers using procedural textures.
For the texturing: the trick is that I wouldn't use UV mapping here, because of the insane size (the annulus being about 50 km in diameter!) of the object. So textures are a combination of procedurals with texture images, where images had to be mapped along a spherical mapping scheme. Unfortunately, the spherical mapping scheme isn't available by default in the Cycles render, but fortunately, it can be recreated (thankfully someone made it before because it's not obvious!). Now the other trick is that I found a good way to make texture functions depending on the slope of the mountain (as you can see, the cliff-like texture shows only on the near vertical areas of the mountain), using the scalar product of the surface normals with a vector along Z (which is pretty neat). 

39
Team Avalanche / Re: [HD Remake] Nibel Mountains
« on: 2015-05-31 18:05:34 »
Spent some time on the modelling and texturing of the mountain range which will make the horizon line... Maybe it will need some color/brightness adjustments, but I think I have a good base for it.



41
Team Avalanche / Re: [HD Remake] Nibel Mountains
« on: 2015-05-27 15:16:44 »
Update!

Bridge is textured. I also worked on some atmospheric effects with low-altitude mist and clouds. It may look slightly odd because the mountain scape doesn't extend as far as the clouds do (which will be remedied, of course). What I'm quite happy about is that I managed to make the clouds and the mist without using any scattering shader, while scattering shaders are usually quite demanding in terms of computing power (and render times). In other words, the method I used (clouds are made with a plane with a properly crafted texture, the mist is made by a combination of Z-depth and height pass in the compositor) is rather quick to render.


42
Team Avalanche / Re: [HD Remake] Nibel Mountains
« on: 2015-05-23 02:10:24 »
And now we have a bridge!



By the way, modelling that bridge got me thinking that this was probably one of the most idiotic bridges ever conceived. A bridge at a 45 degrees angle, really  ::)    Quite a way to make a restricted access to the reactor!

43
Team Avalanche / Re: [HD Remake] Nibel Mountains
« on: 2015-05-19 15:22:54 »
After quite a bit of fiddling, I managed to get the camera rolling for mtnvl2. From SpooX's camera data, I managed to solve alignment problems by adding a "Shift" (offset in camera position and target). You can check it out with the link below.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8DOsJ-B-Q5VNTNMZ21DX3U1enM/view?usp=sharing

44
Glad to hear you'll have a bit of time to resume your scene :)
Texturing will be quite a big chunk to learn - I'll be happy to help along the way.

45
Team Avalanche / Re: [HD Remake] Nibel Mountains
« on: 2015-05-13 01:45:35 »
So... quick update. I made a quick try to Da Vinci Resolve.
So far I've not been impressed because very basic operations (such as opening the directory containing your media files) didn't come as being very intuitive. One may argue that Blender 3d isn't exactly intuitive either, but when it takes you to browse online tutorials (I've not even found it in the User's Manual) to figure how to "Open/Import files", it's another level.
Once I managed to finally do that, after loading all the frames into my project, if I click on the media files to do anything, the software crashes. It crashes "automatically" (tried 6 times, 6 crashes). Right now I've decided to give it a rest, but the "Uninstall" function is very tempting  :-\
Any help would be appreciated :P

46
Team Avalanche / Re: [HD Remake] Nibel Mountains
« on: 2015-05-11 18:54:19 »
Thanks for that tip, Covarr. I'll give a check to the Free version and will let you know. I've already rendered all the frames for the 60 fps at 320 x 224 proof of concept, so if this software can do it, I'll have the video out in a matter of minutes.

47
Team Avalanche / Re: [HD Remake] Nibel Mountains
« on: 2015-05-11 16:22:44 »
Thanks for your interest, guys!

Right now it's still the "proof of concept stage", the mountain "sculpt" from the video is meant to be remodelled. The video resolution was at 320 x 224, and given how basic the scene was, each frame took between 15 to 20 seconds to render.
I don't know how much time the frames from the final scene will take to render. I think it should be quite long (between half a day and one day?) because the final scene will have a very large population of the very distinct-looking geological formations of Mt Nibel, so I guess it will be very high poly. I was also thinking of decreasing subsurf and poly counts for the video frames renders, whereas I'd ramp them up for the field scenes renders (after all, the video frames will have a significantly lower resolution than the field scene images).
By the way, I also have a very basic question: so far I've not been able to find a free software which could generate 60 fps movies from still frames. Windows movie maker doesn't seem to allow frame duration below 0.03s  >:(     That being said, maybe 30 fps for these videos would be enough (plus cutting down overall rendering requirements). Any thoughts?

I appreciate you looked into network renderers, that will certainly make things handy. I also know there are a few online render farms for Blender, although I never used them myself.

48
Team Avalanche / Re: [HD Remake] Nibel Mountains
« on: 2015-05-10 04:01:58 »
Update! Using SpooX's fbx data, I was able to come up with the following movie at 30 fps.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8DOsJ-B-Q5VTDFLVVotOEllVjQ&authuser=0

49
Team Avalanche / Re: [HD Remake] Nibel Mountains
« on: 2015-05-06 17:36:02 »
Oh yes, but not limited to the psx, as the pc version is a lot easier to get the data from (it's all in one single lgp file).
But, as there is no walkmesh involved here there is no data inside, except for:

[...]

But this is not a real bad thing, as  there is no fading from or into field files, you can make it as you want.  ::)
and I must say, from what I see, it looks good so far.

Keep up the spirit, when I have more breathing space I'll join the workforce again.

 8-)

As I thought: if you don't have a walkmesh, you can hardly retrieve camera data. And as you said, since there's no "seamless transition to a field scene involved" or overlay of character, I can do it however I want.
Anyway, we'll all be looking forward to you being able to join the workforce :)

Oh, by the way, back to the video: I've manually reconstructed another camera path based on this initial motion tracking (by taking the camera position and target every 10 frames and make spline interpolation), with the idea of accomplishing:
a/ a smoother path to avoid jumps from frame to frame
b/ being able to make a 60 fps video (although I'm dreading having to render 1200 frames at 1920 x 1080  :-\  )

I just need to learn the very basics of Blender's animation interface, for now I am not able to fine tune the camera speed along its path (at the moment it moves at constant speed on its path, which isn't quite the case of the original video). Once I can do that, the camera will be ready to roll.

50
Team Avalanche / Re: [HD Remake] Nibel Mountains
« on: 2015-05-03 00:19:31 »
mtnvl first video test - proof of concept. What you can see is the reactor, the walkmeshes, and some extremely basic mesh to represent geological features. I made it in around 15 pfs so far. The frames have been rendered in super low res (320 x 224).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8DOsJ-B-Q5VWDRsVV81T3dVWEE/view?usp=sharing

For reference, the actual video is the following one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUglgIS6XwA

Still with a few jumps, but I think it's a pretty good place to start.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 26