I didn't like the facial animation of LA Noire too, it looked unrealistic with so much facial expressions. They looked more like over acting with exaggerated expressions....(looked painful, if you imagine the reenactment)

Quickly back on topic before any more ranting.

I gotta say, when the creator of Minecraft calls out this new rendering technique on its complete non-viability to a user market, methinks that the idea of trying to go commercial with the extraneous tech will be just a tad bit hard.

The basis of the hoax is, it's not even a rendering technology. It depends on a database of pre-rendered scenes. So what it does is reduce the problem of rendering an animated scene to the problem of determining the visible voxels in a static scene given the camera characteristics, then fraudulently claim it has solved the former.

It also (presumably by fraudulent intent) neglects the size of the database needed to pre-render any significant world. By rough order of magnitude, it's petabytes. I don't know about you, but I'm not Google or Yahoo or eBay or CERN, and I just don't have any petabyte disks lying about.

Oh, believe me, I did the research into it. I know exactly why it's total BS. Not to say it isn't amazing technology, but it's just not viable in any way shape or form. Anyone looking at this stuff can easily spot the flaws.

What I find especially laughable is their hits against rendering distance. How exactly is that amended by voxels? Why would I render a full voxel background against a skybox when using "a really flat piece of cardboard" still works fine? How will this tech reduce rendering in any way shape or form?