Let's not ever bring up real people in video games ever again.
I feel like I'm repeating myself here but surely the solution to that is more professionalism. Better acting for instance. Do you honestly look at those videos and say "well that's as good an anyone could do so live action in games is pretty much out of the question"?
It doesn't matter anyway. It seems to be more important that there be optimal consistency between in-game action and cutscenes.
Live-action acting in videogames will always be jarring and cheesy, just like it'd be jarring and cheesy to have real people suddenly pop up in the middle of a cartoon.
No way.. Who framed roger rabbit is fan-fucking-tastic.
But Who Framed Roger Rabbit was entirely about what it'd be like to have cartoon people in a live world and vice-versa, so it kinda gets off as an exception to the rule. Honestly, without that gimmick, can you imagine it being even half as good as it was?
Let's not ever bring up real people in video games ever again.
I feel like I'm repeating myself here but surely the solution to that is more professionalism. Better acting for instance. Do you honestly look at those videos and say "well that's as good an anyone could do so live action in games is pretty much out of the question"?
It doesn't matter anyway. It seems to be more important that there be optimal consistency between in-game action and cutscenes.
Live-action acting in videogames will always be jarring and cheesy, just like it'd be jarring and cheesy to have real people suddenly pop up in the middle of a cartoon.
No way.. Who framed roger rabbit is fan-fucking-tastic.
But see, that's cartoons suddenly popping up in live-action.
The many terrible games with terrible live action cutscenes in the mid-90s killed it forevermore. Burned the crops and salted the earth.
Cutscenes themselves should probably experience the same fate. I'd like to see more developers think about how to unfold the story/relationships while the player is actually playing since involvement is the strength of video games. Watching a storypoint unfold passively has never quite sat well with me. It's kind of an immersion-breaker.
So let me get this straight. You want non-interactive, live-action FMVs in your games, but simultaneously want them to disappear forever.
Your logic is obviously a whole spectrum above mine and completely inaccessible to the lower caste I belong to.
So if I would rather not have cutscenes in a game I am not allowed to have an opinion on how to make cutscenes better in their current state?
Your logic is obviously a whole spectrum above mine and completely inaccessible to the lower caste I belong to
Oh man, this is fun.
Your solution to the problem you perceive in the current way cut-scenes are most often done is to take them in both completely opposite ways. It'd be better if it's more detached from gameplay, it'd be better if it's more integrated in the gameplay.
I'll reiterate: WHAT.
I'm not seeing the problem here man. I don't want cutscenes in games. Does this prevent me from noticing what I feel are ideological shortcomings in the current model of making them? No. For instance, characters in cutscenes act. So I started this thread with the idea that you might be better off using real actors instead.
Oooh, I see. Cut-scenes suck, so if they're gonna suck, they might as well suck all the way.
I hate cut-scenes! Therefore I think every cut-scene in every game ever should be replaced with a still photograph of elephant shit.
The many terrible games with terrible live action cutscenes in the mid-90s killed it forevermore. Burned the crops and salted the earth.
Cutscenes themselves should probably experience the same fate. I'd like to see more developers think about how to unfold the story/relationships while the player is actually playing since involvement is the strength of video games. Watching a storypoint unfold passively has never quite sat well with me. It's kind of an immersion-breaker.
So let me get this straight. You want non-interactive, live-action FMVs in your games, but simultaneously want them to disappear forever.
Your logic is obviously a whole spectrum above mine and completely inaccessible to the lower caste I belong to.
So if I would rather not have cutscenes in a game I am not allowed to have an opinion on how to make cutscenes better in their current state?
Your logic is obviously a whole spectrum above mine and completely inaccessible to the lower caste I belong to
Oh man, this is fun.
Your solution to the problem you perceive in the current way cut-scenes are most often done is to take them in both completely opposite ways. It'd be better if it's more detached from gameplay, it'd be better if it's more integrated in the gameplay.
I'll reiterate: WHAT.
I'm not seeing the problem here man. I don't want cutscenes in games. Does this prevent me from noticing what I feel are ideological shortcomings in the current model of making them? No. For instance, characters in cutscenes act. So I started this thread with the idea that you might be better off using real actors instead.
Oooh, I see. Cut-scenes suck, so if they're gonna suck, they might as well suck all the way.
I hate cut-scenes! Therefore I think every cut-scene in every game ever should be replaced with a still photograph of elephant shit.
You're going completely off the rails here. Right now, characters are built from the ground up to do acting in cutscenes. I observed that it might be beneficial to use real actors for the same purpose. Who fucking cares whether or not I want cutscenes in games. I simply put to question whether it might be more effective to use real people to perform in cutscenes given their function. shit.
The many terrible games with terrible live action cutscenes in the mid-90s killed it forevermore. Burned the crops and salted the earth.
Cutscenes themselves should probably experience the same fate. I'd like to see more developers think about how to unfold the story/relationships while the player is actually playing since involvement is the strength of video games. Watching a storypoint unfold passively has never quite sat well with me. It's kind of an immersion-breaker.
So let me get this straight. You want non-interactive, live-action FMVs in your games, but simultaneously want them to disappear forever.
Your logic is obviously a whole spectrum above mine and completely inaccessible to the lower caste I belong to.
So if I would rather not have cutscenes in a game I am not allowed to have an opinion on how to make cutscenes better in their current state?
Your logic is obviously a whole spectrum above mine and completely inaccessible to the lower caste I belong to
Oh man, this is fun.
Your solution to the problem you perceive in the current way cut-scenes are most often done is to take them in both completely opposite ways. It'd be better if it's more detached from gameplay, it'd be better if it's more integrated in the gameplay.
I'll reiterate: WHAT.
I'm not seeing the problem here man. I don't want cutscenes in games. Does this prevent me from noticing what I feel are ideological shortcomings in the current model of making them? No. For instance, characters in cutscenes act. So I started this thread with the idea that you might be better off using real actors instead.
Oooh, I see. Cut-scenes suck, so if they're gonna suck, they might as well suck all the way.
I hate cut-scenes! Therefore I think every cut-scene in every game ever should be replaced with a still photograph of elephant shit.
You're going completely off the rails here. Right now, characters are built from the ground up to do acting in cutscenes. I observed that it might be beneficial to use real actors for the same purpose. Who fucking cares whether or not I want cutscenes in games. I simply put to question whether it might be more effective to use real people to perform in cutscenes given their function. shit.
Well okay then, here's your answer: no. Not a fucking chance in hell. Equivalent quality to current CG- or in-game cut-scenes done live-action would actually be far harder and more expensive to do. Which is why the best efforts so far have all been disastrous: equivalent resources will have invariably much, much worse results.
There is no way in hell that putting live action actors into cutscenes would in any way improve the costs, quality, or resources that current cutscenes need/have/take. Considering the point we're at graphically, it just doesn't make sense to have to digitize someone in order to have the character match the live action actor. Look at something like Halo 3, or GoW, or Bioshock. All have in engine cutscenes that, in my opinion, look better than some CG movies (non-pixar).
I'd even go as far to say that there's no need to use motion capture for the most part, and never exclusively. If a game is going to use mocap it should be a hybrid system like used for Gollum in LoTR. No piece of animation should come strictly from motion capture.
If by real actors you mean a live action deal then no. I mean the main reason there is that to make it good the developers would have to pay alot of money to get a convincing set with good props on top of getting good actors. Why would they do that when they could just render it all in a computer and maybe use a MoCap studio? Also it's pretty jarring to go from traditional CG characters to live action footage.
I feel like I'm repeating myself here but surely the solution to that is more professionalism. Better acting for instance. Do you honestly look at those videos and say "well that's as good an anyone could do so live action in games is pretty much out of the question"?
You say this as though its an easy flick of a switch and we have good acting. We've only just now finally gotten the respect VA's and their work deserve.
There's also no freakin' way it could ever be cheaper. If you don't have your scene flowing just the right way, you can just reposition the models. Live action requires take after take to get the shot you want. Potentially months of shooting for all the scenes, and you gotta pay each and every person there. Plus, what if it's something really extravagant, like a giant dragon, or Metal Gear RAY? Or the character is skate-grinding down a long tow cable over an ocean below? Gonna need more money for that particular CGI stuff.
And finally, even if you did spend the BIG bucks and got real, hollywood actors, games still tend to carry a bit of stigma, and they'll probably think it "doesn't really matter" so they don't try. See Mena Suvari. Didn't try at all even voice acting and sucked shit in Kingdom Hearts II (a game). But upgrade to movie and she suddenly gets good (Advent Children). Both examples involve the same character, Aerith. This can be said for most big name actors that even just lend their voices to games, though there are a few exceptions (Patrick Stewart brings his A game to whatever he does, from Prof. X, to random King who only speaks 10 lines total in the prologue in Oblivion).
The end result? Go watch the MGS4 cutscene where Raiden and Vamp duel it out. Probably took a team of 3-4 guys total to program and render that up, getting it to look just the way they wanted it. You think they could get anywhere near that level with live action? Without breaking the bank? Games are already getting hyper expensive to create for companies as is. I really don't think they want to add the pricetag of your average intense Matrix-level movie scene budget as well.
The Wolfman on
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
They're using ILM facial capture technology for the new Star Wars game. Though, technically, it isn't for cutscenes, but for the entire game if I remember correctly. I think it should look pretty good, and I'm looking forward to seeing how it turns out. (And it's not really straight acting either I guess)
Honestly, I don't really care for cgi cutscenes anymore, since they really aren't tecnhnically impressive anymore, compared to in game graphics. They haven't really been so for a while now.
Did you miss the mid 90s when they did use actual people? It was terrible.
It wasn't terrible, it was expensive. Which is why it's not done anymore.
The last three Tex Murphy games were pretty damn good. I thought the acting got better and better as the series progressed.
Then you have Gabriel Knight: The Beast Within. Okay, Dean Erickson can't hold a candle to Tim Curry, but I think he did a good job and I think overall the game was well-acted.
Also, Biff from Back To The Future did a pretty good Maniac, and John Rhys-Davies as Paladin, albeit a fat, brunette Paladin, and Malcolm McDowell as Commander Tolwyn? Yes, plz.
Did you miss the mid 90s when they did use actual people? It was terrible.
It wasn't terrible, it was expensive. Which is why it's not done anymore.
The last three Tex Murphy games were pretty damn good. I thought the acting got better and better as the series progressed.
Then you have Gabriel Knight: The Beast Within. Okay, Dean Erickson can't hold a candle to Tim Curry, but I think he did a good job and I think overall the game was well-acted.
Also, Biff from Back To The Future did a pretty good Maniac, and John Rhys-Davies as Paladin, albeit a fat, brunette Paladin, and Malcolm McDowell as Commander Tolwyn? Yes, plz.
Did you miss the mid 90s when they did use actual people? It was terrible.
It wasn't terrible, it was expensive. Which is why it's not done anymore.
The last three Tex Murphy games were pretty damn good. I thought the acting got better and better as the series progressed.
Then you have Gabriel Knight: The Beast Within. Okay, Dean Erickson can't hold a candle to Tim Curry, but I think he did a good job and I think overall the game was well-acted.
Also, Biff from Back To The Future did a pretty good Maniac, and John Rhys-Davies as Paladin, albeit a fat, brunette Paladin, and Malcolm McDowell as Commander Tolwyn? Yes, plz.
Even Phantasmagoria I and II was decent.
Ahem.
Fucked it up for everyone.
Maybe. But, honestly, it was cost. It had zero to do with quality. Blue/green studios were expensive to own or rent. Film actors generally cost a lot more than voice-over actors. Film, development, equipment, editing...games with FMV ran in the millions just for the FMV.
It wasn't cost-effective.
And personally, I think we have Sierra to blame. They just didn't market their games very well and they were leading the pack toward the end of the 90s. They fell apart and then everyone else just kind of quit.
Microsoft buying Access for the branding and the Links (golf) games and never seeing another Tex Murphy adventure still chafes me raw.
I hate to have to even bring NFS Carbon and NFS Most Wanted into the picture, but EA did a pretty good job with the CGI/Real Actors layering. I mean...its not perfect and the acting was pretty terrible.
Ace Combat 0's acting was slightly better.
But I remember all the mid-90s games. Terminator: SkyNET, Dune2000, C&C (okay...Kane was pretty cool but thats it...). Red Alert was laughable...and the girl that played Tanya...haha.
Thank the gods that Interstate 76 had game-engine cut-scenes. The world began to rejoice after that...
EngelNUL on
Pokemanz Soul Silverz: 2837 2607 9912
"How pathetic, they must really want to die flying those Z-95 Headhunters"
"Historians exercise great power and some of them know it. They recreate the past, changing it to fit their own interpretations. Thus, they change the future as well." - Leto II
Well I, for one, think that Knights of the Old Republic would have been a much better game if it had featured Tom Cruise as Carth and Angelina Jolie as Bastilla. John Cleese should have done HK-47, too!
Come to think of it, John Cleese playing an assassin droid could actually be rather funny.
Well I, for one, think that Knights of the Old Republic would have been a much better game if it had featured Tom Cruise as Carth and Angelina Jolie as Bastilla. John Cleese should have done HK-47, too!
Come to think of it, John Cleese playing an assassin droid could actually be rather funny.
Posts
No way.. Who framed roger rabbit is fan-fucking-tastic.
PSN: super_emu
Xbox360 Gamertag: Emuchop
But see, that's cartoons suddenly popping up in live-action.
PSN: super_emu
Xbox360 Gamertag: Emuchop
Oooh, I see. Cut-scenes suck, so if they're gonna suck, they might as well suck all the way.
I hate cut-scenes! Therefore I think every cut-scene in every game ever should be replaced with a still photograph of elephant shit.
Yeah okay, I guess that other guy's point about it being the whole gimmick of the movie stands better than mine. :P
PSN: super_emu
Xbox360 Gamertag: Emuchop
You're going completely off the rails here. Right now, characters are built from the ground up to do acting in cutscenes. I observed that it might be beneficial to use real actors for the same purpose. Who fucking cares whether or not I want cutscenes in games. I simply put to question whether it might be more effective to use real people to perform in cutscenes given their function. shit.
Not all games have to be serious, but Sprocket is talking about enhancing drama in games in general. Serious games included.
PSN: super_emu
Xbox360 Gamertag: Emuchop
Well okay then, here's your answer: no. Not a fucking chance in hell. Equivalent quality to current CG- or in-game cut-scenes done live-action would actually be far harder and more expensive to do. Which is why the best efforts so far have all been disastrous: equivalent resources will have invariably much, much worse results.
Go buy a 3DO right now.
There was that FMV game starring Carrot Top.
I'd even go as far to say that there's no need to use motion capture for the most part, and never exclusively. If a game is going to use mocap it should be a hybrid system like used for Gollum in LoTR. No piece of animation should come strictly from motion capture.
Zork Grand Inquisitor was pretty damn funny. At least I thought so.
Woo
You say this as though its an easy flick of a switch and we have good acting. We've only just now finally gotten the respect VA's and their work deserve.
There's also no freakin' way it could ever be cheaper. If you don't have your scene flowing just the right way, you can just reposition the models. Live action requires take after take to get the shot you want. Potentially months of shooting for all the scenes, and you gotta pay each and every person there. Plus, what if it's something really extravagant, like a giant dragon, or Metal Gear RAY? Or the character is skate-grinding down a long tow cable over an ocean below? Gonna need more money for that particular CGI stuff.
And finally, even if you did spend the BIG bucks and got real, hollywood actors, games still tend to carry a bit of stigma, and they'll probably think it "doesn't really matter" so they don't try. See Mena Suvari. Didn't try at all even voice acting and sucked shit in Kingdom Hearts II (a game). But upgrade to movie and she suddenly gets good (Advent Children). Both examples involve the same character, Aerith. This can be said for most big name actors that even just lend their voices to games, though there are a few exceptions (Patrick Stewart brings his A game to whatever he does, from Prof. X, to random King who only speaks 10 lines total in the prologue in Oblivion).
The end result? Go watch the MGS4 cutscene where Raiden and Vamp duel it out. Probably took a team of 3-4 guys total to program and render that up, getting it to look just the way they wanted it. You think they could get anywhere near that level with live action? Without breaking the bank? Games are already getting hyper expensive to create for companies as is. I really don't think they want to add the pricetag of your average intense Matrix-level movie scene budget as well.
I'll admit a lot of it was cheesy, but there is a certain sort of charm in the cheesiness
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
Acting is bad enough in most movies, you really want that sort of crap in your video games, too?
Honestly, I don't really care for cgi cutscenes anymore, since they really aren't tecnhnically impressive anymore, compared to in game graphics. They haven't really been so for a while now.
It wasn't terrible, it was expensive. Which is why it's not done anymore.
The last three Tex Murphy games were pretty damn good. I thought the acting got better and better as the series progressed.
Then you have Gabriel Knight: The Beast Within. Okay, Dean Erickson can't hold a candle to Tim Curry, but I think he did a good job and I think overall the game was well-acted.
Also, Biff from Back To The Future did a pretty good Maniac, and John Rhys-Davies as Paladin, albeit a fat, brunette Paladin, and Malcolm McDowell as Commander Tolwyn? Yes, plz.
Even Phantasmagoria I and II was decent.
Fucked it up for everyone.
Maybe. But, honestly, it was cost. It had zero to do with quality. Blue/green studios were expensive to own or rent. Film actors generally cost a lot more than voice-over actors. Film, development, equipment, editing...games with FMV ran in the millions just for the FMV.
It wasn't cost-effective.
And personally, I think we have Sierra to blame. They just didn't market their games very well and they were leading the pack toward the end of the 90s. They fell apart and then everyone else just kind of quit.
Microsoft buying Access for the branding and the Links (golf) games and never seeing another Tex Murphy adventure still chafes me raw.
Ace Combat 0's acting was slightly better.
But I remember all the mid-90s games. Terminator: SkyNET, Dune2000, C&C (okay...Kane was pretty cool but thats it...). Red Alert was laughable...and the girl that played Tanya...haha.
Thank the gods that Interstate 76 had game-engine cut-scenes. The world began to rejoice after that...
"How pathetic, they must really want to die flying those Z-95 Headhunters"
"Historians exercise great power and some of them know it. They recreate the past, changing it to fit their own interpretations. Thus, they change the future as well." - Leto II
Thats not funny, even as a joke.
At least they had the decency to not have a live actor for the Silencer himself and just render him with a computer like a sane person would.
You realize that translates into "a hell of a lot more fucking money," right?
Rendering characters and cutscenes is a hell of a lot less expensive and fits a hell of a lot better within the games themselves.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Seems like the original quote still stands.