I already addressed that. The Middle East does not look like that. That is a stylistic choice to make the place seem "grittier" (read: "shittier"). It's also visually unappealing.
Just so you know, this is what Baghdad looks like from a helicopter.
That photograph is unrealistic. Trees aren't green.
But, I mean, I don't know what you expect from a game where you're in a post-apocalyptic wasteland. If there's any setting that justifies a lack of color, it's that one. Hell, the original Fallouts were probably worse, since they took place in the desert and there are less ruins.
As people have been saying, look at stalker, it gets the post-apocalyptic feel done 10Xs better than Fallout 3 ever does.
ME, halo and uncharted have already been mentioned, but what about crysis as a game that actually uses color?
Green, blue, and bright orange for explosions? Especially in Warhead, Jesus Christ there was a lot of explosions. Really the only brown I can think of is the dirt, trees, and some of those shitty shacks I love to destroy, and grays for the concrete buildings and the nanosuits.
An art director makes choices about colour to evoke an atmopshere or a feeling, which will translate to a broad audience. This current generation of consoles can allow his choices on saturation, contrast, exposure etc to function much more like film. See: Mass Effects 35mm film lens-flare thing. The choices are made to communicate something about the story or scenario, and they're not necessarily just about attempting to be realistic.
Just as (good) cinematic directors make choices about colour, saturation and contrast to evoke a quality that enhances their work, why shouldn't games? Why are games judged against reality, rather than what the developer was attempting to achieve? It goes to the continuing belief that some games are just supposed to be reality simulators, regardless of how ludicrous the premise of the game. If film followed the same rules the 'bray grawn lol' folks wished were applied to games - ie, no creative choices to heighten the intended effect of their scenarios through colour or lack therof - film would look pretty shitty.
For instance, the film Minority Report featured a washed out, restricted palette. Terminator 2 was all about blues and oranges and high contrast. The choice of colours and saturation speaks to the broader narrative. It informs the audience. It heightens the aesthetic appeal of the film. But you get washed out colours and saturation in, say, Gears of War, and suddenly it's only about trying to be gritty and real and no one seems to connect the choice of palette with what the work, overall, is trying to achieve.
Comparing games to film isn't necessarily the best thing to do. Films are much shorter experiences after all. But as games strive to achieve outcomes that are similar to film - well rounded characters, compelling plots, dynamic scores, emotional impacts, and cameras that can be more tightly and creatively controlled - it would be good if gamers could catch up and start judging games on their merits within the medium they're working with, and how well their aesthetic choices match their narrative aims, rather than how well they synthesize or match-up to the real world.
In my opinion, the style of graphics I have been railing against is boring, unappealing, and overused. It's a one-trick-pony-Easy-Button to try to add atmosphere that makes the game itself barren, and not just the locale.
If we're going to judge games for the art direction, then my criticisms are even more valid. Firstly, because it is not aesthetically appealing, and secondly, because it's use is often haphazard and unfocused. Desaturation works when it is presented as a contrast to something vibrant, but just churning out an entire work (be it game or film) in that style is the height of laziness.
My only other issue is that people are actually conflating this style with "realistic", when in fact it is anything but.
The conflating appears to be done by the people who are too immature to make a distinction between a creative work and a reality synthesizer.
If we're talking about laziness, it must be the pinnacle of lazy critical analysis to write off a developers achievements on the basis of their chosen color palette. Surely it would be even more dull or lazy if a developer ignored the tools available to them just to present an unfiltered game, bereft of creative choices, designed to mimic reality as can be seen through your bedroom window?
I can't possibly argue on what is or is not boring or unappealing, since they're utterly subjective, and overuse is a ludicrous metric by which to judge the validity of a single games design choices. It's like saying there are too many FPS, therefore all FPS are failures.
The conflating appears to be done by the people who are too immature to make a distinction between a creative work and a reality synthesizer.
If we're talking about laziness, it must be the pinnacle of critical analysis to write off a developers achievements on the basis of their chosen color palette. Surely it would be even more dull or lazy if a developer ignored the tools available to them just to present an unfiltered game, bereft of creative choices, designed to mimic reality as can be seen through your bedroom window?
I can't possibly argue on what is or is not boring or unappealing, since they're utterly subjective, and overuse is a ludicrous metric by which to judge the validity of a single games design choices. It's like saying there are too many FPS, therefore all FPS are failures.
Obviously turning up the desaturation filter is the height of artistry. I apologize profusely.
But, as I said before, I don't particularly like that sort of crap in films, either. Including Minority Report, as you mentioned. Lighting? Perfectly legitimate. Unreal filters? Don't set moods so much as they scream "I made this on a computer!"
Also, there are too many FPS games, and the majority of them suck.
I don't know. I guess I can concede that washed-out grays and browns are a stylistic choice, but that's not why I don't like them. In a movie that only lasts for two hours they make me feel lonely or depressed or whatever the film maker was going for. In a game they just make me bore and make me want to play less. I guess game devs have a harder time because story in video games is light years behind story in film so the aesthetic doesn't evoke emotion from me but a perceived laziness on the dev's part.
Also, I don't have to find my way around locales in films like I do in video games.
Also, if you want color in your FPS look at Shadowrun (in addition to Halo). It manages to be colorful and still be fun. The slums still look slummy, and it's not a boring drab mess to look at.
jclast on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited January 2009
Look, if Doom 2 could have colors and be fucking awesome despite being about fighting demons from hell so can modern games.
Look, if Doom 2 could have colors and be fucking awesome despite being about fighting demons from hell so can modern games.
Too many colours if you ask me. Take quake, desaturate it a tad more, so that the brighter greens and reds don't stand out, and you have the perfect vision of video game presentation. The problem with Quake is that, while its palette is appropriate, the effects and whatnot are not subdued enough. Its a little too exciting.
I totally agree that for a 30+ hour experience, an unchanging colour palette is uninteresting. But I haven't actually experienced a game where the palette doesn't change enough that I don't notice. Someone mentioned Mass Effect as being too real and gritty. Maybe my sarcasm detector is broken, but what the fuck? Even fallout 3 has enough shit going on that I am not so singly distracted by a lack of bright colours that I simply have to stop playing. I think that kind of thinking really does feed the stereoype of gamers as ADD affected dipshits sitting 3 inches from the screen with one hand in a cereal box.
Obviously turning up the desaturation filter is the height of artistry. I apologize profusely.
I'm not saying it's the height of anything. But any single choice when taken in isolation can be broken down to appear lazy. It's about how that choice relates to the aims of the developer, not how that choice matches the real world or contrasts against other games on the shelf.
Look, you can attack me if you want, but it doesn't get rid of my point. Nobody thinks that the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remakes are masterpieces of cinematography simply because they cranked a saturation dial in the editing booth. You're the one who brought up artistic merit, and part of artistic merit is actually using all of the tools available to you in the most effective way. If the best that art directors can do in a game to convey a mood is bleed out colors, then they're obviously not approaching any level of mastery.
I almost think that the works by Spielberg brought up in this thread are gimmicky (B+W in Schindler's List, bloom everywhere in Minority Report), but there is a semblance of purpose behind each (B+W, for example, puts greater emphasis on correct framing, mise en scene, and contrast, while making the small bits of color all the more memorable).
Just because I take a picture in black and white does not mean that I am an effective photographer (no matter what many people with cameras think), and the same applies here.
I totally agree that for a 30+ hour experience, an unchanging colour palette is uninteresting. But I haven't actually experienced a game where the palette doesn't change enough that I don't notice. Someone mentioned Mass Effect as being too real and gritty. Maybe my sarcasm detector is broken, but what the fuck? Even fallout 3 has enough shit going on that I am not so singly distracted by a lack of bright colours that I simply have to stop playing. I think that kind of thinking really does feed the stereoype of gamers as ADD affected dipshits sitting 3 inches from the screen with one hand in a cereal box.
.
Mass Effect has a cheesy filter that can be turned off. I found the filter looked pretty good when I was playing the game on an SDTV, but the game looks far better with it off in HD. Its definitely not the type of style we're talking about here, though. It has a lot of samey environments because its supposed to look like a retro sci-fi, with clean white building design everywhere.
Fallout 3, well, it just has too much bloom. As I mentioned before, it actually does have alot of colours, they tend to get overpowered by the white glare. You can see them quite well during the morning/evening. Bloom sucks, but its a different issue.
As for that last point, say what you will, but I'm one of those in the "Diablo 3 is too bright" camp. Take a look at Diablo 1 and 2. They have colours, but still portray a dark atmosphere because of competent art direction.
Look, you can attack me if you want, but it doesn't get rid of my point. Nobody thinks that the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remakes are masterpieces of cinematography simply because they cranked a saturation dial in the editing booth. You're the one who brought up artistic merit, and part of artistic merit is actually using the tools available to you in the most effective way. If the best that art directors can do in a game to convey a mood is bleed out colors, then they're obviously not approaching any level of mastery.
I almost think that the works by Spielberg brought up in this thread are gimmicky (B+W in Schindler's List, bloom everywhere in Minority Report), but there is a semblance of purpose behind each (B+W, for example, puts greater emphasis on correct framing, mise en scene, and contrast, while making the small bits of color all the more memorable).
Just because I take a picture in black and white does not mean that I am an effective photographer (no matter what many people with cameras think), and the same applies here.
To be fair, some of it just plain boils down to preference as well. I know that I get sick of Fallout after a while just because I'd like some visual change after a while. It's a great game, and the look fits it, but I could never stand up and defend it as having great graphics. Similarly, I didn't really care for Shadowrun the first time I played it (liking it much better now that I've gotten the hang of it), but I liked the aesthetic right off the bat.
Look, you can attack me if you want, but it doesn't get rid of my point. Nobody thinks that the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remakes are masterpieces of cinematography simply because they cranked a saturation dial in the editing booth. You're the one who brought up artistic merit, and part of artistic merit is actually using the tools available to you in the most effective way. If the best that art directors can do in a game to convey a mood is bleed out colors, then they're obviously not approaching any level of mastery.
I almost think that the works by Spielberg brought up in this thread are gimmicky (B+W in Schindler's List, bloom everywhere in Minority Report), but there is a semblance of purpose behind each (B+W, for example, puts greater emphasis on correct framing, mise en scene, and contrast, while making the small bits of color all the more memorable).
Just because I take a picture in black and white does not mean that I am an effective photographer (no matter what many people with cameras think), and the same applies here.
Hey, I'm not attacking you. Apologies if it came across that way. This is a cool discussion!
Just as a B+W photo doesn't necessarily make you a good photographer, a developers use of bloom and a restricted colour palette does not mean they are lazy or that their game is shit. They're working with the tools they have to present their work in the most impactful way for the narrative they're pushing. Just like the ability of developers to tell a story in their games lags behind film, so do the tools with which they can represent their worlds visually.
And yeah, texas chainsaw remake. If the film wasn't desaturated, would it be any better? Mmmm probably not. I don't see how it's fair to complain about a single game design choice and write off the developer as lazy for it.
I brought up Minority Report because it's an art directors wet dream; the sets, the technology, the cinematography, they all pull together to heighten the films themes. Mirrors edge is a game that is beautifully designed but is devoid of any meaningful themes. It would be nice if, eventually, a game can do both. But I guess that's a whole different discussion.
Sometimes though the art direction seems to be fighting the narrative of the game. For example, there is no reason I can think of for the sun to cause as much bloom as it does in Fallout. There's also no reason for every single to thing to be washed out. Hell, Moira's shop, if nothing else in Megaton, ought to be brighter and cheerier than the surrounding areas. Why? Because she's the type that would sit down and polish something. And at Tenpenny Tower, Alistair Tenpenny very much seems like the type of guy that would have good looking stuff in good repair, but everything in his suite is as washed out as it is in the tenants' rooms.
I'm not asking for the visuals to be spot on with what reality dictates, but it'd be nice for them to make sense within the confines of the game world.
To be fair, some of it just plain boils down to preference as well. I know that I get sick of Fallout after a while just because I'd like some visual change after a while. It's a great game, and the look fits it, but I could never stand up and defend it as having great graphics. Similarly, I didn't really care for Shadowrun the first time I played it (liking it much better now that I've gotten the hang of it), but I liked the aesthetic right off the bat.
I agree. My starting point in this thread always was that this style is unappealing to me, both because of my personal preference for color, and because other games do what these games are trying to do through means other than bleaching the screen. The former matter of taste I can't really account for, but the latter is an actual, tenable position to take.
These games are all cribbing from Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan - both films that I think could use a touch more subtlety - but ultimately directorial control allows those films options that a first person shooter cannot have. Yes, yes, the Middle East and all of Europe east of Italy is a shithole so we can't in good conscience have much color lest the player think otherwise - meanwhile, games like STALKER, Fallout 3, and SotC portray actual wastelands in ways that are both visually interesting and more atmospheric than any of these "brown and gray" games could ever hope to achieve.
jclast: I disagree on the sun/washed out thing in Fallout 3. I think it's entirely necessary. Different strokes I guess.
I agree with the rest, though. It would be nice if some games weren't rife with internal inconsistencies. Do you think they're forgivable given the sheer scope and magnitude of the task the developer undertook in the first place?
jclast: I disagree on the sun/washed out thing in Fallout 3. I think it's entirely necessary. Different strokes I guess.
I agree with the rest, though. It would be nice if some games weren't rife with internal inconsistencies. Do you think they're forgivable given the sheer scope and magnitude of the task the developer undertook in the first place?
I think it's forgivable because it's almost certainly a technical limitation, and I'm not a video game dev so I have no idea how hard stuff like that really is. I mention the sun in Fallout though because I've honestly looked at the screen and thought "Why is everything so bright? It makes it hard to actually look at my surroundings." I'm all for it being dirty and grimy, but if that trash can is really green washing it out to point of its looking gray doesn't make it look worse from wear, tear, and nuclear explosion; it makes it look worse because I can't see what color it is." It's possible for a place to look like a shit hole without washing it out to the point of removing all color (drab as it might be) from the screen.
To be fair, some of it just plain boils down to preference as well. I know that I get sick of Fallout after a while just because I'd like some visual change after a while. It's a great game, and the look fits it, but I could never stand up and defend it as having great graphics. Similarly, I didn't really care for Shadowrun the first time I played it (liking it much better now that I've gotten the hang of it), but I liked the aesthetic right off the bat.
I agree. My starting point in this thread always was that this style is unappealing to me, both because of my personal preference for color, and because other games do what these games are trying to do through means other than bleaching the screen. The former matter of taste I can't really account for, but the latter is an actual, tenable position to take.
These games are all cribbing from Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan - both films that I think could use a touch more subtlety - but ultimately directorial control allows those films options that a first person shooter cannot have. Yes, yes, the Middle East and all of Europe east of Italy is a shithole so we can't in good conscience have much color lest the player think otherwise - meanwhile, games like STALKER, Fallout 3, and SotC portray actual wastelands in ways that are both visually interesting and more atmospheric than any of these "brown and gray" games could ever hope to achieve.
I find it retarded that you praise Fallout 3, when it is an incredibly brown and washed-out looking game with the occasional green glow thrown in.
Also, Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan don't need "a touch more subtlety". They started the fucking trend. They were unique and their use of desaturated color was incredibly effective. Just because you got tired of the style doesn't detract from their merit or make them lack subtlety. Why the fuck does art direction need to be subtle anyway?
I realized I opened myself up a bit there with FO3 as soon as I typed it, but that game is not bland visually. There is an awful lot going on in it, and the game seems to be designed to present expansive vistas and desolation everywhere you go. I have no issue with a "ruined world" aesthetic, and part of that will include some of the things I was talking about earlier. That does not mean that the developer relied on them as a crutch.
The same goes for STALKER and SotC. Both can be accused of having areas with muted colors - but firstly, those are simply areas and not the full game, and secondly, there is much more going on in those places other than lack of color.
BHD and Saving Private Ryan are loud, screaming films that really have no subtlety at all. Both films make it extremely clear exactly what you should be feeling at any given moment. Some people like that, and I can enjoy them for what they are, but they are not in my opinion the greatest films about war to have been made ever or even recently for that matter. More importantly, they have become a template for what gamers expect out of an FPS despite the fact - as I mentioned - they can only lift the the broadest elements since FPS games lack the lock on presentation that a film has.
Posts
That photograph is unrealistic. Trees aren't green.
Green, blue, and bright orange for explosions? Especially in Warhead, Jesus Christ there was a lot of explosions. Really the only brown I can think of is the dirt, trees, and some of those shitty shacks I love to destroy, and grays for the concrete buildings and the nanosuits.
Just as (good) cinematic directors make choices about colour, saturation and contrast to evoke a quality that enhances their work, why shouldn't games? Why are games judged against reality, rather than what the developer was attempting to achieve? It goes to the continuing belief that some games are just supposed to be reality simulators, regardless of how ludicrous the premise of the game. If film followed the same rules the 'bray grawn lol' folks wished were applied to games - ie, no creative choices to heighten the intended effect of their scenarios through colour or lack therof - film would look pretty shitty.
For instance, the film Minority Report featured a washed out, restricted palette. Terminator 2 was all about blues and oranges and high contrast. The choice of colours and saturation speaks to the broader narrative. It informs the audience. It heightens the aesthetic appeal of the film. But you get washed out colours and saturation in, say, Gears of War, and suddenly it's only about trying to be gritty and real and no one seems to connect the choice of palette with what the work, overall, is trying to achieve.
Comparing games to film isn't necessarily the best thing to do. Films are much shorter experiences after all. But as games strive to achieve outcomes that are similar to film - well rounded characters, compelling plots, dynamic scores, emotional impacts, and cameras that can be more tightly and creatively controlled - it would be good if gamers could catch up and start judging games on their merits within the medium they're working with, and how well their aesthetic choices match their narrative aims, rather than how well they synthesize or match-up to the real world.
If we're going to judge games for the art direction, then my criticisms are even more valid. Firstly, because it is not aesthetically appealing, and secondly, because it's use is often haphazard and unfocused. Desaturation works when it is presented as a contrast to something vibrant, but just churning out an entire work (be it game or film) in that style is the height of laziness.
My only other issue is that people are actually conflating this style with "realistic", when in fact it is anything but.
If we're talking about laziness, it must be the pinnacle of lazy critical analysis to write off a developers achievements on the basis of their chosen color palette. Surely it would be even more dull or lazy if a developer ignored the tools available to them just to present an unfiltered game, bereft of creative choices, designed to mimic reality as can be seen through your bedroom window?
I can't possibly argue on what is or is not boring or unappealing, since they're utterly subjective, and overuse is a ludicrous metric by which to judge the validity of a single games design choices. It's like saying there are too many FPS, therefore all FPS are failures.
Obviously turning up the desaturation filter is the height of artistry. I apologize profusely.
But, as I said before, I don't particularly like that sort of crap in films, either. Including Minority Report, as you mentioned. Lighting? Perfectly legitimate. Unreal filters? Don't set moods so much as they scream "I made this on a computer!"
Also, there are too many FPS games, and the majority of them suck.
Also, I don't have to find my way around locales in films like I do in video games.
Also, if you want color in your FPS look at Shadowrun (in addition to Halo). It manages to be colorful and still be fun. The slums still look slummy, and it's not a boring drab mess to look at.
Too many colours if you ask me. Take quake, desaturate it a tad more, so that the brighter greens and reds don't stand out, and you have the perfect vision of video game presentation. The problem with Quake is that, while its palette is appropriate, the effects and whatnot are not subdued enough. Its a little too exciting.
I'm not saying it's the height of anything. But any single choice when taken in isolation can be broken down to appear lazy. It's about how that choice relates to the aims of the developer, not how that choice matches the real world or contrasts against other games on the shelf.
Look, you can attack me if you want, but it doesn't get rid of my point. Nobody thinks that the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remakes are masterpieces of cinematography simply because they cranked a saturation dial in the editing booth. You're the one who brought up artistic merit, and part of artistic merit is actually using all of the tools available to you in the most effective way. If the best that art directors can do in a game to convey a mood is bleed out colors, then they're obviously not approaching any level of mastery.
I almost think that the works by Spielberg brought up in this thread are gimmicky (B+W in Schindler's List, bloom everywhere in Minority Report), but there is a semblance of purpose behind each (B+W, for example, puts greater emphasis on correct framing, mise en scene, and contrast, while making the small bits of color all the more memorable).
Just because I take a picture in black and white does not mean that I am an effective photographer (no matter what many people with cameras think), and the same applies here.
Mass Effect has a cheesy filter that can be turned off. I found the filter looked pretty good when I was playing the game on an SDTV, but the game looks far better with it off in HD. Its definitely not the type of style we're talking about here, though. It has a lot of samey environments because its supposed to look like a retro sci-fi, with clean white building design everywhere.
Fallout 3, well, it just has too much bloom. As I mentioned before, it actually does have alot of colours, they tend to get overpowered by the white glare. You can see them quite well during the morning/evening. Bloom sucks, but its a different issue.
As for that last point, say what you will, but I'm one of those in the "Diablo 3 is too bright" camp. Take a look at Diablo 1 and 2. They have colours, but still portray a dark atmosphere because of competent art direction.
To be fair, some of it just plain boils down to preference as well. I know that I get sick of Fallout after a while just because I'd like some visual change after a while. It's a great game, and the look fits it, but I could never stand up and defend it as having great graphics. Similarly, I didn't really care for Shadowrun the first time I played it (liking it much better now that I've gotten the hang of it), but I liked the aesthetic right off the bat.
Hey, I'm not attacking you. Apologies if it came across that way. This is a cool discussion!
Just as a B+W photo doesn't necessarily make you a good photographer, a developers use of bloom and a restricted colour palette does not mean they are lazy or that their game is shit. They're working with the tools they have to present their work in the most impactful way for the narrative they're pushing. Just like the ability of developers to tell a story in their games lags behind film, so do the tools with which they can represent their worlds visually.
And yeah, texas chainsaw remake. If the film wasn't desaturated, would it be any better? Mmmm probably not. I don't see how it's fair to complain about a single game design choice and write off the developer as lazy for it.
I brought up Minority Report because it's an art directors wet dream; the sets, the technology, the cinematography, they all pull together to heighten the films themes. Mirrors edge is a game that is beautifully designed but is devoid of any meaningful themes. It would be nice if, eventually, a game can do both. But I guess that's a whole different discussion.
I'm not asking for the visuals to be spot on with what reality dictates, but it'd be nice for them to make sense within the confines of the game world.
I agree. My starting point in this thread always was that this style is unappealing to me, both because of my personal preference for color, and because other games do what these games are trying to do through means other than bleaching the screen. The former matter of taste I can't really account for, but the latter is an actual, tenable position to take.
These games are all cribbing from Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan - both films that I think could use a touch more subtlety - but ultimately directorial control allows those films options that a first person shooter cannot have. Yes, yes, the Middle East and all of Europe east of Italy is a shithole so we can't in good conscience have much color lest the player think otherwise - meanwhile, games like STALKER, Fallout 3, and SotC portray actual wastelands in ways that are both visually interesting and more atmospheric than any of these "brown and gray" games could ever hope to achieve.
I agree with the rest, though. It would be nice if some games weren't rife with internal inconsistencies. Do you think they're forgivable given the sheer scope and magnitude of the task the developer undertook in the first place?
I think it's forgivable because it's almost certainly a technical limitation, and I'm not a video game dev so I have no idea how hard stuff like that really is. I mention the sun in Fallout though because I've honestly looked at the screen and thought "Why is everything so bright? It makes it hard to actually look at my surroundings." I'm all for it being dirty and grimy, but if that trash can is really green washing it out to point of its looking gray doesn't make it look worse from wear, tear, and nuclear explosion; it makes it look worse because I can't see what color it is." It's possible for a place to look like a shit hole without washing it out to the point of removing all color (drab as it might be) from the screen.
I find it retarded that you praise Fallout 3, when it is an incredibly brown and washed-out looking game with the occasional green glow thrown in.
Also, Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan don't need "a touch more subtlety". They started the fucking trend. They were unique and their use of desaturated color was incredibly effective. Just because you got tired of the style doesn't detract from their merit or make them lack subtlety. Why the fuck does art direction need to be subtle anyway?
The same goes for STALKER and SotC. Both can be accused of having areas with muted colors - but firstly, those are simply areas and not the full game, and secondly, there is much more going on in those places other than lack of color.
BHD and Saving Private Ryan are loud, screaming films that really have no subtlety at all. Both films make it extremely clear exactly what you should be feeling at any given moment. Some people like that, and I can enjoy them for what they are, but they are not in my opinion the greatest films about war to have been made ever or even recently for that matter. More importantly, they have become a template for what gamers expect out of an FPS despite the fact - as I mentioned - they can only lift the the broadest elements since FPS games lack the lock on presentation that a film has.