"Cinematic look" in games
- Thread starter L. Scofield
- Start date
Prophecy2k
Veteran
WTF!?!?!?
Basically this is how the above reads:
"Game A - I like - uses cinematic cutscenes" = Good
"Game B - I don't like - uses cinematic cutscenes" = Shitty non-game, plays itself
Tbh I wasn't expecting much coherent and rational discussion from a thread founded upon a very narrow-minded, reductionist and in some cases deliberately disingenuous viewpoint. But the above just proved why there is little if anything of value to discuss with the OP in this thread.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
Except in the case of the Order, the effects only prove to enhance the great art and hide the technological limitations of the platform. The effects seen in KZ shadowfall never interefered with the gameplay when I played the game, nor did they mess with the visual clarity, which is ironic given that KZ:SF is one of the games with the nicest IQ so far this gen. The quoted post is disingenuous and ignores reality. When you go outside on a brightly sunny day you can't see everything clearly at all. The visual effects used in moderns games are mostly geared around simulating real-life phenomenon. I would agree with the poster that BF games do overdo it a tad with all the camera lens flare effects, as these are indeed excessive in BF3 and BF4. I cannot same the same about any other game I've played recently, so its certianly not a widespread general issue in the way its painted above.
I dunno, if you don't like alot of the visual FX used in many of the more modern games then simply restrict your purchases to those games that don't use said effects. There's certainly enough of them, and I find it incredibly annoying when people try to make out that there isn't.
I really don't understand.
Games have been striving to emulate the type of effects we see in movies. We accept them in movies, why can't we accept them in games? The notion that we should all be playing games without any sort of lens effects, or post processing, or whatever else, is a bit behind. No?
Games have been striving to emulate the type of effects we see in movies. We accept them in movies, why can't we accept them in games? The notion that we should all be playing games without any sort of lens effects, or post processing, or whatever else, is a bit behind. No?
The difference is between those who feel games should be placing the user in the game, and those who view games as a televised production. TV content has lots of camera effects, so it makes sense to emulate that. Games without such effects will look flat by comparison. However, should we move to VR, games will probably have to remain very clean of special effects and get as close as possible to real life.
I think it comes down to expectations, but I don't see anything wrong with developers aiming to get the content they push on screen looking the same as movie content pushed onto the same screen. Here's Sherlock Holmes
The Order is clearly after the same look, which makes sense on a TV.
I think it comes down to expectations, but I don't see anything wrong with developers aiming to get the content they push on screen looking the same as movie content pushed onto the same screen. Here's Sherlock Holmes
Sigfried1977
Legend
WTF!?!?!?
Basically this is how the above reads:
"Game A - I like - uses cinematic cutscenes" = Good
"Game B - I don't like - uses cinematic cutscenes" = Shitty non-game, plays itself
Tbh I wasn't expecting much coherent and rational discussion from a thread founded upon a very narrow-minded, reductionist and in some cases deliberately disingenuous viewpoint. But the above just proved why there is little if anything of value to discuss with the OP in this thread.
The way I see is that games like RE4 and MGS4 use cut-scenes (doesn't really matter whether they're interactive or not) but still hand me the controls whenever something really cool is happening. MGS4's boss battles are terrific and so is the sand box nature of the level design. It's often being ridiculed as an interactive movie, but the fact remains that MGS4 still has a metric ton of incredibly varied gameplay once you've moved past the cut-scenes.
On the flip side you have a game like The Last of US. That game seems downright reluctant to let me take part. Sure, every once in a while I get to play the game's footnotes using a shallow, dated and binary stealth system, but the reason I'll remember the game in the future is the impressive performance capture. RE4 on the other hand I remember because I fought a blind creature with bladed arms in a prison cell with sweaty hands. Or because I desperately defended a little hut from a delighfully dynamic zombie invasion.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
This has to be the most obtuse thing I have read on the internet today. Seriously? TLOU has "shallow, dated and binary stealth gameplay", whilst MGS4 with its 20 min long cutscenes is somehow significantly different in terms of its gameplay?
Your post is too transparent Sigfried1977, as it makes little sense. It's so obvious to me when I read people who post about a lack of gameplay in games on the internet, and then go and use TLOU as an example to butress that point, that they have never even once touched the game. Its clear to me that you never played it Sigfried1977, or else you yourself would see the inane idiocy in the post you just made.
TLOU as a game has more varied and open-ended gameplay and encounter design than MOST cinematic games. Is it just because it is made by the makers of Uncharted - i.e. another game that unfairly gets called "on-rails", when it is in actual fact far far from it.
*sigh*
When the arguments are this incoherent and so cleaarly driven by an illogical irrational agenda, it becomes harder to engage with them in meaningful discourse.
the cutscene in the end of mgs gs is the worst IMO.
the cameraworks make me think that "wow i will play this awesome segment, swooping from heli and then marchinng on ground".
but no, its 100% cutscene
the cameraworks make me think that "wow i will play this awesome segment, swooping from heli and then marchinng on ground".
but no, its 100% cutscene
Sigfried1977
Legend
I finished TLoU (as well as MGS4 and RE4) on its hardest setting, thank you very much. I just don't think I ever did anything particularly noteworthy in that game. I was creeping around lots of conveniently placed chest high obstacles and strangled guys from behind. I did that over and over for an excruciating 20 hours. Remember how granular stealth systems used to be in the past? There was light and shadow and everything in between. There was camouflage and noise propagation too (TLoU only differentiates between silent and not silent. Even running around the lower hotel floors triggers the the guys upstairs) MGS4 has all of that plus countless gadgets to pick and choose from and form your own strategies around. Heck, TLoU even misses the most obvious and interesting trick by somehow never having thugs and infected roaming around the same areas.
I think things will (hopefully) change when Virtual Reality will become more common. Maybe VR realism will be finally incorporated into the industry standards in most videogames?
Currently the industry standards are derived mainly from cameras historical limitations: excessive motion blur & DOF, muddiness of the image, chromatic aberrations, bloom, heavy use of lens flares etc.
People are used to cinematic effects on their movies played on their TVs so they find normal (and are eager) to see similar 20th century camera technical defects (uselessly and expensively) replicated on the videogame they play on their same 'cinematic' TV.
But with VR I really don't expect people to see motion blur when they try to focus to see the details of the wall/ground just before them or a muddy imprecise stuff (DOFed) when they focus on the scenery on the background. Because they usually don't see that kind of blurry occurences in reality.
They don't.
Currently the industry standards are derived mainly from cameras historical limitations: excessive motion blur & DOF, muddiness of the image, chromatic aberrations, bloom, heavy use of lens flares etc.
People are used to cinematic effects on their movies played on their TVs so they find normal (and are eager) to see similar 20th century camera technical defects (uselessly and expensively) replicated on the videogame they play on their same 'cinematic' TV.
But with VR I really don't expect people to see motion blur when they try to focus to see the details of the wall/ground just before them or a muddy imprecise stuff (DOFed) when they focus on the scenery on the background. Because they usually don't see that kind of blurry occurences in reality.
They don't.
Mgs4 has shitloads MORE game mechanics than Toluca, but I wouldn't really agree that they are better. But that is to.....
I have to agree with this. I don't think I want to see lens flares all over the place, intense bloom and heavy blurr when I'm supposed to be immersed in the world. I wonder if they've done some experiments with that, to see how people's preferences differ in the VR environment. It could change art direction significantly. If you make a game that's playable on your tv or in vr, how do you balance the needs of the two? An interesting dilemma I hadn't though of.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
I wasn't particularly arguing which game had more game mechanics. A game can have a crap load of mechanics, but if those mechanics don't add any value or aren't fun then they don't add anything meaningful to a game.
All i'm saying is that I thoroughly enjoyed the gameplay of TLOU, outside of the story, characters and cinematics. Whilst I didn't enjoy the gameplay of MGS4 at all, and found it fundamentally unmemorable, and in many parts frustrating in comparison to the previous games in the series. MGS4 was the worst MGS experience for me and a fundmentally broken game in terms of story telling, cutscenes and how they tried but failed woefully to mesh it all together. Whilst on the other hand TLOU towers over the rest in terms of the way they were able to meld story telling with gameplay into what felt like a cohesive and enjoyable whole.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
All you do in MGS games is sneak around in a box, crawl on your belly and press up against a wall for 20-30+ hours (not including 15-20hours of cutscenes and excruciatingly endless codec waffle).
See how I can be reductionist too?
Both games present many gameplay mechanics and ways to interact with their respective gameworlds. Both games have depth and both games have no place being on opposite sides of a discussion about games which sacrifice gameplay for story-telling and vice-versa.
If the Op had used GTAV vs Spec Ops: The Line as his examples, I think there would be much more value in the discussion. Regardless however, as neither is an example of a problem that is endemic across the industry of modern AAA games. Variety exists and should be celebrated, not willfully ignored in a militant internet campaign to make all games effectively Tetris.
Edit:
To be honest OP, I think I will level with you on one thing that I do consider an increasingly alarming issue in AAA games development:
That is the seeming insistence of all AAA devs (whether publisher driven or not) to remain with the same ever-dwindling handful of standardised game genres.
I see genre fatigue becoming an increasingly apparent issue this gen, as devs insist on sticking with established genre conventions in game design (effectively a very lazy form of game design), instead of exercising creativity and charting new ground with fundamentally new game concepts. In my opinion the strength of gaming is in this. E.g. why does EVERY game have to include one out of a duo of established combat conventions for its encounter and confrontation design. Why does a game even need combat to simulate confrontation and create competition?
Can a game not simply present exploration and puzzles/obstacles as a means of creating challenge and enjoyment in playing a game?
I look at game concepts like the sims and think, why are AAA console games all either shoot/slash/punch/bite-em-ups?
To me this is a much bigger threat to modern console gaming than visual effects and cutscenes.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sigfried1977
Legend
Except in MGS4 you fight bosses that usually require a complete change of strategy. You also have to deal with lots of different enemy types (like the leaping frog soldiers, mechs, tanks, guys who keep radio communatications). Heck, you even have to deal with a sore back, eventually catching a cold, post traumatic stress disorder or even with smelling like shit if you happaned to crawl out of a particularly nasty hiding place. Sure, both are just stealth games. Just like RE4 is just a third person shooter. I just think that both MGS4 and RE4 do a lot more creative and memorable things within the confines of their respective genres.
Doesn't mean you have to like them better than TLoU or even appreciate them at all. Besides, all of that is just my opinion (the sheer wealth of options in your average MGS title is a cold, hard fact though) and maybe that's how L. Scofield sees it as well.
Doesn't mean you have to like them better than TLoU or even appreciate them at all. Besides, all of that is just my opinion (the sheer wealth of options in your average MGS title is a cold, hard fact though) and maybe that's how L. Scofield sees it as well.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
This is party why I didn't play TLoU on the harder difficulties. Rather than make the enemies harder they made resources scarcer which leaves you with an almost-entirely stealth-based game. As much as I like me some stealth - been mostly stealthing through WACTH_DOGS - I do want some variety. There's a fair amount of shooting in TLoU on the lower difficulty settings
Last edited by a moderator:
Prophecy2k
Veteran
Again you missed the part where I stressed that my arguement was not around which game has more gameplay mechanics, as a) not all gameplay mechanics are inherently fun, and b) who cares? My argument was that both games offer depth and solid gameplay, and "have no place being on opposite sides of a discussion about games which sacrifice gameplay for cinematics and vice versa". Neither game sacrifices gameplay for storytelling, which is the topic of this thread. They're poor examples of the OP's intial point.
I like pretty pictures, I make my living from working on them after all so I don't have principal issues with games using various post processing effects to get a more cinematic look. With that said, there are some things to remember when comparing games to movies.
As others have already mentioned, a lot of these visual elements are a result of the medium and the process - it is not possible to get a lens without depth of field and vignetting, you can't filter out lens flares, and film stock will always have a special response curve and film grain. The low frame rate is more of a tradition though, and motion blur is necessary to reduce flickering and confusion in the footage.
It's also very important to know that directors and cinematographers have learned to use these peculiarities as artistic tools and developed a certain visual language for film over the decades. Every single shot of a movie is very carefully designed and composed to deliver the desired results and evoke certain responses from the viewer. Everything from the placement of the camera in the set and its settings, the actors positions, the light positioning and intensity and color, the atmosphere and so on are all very carefully controlled.
Then there's also color grading, which - thanks to the digital tools - can be used not just to set a general mood and maintain consistency over shots filmed under different daily conditions, but also to enhance the image even further. This can be simple stuff like lightening or darkening certain parts of the scene or a character's face, or tweak color balance locally, or completely change the entire mood of the material that's been shot.
Now games are much more different because of the interactivity. The player has full control of the camera's placement and orientation, and the gameplay is also derived from player action to a level (like where other characters would stand or what dynamic event would occur or what extra lights may be in the scene). It's almost impossible to get full artistic control over many elements and so some of the cinematic tools are just firing at random most of the time.
Still, some level of procedural control can be maintained. I think Bioware routinely uses rim lights without any actual light sources for conversation scenes, in order to better separate characters from the background, for example. And of course it's pretty easy to trigger certain effects based on game state changes like player health or so.
so I don't have principal issues with games using various post processing effects to get a more cinematic look. With that said, there are some things to remember when comparing games to movies.As others have already mentioned, a lot of these visual elements are a result of the medium and the process - it is not possible to get a lens without depth of field and vignetting, you can't filter out lens flares, and film stock will always have a special response curve and film grain. The low frame rate is more of a tradition though, and motion blur is necessary to reduce flickering and confusion in the footage.
It's also very important to know that directors and cinematographers have learned to use these peculiarities as artistic tools and developed a certain visual language for film over the decades. Every single shot of a movie is very carefully designed and composed to deliver the desired results and evoke certain responses from the viewer. Everything from the placement of the camera in the set and its settings, the actors positions, the light positioning and intensity and color, the atmosphere and so on are all very carefully controlled.
Then there's also color grading, which - thanks to the digital tools - can be used not just to set a general mood and maintain consistency over shots filmed under different daily conditions, but also to enhance the image even further. This can be simple stuff like lightening or darkening certain parts of the scene or a character's face, or tweak color balance locally, or completely change the entire mood of the material that's been shot.
Now games are much more different because of the interactivity. The player has full control of the camera's placement and orientation, and the gameplay is also derived from player action to a level (like where other characters would stand or what dynamic event would occur or what extra lights may be in the scene). It's almost impossible to get full artistic control over many elements and so some of the cinematic tools are just firing at random most of the time.
Still, some level of procedural control can be maintained. I think Bioware routinely uses rim lights without any actual light sources for conversation scenes, in order to better separate characters from the background, for example. And of course it's pretty easy to trigger certain effects based on game state changes like player health or so.
Although not always successfully, and visual confusion can happen in cinema as well as games. One thinking games haven't stooped to thus far is shaky-cam - God help us all when developers decided to mimic the pacey, confused dynamism of the shaky-cam in games! Imagine a Bourne game that keeps cutting between crazily blurred and wobbly close ups of two combatants!
Sigfried1977
Legend
And I simply disagree. I think the ND of today are film makers first, and game makers a very distant second.
Similar threads
- Locked
