Is FMV still useful?

[bystander]

How does everyone feel about the the usefulness of FMV?

Given that game engines now are looking more realistic than ever do you think that FMV still has a place in computer games?

IMO FMV seems to have gone into something of a decline. I can't really name any games recently which have used FMV (there probably are some but I don't know of any myself).

IMO using the game engine to render any cutscenes, makes for more continuity between the cutscenes and in-game action. Not to mention the amount of space saved by not using FMV. Just my 2 cents

I feel that FMV may just be relegated to introduction and ending movies...

 

[3dcgi]

I haven't played it, but according to Computer Graphics World Star Wars Bounty Hunter uses about an hour of FMV throughout the game.

 

[Entropy]

Blizzard makes awesome videos for their games.
Using the game engine is sure to be lots cheaper though.

Entropy

 

[Babel-17]

It's still very useful for Adventure games, they still cater to lower end hardware. I played Syberia and the final cut scene was fantastic and a great moment in time for me personally. The game had other excellent cut scenes as well. Even an older Adventure game like The Longest Journey had some superb cut scene moments.

I've always seen cut scenes as a "reward" in these types of games. As such, and if they remain capable of delivering a superior quality moment, they may remain with us for the forseeable future. I voted "yes".

 

[RoOoBo]

I just tried Splinter Cell for PC and it uses 3D rendered videos for cut scenes. So I don't see that FMVs disapearing for a while.

 

[Tahir2]

I agree with Babel17 - I think Dungeon Seige could have benefited with some FMV as a 'reward'.

 

[Ostsol]

FMV is good for scenes that cannot change based on what's happened in the game. When something always happens as described in the cutscene, at the same time, with the same characters. When these things are variable, prerendered cutscenes can have out of place elements. One good example is a cutscene from Ultima 9, which took place at sunset regardless of the time of day when one triggered it.

 

[Pete]

As long as the engine is capable (WC3's was not really, nor will most strategy games), I prefer the "continuity" allowed by cut-scenes rendered with the game engine.

But the success of the Final Fantasy series shows that people love their cut-scenes. I just prefer 3D-rendered over human, as human cutscenes typically look cheap and are badly-acted.

I still voted no.

 

[Tagrineth]

They fit LotR:TTT perfectly

 

[horvendile]

If possible, I prefer cut scenes done with the game engine. It does indeed give a continuous impression that I like. However, there are many situations where one may want to present something in a cutscene that the game engine is not constructed to cope with; adventure games have been mentioned. Thus, I think that FMV is still useful.

 

[Nagorak]

As long as the engine is capable (WC3's was not really, nor will most strategy games), I prefer the "continuity" allowed by cut-scenes rendered with the game engine.

I really didn't like how some of the cutscenes in WC3 were in-game engines, and others were rendered. It REALLY bothered me. Also, if I recall, some of the scenes were lower quality "game graphics" while others were higher quality "cut scene graphics". It just really got on my nerves.

I think FMV still has a place in games, but if I were a developer I'd probably not use it (especially expensive CGI, as impressive as it is...). Still, I voted yes, because I think it does help some games.

 

[Padman]

Does anybody else really really miss the FMV briefings in the newest C&C? I always found they brought a huge amount of atmosphere to the series. They didn't even break continuity, because the game was meant to be a stylised top down view of you commanding your armies via satelite anyway.

As long as real humans look more realistic than computer generated ones, cutscenes in games like this should stay.

 

[Himself]

When game engines typically use FSAA and tons of textures in cut scenes, then maybe.

 

[deviantchild]

i still like them as intros: games like QuakeII, Evolva, RTCW and ThiefII had great intros
not so sure about ingame: Homeworld had stylish graphic novel cut-scenes which worked very well, but at the other end SystemShock2 had fmv's prefilmed using the game engine which looked worse than on the gfx card you were using to play the game
i think automated engine scenes such as in Deus-Ex and (my personal favourite) Soul Reaver work best ingame

 

[bystander]

They fit LotR:TTT perfectly

Good point, I suppose in movie to game conversions it still can offer a lot of atmosphere.

I think that FMV is IMO starting to diminish, though it obviously still has it's place in some games where the ingame engine isn't really suitable for rendering cutscenes.

Here are my reasons that FMV are used:

1. In-game engine is not suitable for cutscenes.
2. FMV typically has fairly low system requirements.
3. Greater visual realism than in-game engine.

Reasons for in-game engine cutscenes:

1. Better continuity between the cutscenes and the games
2. Typically uses less space than FMV.
3. Not as expensive as FMV.

 

[laGadU]

But the success of the Final Fantasy series shows that people love their cut-scenes.

exactly, imho we're still a couple of years away until there's a game engine that renders something so beautiful as the videos in FFX.
but then again MGS2 made a pretty good work with it, but voted yes as i think we're still a couple of years away from getting a playable game engine that could rival FFX's fmvs...

 

[AzBat]

They fit LotR:TTT perfectly

Good point, I suppose in movie to game conversions it still can offer a lot of atmosphere.

I think that FMV is IMO starting to diminish, though it obviously still has it's place in some games where the ingame engine isn't really suitable for rendering cutscenes.

Another game coming that will prove that FMV is good for movie to game conversions, Enter the Matrix. From what I've heard it will include a LOT. Can't wait to see for myself.

As for in-game engine, so far the best use I've seen so far has been Halo. Sweet!

Here are my reasons that FMV are used:

1. In-game engine is not suitable for cutscenes.
2. FMV typically has fairly low system requirements.
3. Greater visual realism than in-game engine.

Reasons for in-game engine cutscenes:

1. Better continuity between the cutscenes and the games
2. Typically uses less space than FMV.
3. Not as expensive as FMV.

Good summary. I pretty much agree with all points. So with said, FMV is here to stay.

Tommy McClain

 

[BoddoZerg]

The day when real time graphics can look better than the cinematics in Warcraft III, FMV will be obsolete.

Until then, the artistic impact of using non-ingame cinematics cannot be denied. They don't even have to be FMV - "Homeworld" showed that simple cartoon graphics can sometimes be much more effective of a storytelling device than 3d graphics.

Ingame cinematics make sense for preserving immersion... or even no cinematics at all, like Half-Life... the greatest moments in that game were witnessed looking out a window with your MP5 or Egon pointed at the important event as it happens. When immersion is the objective, then ingame cinematics are the best. From Half-Life to Halo, first person shooters have a strong tendency to present events with the in-game engine. This isn't laziness - it's immersion. When everything happens with a consistent look and feel, you can really get "into the game" and feel that you are in the gameworld.

On the other hand, RPGs and strategy games simply aren't about immersion. You never get the feeling that you are actually in the game, walking in the game world and being attacked by exploding bugs. Instead, you're controlling a bunch of characters through a fanciful world. In games where immersion is not relevant, prerendered cinematics are vastly better than ingame... FMV looks much better than ingame, and you can get perspectives from FMV cinematics that you don't get from in game. FMV cinematics are the opposite of "putting you into the game", they are taking you out of the game and showing you the game world from a different angle.

FMV is here to stay - arguments like "immersion makes FMV obsolete" is simply irrelevant to the game genres that use FMV the most.

And I agree - the lack of FMV in CnC:G sucks ass.

As for in-game engine, so far the best use I've seen so far has been Halo. Sweet!

You mean the Xbox Aliasing Demo? 500kilojaggies per second! Seriously... Halo cinematics have among the most blatant aliasing you'll ever find on Xbox. They were incredibly well done, but the graphics are a .

 

[AzBat]

As for in-game engine, so far the best use I've seen so far has been Halo. Sweet!

You mean the Xbox Aliasing Demo? 500kilojaggies per second! Seriously... Halo cinematics have among the most blatant aliasing you'll ever find on Xbox. They were incredibly well done, but the graphics are a .

Hey, I didn't say anything to the contrary. I just said it was the best use of a in-game engine. In that I think we both agree.

Tommy McClain

 

[Humus]

I voted no. Movie sequences in games is just disturbing IMO. A game that needs to stop the action for playing a movie sequence is a game I wont play.