Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

We're offering banner ads on our site from just $5!

1. Details HERE. 2. GDNet+ Subscriptions HERE. 3. Ad upload HERE.


Movie & game should be combined to create a perfect gaming experience!


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
32 replies to this topic

#21 borngamer   Members   -  Reputation: 204

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 26 June 2000 - 06:15 AM

Blah! Why would anyone want to use a 3D engine for movie cut-scenes? I don''t know about anyone else but I feel that the hype around current 3D technology is getting a little overrated.

Don''t get me wrong, I have seen some nice 3D game graphics, but to use that technology for making a movie clip that someone has to sit through would be suicide. I think gamers (myself included) would only accept this for short 30 second clips.

People want to interact with their games, not watch them, and I think the only way to successfully get away with long in game clips is to use expensive actors (or a cool cartoon).

Man was born to game, we only work to pay for our toys!

Sponsor:

#22 Paul Cunningham   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 27 June 2000 - 03:23 AM

I don''t mean to hassle you here Hans but this is something to consider.

The power of Next Gen Consoles are going to be so powerful in repect to 3D. The ingame images are going to be near TV quality anyhow. So why would someone want to watch this when they can play it?

Were you thinking of using something like 3Dmax for the movie images? Just remember, gamers are also a different audience to movie buffs so what you''d have to show in the movie would have to act as a stimulant to getting people to want to play the game.

You will run into problems however when it comes to 3D character animation. This is HUGE work!!



WE are their,
"Sons of the Free"

#23 sunandshadow   Moderators   -  Reputation: 4984

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 27 June 2000 - 08:01 AM

quote:
Original post by ImmaGNUman

''For a truly awful example of how not to make a game...''

That means its a good example of how to make a game. I think you mean:

''For a truly awful example of how to make a game...''



This is not a double-negative because ''awful'' modifies ''example'' and ''not'' modifies ''to make''.

I was thinking that there are good examples of how not to make a game. These being the examples with the most clear-cut problems, thus the examples that it''s easiest to learn from. Tender Loving Care would be a bad example of how not to make the game because it has so many things wrong with it that it would be confusing to figure out all the changes that would be necessary to make a good game.



#24 Hans   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 29 June 2000 - 04:26 AM

Paul C.:
I like to watch movies even though I could also play Q3 (which looks better than some movies ). There''s just huge difference between a movie and a game.
It''s just stupid to play an RPG or adventure game where when you start there are two options:
1) you can''t remember anything (was insomnia the word?)
2) you''re a new man in town

And the movie-storytelling (no, I''m still not talking about that interactive crap) would be a quite fresh idea.

Well, you can always use motion capture to make character animations. (use netcamera, put some pingpong balls in your limbs and then make a small program that notices the pingpong-ball movement). Seriously, this could work

--

Huh, just about everyone seems to be misunderstanding that topic. It''s not about little movies all over the game or about a "movie game"/interactive CD crap. It''s about a real game with the one big beginning movie that tells about background etc. Okay 60 minutes is maybe enough

And I also believe that movie audience doesn''t differ too much from game audience.


-Hans

#25 dog135   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 29 June 2000 - 08:58 AM

I wouldn't sit through it. If I feel like watching a movie, I watch one on my TV.

I like how TR does their movies. Also, in TRII, you have to watch the movie to know how to beat the dragon at the end of the game. (You can't see the knife, but in the movie, it shows a guy pulling it from the dragon.)

BTW: They used the game engine for some of their short movies too.

E:cb woof!

Edited by - dog135 on June 29, 2000 3:59:19 PM

#26 Magic Card   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 29 June 2000 - 09:44 AM

quote:
Original post by borngamer

Blah! Why would anyone want to use a 3D engine for movie cut-scenes? I don''t know about anyone else but I feel that the hype around current 3D technology is getting a little overrated.

Don''t get me wrong, I have seen some nice 3D game graphics, but to use that technology for making a movie clip that someone has to sit through would be suicide. I think gamers (myself included) would only accept this for short 30 second clips.

People want to interact with their games, not watch them, and I think the only way to successfully get away with long in game clips is to use expensive actors (or a cool cartoon).

Man was born to game, we only work to pay for our toys!


May I remind you that when Descent was first created people were probably saying things like, "Who wants to play this crap? We want more pong!" And then, 10 years later it''s a huge hit! FIVE SEQUELS! Then DOOM and Castle Wolfenstein were created. Everybody got psyched and thus the first person shooter was invented! There have been over 500 different first person shooters, ranging from DOOM to Dark Forces to Dear Hunter. Personally, I''m getting sick of the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. HAVEN''T WE HAD ENOUGH GUTS SPILLING OVER THE SCREEN AND PEOPLE THINKING THAT IT''S COOL? Granted, I''m making a 3rd person shooter, but that doesn''t mean that it''s exactly like ever other game out there! These huge companies have lost creativity and replaced it with graphics.

I for one believe it''s time for a new genre, and these movies may do the trick. And they wouldn''t just be movies. They''d have over 50 different endings, depending on how you played it. If you read my previous post, you understand what I''m talking about. We might as well give it a shot.


Top quality games don''t kick ass as well as these.

http://danavision.homestead.com

Prepare to be blown away!
-------------------------

Magic Card

#27 dog135   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 29 June 2000 - 01:31 PM

50 different endings huh? Event those "Choose your own adventure" books only have 5 or so. Are you going to be programming all that animation? Better start now, it''ll be mid century before you''re done.

Complete one animation a month for the next 50 years and you have 600 animations.

BTW: I don''t think Descent came out BEFORE Doom.

E:cb woof!

#28 Paul Cunningham   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 29 June 2000 - 08:43 PM

Well i''d have to say then that movie scenes before the commencement of a game is not a bad idea. Most games have them to some extent anyhow, your just talking about enlargening this/right?

Considering that a lot of games are based of movies, which adds significant story depth to a game. yeah, it''s a good move.

Personally, i''d like to see some of my favourite games turned into movies like fallout, diablo, halflife, paradroid90. I doubt it though, bummer.



WE are their,
"Sons of the Free"

#29 Spyder   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 29 June 2000 - 08:48 PM

I can see before myself halflife, and fallout as movies, but I''m abit intrested what you have in mind for a diablo movie?


Scene 1: A party begins in town and buy some crap

Scene 2: They go into the dungeons and slay abit

Scene 3: they go up into town through a portal

Scene 4-24: Repeat 1 to 3 but add more badass monsters and SPFX.



Sounds like a great movie!

#30 Paul Cunningham   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 29 June 2000 - 09:00 PM

quote:
Original post by Spyder

I can see before myself halflife, and fallout as movies, but I''m abit intrested what you have in mind for a diablo movie?


Scene 1: A party begins in town and buy some crap

Scene 2: They go into the dungeons and slay abit

Scene 3: they go up into town through a portal

Scene 4-24: Repeat 1 to 3 but add more badass monsters and SPFX.



Sounds like a great movie!


The one thing i like in diablo was when you found one of those books underground and read it. That was quite spooky. This element could be expanded to make it more intriguing. But they''d have to leave the beginning intro alone, i love it.


WE are their,
"Sons of the Free"

#31 Ingenu   Members   -  Reputation: 913

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 29 June 2000 - 09:20 PM

Ingame engine cutscences are much more reactive than movies.
I remember while playing FF7, I use a sharp and nice lookng Katana (japanese sword) like weapon, but when the cutscene began, I suddenly use my old weapon ???

Isn''t that strange ?

Using the game engine to make cutscene allow the creation of modular and reactive movies sequences that suit more the game.
(Think about the example above, this is avoided with ingame engien cutscenes)


Another reason (I still ask myself if it''s a good one) is to have a continuous flow in the game, it seems that some people find that cutscenes are breaking the flow of the game by displaying BETTER gfx and killing the freedom of the player.


I choose to use a movie Intro and a movie ending, with all others cutscenes using the 3d game engine.
If the engine is nice enough (remember OutCast), it''s not really a bad idea to use the 3d engine.

I''ll probably use movies in scenes in which the player is not there.
(The scene in which you learn that your worst ennemy is in fact a necromancer [Only use a necromancer once in my 10 years of Game Mastering] who is planning to conquer the world...)
[Don''t get me wrong I''ll never write such a story, too classical for me.]

Anybodies have other reasons why not to use movies sometimes, and why to use them other times ?

-* So many things to do, so few time to spend *-

#32 borngamer   Members   -  Reputation: 204

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 03 July 2000 - 05:51 PM

For anyone who misunderstood me, I actually like some of the cut-scenes in my games. I thought some of the scenes in the Command & Conquer games were very entertaining. The point I was trying to make (....somewhere back a few posts that is.....), movie scenes in games should be kept to a minimum length. Up to 2-3 minutes between levels is fine, but to throw in a 90 minute movie like what was originally suggested just wouldn''t work to keep gamers interested.

Many people may only have 30 minutes a day to play, now that I''m a new Dad, I hardly ever get to play anything anymore (Although I just got into MDK2 a little-->Great fun in that game).

My other point is (and this is my opinion only), besides the prerendered 3D (3D Studio, etc.), I feel that the current 3D game technology is still completely crude. I have played my share of 3D games (Unreal Tourn., Quake 3, etc..) and while the graphics are acceptable for gameplay, I wouldn''t want to watch a 10 minute (let alone 90 minute) movie clip using a 3D game engine. For anyone out there thinking: Oh boy, he''s probablly running a cruddy config if he thinks that. I''m not. I''m running a P3-450, 96MB, Diamond Viper V770 Ultra.

Now only a fool would say that the technology will always be this bad. I''m not one of those people. I fully expect to see prerendered 3D Studio quality graphics generated on the fly in the next 5 or so years (or sooner if we are lucky). But even then, I don''t want to sit back and watch anything for a long period of time. I''m buying games to interact with my PC.

P.S. One of these days I will post a shorter response....I get carried away and my messages may get a bit long winded. Sorry.


Man was born to game, we only work to pay for our toys!

#33 Dæmin   Members   -  Reputation: 128

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 05 July 2000 - 05:31 PM

Sorry if this is sorta off topic, but one thing that gripes me about most games out now a days is that the intro movie is pretty damn cool for most of them, like the one in mech commander, well most of that one, it had a bit of cheesy acting.
Then at the end once you''ve slogged out through the whole game in order to finish it then they show you this pissy little small movie that lasts about 1/4 the time of the intro... And in terms of mechcommander (again) it is a short movie that''s totall cg, not bad cg but its not quite as well produced as the intro movie.

My point is that games should reward the player after they''ve finished it. And in my opinion that should be a cool and detailed movie that has some cool scenes in it. This would make give the player some sort of cool satisfaction of being the first to finish it because he could then show off the movie to his friends and they (might) go "wow, isn''t that cool!"

Then the sequel would sell even better hehe

Dæmin
(Dominik Grabiec)
sdgrab@eisa.net.au

CyberPunk RPG
http://www.eisa.net.au/~sdgrab/index.html




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS