Yes, the images are rather big. But that's no reason for some of us to give a reenactment of middle school. We've got some good discussion about camera techniques and cinematography regarding Aliens on here, so let's keep it to that. Ja?

But what's there to discuss, really? The OP has mostly just posted a crapload of huge-ass images, and spoken of some obscure cinematographical technique. I don't see what he's trying to get at.

 

Besides, I looked up "hero angle" on wiki, and there's nothing. Therefore, it don't exist.

Yes, the images are rather big. But that's no reason for some of us to give a reenactment of middle school. We've got some good discussion about camera techniques and cinematography regarding Aliens on here, so let's keep it to that. Ja?

But what's there to discuss, really? The OP has mostly just posted a crapload of huge-ass images, and spoken of some obscure cinematographical technique. I don't see what he's trying to get at.

 

Besides, I looked up "hero angle" on wiki, and there's nothing. Therefore, it don't exist.

 

 

There is nothing to discuss Random Noob,

 

You were right all along. I am very sorry to have posted those images. They have been removed.

Please forgive me Random N00b, it will not happen again I promise.

It certainly wouldn't hurt with a cinematographical feel, although personally I by far prefer "Alien" over "Aliens" as a reference. After all, RPGs focus on telling a story, and both movies and games must utilize every tool at their disposal to convey feelings and atmosphere to the viewer/ player. I don't want to equate movies with games, but 3D games and movies have a lot in common and it would be a mistake to forget that.

Camera positioning and field of view can have an enormous impact on how much tension the viewer feels as well as how large or small creatures and the environment seem relative to other elements (such as a certain character of focus). This isn't a "movie" or "game" thing, but a psychological element at work in a variety of media.

 

For example, in Aliens, the queen is actually not enormous. I mean... she is very large, but the camera position and angles used in some scenes makes her seem much bigger than she is when Ripley is actually fighting her in the loader. In fact, the queen is not that much bigger than the loader overall. But when Ripley is looking at the queen in the hive, the camera is placed very low and the camera angle used makes her seem quite big.

There is nothing to discuss Random Noob,

 

You were right all along. I am very sorry to have posted those images. They have been removed.

Please forgive me Random N00b, it will not happen again I promise.

No man I didn't want you to take your images down, I wanted you to elaborate on your point. If the images served to illustrate examples, they are fine. So, again, what is the relation of what you mentioned with OE's Alien RPG? How does that kind of thing work in a game? We don't even know if/how there are going to be cutscenes.

 

And what the hell are you apologizing to me for, anyway?

 

 

Camera positioning and field of view can have an enormous impact on how much tension the viewer feels as well as how large or small creatures and the environment seem relative to other elements (such as a certain character of focus). This isn't a "movie" or "game" thing, but a psychological element at work in a variety of media.

Can some of this actually be transplanted successfully to a game? I mean, cutscenes consistently fail to impress me in the sense you mention. In AvP2 (granted, old game, average cutscenes), the most tense moments aren't cutscenes, but those moments where you suspect there's something behind your back, but you have to keep advancing. Ocean House, Bloodlines, similar thing. It may have something to do with cutscenes going off at the worst possible moment (high tension) and disrupting gameplay, taking control away from the player and thus breaking immersion, so perhaps it's just a thing of bad implementation. STALKER got this right, I think - of course, in that game, cutscenes add *nothing* to the game, but anyway.

 

Movies are not books, and it stands to reason that the techniques used to affect the reader/viewer emotionally are different. Games are not movies, so actually how good are traditional cinematographical resources in this medium?

 

 

For example, in Aliens, the queen is actually not enormous. I mean... she is very large, but the camera position and angles used in some scenes makes her seem much bigger than she is when Ripley is actually fighting her in the loader. In fact, the queen is not that much bigger than the loader overall. But when Ripley is looking at the queen in the hive, the camera is placed very low and the camera angle used makes her seem quite big.

Um, she looked HUGE when she tears Bishop apart. I never really considered that smart camera positioning actually affected how big she appears, because the she *is* pretty big in her own right. Also, I'm not sure but I think they actually used at least 2 props, possibly different sizes?

 

This sounds like a good time to re-watch that making-of DVD.

Edited July 1, 200817 yr by random n00b

I don't think a crpg needs cinemagraphical feel. It needs solid gameplay.

 

 

 

That's a solid post.

 

I knew you'd appreciate my flair and attention to detail.

 

It's a simple matter of the story telling device, which is part of the gameplay mechanism and reward system for alot of players.

 

Needing gameplay goes without saying, but the difference between a good and an excellent game is actually something like well directed shots during cinematic sequences be they interactive or not.

 

One only needs to compare Mass Effect and NWN 2's conversational cinematics and you can tell the difference, heck on release NWN 2's cinematics played like some pixelated crotch examination sequence. Are you telling me that wasn't irksome?

 

Oh and Crashgirl

 

EPIC FAIL! EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPPPPPPPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC FAIL!

is what I will be experiencing today at me job interview

Edited July 1, 200817 yr by @\NightandtheShape/@

Yeah, cinematic sequences make or break great games, right up there with sweet mullets.

Can some of this actually be transplanted successfully to a game? I mean, cutscenes consistently fail to impress me in the sense you mention.

I wasn't thinking about cameras in cinematics, but in-game, and there I do think the camera can have a large effect on the player's emotional connection to what's happening.

If memory serves (and it probably doesn't) Deus Ex and Anachronix had above average (in-game) cutscenes. So there's some weight behind the notion that there's a good way and an average way to do game cinematography.

If memory serves (and it probably doesn't) Deus Ex and Anachronix had above average (in-game) cutscenes. So there's some weight behind the notion that there's a good way and an average way to do game cinematography.

 

 

WAT

 

Um, she looked HUGE when she tears Bishop apart.

When she tears Bishop apart, she's also reaching down from a spot where she was hiding in the Cheyenne. She's elevated off of the ground, which makes her look even bigger.

 

They may have used two different props/rigs for the queen, but I don't think they were that much different in size.

 

If memory serves (and it probably doesn't) Deus Ex and Anachronix had above average (in-game) cutscenes. So there's some weight behind the notion that there's a good way and an average way to do game cinematography.

If anyone can watch Devil May Cry 4's cutscenes and still think that cinematography doesn't have a great effect on in-game cutscenes... well I'm not sure what to say.

I was just about to say japanese games - whatever else you think about them - have in average by far best cutscenes.

 

DMC4 should be (dunno, haven't played) yet another entry in Games With Great Cutscenes.

 

Bio cutscenes are fairly average

 

But that someone would go and claim cutscenes in Deus Ex were good... geez

 

That said:

 

MotB approach ----------> JRPG cutscenes

It's a simple matter of the story telling device, which is part of the gameplay mechanism and reward system for alot of players.

 

 

Games don't have stories, at least not ones that matter. Nursery school picture books have better stories than most video games. That's not a complaint, please understand. Its the way it should be. Stories in games are just there to provide the barest rationale gfor the gameplay.

 

I've cried lots of times at books, movies, cartoons. No game has ever come close to bringing me to tears. Or to any other strong emotional reaction.

 

Needing gameplay goes without saying, but the difference between a good and an excellent game is actually something like well directed shots during cinematic sequences be they interactive or not.

 

 

For you ok fine. For me personally, no. Cutscenes or any other sort of cinematic sequences have pretty much 0 impact on how I perceive a game. I don't think any of my favorite games have cutscenes, actually.

 

 

One only needs to compare Mass Effect and NWN 2's conversational cinematics and you can tell the difference, heck on release NWN 2's cinematics played like some pixelated crotch examination sequence. Are you telling me that wasn't irksome?

 

 

I wouldn't even notice. I'd probably be reading the subtitles

 

EPIC FAIL! EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPPPPPPPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC FAIL!

is what I will be experiencing today at me job interview

 

Good luck at your job interview! I hope you don't fail.

For you ok fine. For me personally, no. Cutscenes or any other sort of cinematic sequences have pretty much 0 impact on how I perceive a game. I don't think any of my favorite games have cutscenes, actually.

 

Stalker had cutscenes.

For you ok fine. For me personally, no. Cutscenes or any other sort of cinematic sequences have pretty much 0 impact on how I perceive a game. I don't think any of my favorite games have cutscenes, actually.

 

Stalker had cutscenes.

 

 

That's true. So there you go. So little impact I don't even remember them. lol

 

I mostly just find cutscenes or anything else somewhat annoying and to be gotten through as quickly and painlessly as possible.

 

Pess ESC and move on to the stuff that matters.

Games don't have stories, at least not ones that matter. Nursery school picture books have better stories than most video games. That's not a complaint, please understand. Its the way it should be. Stories in games are just there to provide the barest rationale gfor the gameplay.

 

Why should it be so? And there are games with great stories

 

I've cried lots of times at books, movies, cartoons. No game has ever come close to bringing me to tears. Or to any other strong emotional reaction.

 

PS:T got A LOT intellectual (lol?) and above all emotional resonance from me.

 

As has MotB largerly due to whole Wall of the Faithless theme and Kaelyn. The way she thought reminded me so much from when I was 15 and 16 and how I was struggling with my faith. It alone gave a lot for me. Other MotB's themes such as love & al also created resonance.

 

Otherwise... well, yeah, that's it. (though I remember being saddened when Meryl died in original MGS if you sucked at that torture section )

 

But it doesn't mean games don't have potential to be even more profound and impacting form of art than any other artform.

Edited July 1, 200817 yr by Xard

Hi Xard,

 

I definitely agree that games have the potential to be evocative and emotional given the interplay between interactivity and presentation. Computer games can be as much an art form as anything. Potentially. I think its a more difficult road to travel though because of the need to balance between interactive gameplay and forced narrative.

 

Too much forced narrative makes a game a movie; too little prevents any emotional resposne on the part of the game.

 

 

As far as PS:T goes: I used to get a lot of mileage from beating on it mercilessly, especially the "brilliant" story, but I don't do that anymore because in today's world of video games, PS:T looks like a freaking work of utter genius. Which is funny cause I used to think it was overrated pile of poo. Everything is relative, I guess.

As far as PS:T goes: I used to get a lot of mileage from beating on it mercilessly, especially the "brilliant" story, but I don't do that anymore because in today's world of video games, PS:T looks like a freaking work of utter genius. Which is funny cause I used to think it was overrated pile of poo. Everything is relative, I guess.

 

You spiteful heretic!

 

May fires of Nine Hells serve you right!

 

(I'm currently replaying PS:T and it still is my all time favourite game)

I wasn't thinking about cameras in cinematics, but in-game, and there I do think the camera can have a large effect on the player's emotional connection to what's happening.

Well, that's interesting. Could you elaborate, maybe provide examples? I see this as very difficult to implement, since the camera is in most respects under player control during gameplay. How would you go about affecting camera angles and perspectives dynamically?

 

 

Games don't have stories, at least not ones that matter. Nursery school picture books have better stories than most video games. That's not a complaint, please understand. Its the way it should be. Stories in games are just there to provide the barest rationale gfor the gameplay.

What constitutes a "great" story for you, just so I know what are your standards? Not being facetious, btw. Some examples, from any medium?

What constitutes a "great" story for you, just so I know what are your standards? Not being facetious, btw. Some examples, from any medium?

 

 

The two best stories I have experienced are The Book of Daniel by E.L. Doctorow and Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes.

There have been many others that have left me with something, but those two strike me more than the rest. If I sat and thought about it some more I could come up with some more.

 

A "great" story for me is something that leaves me with a strong emotional impact after the story is done. It doesn't have to be sadness or loss, but those are often the things that resonate most strongly with me.

Well, that's interesting. Could you elaborate, maybe provide examples? I see this as very difficult to implement, since the camera is in most respects under player control during gameplay. How would you go about affecting camera angles and perspectives dynamically?

Tombraider (the original game) did that occasionally. Sometimes pulling the camera back to give a panoramic view of the scene, sometimes just by "tilting" Laras head to make the player take note of something in a different directing than the current running direction.

 

Most people remembered it for it's fmv cutscenes which were good for it's time I suppose, even if they mostly produce a giggle by todays standards. I liked the more subtle manipulation of the camera while playing.

But that someone would go and claim cutscenes in Deus Ex were good... geez

 

The game had blockish graphics and awkward model movement, but that's not what we're talking about. Camera angles and level, POV switching, and scenery for Deus Ex's in-game cut-scenes were all carefully thought out and fairly well done I think. It also generally carried over to dialogue for the most part.

 

I'll have to try and play Devil May Cry 4 somehow. I hear it referenced quite a lot. Then again, I'm 4 games late...

 

CrashGirl: It's not that games have awesome stories. It's that some manage to combine a decent story with decent atmosphere, decent interactivity, and decent graphics. Combined, these things can pull you into a world and its goings on more than any book. But without a decent story, this becomes very hard.

 

Anyway, however you compare them, the immersion is distinctly 'different' for games and books; books have a different 'mental feel' about them that makes direct comparison difficult... or silly.

 

A "great" story for me is something that leaves me with a strong emotional impact after the story is done. It doesn't have to be sadness or loss, but those are often the things that resonate most strongly with me.

 

If that's your definition of good story then, interestingly, you are almost alone in thinking PS:T had poor story compared to books. It would seem that the logical response is not "PS:T has crap story, like all computer games", but "I couldn't get into PS:T's story".

Edited July 2, 200817 yr by Krezack

If that's your definition of good story then, interestingly, you are almost alone in thinking PS:T had poor story compared to books. It would seem that the logical response is not "PS:T has crap story, like all computer games", but "I couldn't get into PS:T's story".

 

Most of the "good story" in Torment was actually the revelation of backstory, rather than the actual events taking place.

Yeah, but that's equally as true for a great deal of (good) books and movies; it's a story-telling technique. I rather think it's a nonsensical qualification to distinguish between 'story' and 'backstory' for Planescape: Torment, much like it would be for, say, any mystery novel.

The two best stories I have experienced are The Book of Daniel by E.L. Doctorow and Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes.

There have been many others that have left me with something, but those two strike me more than the rest. If I sat and thought about it some more I could come up with some more.

Can't say I've read either. I'll add them to my waiting list, but it's been some time since I've felt like reading fiction.

 

 

A "great" story for me is something that leaves me with a strong emotional impact after the story is done. It doesn't have to be sadness or loss, but those are often the things that resonate most strongly with me.

Yeah, I think I understand where you're coming from and, on those terms, I agree. While it's possible for games to have overall solid, cohesive plots (1, 2, 3?) they fail in the emotional department for the most part, or come off as trite and cheesy - possibly due to a mixture of the shortcomings of technology and average writing. While MotB had a few somewhat gripping elements, I never found it to affect me as much as I've been when reading Manfredi's Alexander books, for instance. I don't know if it'd be possible for a game to cause the same level of emotional response as books or movies given ideal conditions, but given current technology, I don't think so.

 

 

Tombraider (the original game) did that occasionally. Sometimes pulling the camera back to give a panoramic view of the scene, sometimes just by "tilting" Laras head to make the player take note of something in a different directing than the current running direction.

 

Most people remembered it for it's fmv cutscenes which were good for it's time I suppose, even if they mostly produce a giggle by todays standards. I liked the more subtle manipulation of the camera while playing.

Never played Tomb Raider. That is the kind of thing that for me breaks immersion, though, since it takes control of a player-controlled element, albeit momentarily, if I'm understanding it correctly. I guess I'm just that anal. That's why I said I see it so difficult to do well.

 

 

It's that some manage to combine a decent story with decent atmosphere, decent interactivity, and decent graphics. Combined, these things can pull you into a world and its goings on more than any book.

Nah.

Yeah, but that's equally as true for a great deal of (good) books and movies; it's a story-telling technique. I rather think it's a nonsensical qualification to distinguish between 'story' and 'backstory' for Planescape: Torment, much like it would be for, say, any mystery novel.

 

The thing is that backstory is easier to control than front-story (for lack of a better word). You don't have to deal with the question of interactivity; it's set in stone.

 

Take Bioshock. Almost everything that's good about Bioshock is backstory. The front-story consists almost entirely of this guy running around killing crazies, because that's what the game engine can support.