"Cinematic"
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Pshaw, why would they want a game to look and feel like a game? That would be counter-intuitive to the past fifteen years or so of them trying to be movies.CaitSeith said:
(For the record, I am being facetious.)
THANK YOU! I thought I was the only one who caught that.TripleDaddy said:
We'll know games are officially cinematic when they rake in awards for being super depressing to their players to the point of wanting to kill themselves. Whether or not they make enough money.
Who wants a cinematic experience?
If I wanted a cinematic experience playing Assassin's Creed, I'd demand a 24 fps game... and also ask my friends to sit behind me, talking on their cellphone, have babies cry at random intervals, have one guy heckle the film, and demand 30 minutes of trailers before I'm allowed to play the game.
"Cinematic" video games can go die in a fire. I just want the best, most responsive video games you can permit.
... Which I find even more interesting considering Peter Jackson champions faster frame rates for films than what Assassin Creed IV will provide.
If I wanted a cinematic experience playing Assassin's Creed, I'd demand a 24 fps game... and also ask my friends to sit behind me, talking on their cellphone, have babies cry at random intervals, have one guy heckle the film, and demand 30 minutes of trailers before I'm allowed to play the game.
"Cinematic" video games can go die in a fire. I just want the best, most responsive video games you can permit.
... Which I find even more interesting considering Peter Jackson champions faster frame rates for films than what Assassin Creed IV will provide.
Take it a step further. Make it a giant art museum, and every possible button press is represented by a painting. That you have to walk to. Like you'll have a big book full of button press combinations that tells you which painting to go to, and you have to look up the button press every time.
If that's not the pinnacle of the art of cinema, I don't know what is.
If that's not the pinnacle of the art of cinema, I don't know what is.
No, it doesn't. Video game controllers use an interrupt-based scheme rather than having the console constantly read the controller. So low FPS only becomes a problem when the displayed image falls behind the actual state of the game in the console's memory, that is, when there ceases to be a continuous flow between displayed images. Generally speaking, the point at which the human brain ceases to see sequences of separate images and starts to see a continuous movement is between 15 and 20 FPS.RealRT said:
Fun fact: Rumor has it that cinematic 24 fps was too slow to properly capture Bruce Lee's punches. They had to either over crank the camera or ask him to slow down. It's probably just a myth, but either way, video games need to stop trying to be like a different creative industry, especially one that usually embraces new technology the wrong way (CGI for basic sets and receding hairlines ) and won't let go of old, date tech and ideals (24fps).
If video games worked when treated as another medium, we have more games like Dragon's Lair and Space Ace or text only games reminiscent of those "choose your own adventure" books. Averting things like Nintendo's stubborn desire to make us read walls of text in Legend of Zelda's cutscenes (even in the spinoffs) is the only absolutely acceptable "cinematic" approach.
The "cinematic experience" in general can suffer eternal hellfire, for all I care.
If video games worked when treated as another medium, we have more games like Dragon's Lair and Space Ace or text only games reminiscent of those "choose your own adventure" books. Averting things like Nintendo's stubborn desire to make us read walls of text in Legend of Zelda's cutscenes (even in the spinoffs) is the only absolutely acceptable "cinematic" approach.
Add "The the film doesn't start on time or the wrong film starts playing because the projectionist was told to go do something else that could have been done by any of the numerous extra employees or management wouldn't leave him/her alone about someone he had already confirmed with them several times," "having a drink or snack requires taking out a loan or wearing baggie clothing and copious amounts of duct tape," and "not being able to pause to take a wiz," to your list. Also, technical issues could count, but our TVs could also spontaneously detonate, too.Trishbot said:
The "cinematic experience" in general can suffer eternal hellfire, for all I care.
Yes, but the movement is choppy (like slow-motion with a strobe light). Low-end PCs suffer from this because they haven't enough power to render the frames at the required speed (so it skips some frames or else it goes slow-motion), and can make the game painful to play.renegade7 said:
Oh, they're real alright. There's plenty of them running around on Youtube, claiming that the human eye can't perceive anything above 24 FPS and whatnot. Unfortunately they're often backed up by the "I don't care what FPS my game is" crowd, who are missing the main point that Ubisoft shouldn't be bullshitting everyone to hide the fact that the new consoles aren't as fantastic as everyone thought they would be.TheMatsjo said:
Good looking motion blur is not really a problem any more with the graphics power we have now ... but in the end 24 fps (at 72 Hz) sucks at representing moving images, it's a juddery blurred mess. The best you can do is tweak between really juddery and a little blurred and a little juddery and really blurred.CaitSeith said:
We just still have a sense to want something better in games ... while we have internalized the suckiness of cinema as the way it's supposed to be.
Am I the only one that dislikes the intensive blurriness during action scenes in cinema? Where you can't tell what's going on because the camera is jerking around and barely keeping the characters centered?