fun fact, never played this guys 'games', why? well *points to video* that's why, any dev that starts banging on about how graphics at the most important part of the game i start ignoring out right on the grounds they are clearly incompetent.
And it doesn´t even have to look cartoonish, you can do it in a somewhat realistic style and still characterize it a bit. Just look at a game like Final Fantasy XIII or Yakuza 3-4, heck even Metal Gear Solid 3.hentropy said:This is a great point, it's why I sort of wish games would go back to a more cartoony/animated feel, rather than trying to just cram more polygons into everything to try and make it look more true to life, because it never really works. Personally I loved the Wind Waker because of the way it was able to convey emotion. OoT and the other games were decent at that as well, but WW really nailed it. One of the reasons I fell in love with Recettear: An Item Shop's Tale is because of the quality of the art and facial expressions.Legion said:That's actually why anime characters have the faces they do. So emotion can be shown a lot more clearly. They don't look realistic, but to me this:
expresses a hell of a lot more emotion than this:
Instead we get uncanny valley crap like this and Bioware-face which is just amusing at times, but it still breaks immersion. I mean, it's not all that bad but 'realistic' graphics almost never seems true to life or truly emotional.
I'm pretty sure Pixar are making a Cars 3an annoyed writer said:So according to David Cage, the cars from Need For Speed have more emotions than the entire main cast of heavy rain? Disney, Pixar, put on your coat and GTFO, these cars deserve to be on the silver screen. That's over 270,000 emotions per car.
This ^^Legion said:Hmm, I liked the subject matter, and it was a good parody, but I think it'd have worked better if perhaps the David Cage mockery was done for maybe the first minute or so, then the rest as normal.
It was good, I just felt the joke was wearing a little thin by the end.
That's actually why anime characters have the faces they do. So emotion can be shown a lot more clearly. They don't look realistic, but to me this:MrBaskerville said:It´s always been fun how you could play a game like Yakuza or Catherine, where the characters looks like humans and actually expresses emotions, but when you play one of Cages brilliant games, it´s nothing but a freak show where you are starring into the uncanny valley. He uses so much money to try and recreate reality, though it might be quite impossible, while smarter companies characterises the faces slightly and achieves a lot better results using less effort.
expresses a hell of a lot more emotion than this:
I can't believe it took four pages for this post to appear.Pat Hulse said:Ugh.
You know, there's an actual argument to be had here. You know, an argument that we might be having if this video wasn't a complete waste of time.
This video seems to imply that David Cage's argument is that the only way we can convey real emotions in video games is with moar polygons.
David Cage's REAL argument (at least the argument that I got out of his little presentation) was that the ability to render an enormous level of detail will allow for a real-life actor's performance to be rendered in a high enough definition to break through the uncanny valley and bring that advantageous aspect of visual storytelling that film has monopolized to video games.
No, we don't NEED real actors and high polygon counts in order to have believable characters with emotions that feel genuine -- animation has been doing it for generations -- but the ability to do that is not something that should just be dismissed as gimmicky and pointless.
A game that strives for realism can't really take advantage of the tricks that animation uses to convey emotion, and the biggest problem motion-capture has run into when it comes to video games is the uncanny valley, where the characters appear wooden and lifeless and emotion can only be conveyed through exceptional writing, atmosphere, and voice acting, all of which need to compensate for the often jarring animation. But the ability to have a rendered CG character mirror a real life actor with the kind of precision he's talking about could not only break through the uncanny valley, but it could also start attracting more real life actors (yes, like Ellen Page) into the realm of video games.
Is David Cage pretentious and single-minded? Definitely. But that doesn't mean we can just completely dismiss and mischaracterize everything he says in order to feel clever.
I would have liked a video where Jim talked about why he thinks that putting stock into this kind of technology is a wasted effort rather than just taking it for granted and wasting 7 minutes making the same joke one thousand times.
It is even worse. His games begin interesting and then suddenly at some point any sense gets out of the window and everything goes so batshit insane and so senseless and stupid that its comical. X-PVitagen said:As someone who's never played any of David Cage's work, is his writing really that bad, or does he just get an exceptionally bad rep because he thinks he's some sort of transcendent genius but in reality isn't?
Agreed with this. There wasn't much substance ot this video other than 'I hated the PS4 David Cage speech'. And skimmed at that. I would love to hear what he actually thinks about this.DigitalAtlas said:I can't believe it took four pages for this post to appear.Pat Hulse said:Ugh.
You know, there's an actual argument to be had here. You know, an argument that we might be having if this video wasn't a complete waste of time.
This video seems to imply that David Cage's argument is that the only way we can convey real emotions in video games is with moar polygons.
David Cage's REAL argument (at least the argument that I got out of his little presentation) was that the ability to render an enormous level of detail will allow for a real-life actor's performance to be rendered in a high enough definition to break through the uncanny valley and bring that advantageous aspect of visual storytelling that film has monopolized to video games.
No, we don't NEED real actors and high polygon counts in order to have believable characters with emotions that feel genuine -- animation has been doing it for generations -- but the ability to do that is not something that should just be dismissed as gimmicky and pointless.
A game that strives for realism can't really take advantage of the tricks that animation uses to convey emotion, and the biggest problem motion-capture has run into when it comes to video games is the uncanny valley, where the characters appear wooden and lifeless and emotion can only be conveyed through exceptional writing, atmosphere, and voice acting, all of which need to compensate for the often jarring animation. But the ability to have a rendered CG character mirror a real life actor with the kind of precision he's talking about could not only break through the uncanny valley, but it could also start attracting more real life actors (yes, like Ellen Page) into the realm of video games.
Is David Cage pretentious and single-minded? Definitely. But that doesn't mean we can just completely dismiss and mischaracterize everything he says in order to feel clever.
I would have liked a video where Jim talked about why he thinks that putting stock into this kind of technology is a wasted effort rather than just taking it for granted and wasting 7 minutes making the same joke one thousand times.
yeah I agree. This was kind of annoying. I'd rather he make a note of it and then move on and rant about that, but with a less annoying voice and in his actual opinion instead of being really sarcastic for 7 minutes.Robot-Jesus said:well that could have been said in quick bumper at the start, and we could have had something interesting to watch. I agree with Jim, I didn't need 7 minuets to get his point.