Holy Crap LA Noir facial technology!

[Crni Vuk]

With each jump in gaming technology the imagination of the player dies a little more...the faces in Baldurs Gate were good enough for me and my feeble imagination. I know, I know, there not the same, but still I want them to leave a little something for the player to imagine within the game. Realism for realism sake sucks...

You know you hit a good point. THough I think it depends on the game.

For example when I remember back to Jagged Alliance 2 I loved the way they animated the faces and had voicesf or each mercenary and a personality and such. When I seen pictures from the canceled Jagged Alliance 3 and those FUCKING UGLY animated 3D faces instead of the 2D ones ...

Similar with RPGs today. using new technology just because its new isnt always the best joice. Many things in Baldurs Gate 2 had some creativity or artistical side behind it which I miss in many RPGs today. Not even the faces in Dragon Age had the same quality in my eyes.

Youre right. Many things get killed today by the visuals.

 

[Ravager69]

Pff, Baldur's Gate 2 isn't the best example of peak gaming quality. I myself finished it once and will never touch it again.

Also, just because new tech aren't done *right*, doesn't mean developers shouldn't try new stuff. "I don't like new technology because I prefer using my imagination"? Read books then. There will always be place for classic old school games like Infinity Engine games, but that doesn't mean all games should be like them. Stunning visuals and cool new technology is not a bad thing nor does it kill anything.

 

[UniversalWolf]

With each jump in gaming technology the imagination of the player dies a little more...the faces in Baldurs Gate were good enough for me and my feeble imagination.

I hated those portraits. I replaced them with a symbol or emblem for each character - like a coat-of-arms or something. Imagination restored!

The best facial animation I've seen in a game so far was in Vampire: Bloodlines. I'm surprised that that hasn't been surpassed so far...

I agree on both counts.

 

[fedaykin]

A similar thing was done in Siren (2003) and Myst 5 (2005), though the faces were a lot less detailed.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Also, just because new tech aren't done *right*, doesn't mean developers shouldn't try new stuff.

Thats not the point. Issue is that many games particularly RPGs for example are more interactive movies then trying to be games. If you go for the visuals they should support the gameplay not define it. Exception here might be first person shooters. But that still doesnt mean there have to be like more cutszenes in then gameplay.

 

[Ravager69]

Thats not the point. Issue is that many games particularly RPGs for example are more interactive movies then trying to be games. If you go for the visuals they should support the gameplay not define it. Exception here might be first person shooters. But that still doesnt mean there have to be like more cutszenes in then gameplay.

True, after seeing the trailer I am quite worried that it will look like "walk 5 meters, cutscene, walk another 5 meter, shoot, cutscene, walk 10 meters, clue,cutscene". I have enough of it after Mafia 2.

Anyway, it's good that they try to make a solid detective game with open-world elements.

 

[Kyuu]

Edit : I just saw how you mentioned being a bookworm. How can you be a bookworm, which I would translate to enjoy being transported to other place by the sole force of text joining with your imagination, and deny the power of suggestion carried by a game that doesn't describe too much ?

I dunno, that seems a bit too vaguely poetic for me. And I don't recall books being enjoyable because they described everything in vague terms and I had to "fill in the blanks" with the power of imagination!. You seem to be arguing that good writing is vague and unspecific, which is not true at all in my opinion.

The same goes for games: being vague, unspecific, and leaving things out are not things that I associate with great gaming experiences.

To give a quick example : I felt the wind of the radioactive desert in a incredibly more immersive manner in Fallout 1, where what I had almost nothing to look at than rough tiles, than in Fallout 3, where everything is over-described.

Sorry, but I cannot agree that what made Fallout 1 and 2 great while Fallout 3 was such a lifeless, uninteresting chore boils down to Fallout 1/2's tile-based nature. I think it's that Fallout 3 is simply chock-full of uninteresting writing and world-building and many, many other poor game design decisions. And the ugly, ugly engine and art.

I would guess that the evocative power of a sound is much more important when you're less distracted by the visuals, leaving your brain make up the rest.

So... the game with the greatest music/sound would be the one with no visuals? Possibly, but I'm not much into the idea of playing a game that has no visual component.

 

[.Pixote.]

Stuff

I understand the argument, and agree with the points you made.

This technology wont necessarily make the game any better, this is just one extra ingredient in the recipe, but the cake might still taste shit at the end. I'm not personally against new technology in gaming, but if the makers think this will save a failure, then they're sadly mistaken. We will just have to wait and see.

 

[Crni Vuk]

well visuals should always only be the icing on the cake. No one can take a whole bowl of icing. Yet thats what you many times get with games today ... and now since they do EVERYTHING for the xbax or plobstation3 even the visuals are not as good as they could be on PC.

 

[Kyuu]

[...] but if the makers think this will save a failure, then they're sadly mistaken. We will just have to wait and see.

Well absolutely. A shit game is a shit game, regardless of some nice looking facial animations.

And like I said... if they could make facial animations as convincing without the use of motion capture, I'd agree that would be better.

And I do miss well-done, hand-drawn graphics. Only place you can seem to find anything close is in games for mobile phones.

 

[Arr0nax]

]I dunno, that seems a bit too vaguely poetic for me. And I don't recall books being enjoyable because they described everything in vague terms and I had to "fill in the blanks" with the power of imagination!. You seem to be arguing that good writing is vague and unspecific, which is not true at all in my opinion.

If you change my words to fit your argument, you're just arguing with yourself.
I never implied good writing is vague and unspecific.
My point which you didn't get is that writing is suggestive in essence. Take the most detailled description you wish of a landscape, two different brains will picture them differently. They will generate images, sounds, feelings. That's precisely the power of suggestion.

The same goes for games: being vague, unspecific, and leaving things out are not things that I associate with great gaming experiences.

Never said that either. Fallout is not vague nor unspecific. What it has, is symbolic visuals that let the player concentrate on what he considers important. You can skim through the game without imagining precisely all the faces of all characters, picturing every landscape, yet having a strong mental image of the game world, its atmosphere, its people...

Sorry, but I cannot agree that what made Fallout 1 and 2 great while Fallout 3 was such a lifeless, uninteresting chore boils down to Fallout 1/2's tile-based nature.

Again... I never said fallout tile-based nature is what make it "great". I stated my love for Vampires Bloodlines which is on the opposite end of the spectrum.
I'm saying that having the game world be suggested instead of being visually mortared into my brain was an enjoyable trait. It doesn't mean it's a mandatory part for a game to be great. I like both approaches.

So... the game with the greatest music/sound would be the one with no visuals? Possibly, but I'm not much into the idea of playing a game that has no visual component.

No, it wouldn't. I'm talking about a positive attribute of games and you're just extrapolating.
If I tell you I like bananas, would you argue with me that the perfect life to me would just consist of eating bananas ?

 

[.Pixote.]

And I do miss well-done, hand-drawn graphics. Only place you can seem to find anything close is in games for mobile phones.

Evocative is the word - we don't need 100,000 polygon characters, with 10mb textures - Vagrant Story is a great example of low end graphics built on clever and thoughtful mechanics. It looked beautiful and played beautiful (but hard)...

 

[Idiotfool]

Nobody else is pointing out how out of place the hats look on those models?

I do agree with some of those above that say that they don't use their imaginations to visualize things differently. When I play Super Mario (NES), I don't imagine him in a different perspective or add details to make him more real. I play the game within the confines of the platform given me and I don't need to visualize things any further. Do any of you watch Logan's Run and imagine that the special effects don't suck ass?

 

[.Pixote.]

Imagination is the wrong word...imaginative is better IMO. Now Max Payne started the ball rolling when their artists began using real life textures, gone were the days when artists invented their own textures by painting them in Photoshop, or the equivalent. But most people didn't mind this leap forward, the game still played great, and looked great.

But it is a fine balance, and how far will they take realism...faces, physics, AI...future FPS will logically have opponents that run away, and right off the map, why - because in real life some people just want to live, and don't want to die for a cause they don't believe in....

 

[Ravager69]

All things said, I still fail to grasp how one can compare LA Noire and Baldur's Gate 2 or any other top-view RPG. LA Noire tries to introduce new technology - perhaps it will add another dimension to modern games. Yet some kind of debate arose and people seem to focused more on "good old times where games were better" fading into obscurity.

Yes, new games tend to focus on visuals. Yes, hand-drawn graphics are getting out of use. So what? If you had to choose from making a very hard and time consuming project using a pencil and a advanced graphic program, would you really choose the first one because it feels better? And games without visuals aren't games. I don't think it is impossible to have a game with great visuals create a good, suggestive atmosphere.

 

[LinkPain]

Great motion capture . I like that gangsta style . Only wish they added Ray Liotta or Christopher Walken . But there is a guy from CHARMED !

Expensive for a videogame . But awful game character models , why ?

And that's why only consoles get it i suppose , because PC has piracy right Rockstar . Or is it your incompetence for not being able to hire a good team to do the right job . Wonder how long it would take for this game to be cracked for consoles , then they will see if it really covered their costs . Dead Space 2 was cracked in no time .

 

[Crni Vuk]

All things said, I still fail to grasp how one can compare LA Noire and Baldur's Gate 2 or any other top-view RPG. LA Noire tries to introduce new technology - perhaps it will add another dimension to modern games. Yet some kind of debate arose and people seem to focused more on "good old times where games were better" fading into obscurity.

The comparison isnt so much a direct 1:1 between BG and LA Noir but the use of technology in general since many games today become more closer to interactive movies then beeing "games" where the player interaction or the gameplay should be the bigest focus. Not perfectly animated cutscene around every courner. Now the thing is if LA Noire is using the effects like facial expressions really as a part for the gameplay like the videos they explained that you will have to "read" in the faces of the people if they lie to you or not. Then yes. I see a lot of potential with it. And a big potential in the use of it for the gameplay. But that depends if the story is actually good or if it has any use in the game really. Just nicely animated faces alone dont make a great game. And walking from "dialogue" to "dialogue" neither. As seen with the countless RPGs today. They offer you awesome (!) animated and voiced dialogues. But does it change the gameplay in any way ? Or is it really the huge progress they make it ? Remember Mass Effect and how all the game journalists called it a "new evolution" in dialogues. When it actualy is maybe a neat idea for it self. But not revulutionary when it comes to RPGs.

Use of new technology is always a good thing. But it should support the gameplay. Not replace it completely.

 

[SkuLL]

The comparison isnt so much a direct 1:1 between BG and LA Noir but the use of technology in general since many games today become more closer to interactive movies then beeing "games" where the player interaction or the gameplay should be the bigest focus. Not perfectly animated cutscene around every courner. Now the thing is if LA Noire is using the effects like facial expressions really as a part for the gameplay like the videos they explained that you will have to "read" in the faces of the people if they lie to you or not. Then yes. I see a lot of potential with it. And a big potential in the use of it for the gameplay. But that depends if the story is actually good or if it has any use in the game really. Just nicely animated faces alone dont make a great game. And walking from "dialogue" to "dialogue" neither. As seen with the countless RPGs today. They offer you awesome (!) animated and voiced dialogues. But does it change the gameplay in any way ? Or is it really the huge progress they make it ? Remember Mass Effect and how all the game journalists called it a "new evolution" in dialogues. When it actualy is maybe a neat idea for it self. But not revulutionary when it comes to RPGs.

Use of new technology is always a good thing. But it should support the gameplay. Not replace it completely.

+1

It's totally noticeable in games like Fallout - the first two had awesome (albeit somewhat goofy-looking) NPC faces, that would respond to the answers you choose, etc.

Fallout 3/NV introduced high-polygon meshes with awesomely detailed textures (well...) - the characters now walk around, somewhat integrated into their surroundings (again, sort of...), but does that make the dialogues any better? No. In fact, they are a lot worse, because the character just stops moving and recites the lines to the player in a very robotic fashion.

I can't help but feel that a game would be a lot more entertaining if the designers spent less time trying to create the 'wow' or 'realistic' effect (i.e. making good pre-release screenshots) and more time trying to create an engaging game mechanic.

Let's face it - no matter how awesome the graphics look, they will always be put aside eventually. You might have fun checking out the graphics for a few hours, but before long, you will get used to it and start noticing those things which are far more important for gameplay like controls, story, atmosphere, etc.

What we see today as great graphics and groundbreaking technology will be nothing but boring and outdated in a few years from now. All that will be left will be the 'fun' aspect of the game. Which is why it is important to not get swept away by the visual candy and look for the important aspects that make a great game.

 

[Crni Vuk]

The difference between Fallout 1 and Fallout 3 shows very nicely what is wrong with the idea behind some of the games today. It is not not only about visuals. But how they think players should interact with those visuals. It seems to me that for the Bethesdian designers it was more important that the player can pick up a spoon or garden gnome for his collection then actually make him really think and interact with the game world in some meaningfull way. I know some players of F3 like this kind of interaction. But I ask my self what kind of purpose it has to the world. To make it feel more realistic maybe ? Or just more like a Sandbox world. Well I guess here I have different expectations from a game. At some point maybe even still today 3D was seen as a new kind of God in the gaming buisness where every game had to be made with some 3D engine regardless if it looked or "feelt" better then before.

Just compare Age of Empires 2 with Age of Mythology and tell me the last one looks that much better just because its made in a fancy 3D engine.

 

[mobucks]

interstate 76 had shit 3d graphics but still managed to draw me in like few games could.


characters diddnt even have lips.