Madjai Posted April 8, 2002 Share Posted April 8, 2002 the ONLY thing i dislike about this game is the cutscenes. i was really hoping for live actors like in JK, that just made the game more realistic, like i was apart of the starwars universe. I think it made the game much more interesting and if there is another JK game they should bring back the good cutscenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrEEpaGe Posted April 8, 2002 Share Posted April 8, 2002 yeah it seems like the devs are going w/ rendered cutscenes with the 'amazing advances' they have made in 3d rendering....the scenes look soo sweet in real life...like jk's....that was awesome...it got you pumped for the game...with this, the whole thing was anticlimatic... luke and kyle's handshake was hilarious....they locked thumbs and then just moved up and down...lol.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot_Pocket Posted April 8, 2002 Share Posted April 8, 2002 I also agree, i liked the live action cutscenes. They were really nice and gave the game more life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prox Kolari Posted April 8, 2002 Share Posted April 8, 2002 Yuck, no thanks. I'd rather have animated cutscenes than watch "acting" by the cast of Jedi Knight: - Kyle's oddly bloodshot eyes - that fat, grinning, hammy Twilek Jedi - Jerec, who apparently thought "Dark Side" meant licking the air and sounding like a Power Rangers villain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaG|Kaiser Posted April 8, 2002 Share Posted April 8, 2002 No way. Those actors were so cheesy in the first one. The new scenes aren't that much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emon Posted April 8, 2002 Share Posted April 8, 2002 Benefits of live cutscenes: 1. Looks more real than ingame cutscenes 2. For older games like JK, they look much better than the alternative ingame rendered cutscenes with horrid player models. Drawbacks of live cutscenes: 1. Time consuming 2. Very expensive 3. Human actors look too out of place compared to the ingame player models 4. Very expensive 5. Time consuming 6. Did I say expensive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delmar Posted April 8, 2002 Share Posted April 8, 2002 there are pros and cons to both but i agree, the live actors really added a nice touch to the game. of course, getting hamill to play luke would have been ________. (Not sure if it's that should be filled in as "cool" or "a real bad idea.") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daynor Posted April 8, 2002 Share Posted April 8, 2002 i prefer the JO way and the live action ideas kinda gives me chills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughJ Posted April 8, 2002 Share Posted April 8, 2002 with the hardware we have right now, there's really no reason why they can't use special hi-res models (20,000+ polys each maybe?) for cutscenes and still have it rendered realtime... using gameplay models for cutscenes generally looks sloppy and rushed (especially considering the close-ups you have, and the lack of gameplay that normally turns your attention away from detail).. it's not like there's a lot of action during cutscenes anyways, so other than the model polycount increase, I can't see it being that major of a frame rate hit.. even on lowergrade systems, a ~20fps cutscene is still very watchable.. it's perhaps just a matter of the modelers and animators having the extra work to do.. but, imo, the amount of polish that it would add to the game would be astounding and greatly appreciated.. would also be something that could be used easily for commercial interest (ie - using cutscene footage for commercial trailers, etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerol Seren Posted April 8, 2002 Share Posted April 8, 2002 good lord, man! Don't you remember the acting in the cutscenes in Jedi Knight? NEVER wish for live action cutscenes again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxbatkllr Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 Yeah that acting was horrible. It was cool at times, but cheesy as hell. I think the critics also would've given it worse reviews. Edit: Woohoo! 100 posts! I'm now a Sith Probe Droid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emon Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 Originally posted by hughJ with the hardware we have right now, there's really no reason why they can't use special hi-res models (20,000+ polys each maybe?) for cutscenes and still have it rendered realtime... using gameplay models for cutscenes generally looks sloppy and rushed (especially considering the close-ups you have, and the lack of gameplay that normally turns your attention away from detail).. it's not like there's a lot of action during cutscenes anyways, so other than the model polycount increase, I can't see it being that major of a frame rate hit.. even on lowergrade systems, a ~20fps cutscene is still very watchable.. it's perhaps just a matter of the modelers and animators having the extra work to do.. but, imo, the amount of polish that it would add to the game would be astounding and greatly appreciated.. would also be something that could be used easily for commercial interest (ie - using cutscene footage for commercial trailers, etc) 20,000 polies each?? ARE YOU CRAZY?? Yes and we all have GeForce 4 Ti 4600s! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Janson SMR Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 I thought the live Kyle Katarn actor of JK1 did a decent job when he came to the "fork in the road", choosing between the Light and Dark Side. You can really see the emotion. JK2's scenes were fine - except for some character interactive scenes (like the kiss). But the models were, in fact, higher than normal in any game. Fantastic. But that kiss should have been CG rendered. I'm not talking about Final Fantasy-level quality CG, here. I mean filmed directly from the game's sequences, using higher-poly models, and careful artificial manipulation of their...well...lips to get the proper effect. You know what I mean. I can't wait 'til I break into the industry. And when I do, I hope I'm privilaged to work on a Jedi Knight game. Hell yeah! OY!! OY!! OY!! ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jokis Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 I actually like the live cutscenes more for the realism, but I do agree it would be more expensive and time consuming. I buy games to be engrossed in the entertainment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BioHazzard Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 Maybe they should do 3 d computer animation and then call the video from a file when they need it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughJ Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 being that the cutscenes are scripted, I really don't think it would be a problem... because all the camera pans, angles, and general speed of camera movement and animation could be kept a bit slower so that a viewable framerate would be much lower than normal action tends to be (30fps cutscenes could appear as smooth as 60fps+ in the faster ingame action) 20,000 polys models for slow-paced cutscene movement wouldn't really be all that much (perhaps on the upper extreme for Gef1-class hardware), but I'd say anything over 10,000 would be good enough to have it look like near-prerendered cutscenes that tend to be associated with how the current new-gen consoles look for their realtime cutscenes... other option would be to just have prerendered FMV cutscenes.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacon00 Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 LIVE CUTSCENES?? Dear god no!!!! I swear, if I ever see real live actors in cut scenes again, I will openly wheep. The actors they can afford are not the "cream of the crop." The game developers just don't have enough money to hire actors, make the sets, the costumes, etc. When you do that, you have to hire set designers, wardrobe people, makeup people, hair people, etc. etc. etc. With voiceovers, you don't need any of that stuff. The voice actor could be a fat, acne-ridden, cross dressing tranvestite and it doesn't matter as long as he/she sounds decent. I personally think in-game cutscenes add to the imersion of the game... you are more in "control" or the characters.. you see a cutscene, and then you play out you own "cutscene." With live actors, you watch, then play a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlo mein Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 THE RENDERED KISS BETWEEN KYLE AND JAN SUCKED ASS!!! It looked so horrible and dumb....especially when the camera has to pan to the back of her head cuz they cant properly animate a kiss.... .....i miss the actress who played jan in JK....she was pretty hot... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Janson SMR Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 Mmmmm.... Asian hottie... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Sane Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 They should have done it like FFX did - multipule forms of cutscenes. You had those that were in game, using the models. (pretty damn good) and you had prerecorded cgi movies that looked sickeningly realistic! I mean come on, after what they're doing in Episode I and II, don't tell me they can't do cgi cutscenes that rival realistic movies. Or maybe they were just lazy and figured that no one would like single player until they figured out how to spawn everything and have their own battle royals.... *cough* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt_Dancer Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 I prefer the engine cutscenes over the live action stuff. There was something about them that made the live action ones stand out as seperate from the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke101 Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 I perfer the game rendered cutscenes. I dunno, feels more i am like into the game then having a 3d person adn then jumping to a live action shot. Yeah, the live cutscenes in JK were good but with the recent advances in 3d technology, why would the companies want to spend tons of money paying for actors, props, etc. In the end, the Companies save money and we still get quality cutscenes (how ever, the mouths and teeth could have been better, and stated above by someone, the hand shake between Kyle and Luke. LOL!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madjai Posted April 9, 2002 Author Share Posted April 9, 2002 ok if not live actors then they should have done everything with computer graphics instead of the massively ugly game engine (its awsome for gaming, but for cutscenes...) and models for cutscenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MankaCat Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 because the game engine wasn't 'computer graphics' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WitchDrAsh Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 I quite liked the acting scenes in JK.. Jerec really came across as a total loon. Katarn wasn't badly acted tbh.. Considering the ingame cut scenes were just as cheesy, and acting non-existant (look at all the emotion portrayed by any of the 'actors' in JK2). Nah I like acting cut-scenes, they may be cheesy with crap acting but atleast they're entertaining. WDA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.