I think the cinemascope here is already heavily stylized and closer to classic animation in the vibe than hyper-realism per say. Like we definitely know what that looks like from other games, but I think think that's the real hook here. It's more Mystery science theater 3000 but like a sword and sorcery version of that, than anything like a traditional film flick. I think as the player the most engaging elements are when we get to adlib and become the cinematographer of our own run, which is why I like what they're driving at, but want a lot more flexibility for how this is all staged out. Particularly our control of the camera and the way the avatar is animated, with more player inputs on all that stuff.
Originally Posted by Ikke
But if they would show those same faces in a fight, now that would be appropriate. And that would probably get me, the player, more emotionally involved in combat. How about showing quick close ups of a fighter dodging a blow? Or showing the pain of getting hit? How about showing an archer drawing her bow, or a wizard concentrating on a spell, beads of sweat on his forehead? How about showing a close up of the raw emotion of seeing your companion, or even your lover, die?
Also, and I guess that is probably more difficult to achieve, would it be good if Tav cinematics took Tav's characteristics into account. High wisdom characters could display a knowing smile, high strength characters could be seen flexing their muscles, high dex characters flipping very sharps knives, high intelligence characters looking smug, and so on.
I would love that!
Also if the portraits would key off similar stuff. Like for status effects and have that all stitch in together. To me that's the good stuff in the stew, like hamboning around, but as it gets more sophisticated I think they can do gravity here, cause they do achieve that at points. Mostly it's lighthearted I think now, with some schlock for flavor, but it also has it's moments. Cinema and the still visual is still a very powerful mood setter. You can imagine what the game would look like if every scene was animated out in-game with the camera just sorta holding the wide shot. It'd look like the Zhents dipping back into the cave fleeing from the Flind, or other little moments of that sort, which is ok, but also you can kinda feel where the limits would be there. When they pull way in with the super zoom or go crazy on the track cam, or do those vignettes backs and forth, that all helps build to the crescendos and those are quite satisfying. It would be fun to have a more dynamic cinema mode for combat as well. Similar to dice animations, things like that could be controlled by a skip setting depending on what sort of present the player is feeling.
One thing I noticed very early on is that you can skip a cutscene presentation in cinemascope, but when it's acted out in-game with the avatars this is usually a locked-in present that can't be skipped. So it actually would take longer to cut around that way if we were bound only to that sort of delivery with the current way of doing it. Even if they made it look real clean, it'd be rough if there was no way to edit it down on the repeated viewing.
But yeah, I do love that idea of more situational gesture and emotive happenings at the players discretion, into combat or for other moments in exploration. Seems like it would be a lot of fun.
I think they do enhance the experience - but for practical reasons they should be limited to high impact scenes (as suggested earlier). It is a simple resource argument: VO + modelling/texturing + mocap etc are very costly in terms of person hours and thus money. I would far rather that limited pot be spent on improving gameplay or expanding locations. If they were mandatory in RPGs, than any RPG that doesn't have them would flop - that is clearly not the case.
Well, since a lot of Larian's expansion was connected to cinematics, they might as well expand upon it. BG3 won't be much copied by anybody though, and I'm not sure whether Larian will do it themselves (in particular in terms of scope and campaign length). It's too open for that due to its systemic nature, how there's so many permutations running throughout quite a lengthy game (Mass Effect et all are significantly shorter). That's why I voted "extravagant". Not because I dislike it despite my preferences. But because that's literally what it is. It's insane in a way that no other major studio would greenlight, as there's so much stuff happening in an expensive cinematic way that you may never ever see (and hear) even upon multiple playthroughs. Big studios don't work like that. They and their investors want to make damn sure that you eventually see where all that money went. Which is also reasonable, from a budgeting point of view for themselves. Of course, being reasonable was the last thing Larian had on their agenda. And they could afford it, as their CEO is a crazy guy himself fully going along to it.
BG3 really is quite a mix of two very distinct schools of design sort of opposed to each other in a way. The one is those also shared by Immersive Sims (which work little with cutscenes to begin with for reason), handing you tools, a world with system simulations (AI, physics, sound, lines of sight, lighting, etc.) and problems to overcome in whichever way you may see fit. The other is the Bioware-like school (also adopted by CD Projekt) that sees games as sort of like movies. Not seldom are you cast as a fixed protagonist, or with a more finite choice of main protagonist to begin with. The plot is also typically more linear, also how it progresses from start to finish -- you can't say, skip entire areas/sections outright in Kotor / ME or Witcher, whereas in BG3 you can advance pretty early to the next area if so you wish. And the decisions impacting narrative beats however minor aren't quite as moment by moment as here, but typically connected to a handful of major ones, from which the plot diverges some (like a Chose Your Own Adventure Book).
People have already expressed that in the final act of the game BG3's reactivity would come crashing down some. I'm not there quite yet. But that wouldn't surprise me. What suprises me is rather how they could keep that up for two acts, or rather dozens of hours of playtime. We're talking quests that can borderline be sequence broken and the game not glitching out, be tackled in any one order, with different party compositions, different main characters, NPCs being able to flat out die early game (to not even appear later on when they could), spell and player actions in general leading to permutations likewise (such as the aforementioned instance where I had cast disguise on my char, for a sequence to play out completely differently), etc. etc. And the dialogue/cinematics playing out accordingly. Even considering shortcuts being made, such as animations being recycled, that's massive.
It's not merely about the VO and motion capturing animations. It's also about bug testing. That must have been a nightmare, and in retrospect I may have actually encountered one myself recent (not actually sure). Had Larian additionally provided fully VO (or rather, VOs given the options available) for the main character, they'd probably still be in EA by summer of 2024 (kidding). Curious about their announcement of what's next. I'll say a shorter (not necessarily "lesser") project roughly in the vein of BG3 (cinematics included) -- plus Fallen Heroes getting revived, the Divinity tactical game that was put on hold. Studio's too big to work but on one game now and a more "focused" tactical game as well as a shorter campaign game would fit the expressed desire in interviews of doing something a bit "smaller" next.
That way, they'd also avoid what CD Projekt had done after their own big break: Growing even more in a short amount of time for an even bigger and more ambitious project, and getting some burnt for it. As argued, it seems Larian have realized that they've reached a limit here. Crazy dudes or not.
I like them. It’s not how I would make a game, but I give props to Larian for giving themselves such an enormous task. Even if it’s not someone’s preferred style of game, nobody can deny that Larian pulled off their goal, which is to say, made a metric f* ton of money. Good on them.
That said, while BG3 is the result of over a decade iterating a particular style, I still view it as a first attempt in this regard, so I’m excited to see how they improve next time around.
That said, while BG3 is the result of over a decade iterating a particular style, I still view it as a first attempt in this regard, so I’m excited to see how they improve next tie around.
Yeah, whilst I'd personally rather see them exploring systems and world simulation further, day/night cycles influencing the simulations too (Ultima VII is always being referenced...), that's also fine. Fingers crossed they won't turn into the next Bioware though. Eventually being mostly about cinematic storytelling and reletionships to the degree that their games at times seemed to excuse themselves for still being associated with anything C/RPG. https://rampantgames.com/blog/?p=3245
Considering how things have worked out in the long-term for Bioware, they are probably not a good example to follow though. We're talking conflict over the direction leading to designers leaving throughout, buyouts, and if you ask me, severe cases of identity crysis long before the path taken leading up to eventually Anthem. Layoffs are never nice. But it seems kind of fitting that an IP Bioware used to be associated with would hit big in the same year that both marks the near 10th anniversary of the last game Bioware received acclaim for (if far from universally so) -- as well as the news of lay-offs and more vets leaving. Including Lukas Kristjanson, with the company ever since the BG days.
If I were head honcho of Larian, I'd try to make this experience completely my own (as it kinda is already, as argued -- usually cinematic presentation isn't paired with games this open for reason, and even Bethesda are on record of saying that they would never implement anything that only tiny fractions of their playerbase would ever see, if at all). Imagine people one day not merely referencing Souls-Likes, but Divinity- or Larian-Likes. And that as a still sort of independent studio.
Even if Larian DO become the next Bioware though, somebody else is gonna take over. See y'all in 25 years for Baldur's Gate 4 then.
I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the cinematics within the game. Do you consider them a mere luxury, or do you believe they significantly enhance the overall gaming experience and atmosphere? Moreover, I'm interested in your perspective on the additional effort put into creating these cinematics. Could the development time have been better allocated to other aspects of the game? Would it suffice to reserve cinematics for special events and characters integral to the storyline, such as boss battles and key characters? Is it truly necessary to include a cinematic for every seemingly insignificant NPC? What do you think?
It's Very Essential, I bought the game for the Cinematics, I also bought it because I'm a D&D nerd, while yes I don't mind the birds eye view (it's better than 1st person which makes a game unplayable, actually games are still playable in 1st person but it's irritating like an itch you can't scratch, birdseyes eye is worst than 3rd person which is more over the shoulder), I enjoy playing Pokemon (from Yellow which lets you have Pikachu as your starter Pokemon, to Black 2) and D&D so the Birdseye view Isn't an issue, however the cinematics adds a nice touch for people who enjoy the roleplay aspect of an RPG, like if I was RPing a Paladin of Tyr or Kelemvor, half the Companions would already be dead like the ones you get before meeting Wyll, (Specifically the Vampire, Sharran and Gith) , in a RPG you have to talk to everyone, skipping dialogue is considered blasphemy.
Well.. Pretty Hard Topic..xD but so.. i just think its cool some Cinematics.. im old and im from a time none of this shit was Normal.. and the Movie Like Feeling for a Game (like Prince of Persia the first One.. the 2d game for win.haha or the Arcades. shit that thing was great back in a day..) so i Enjoy F. A Lot that things got so complex and amazing this way.. and for me its just another Great Flavor for a RP. i used to Play Table Top a Lot man.. i always wonder how that shit would roll out in a Scene for Real.. Now i have this power. so Yeah its cool and i Like it..haha
(and i do Love some Fps RP too.. dont quite know how to put in words.. but i kinda fell into the game so Hard in the Fps camera that i enjoy a lot too.) but nowadays its kinda Hard for RP fps, last one i dive So deep into the Game by using this Cam view was Red dead 2 that its not even a Rpg on the Traditional way i mean.. that game its more like a Real Old West Simulation.. crazy stuff. so many little details that i went Nuts.
That said, while BG3 is the result of over a decade iterating a particular style, I still view it as a first attempt in this regard, so I’m excited to see how they improve next tie around.
Yeah, whilst I'd personally rather see them exploring systems and world simulation further, day/night cycles influencing the simulations too (Ultima VII is always being referenced...), that's also fine. Fingers crossed they won't turn into the next Bioware though. Eventually being mostly about cinematic storytelling and reletionships to the degree that their games at times seemed to excuse themselves for still being associated with anything C/RPG. https://rampantgames.com/blog/?p=3245
Considering how things have worked out in the long-term for Bioware, they are probably not a good example to follow though. We're talking conflict over the direction leading to designers leaving throughout, buyouts, and if you ask me, severe cases of identity crysis long before the path taken leading up to eventually Anthem. Layoffs are never nice. But it seems kind of fitting that an IP Bioware used to be associated with would hit big in the same year that both marks the near 10th anniversary of the last game Bioware received acclaim for (if far from universally so) -- as well as the news of lay-offs and more vets leaving. Including Lukas Kristjanson, with the company ever since the BG days.
If I were head honcho of Larian, I'd try to make this experience completely my own (as it kinda is already, as argued -- usually cinematic presentation isn't paired with games this open for reason, and even Bethesda are on record of saying that they would never implement anything that only tiny fractions of their playerbase would ever see, if at all). Imagine people one day not merely referencing Souls-Likes, but Divinity- or Larian-Likes. And that as a still sort of independent studio.
Even if Larian DO become the next Bioware though, somebody else is gonna take over. See y'all in 25 years for Baldur's Gate 4 then.
While it would suck to see Larian become another BioWare, every RPG studio I’ve ever loved has eventually broken my heart, so at least I’m jaded enough not to be too bothered.
Dishonest marketing campaign, focus on graphics and sex for hype generation while delivering both an unfinished game and also one with lots of balance problems and plot holes because of last minute rewrites in order to have more mass market appeal (no consequences + powerz Larian wants you to use).
Dishonest marketing campaign, focus on graphics and sex for hype generation while delivering both an unfinished game and also one with lots of balance problems and plot holes because of last minute rewrites in order to have more mass market appeal (no consequences + powerz Larian wants you to use).
Thank you for reminding me you don’t like the game. Since I hadn’t read that yet today, I was in danger of potentially forgetting. Thankfully, that was avoided. Doing the Good Lord’s work, buddy.
Considering how things have worked out in the long-term for Bioware, they are probably not a good example to follow though.
What are you even talking about.
Bioware was a huge success througout ?
Commercially, yes. They did so by increasingly abandoning anything Baldur's Gate. Which lead to Dragon Age Origins initially being pitched as a "back to the roots" project, despite its measly 3 character classes to chose from, and several more cases of "streamlining". However, that remained that, one project. And contributed to veterans quitting as far as back then already. http://blog.brentknowles.com/2010/08/15/bioware-brent-year-10-fall-2008-summer-2009/
I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the cinematics within the game. Do you consider them a mere luxury, or do you believe they significantly enhance the overall gaming experience and atmosphere?
I think they are misguided and detrimental to the experience, the way they are implemented in the game.
Just like a game can be made worse by bland/bad VO, a game can be made worse by having bland/bad cinematics. In my estimate Baldur's Gate3 cinematics just aren't good enough most of the time to not be detrimental to the experience.
It is not to say that cinematics are in themselves are a bad. I don't think that with variety of playable races, classes and silent protagonist trying to look like a game where player has little to no influence over their PC (Witchers, Mass Effect) aren't a good way to go. Have cinematics, but keep that in top down perspective for the most part. Feel free to have some full on cinematics, but if you do them do them well. Make them work for each race, and give them detail they need. Games like PoE2 or Disco Elysium also have cinematics, but I think they are far less intrusive, and organic while being just, if not more evocative. I think what great stuff a game with BG3 budget could do with top down cinematics, and I think it would be overall more effective and better fitting the game.
That said, there is are benefit that close up cinematic brought - and that's capturing mocap of performance, and seeing characters up close. I wonder if those benefits could be kept, without actually doing film like cinamatics - I thought Pillars of Eternity2 gave its NPC much more identity by giving them those quickly made waterpainted portraits. Tyranny experiemnted with using in game models for portraits with varied expressions. What if, instead of trying to make awkward looking movie, one would make detailed animated portraits that would capture actors delivery? I am not sure if it would take less work that doing full on ciematics, but I think it would work better, and not draw unnecessary attention to our mute protagonist.
I remember playing StarCraft2 for the first time, and thinking how cool it would be to get modern BG2. I imagined same game time, with locked by detailed 3d view, animated portraits on the side, saying their barks and responding to damage etc. It is still sounds like a far more compelling vision, than what we got in BG3.
BG3 almost has everything I want in Dragon Age 4/Dreadwolf, Voiceless protagonist, choices that matter, the option to play as something other than human, full nudity, hot women (really hate what the ESG scores has done to gaming culture lately, with Insomniac's MJ being it's latest victim), the only thing left would be playable origins and after adding all that you would have the Perfect Dragon Age game, however Modern Bioware probably wouldn't do any of this.
Cinematics are a must! Can't believe there is even a debate about this!
Obviously, you are welcome to your opinion. But as long as the rest of us are also welcome to our opinion there will be debate!
In any case, as others have stated, the cinematics require a lot of resources to produce. I think Larian did a very good job with them, and the effort paid off. However, whenever you spend time and money on one aspect of the game you cannot spend that time and effort on other aspects. A dev that does not spend time and money on motion capture and cinematics and top tier graphics fidelity can spend the resources they save on other things, like gameplay, story, and C&C.
In the case of Baldur's Gate 3 I do think that the motion capture, voice acting, and cinematics are so good that they carry the game. So here the gamble paid off. It is possible for devs to flub this and waste a lot of money on this stuff, and I am perfectly happy playing games that DON'T have a massive graphics budget too.
[quote=crst] In the case of Baldur's Gate 3 I do think that the motion capture, voice acting, and cinematics are so good that they carry the game. So here the gamble paid off. It is possible for devs to flub this and waste a lot of money on this stuff, and I am perfectly happy playing games that DON'T have a massive graphics budget too.
Well, the gamble was pretty much: CRPG "proper"+AAA-style cinematic presentation=mainstream success. If it's that "easy", somebody should tell all the other guys.
There was no way I wanted to come back to triple-A, making another thing where you focus 90 percent of your efforts on having the feet not sliding on the floor," said the developer. "This is not what I'm making games for."
Additionally, if every game was cinematic, then that would be both hugely boring as well as disrespectful to games as an interactive medium. Maybe I'm a bit optimistic here. But I think that in a couple of decades people will look at games full of cinematics like they do at very early movies, which likewise mimiced what was already there in theatre and stage plays et all before they fully learned to tell stories in their own way. The crucial difference being naturally is that early movies were static mediums aping older static mediums all the same, and not interactive mediums aping static ones (such as games with movies). Therefore... who knows what's gonna happen. The first one to invent the Holodeck is gonna kill the cinematic game for good though.
Meanwhile, I think there may be a HUGE charme in a D&D game that mimics the actual table top kinda storytelling. So instead of going all-out Hollywood blockbuster, it is a dungeon master and his lines/voice constantly spinning the tale. There's elements of that in here also (also the original games, like the chapter narrator). But I think this could be explored far further, by actually letting you interact with that narrator/storyteller/dungeon master, if probably not for a blockbuster game audience, mind. One of the biggest reasons why so many games ape Hollywood is that people are familiar with movies. They're popular and tried and tested. So the prospect of say a fantasy game looking just like Lord Of The Rings on the big screen is a draw in and on itself. And that draw extents far further than tabletop, let alone typical video game audiences.
BG3 almost has everything I want in Dragon Age 4/Dreadwolf, Voiceless protagonist, choices that matter, the option to play as something other than human, full nudity, hot women (really hate what the ESG scores has done to gaming culture lately, with Insomniac's MJ being it's latest victim), the only thing left would be playable origins and after adding all that you would have the Perfect Dragon Age game, however Modern Bioware probably wouldn't do any of this.
BG3 has choices that matter? You can play as a non-human in all the DA series so I can't see Dreadwolf being any different (assuming Dreadwolf ever sees light of day).
(Ultima VII is always being referenced...), that's also fine. Fingers crossed they won't turn into the next Bioware though. Eventually being mostly about cinematic storytelling and reletionships to the degree that their games at times seemed to excuse themselves for still being associated with anything C/RPG. 
