Sequel idea: Live action cinematics?

+
Sequel idea: Live action cinematics?

These days many games use CGI cinematic sequences for intros, outros and even interludes. Over the years they've been getting more and more realistic in the visuals. Watching the Witcher's outro got me thinking: if they're looking for realism, then why not just use real actors and sets instead of spending millions on expensive CGI? The 'Command and Conquer' games followed this philosophy. Why not the Witcher sequels?Filming a live intro and outro for the sequels with real actors, costumes etc. would also give the writers more freedom to depict scenes on the screen. And since these days real models are used for character faces, the actor's appearance wouldn't be too much of a problem.Feel free to bash my idea into the ground. :teeth:
 
I don't think your idea is bad, i just think you have the idea that CDP is some big rich conglomerate ... they aren't. they are just a bunch of young Polish entrepreneurs and The Witcher was their very first project ... the big *distributors* made a lot of money, but CDP did not exactly make enough to put them on easy street :peace:
 
Yes, I know. That's one reason for proposing the idea. The budget for such a short scene wouldn't be much more than a fancy commerical; they don't even need trained actors or advanced filming equipment. They can rope in some ad director or amateur filmmakers. It'd be cheaper than CGI, I think.
 
Uh, no, no and no. It'd cost more than a CGI by FAR if they don't want it to be very, very corny. Amateur filmmakers and non trained actors... again, I'd rather have them stick to the CGI's, thank you.
 

56236

Forum veteran
Dezired said:
Uh, no, no and no. It'd cost more than a CGI by FAR if they don't want it to be very, very corny. Amateur filmmakers and non trained actors... again, I'd rather have them stick to the CGI's, thank you.
You SAID IT!!! I feel exactly the same way. Why mess with perfection? Well, almost. :peace:
 
Dezired said:
Uh, no, no and no. It'd cost more than a CGI by FAR if they don't want it to be very, very corny. Amateur filmmakers and non trained actors... again, I'd rather have them stick to the CGI's, thank you.
I'm guessing you've never seen any non-feature length film. Indie filmmakers and even fans have made a ton of quality short films of all sorts. The fan-made short film 'Batman: Dead End'(highly praised in comic book circles) looked great and yet was done on a budget well below $100,000. There are a few Star Wars fan films that were made on a budget of $50,000. There are many other such examples. A recent one that comes to mind is 'The Hunt for Gollum' which had good acting, costumes, cinematography etc. and was done on a budget of only £3000!
 
Whether live action would be more cost effective or not, for me, it would take away from the game. I've played games where live acting was mixed into game play and cutscenes, and, I've always found it to be a shock to the senses to be thrown right back into a graphical world immediately after.I don't know about you, but, I like to completely immerse myself into a game. In that respect, the only thing I don't like about The Witcher is that I cannot play from first person view.
 
It's a reasonable idea, but I think -- as Sideswiped said -- that going from live action to the game would jolt the player in a way that game developers would not want. Even going from the opening movie -- where Geralt looks so real that I wondered at first if he was an actor -- to the game was a jolt for me. Plus, they've spent a lot of time and energy getting the look they wanted for Geralt, and for many people, that look now IS the face of Geralt. Putting some actor in would feel strange after that.My husband bought me this game for my birthday, a year ago in March. He almost didn't buy it for me because he knew that I would have to play "some guy," and he knew that I vastly prefer playing female characters. I was a little dubious, the first time I started the game up (yeah, go ahead and laugh at that :D), and the thing that hooked me was the opening movie. I found the opening movie riveting -- I watched it every time I started the game for something like the first twenty times -- and it was the opening movie that sold me on being Geralt. "Hmm. He's not a girl, and I probably won't ever feel as if I am him, but it might be fun to tag along and see what he does -- he looks like he's gloriously competent."In my experience, opening cinematics range from laughable to cheesy to not bad. Having the opening cinematic be FABULOUS was my first hint that this game would be something special; a hint that the game delivered on.The opening movie for The Witcher won an award -- as well it should -- and I think the quality of the opening movie influenced whether reviewers were willing to review a new RPG from an unknown company and stuff like that. CDPR has a track record now, but it's still only one great game. I think it would be very wise of them to make the opening cinematic for their next game just as fabulous. They need attention and publicity to sell as many copies as their work deserves, and a knock-their-socks-off opening movie is a great attention-grabber.One of the things that impressed me in the opening movie was Geralt's jumping from the roof of a building to the ground, as if this were a perfectly normal jump that he knew he could make. Another thing that impressed me was his ability to evade the swipes from the striga's claws, even though she was moving quickly. And it seems like a little thing, but the part where he scrambles up the roof after ceasing to Aard the striga -- there's a part where he pulls himself up onto a beam, and he pulls himself up fairly far, then jumps onto the beam. He doesn't hold onto anything -- he just jumps onto the beam as if he has complete confidence that his body will be able to do that jump and won't waver or fall or anything. That could well be the thing that impressed me the most about the whole movie, for all that it was a tiny touch.Doing that with CGI made it clear that witchers are not like other mortal men. Doing that with an actor -- since there are no witchers in our world -- would make it all feel fake. I think it would make it cheesy, where it wasn't before.I'm all for saving CDPR money, but I think the opening movie of their next game is very important to their continued success.
 
I don't know the cost of the CGI production but I think $ 100.0000,--, $ 50.000,-- and even £ 3.000,-- is much money ;D
 
PetraSilie said:
I don't know the cost of the CGI production but I think $ 100.0000,--, $ 50.000,-- and even £ 3.000,-- is much money ;D
This range of budget was for films that were upto 50 minutes long, complete with special effects. I imagine it'd be a lot cheaper for a 1-minute intro and outro if CDP knew the right people to hire. As for the problem of facial resemblance, do we know for sure Geralt will look exactly the same in sequels. Character facial designs tend to evolve over time, especially when the developers start scanning real faces as a reference for modeling with newer game engines.Oh, and Corylea, wire-fu can work wonders in achieving superhuman acrobatics. Who do you think did the motion capture for that climbing and jumping? It wasn't real witchers. ;)
 
I see, okay a cinematic trailer for a Witcher sequel of 50 minutes isn't necessary ;DNevertheless I don't want a Geralt with a new face in a sequel. All main characters like the other wichters, Shani, Triss, Zoltan, Dandelion, etc. should remain as they are.
 
godkingofdivineroad said:
godkingofdivineroad said:
Uh, no, no and no. It'd cost more than a CGI by FAR if they don't want it to be very, very corny. Amateur filmmakers and non trained actors... again, I'd rather have them stick to the CGI's, thank you.
I'm guessing you've never seen any non-feature length film. Indie filmmakers and even fans have made a ton of quality short films of all sorts. The fan-made short film 'Batman: Dead End'(highly praised in comic book circles) looked great and yet was done on a budget well below $100,000. There are a few Star Wars fan films that were made on a budget of $50,000. There are many other such examples. A recent one that comes to mind is 'The Hunt for Gollum' which had good acting, costumes, cinematography etc. and was done on a budget of only £3000!
I just watched an 8 minute clip of Batman: Dead End.. and well, corny, corny, CORNY. I stick to what I said before.. I much prefer CGI.
 
godkingofdivineroad said:
^If you mean the dialogue with the Joker, I agree, but that film was really about the fight scene, which was pretty well done.
And yet the Witcher's CGI fight scenes looked so much better..
 
^Simply means better fight choreography was used. You could achieve the same quality of fight by just filming the martial artists who did the motion capture for the fights, to give an example.
 
Perhaps, if you used millions of dollars for that... but my opinion is that CGI is superior, you have your own opinion, obviously.
 
^Millions of dollars? You've been firmly rooted in the belief that live action is prohibitively expensive despite everything I've said. How would it be more expensive to directly film the men who trained in martial arts for the fight rather than capturing their movements, editing them and applying them to CGI models?
 
godkingofdivineroad said:
^Millions of dollars? You've been firmly rooted in the belief that live action is prohibitively expensive despite everything I've said. How would it be more expensive to directly film the men who trained in martial arts for the fight rather than capturing their movements, editing them and applying them to CGI models?
The money would go to the other stuff - clothing, swords, background et cetera.. millions of dollars.. well, I agree, that's a big exaggeration, but it'd still cost LOADS and even then it could easily fail very badly.
 
Top Bottom