The Live-Action vs. The Computer-Generated
Derek Hidey
Issue date: 2/21/07 Section: The AT Wire
- Page 1 of 1
Last week, Gamespot.com featured a Q&A article with Joe Kucan, the man who played “Kane” in the original Command & Conquer series. EA Games is planning to include filmed live-action sequences in the series’ latest installment, Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars. These live-action sequences will take the place of the more popular computer-generated cut scenes more commonly found in video games today. Apparently, according to Kucan, there was an outcry from C&C fans for Kucan to return as “Kane”. Interestingly, Tiberium Wars will be one of the only games to use live-action sequences in quite some time.
Command & Conquer fans have seen celebrities such as James Earl Jones and Michael Biehn appear in their cut scenes since the original Command & Conquer. However, with the increase in the quality of computer-generated cut scenes, game developers have stopped using high-cost, live-action sequences. So what is better, live-action sequences or computer-generated cut scenes?
If you recall the first Resident Evil, the beginning and ending were composed of live-action sequences. Despite the low quality of the movies, they did manage to bring a more realistic dimension to the characters in the game. There is a certain impression a gamer gets when he or she sees the game’s characters as real people. In Resident Evil 2, Capcom decided to do all their movie sequences using computer-generated animation. Interestingly, gamers didn’t seem to notice or care all that much. The new style enabled developers to show more in their cut scenes. For example, in the first Resident Evil, you see very close-up and scratchy shots of a mutated dog, and that is the most you see of the infected creatures that you will encounter throughout the game. The rest of the opening cut scene consists of the characters running through a field, yelling and firing their weapons.
Despite the advantage of seeing video game characters as real people, the live-action sequences have some major flaws. The production of the sequences is very low budget and for that reason you aren’t exactly getting the highest quality acting. Cheesy writing and corny lines can really tear a gamer from the story. Yes, computer-generated cut scenes can also be plagued by bad voice acting or low-quality animation, but definitely to a lesser degree. There is also the issue of putting the actors into the universe of the game. In the original Command & Conquer, the game takes place in the future. Most of the scenes filmed for the video game featured actors standing in front of green screens. Any contemporary gamer would be bothered by the corny look of an obvious green screen.
Computer-generated cut scenes allow for the fantastic and impossible to be given form and brought to life. Developers can take their imaginative creations and show them to us without the hassles of green screens and bad acting. Imagine if Square Enix started doing live-action sequences instead of their beautiful and creative computer-generated scenes. I doubt that many Final Fantasy fans would appreciate it.
Every year the animated world is becoming more and more real. The line between reality and virtual reality is being blurred quickly. Will EA’s decision to revert back to live-action filming ultimately bury the Command & Conquer series? It’s stupid.
Command & Conquer fans have seen celebrities such as James Earl Jones and Michael Biehn appear in their cut scenes since the original Command & Conquer. However, with the increase in the quality of computer-generated cut scenes, game developers have stopped using high-cost, live-action sequences. So what is better, live-action sequences or computer-generated cut scenes?
If you recall the first Resident Evil, the beginning and ending were composed of live-action sequences. Despite the low quality of the movies, they did manage to bring a more realistic dimension to the characters in the game. There is a certain impression a gamer gets when he or she sees the game’s characters as real people. In Resident Evil 2, Capcom decided to do all their movie sequences using computer-generated animation. Interestingly, gamers didn’t seem to notice or care all that much. The new style enabled developers to show more in their cut scenes. For example, in the first Resident Evil, you see very close-up and scratchy shots of a mutated dog, and that is the most you see of the infected creatures that you will encounter throughout the game. The rest of the opening cut scene consists of the characters running through a field, yelling and firing their weapons.
Despite the advantage of seeing video game characters as real people, the live-action sequences have some major flaws. The production of the sequences is very low budget and for that reason you aren’t exactly getting the highest quality acting. Cheesy writing and corny lines can really tear a gamer from the story. Yes, computer-generated cut scenes can also be plagued by bad voice acting or low-quality animation, but definitely to a lesser degree. There is also the issue of putting the actors into the universe of the game. In the original Command & Conquer, the game takes place in the future. Most of the scenes filmed for the video game featured actors standing in front of green screens. Any contemporary gamer would be bothered by the corny look of an obvious green screen.
Computer-generated cut scenes allow for the fantastic and impossible to be given form and brought to life. Developers can take their imaginative creations and show them to us without the hassles of green screens and bad acting. Imagine if Square Enix started doing live-action sequences instead of their beautiful and creative computer-generated scenes. I doubt that many Final Fantasy fans would appreciate it.
Every year the animated world is becoming more and more real. The line between reality and virtual reality is being blurred quickly. Will EA’s decision to revert back to live-action filming ultimately bury the Command & Conquer series? It’s stupid.
Be the first to comment on this story