The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
FMV (Full Motion Video) is so common in computer games nowadays that it’s usually frowned upon if a game doesn’t include any in-game. Comments such as “low quality game” and “a cheap rip off” are usually thrust upon these FMV-less games, regardless of the quality of the game itself.
Of course, this is the general, mainstream public’s perception of computer games - those who are more informed will, of course, take into account other factors of the game before deciding if it’s worthy of a purchase.
But for those games which do include FMV, it’s obviously a major selling point, especially if it’s of high quality; they could easily include it in a television advert or trailer for example, and entice the fickle viewers into buying the game without a second thought.
This, I don’t mind, as long as the FMV is actually part of the game itself - but when the video is captured just for the sake for promotion, usually in higher quality than the actual in game FMV, a sense of disillusion towards the customer can easily be noticed.
For example, in 007: Agent Under Fire. Good in game graphics, with cut scenes that use the in-game engine. So far, so good. But after having seen the documentary about the making of Agent Under Fire (available on a previous Official PS2 Magazine cover disc), in which it included quite a few snippets of intense action centred around Bond, all pre-rendered in a way superior to the actual in game FMV, but having almost no resemblance to the Bond you get to control in the game itself.
Other examples include the recent Lord of the Rings trailer (where they probably won’t use the fake models of Gandalf and Frodo in game) and the Harry Potter advert, where it even has the cheek of saying in the corner, “FMV not seen in game”. And people still bought the thing in droves.
It would have been much less misleading if the FMV used in the documentary was included as part of the storyline itself, possibly acting as a cut scene or a bridge in between level objectives - at least from a business point of view, as the material you see in the trailer/documentary is included in the final product that the customer purchases.
It can be argued that the publisher is merely trying to sell more copies of the game by further “enhancing” fragments of the game by sprucing them up for the inclusion in a trailer - but if the game is worthy of buying in the first place, why does it need anything more than the features included in the product itself?
Of course, this is the general, mainstream public’s perception of computer games - those who are more informed will, of course, take into account other factors of the game before deciding if it’s worthy of a purchase.
But for those games which do include FMV, it’s obviously a major selling point, especially if it’s of high quality; they could easily include it in a television advert or trailer for example, and entice the fickle viewers into buying the game without a second thought.
This, I don’t mind, as long as the FMV is actually part of the game itself - but when the video is captured just for the sake for promotion, usually in higher quality than the actual in game FMV, a sense of disillusion towards the customer can easily be noticed.
For example, in 007: Agent Under Fire. Good in game graphics, with cut scenes that use the in-game engine. So far, so good. But after having seen the documentary about the making of Agent Under Fire (available on a previous Official PS2 Magazine cover disc), in which it included quite a few snippets of intense action centred around Bond, all pre-rendered in a way superior to the actual in game FMV, but having almost no resemblance to the Bond you get to control in the game itself.
Other examples include the recent Lord of the Rings trailer (where they probably won’t use the fake models of Gandalf and Frodo in game) and the Harry Potter advert, where it even has the cheek of saying in the corner, “FMV not seen in game”. And people still bought the thing in droves.
It would have been much less misleading if the FMV used in the documentary was included as part of the storyline itself, possibly acting as a cut scene or a bridge in between level objectives - at least from a business point of view, as the material you see in the trailer/documentary is included in the final product that the customer purchases.
It can be argued that the publisher is merely trying to sell more copies of the game by further “enhancing” fragments of the game by sprucing them up for the inclusion in a trailer - but if the game is worthy of buying in the first place, why does it need anything more than the features included in the product itself?
We had both already pointed that out :)
On the Harry Potter ad, it actually says 'Not in game footage'. Just like to point that out. :-)
Its all about the 'Money Men', companies use the FMV's to promote the product on a wider scale than it actually deserves. Companies can legally advertise the FMV's as long as they explain that this is not going to be included in the main game (as with the Harry Potter advert). With the PSONE I looked forward to reaching the end of each level because on most games (i.e Tomb Raider: Last Revleation) I would be treated to a fairly high quality video which would use photo-realistic graphics to expand on what the stroy has already touched on. As we move further on with technology games are becoming almost photo-genic, Gran Turismo 3 for the PS2, Shenmue 2 for the Dreamcast, Dead or Alive 3 for the Xbox and Resident Evil for the GameCube all contain graphics which are equal to what most FMV's can produce.
One thing I have noticed is how much FMV cut-scenes have been cut out of Xbox games, Dead or Alive 3 contains some of the most graphically superb textures that I have ever witnessed on a video-game (not to mention the fluid animations which are almost life-like), yet it still includes the classic trate of most fighting games, completion FMV's! Gamers are rewarded with DVD quality caption sequences which see the character performing what their image portrays, the waitor in Dead or Alive 3 is a Bruce Lee take off (and a very good one at that) and his end cut-scene sees him fighting 4 thugs using Nun-chucks and the silky skills of from the master himself. The point I am trying to make is that not all FMV's are used to promote games, before buying Dead or Alive 3 I hadn't seen 1 FMV, granted the in game graphics warrant the title of FMV's but the end sequences were not used to promote the game in anyway.
The new trend in next generation Video-Games is using what you described, the in-game graphical engine in the cut-scenes and this is apparent in games like Shenmue, Shenmue 2, Halo and Max Payne yet it doesn't effect the sales of the game in anyway, in-fact if you ask me I prefer to see the in-game graphical engine used in the cut-scenes as it helps to keep in tact with the atmosphere used to create the games story.
To answer your question I would have to say that is all down to making money and for the developer using anything he can to promote the game further and although I am in favour of the in-game engine used in the FMV's, the adverts on Television grab my attention and make me want to look into the game further, a very clever and cunning marketing plan which captures the customer and forces them to look further into the game itself! It has been a while now since I last saw a game advertised on TV, the last one was a GameCube advert for Wave Race and before that the Halo advert from Microsoft. Without SKY TV I don't catch the majority of the advertisements but for the few I do catch they are very good and they do promote the product in an excellent way!
Very interesting post there that can be looked upon from many different angles, the angle you choose to look at it with will effect the way you see the game!
Good Post!
One thing I have noticed is how much FMV cut-scenes have been cut out of Xbox games, Dead or Alive 3 contains some of the most graphically superb textures that I have ever witnessed on a video-game (not to mention the fluid animations which are almost life-like), yet it still includes the classic trate of most fighting games, completion FMV's! Gamers are rewarded with DVD quality caption sequences which see the character performing what their image portrays, the waitor in Dead or Alive 3 is a Bruce Lee take off (and a very good one at that) and his end cut-scene sees him fighting 4 thugs using Nun-chucks and the silky skills of from the master himself. The point I am trying to make is that not all FMV's are used to promote games, before buying Dead or Alive 3 I hadn't seen 1 FMV, granted the in game graphics warrant the title of FMV's but the end sequences were not used to promote the game in anyway.
The new trend in next generation Video-Games is using what you described, the in-game graphical engine in the cut-scenes and this is apparent in games like Shenmue, Shenmue 2, Halo and Max Payne yet it doesn't effect the sales of the game in anyway, in-fact if you ask me I prefer to see the in-game graphical engine used in the cut-scenes as it helps to keep in tact with the atmosphere used to create the games story.
To answer your question I would have to say that is all down to making money and for the developer using anything he can to promote the game further and although I am in favour of the in-game engine used in the FMV's, the adverts on Television grab my attention and make me want to look into the game further, a very clever and cunning marketing plan which captures the customer and forces them to look further into the game itself! It has been a while now since I last saw a game advertised on TV, the last one was a GameCube advert for Wave Race and before that the Halo advert from Microsoft. Without SKY TV I don't catch the majority of the advertisements but for the few I do catch they are very good and they do promote the product in an excellent way!
Very interesting post there that can be looked upon from many different angles, the angle you choose to look at it with will effect the way you see the game!
Good Post!
FMV (Full Motion Video) is so common in computer games nowadays that it’s usually frowned upon if a game doesn’t include any in-game. Comments such as “low quality game” and “a cheap rip off” are usually thrust upon these FMV-less games, regardless of the quality of the game itself.
Of course, this is the general, mainstream public’s perception of computer games - those who are more informed will, of course, take into account other factors of the game before deciding if it’s worthy of a purchase.
But for those games which do include FMV, it’s obviously a major selling point, especially if it’s of high quality; they could easily include it in a television advert or trailer for example, and entice the fickle viewers into buying the game without a second thought.
This, I don’t mind, as long as the FMV is actually part of the game itself - but when the video is captured just for the sake for promotion, usually in higher quality than the actual in game FMV, a sense of disillusion towards the customer can easily be noticed.
For example, in 007: Agent Under Fire. Good in game graphics, with cut scenes that use the in-game engine. So far, so good. But after having seen the documentary about the making of Agent Under Fire (available on a previous Official PS2 Magazine cover disc), in which it included quite a few snippets of intense action centred around Bond, all pre-rendered in a way superior to the actual in game FMV, but having almost no resemblance to the Bond you get to control in the game itself.
Other examples include the recent Lord of the Rings trailer (where they probably won’t use the fake models of Gandalf and Frodo in game) and the Harry Potter advert, where it even has the cheek of saying in the corner, “FMV not seen in game”. And people still bought the thing in droves.
It would have been much less misleading if the FMV used in the documentary was included as part of the storyline itself, possibly acting as a cut scene or a bridge in between level objectives - at least from a business point of view, as the material you see in the trailer/documentary is included in the final product that the customer purchases.
It can be argued that the publisher is merely trying to sell more copies of the game by further “enhancing” fragments of the game by sprucing them up for the inclusion in a trailer - but if the game is worthy of buying in the first place, why does it need anything more than the features included in the product itself?
Of course, this is the general, mainstream public’s perception of computer games - those who are more informed will, of course, take into account other factors of the game before deciding if it’s worthy of a purchase.
But for those games which do include FMV, it’s obviously a major selling point, especially if it’s of high quality; they could easily include it in a television advert or trailer for example, and entice the fickle viewers into buying the game without a second thought.
This, I don’t mind, as long as the FMV is actually part of the game itself - but when the video is captured just for the sake for promotion, usually in higher quality than the actual in game FMV, a sense of disillusion towards the customer can easily be noticed.
For example, in 007: Agent Under Fire. Good in game graphics, with cut scenes that use the in-game engine. So far, so good. But after having seen the documentary about the making of Agent Under Fire (available on a previous Official PS2 Magazine cover disc), in which it included quite a few snippets of intense action centred around Bond, all pre-rendered in a way superior to the actual in game FMV, but having almost no resemblance to the Bond you get to control in the game itself.
Other examples include the recent Lord of the Rings trailer (where they probably won’t use the fake models of Gandalf and Frodo in game) and the Harry Potter advert, where it even has the cheek of saying in the corner, “FMV not seen in game”. And people still bought the thing in droves.
It would have been much less misleading if the FMV used in the documentary was included as part of the storyline itself, possibly acting as a cut scene or a bridge in between level objectives - at least from a business point of view, as the material you see in the trailer/documentary is included in the final product that the customer purchases.
It can be argued that the publisher is merely trying to sell more copies of the game by further “enhancing” fragments of the game by sprucing them up for the inclusion in a trailer - but if the game is worthy of buying in the first place, why does it need anything more than the features included in the product itself?