• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Behind The Filmic Presentation Of The Order: 1886

R

Raptor

Member
There is a video there.

In the November issue of Game Informer, our cover story on The Order: 1886 mentioned Ready At Dawn's efforts to make their game feel "filmic". While many developers tout their game's cinematic presentation, the fidelity of the PlayStation 4 allows Ready At Dawn to bring this concept to another level. Specialized lighting effects, the slight curvature of the "lens", more accurately portraying depth of field – it all adds to the developer's intent of making the game look as though it was shot with a real camera. But why? Why should a video game's digital camera portray lens flare or present the game through a cinematic aspect ratio? I spoke with The Order: 1886's creative director Ru Weerasuriya about his thoughts on blurring the line between games and Hollywood.
Click to expand...

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/featu...lmic-quot-presentation-of-the-order-1886.aspx
 
We took a real balanced approach to The Order: 1886. By all accounts this is a game that all true gamers must experience once in their lives. When we originally came up with the concept of this epic saga we had thought, "How can we make this more cinematic?" so we decided from there a filmic resolution would best support our vision.
 
Impeccable said:
We took a real balanced approach to The Order: 1886. By all accounts this is a game that all true gamers must experience once in their lives. When we originally came up with the concept of this epic saga we had thought, "How can we make this more cinematic?" so we decided from there a filmic resolution would best support our vision.
Click to expand...

Will_sue_lmao.gif
 
I'm tired of games trying to be movies, tbh, but The Order looks interesting so far. But if they start with QTE shit some alarms will go off.
 
Atolm said:
I'm tired of games trying to be movies, tbh, but The Order looks interesting so far. But if they start with QTE shit some alarms will go off.
Click to expand...

I think games trying to step it up on a story and acting level (real actors are starting to replace voice actors) is a good thing as long as they balance it with good gameplay. We can have both!
 
Jesus Christ, are we going to do this in every thread? Filmic refers to the camera style they're going for, has nothing to do with the gameplay.

I think some of you just like complaining.
 
ru gives a pretty good answer to the 'lolol cinematic why don't you make films' position i think

it's not about how can we make the game cinema. it's how can we use the lessons learned from over 100 years in another visual medium to improve how effectively we present things visually in games.
 
Salex_ said:
I think games trying to step it up on a story and acting level (real actors are starting to replace voice actors) is a good thing as long as they balance it with good gameplay. We can have both!
Click to expand...

Yup. Not mutually exclusive, and there are plenty of examples (Gears, God of War, The Last of Us, Uncharted, Mass Effect, HL2, etc).
 
I really wish people had the reading comprehension and critical thinking skills (or just actually read/watch the things they comment on) to understand that he is talking purely about the aesthetic presentation of the camera.

Every time RAD has brought this up it's been in regards to the visual presentation falling more in line with the conventions of film so that we lend the same suspension of disbelief to the game that we give to movies to this game, this making the experience feel more immersive.
 
Don't they know people clearly don't care about image quality, depth of field, field of view or any other things they can do with this different take on the third person view?

NO BLAYK BAREZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If they do read these kind comments I hope they completely ignore them and stick with their vision. I would hate to see them react to foolish internet posts
 
I wish they'd quit with the whole camera/film/hollywood as far as the world is presented. The only lens flare should be if a character wears glasses. Imo the that type of camera takes away layers of immersion. Show the world as seen through the characters eyes without using a hollywood type camera system to tell the story.
 
Jabba said:
I wish they'd quit with the whole camera/film/hollywood as far as the world is presented. The only lens flare should be if a character wears glasses. Imo the that type of camera takes away layers of immersion. Show the world as seen through the characters eyes without using a hollywood type camera system to tell the story.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Cut the J.J. ABrams bullshit.
 
Excited for the game. Like the setting. Like the 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Like the third person camera. Hate dirty lens effects and chromatic aberration.

I don't imagine anybody griping that a particular game doesn't have chromatic aberration, or thinking less of it because the lens doesn't flare up and get wet when you look at a light in the rain, but I do know a lot of people who can't stand those effects.

Going for a cinematic look is fine by me and I enjoy it 90% of the time, but there should always be an option to disable certain camera effects in games.
 
Impeccable said:
We took a real balanced approach to The Order: 1886. By all accounts this is a game that all true gamers must experience once in their lives. When we originally came up with the concept of this epic saga we had thought, "How can we make this more cinematic?" so we decided from there a filmic resolution would best support our vision.
Click to expand...

You forgot to work in visceral in there somewhere.
 
Love it. The more effects crammed in there the better. Motion blur, depth of field blur, lens flare, then blur the flare too and slap some film grain on it for good measure. Time to leave the philistine era of plainly presented polygons behind.
 
Confidence Man said:
Love it. The more effects crammed in there the better. Motion blur, depth of field blur, lens flare, then blur the flare too and slap some film grain on it for good measure. Time to leave the philistine era of plainly presented polygons behind.
Click to expand...
going by the trailer and the screens, nothing seems over done. The dof is especially well done and subtly used.
 
That video is very bad. I guess he had no idea the question was coming and had no logical argument for his position. It basically amounted to:

"It's meant to make you think there's a person, it's like a film"
"No one watches a film and thinks there's someone else there"

Utterly broken logic.

However, I fully agree with him in regards to 'artifice', which was the word he should have used. Even games with objectively better IQ, like KZ3 versus 2, look so much worse to me, in the absence of that dirt/grit/noise/post-processing, whatever you wish to call it.
 
I'm still trying to understand how using a 2.35:1 or whatever aspect ratio they are using makes sense for a 3D game with a free roaming player-controlled camera. If the game was fixed camera like those old Resident Evil games then maybe it would make sense in my head but if the director wants to frame this beautiful shot while I'm playing the game and I'd rather have the camera wedged in the ass crack of the main character then what's the point of this whole excercise? I have no problem with games having better stories and adopting some of cinema's techniques but the defacto standard for video games is the 16:9 aspect ratio.

When a director shoots a movie in 2.35:1 and it is displayed in the intended venue of a theater, most theaters worth a shit aren't going to have black bars on the screen since they can adjust the screen to fit the aspect ratio of the movies. When that movie is brought home, the black bars are necessary to maintain the filmmakers' artistic intent.

This is not necessary for games made to be displayed on HDTVs in the home. This just feels like more of that little brother envy that some game developers seem to have in regards to film. This usually results in them taking and misusing those techniques like Max Payne 3 overusing Tony Scott's cinematic flairs from Man on Fire. Filmmakers are allowed to paint on different canvases because there is no intended aspect ratio in theaters since the projectionist can adjust the screen size accordingly. This shit just seems unnecessary for games since the majority of gamers are playing on screens with the same aspect ratio and lack the ability to adjust their TV's aspect ratio.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Ocarina of Time utilize the same methodology of "filmic aspect ratio" the moment zelda locks on to a fight scene? I always find that peculiar but then considering the effect, it did look very cinematic and yet nobody comments on this particular issue. The Order: 1886 seems to have a higher, more permanent application of it and suddenly it becomes a problem?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
  • Poll
The Feminization of PlayStation - The Dread-Inducing Business Reality Behind the Industry
7 8 9 10 11
525
872
Gexxy1 replied
Tides of Annihilation - Official Technical Behind-the-Scenes Overview
12
73
ssringo replied
Schreier: The Story Behind the Failure of ‘Highguard’
2
51
1K
KanKamAndNob replied
tides of annihilation behind the scenes video first hands on this summer
2
43
ChorizoPicozo replied
Indiana Jones: TGC - The Order Of The Giants -DLC (LTTP)
29
537
Bartski replied
Top Bottom