Your video, VLDL: When the cut scene timing is terrible - Awkward Cutsc, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 238 Badge!

Your video, Annoying cut scenes in games, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 220 Badge!

Eh, I dunno. Neat overall, and since it's the opening sequence it can probably be forgiven to an extent, but there was too much self-indulgent tech wanking going on IMO. I also worry that there is a little too much first person shooter going on in my space shooter. While it was very cool in the previous Wing Commander games that you could go to different areas of the ship and talk to the crew between missions, all you had to do to get around was click on doors and people. Actually having to walk your character around a big ship to activate the cut scenes is going to get old unless they find creative ways to keep it fresh. We will see. I just worry there is a lack of focus on core gameplay in favor of putting features in there just because they can. A lack of a focused vision and direction seems like it's the achilles heal of the whole Star Citizen project.

I would be more willing to bet that the film version had them and the later home versions had a different cut of the film. I've had this happen before when I went to early showings of a film and then later they change something on the video release.

The first I can recall this happening on was the movie "Hocus Pocus". I watched it for free when it came out, but I didn't realize it was one of those test screening things. There were several scenes that were different from when I watched it later on VHS with my wife. It came to me later that the test screening I watched had most of the cut scenes that were in the trailer and that later never made it to the final version.

You can even see this more recently in Suicide Squad. Several scenes from the various trailers never showed up in the movie itself. When I watched it, I kept wondering what the hell was going on. Some of the scenes even would have been better had they been left in.

In any case, it's odd and like the video says, it's clearly meant to be assumed she had braces. The scene doesn't work the same any other way. However, I never watched the theater version of Moonraker, so I can't be sure. I never really liked Moore's bond that much.

The short answer is "It depends!"

I know it's a crappy answer, but there are way too many parameters at play. There are many games today that have scripted scenes in them that are pretty cinematic. Think of GTA III, from 2001. The cut scenes in that game still outshine the actual gameplay of GTA V today.

If the scene is scripted, then all the animation, and camera movement can be fine tuned and all compute resources are pooled into the viewport of the camera. This allows the artists to focus all of the trickery on the shot itself, but not the rest of the world. From a PVS or scene-graph stand point, you have pretty much reduced the complexity to just what you are seeing.

I do not know how they made this demo and cannot comment on it with any authoritative capital. I've written 3D engines before (not for videogames though) and can comment on the technology I think I'm seeing here. My comments are just an opinion based on what I know. I do not have access to Unity and have never used it before. But here it goes:

For a scene like this, there should be reduced/canned computation in:

• Collision detection and response
  
• AI
  
• Animation / IK
  
• PVS
  
• Texture Atlasing
  

The shaders, unless they are geometry (the ripping of the skin/flesh in the Adam scene) could or could not be reduced in scope and complexity. I am not sure if they are scripted or dynamic. By scripted, I mean a geometry shader that reads vertex data from a VBO stream or some memory buffer instead of computing the vertices on the fly. It's still real-time, just not dynamic.

Most of the graphics you see here are standard applications of technology that's been around for a while:

• PBR shader
  
• Motion Blur Shader
  
• Depth of Field Shader
  
• Cascaded Shadow Maps Shader
  

The particle system seems pretty standard as well.

This is a great demo and I am extremely impressed with the art direction, but the engine itself is, after all, Unity with PBR for the characters, and maybe Global Illumation for the indoor scenes, which I believe they licensed from Geomerics.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Also, whats the point of in-engine footage if doesn't show any actual gameplay. Looked like cut-scenes. Still looks cool.

I always think of it as the "Bruce Willis" effect. Get in tight with the camera during action so no one can see your big budget star has no athletic ability.
I just assume that it carried over from film to game cut-scenes because it symbolized "action" now.

I wouldn't say a tech demo has to center individual effects necessarily (as in enumerating and highlighting them) necessarily, but it does have to run in real time on *something*. I'll accept a little give-tand-take there (like it was rendered at half-real time and sped up for the video or something). Otherwise, it may as well just be raytracing. It's obviously all hand-animated too anyways, so whether or not its rendered real time is almost moot.

That said, apart from some questionable art direction, it does look pretty cool. I look forward to the time, 8 or 10 years from now, when cut-scenes rendered in real time look like this.

Fancy rendering effects are great and all, but we need more physics stuff if we're going to advance gameplay. Not just solid-body, stuff tessellating with the bits bouncing around, but actual modeling of of environments taking into account the physics of how stuff works. Entire levels built of structures that obey the laws of physics made of materials with realistic properties. Wires carrying current, pipes with flowing water, load bearing beams and framing, fuel tanks with flammable liquids and gasses... that sort of thing,

I want to play a game where my imagination is the limit. Apologies for the rambling. Had a couple glasses of wine. Anyways, you know what I mean,

Well, at least Blizzard can still make proper cut-scenes, I sometimes think they should just drop the whole gaming thing and just start making movies.

Fake.... they cut scenes. Didn't you guys see the green screen?

That is a video game, called Asura's Wrath. Yes, it's pretty epic, it's also a pretty shitty game. It's nothing but cut-scene after cut-scene with quicktime events in the middle.

rope cut scene looks like cg....

Very under-appreciated show. Great acting, a good script, creative cut-scenes and the boobs.... ohhh the boobs

This vid looks like it's all in-engine cut-scenes to me (as in, cinematics). The youtube link you've provided does show actual gameplay though.

>> ^shogunkai:

>> ^schlub:
Huh? Is this supposed to be a game? If so, where's the actual footage of gameplay? Because there wasn't any in this video... Also, why does Lara look nothing like what she used to? -- and I don't just mean her chest...

Uhh... I'm pretty sure that was all gameplay footage, just edited together. It's a trailer for the game, not the first 5 minutes of the game.
Here is some gameplay footage from later on in the game.
http://youtu.be/NFhLS7DmLlc

Not playing it how Blizzard intended for it to be played is exactly why there is such an uproar over the game in the first place. Everyone wants to have their way with their Blizzard game and Blizzard ain't complying. Yeah the DRM sucks but there isn't all that much different in Diablo 3 than any other recent Blizz title. It's a scheme. Anyone who has played any of their games since War3 knows that the games are multi-tiered so what at first seems like a simple, boring, repetitive game ends up being finely tuned & crafted in the end. By ACT III on Nightmare mode it becomes apparent and if one doesn't get that far into the game then they really shouldn't be giving it a review because they should just know better from the get-go.

It's got some of the best multiplayer aspects that I've had in recent memory, running relentlessly across vast floors trying to avoid pools of Hell, or encountering impossible zombie mobs moving 50% faster than normal. It's a lot of fun. Blizzard is a different company than they were back in the day, I don't like it as nearly as much as the first Diablo, for sure... but it's still fantastic. It's still Blizzard. Great mechanics - for what it is - better art direction than most games, great sound and the absolute insanity of it on the more difficult modes where it really comes together. Yeah there are a lot of things that piss me off about D3...

I must admit it seems to me like Blizz didn't give it their all on this one... maybe so they can make sure people go back to their cash cow
The levels are barely random, what the ^%$# is up with the lag? There is too much loot like Yahtzee said, the normal mode IS too easy, nightmare & normal are light/day... don't waste our time. The art direction is great... but not as great as I'd expect from Blizz, muddy textures, accesses the hard-drive too frequently, some of those "cut-scenes" are whack, on Hell mode the random encounters are more difficult than the main quests, no in game auction house? Why the hell is that loot popup menu always there? The story is dumb as fuck. But, regardless that is what the Diablo series is - not much innovation here except in chaos and mechanics and that is good enough for me. We can't compare every Blizz game to WoW... and that is exactly why D3 is great, it's like WoW-ultralite meets Left For Dead, nothing wrong with that.