World of Darkness Bloodlines facial animation is overrated, many modern games do it better

[Sodafish]

Composition and lighting is up to the photographer.

Actually the latter is out of the photographer's control in most situations, unless you're strictly talking about studio work.

 

[Atlantico]

I'm Xennial.

Then you know a better camera doesn't matter as much as film and lens, when it comes to detail

More details make it better specifically with regard to the level of detail.

More details make it more detailed... indeed, profound, my dear Roguey.

Certainly some tools can make a practical difference in the creation, but no tool can make a good final result by itself. Garbage in, garbage out.

I care about results. Valve put a lot of effort into Faceposer and it gave us some non-motion captured faces with great quality.

If you're referring to canned facial expression, then that's even worse. Everything limited to whatever Valve thought was acceptable when they created their Faceposer software. It's like having the same lens-flare forever.

But it's such a beautiful lens flare!

FaceFX is a phone-it-in tool that requires much more manual effort to achieve similar results, so everyone mocaps when they have the budget.

Nothing is ever good without manual effort.

 

[Nano]

You have some nostalgic hard-on for the Source engine, and I don't. That's the long and short of it.

I appreciate the Source engine. When I used to have a crap PC the only good looking games I could play at max settings were Source games.

 

[Ol' Willy]

You have some nostalgic hard-on for the Source engine, and I don't. That's the long and short of it.

There is nothing nostalgic about Source. It's a great engine and easily goes into top-5 best 3D engines of 2000-s.

 

[Prime Junta]

Composition and lighting is up to the photographer.

Actually the latter is out of the photographer's control in most situations, unless you're strictly talking about studio work.

Absolutely not. There’s a lot you can do simply by choosing which way you face relative to the direction of the light. And of course when you choose to shoot.

Studio is one extreme end of a continuum. A situation like, say, sports photography where you’re assigned a spot and have to shoot the event from there is the other. Creative photography in any genre, including street/situational is a great deal closer to the studio end in terms of control.

 

[Sodafish]

Composition and lighting is up to the photographer.

Actually the latter is out of the photographer's control in most situations, unless you're strictly talking about studio work.

Absolutely not. There’s a lot you can do simply by choosing which way you face relative to the direction of the light. And of course when you choose to shoot.

Studio is one extreme end of a continuum. A situation like, say, sports photography where you’re assigned a spot and have to shoot the event from there is the other. Creative photography in any genre, including street/situational is a great deal closer to the studio end in terms of control.

There's a difference between reacting to the light on the scene and controlling it. Roguey's statement very much implied the latter. Unless the photographer is choosing what every contributing light source is, and where it is, then they are not fully controlling the light in the scene. Sometimes location work qualifies (such as certain film or photoshoot sets), but rarely, and these are special cases.

 

[Sailor Woedica]

You have some nostalgic hard-on for the Source engine, and I don't. That's the long and short of it.

There is nothing nostalgic about Source. It's a great engine and easily goes into top-5 best 3D engines of 2000-s.

I like how everyone lewked like a monster high doll in Bloodlines and I totally think that a lot of their faces lewk way more fierce and pretty than a lot of rpg characters that are way more recent!

 

[Prime Junta]

Unless the photographer is choosing what every contributing light source is, and where it is, then they are not fully controlling the light in the scene.

But the photographer does choose the light, even if he chooses how to use the light that is already present on the scene. There's a big continuum between "no control of the light at all" and "full control of the light," and most photography does give you a lot of control over the light. You choose when and where to shoot, how to position yourself relative to the subject and the light, and so on and so forth.

It's really no different than, say, the classic old-school portrait artist's studio. If he paints by natural window light, would you say that he has no control over the lighting? Hardly. It's the same for most photography, and almost all creative photography.

 

[Cat Dude]

Considering, that VtMB is rushed game from 2004, made on then still new Source engine - this evaluation could be fair.

Certainly yes, with those caveats.

Even today, games are published with obviously worse facial animations than Vtmb had in 2004 - but that doesn't mean Vtmb has any chance in competing with the best facial animations of today, or even 5 years ago, e.g. TW3. Say what you will about TW3, but the facial animations in that game are leagues and bounds beyond Vtmb.

The peaks and valleys are much more dramatic today than in 2004, and Vtmb will always be remembered for above average facial animation for 2004, no matter how rushed or lacking for resources - but it is not the gold standard for today. Let's say it's a baseline for adequacy, today. Any game published today with obviously worse facial animations than Vtmb, should rightly be called on it.

Running animation in FF13 or jrpg in general technically look so outdated that I could mistake them for any game made in 2000.

 

[Sinatar]

A 16 year old game has worse facial animations then games made today.

You don't fucking say?

 

[Sodafish]

Unless the photographer is choosing what every contributing light source is, and where it is, then they are not fully controlling the light in the scene.

But the photographer does choose the light, even if he chooses how to use the light that is already present on the scene. There's a big continuum between "no control of the light at all" and "full control of the light," and most photography does give you a lot of control over the light. You choose when and where to shoot, how to position yourself relative to the subject and the light, and so on and so forth.

It's really no different than, say, the classic old-school portrait artist's studio. If he paints by natural window light, would you say that he has no control over the lighting? Hardly. It's the same for most photography, and almost all creative photography.

Again, choosing where/when/if to shoot with natural light is NOT having control over it; you are only reacting to it and controlling your own actions. These are fundamentally different things. Just because serendipity or planning can provide the kind of lighting conditions you desire, that does not mean you have controlled it.

Btw I'd appreciate it if you didn't lecture me on how photographers use light. I have been a serious photographer for over 10 years at this point; I know what it entails.

 

[Prime Junta]

Again, choosing where/when/if to shoot with natural light is NOT having control over it; you are only reacting to it and controlling your own actions. These are fundamentally different things. Just because serendipity or planning can provide the kind of lighting conditions you desire, that does not mean you have controlled it.

Btw I'd appreciate it if you didn't lecture me on how photographers use light. I have been a serious photographer for over 10 years at this point; I know what it entails.

I started developing my own black and white negatives and made prints using a Durst enlarger my grandpa gave me in 1979, son.

And I fundamentally disagree with you on this point. If you do not take control of your lighting in your photography, whether it's natural light or something else, you will never be more than a snapshooter.

 

[Reinhardt]

"Modern aaa games can SOMETIMES look better than game from 15 years ago". Considering graphics are the ONLY thing that improved in game industry that's really tells all you need to know about modern games.

 

[RRRrrr]

It's not about realism, it's about the animations being expressive. And Bloodlines has some of the most expressive facial animations without looking uncanny. You can always tell a character is annoyed, happy, sad, anxious etc. That and the great voice direction makes the game unmatched when it comes to effectiveness of dialogue delivery.

 

[Sodafish]

I started developing my own black and white negatives and made prints using a Durst enlarger my grandpa gave me in 1979, son.

And I fundamentally disagree with you on this point. If you do not take control of your lighting in your photography, whether it's natural light or something else, you will never be more than a snapshooter.

I shoot film too, and develop my own B&W. How is that relevant to this discussion? I doubt your technical knowledge on any aspect of photography exceeds mine, so please leave the condescension at the door.

Feel free to deny the definition of words if you like. Does the photographer control the sun, the weather, the motion of the earth? No, of course not. Ergo they do not control natural light. The only minor degree of real control one has over it is the possibility of using modifiers (diffusers etc) or reflectors to make very localised changes, but this too can only be called "control" in the very poorest sense. In seconds the weather conditions (for example) could change and fundamentally alter the quality of the incident light, rendering those measures of "control" meaningless.

How about an analogy. The surfer chooses when and where to surf, based on time of year, weather, opportunity and so on. Their preparation and skills determine their success, but does that mean they control the waves?

 

[502]

What's there to discuss here? If people are comparing facial animation quality of a game pushing 20 to that of modern triple ayyys, the battle is already won.

 

[Roguey]

What's there to discuss here? If people are comparing facial animation quality of a game pushing 20 to that of modern triple ayyys, the battle is already won.

AA, Bloodlines 2 certainly doesn't have the extra A.

 

[conan_edw]

I played VTMB like 4-3 years and thought it was great at that time. It has good and quirky expressions and I think it's the low poly count that helped to achieve this feeling. Models are way more detailed now that it feels uncanny most of the time even with more effort put on their animation to look good. Only high end studios manage to make the facial animations feel great and usually those games are heavily cinematic.

 

[Prime Junta]

How about an analogy. The surfer chooses when and where to surf, based on time of year, weather, opportunity and so on. Their preparation and skills determine their success, but does that mean they control the waves?

Of course not.

That was a bad analogy though. How about another one? Did the artist control the light in this picture?

If your answer is “no” then we have a fundamental philosophical difference about the meaning of “control” in the context of a creative pursuit, and no further productive discussion is possible.

Also I’ll condescend to you as much as I want, Mr. Ten Years Serious Photographer With Unmatched Technical Knowledge (and no doubt VERY good lenses). Deal with it.

 

[Ol' Willy]

Fallout 4
Skyrim (any Bethesda game)
Dishonored 1 and 2
Thief 4
Greedfall
Deus Ex HR and MD
Outer Worlds
Any weeaboo bullshit

All have facial animations worse than in VtMB

 

[502]

AA, Bloodlines 2 certainly doesn't have the extra A.

I responded to the title which says many modern games.

 

[Sodafish]

no further productive discussion is possible

Yes, when you're being this obtuse (and insulting) I agree discussion is a waste of time.

 

[Roguey]

Deus Ex HR and MD

The mocapped dialogue battle sequences are superior to anything in Bloodlines, but they didn't have the budget to do the entire game like that.

 

[Prime Junta]

no further productive discussion is possible

Yes, when you're being this obtuse (and insulting) I agree discussion is a waste of time.

Cool, this was risking derailing the thread anyway. Happy shooting and good light to you.

 

[c2007]

no further productive discussion is possible

Yes, when you're being this obtuse (and insulting) I agree discussion is a waste of time.

Spoiler

Hi, I'm a SLT/Gaffer in Film/TV/Commercial production and have helped lighting setups for professional photographers for still photography as well as my own amateur work.

I won't be insulting. I will tell you that nearly everything you have said is wrong, and that you wrongly trust your bias and personal experience rather than talking to and learning from professionals and other amateurs.

Keep shooting. You have way more control of everything you shoot than you apparently believe you do.

Spoilered the off-topic part of the post.

My face is tired. Do we have to say more?