Blizzard Cinematic Quality Deteriorating?

[Eligor]

And yet, the only thing you can say negatively about the in-game graphics is that the shadows are too "geometrical".

The shadows are still there. They are still doing their job. They are still visually telling the story that needs to be told. They may not be perfect, but they get the job done.

ALL shadows (that one ingredient in images that makes them look three-dimensional). It means that nothing looks quite right. It means that nothing is truly convincing. This is far from a minor complaint, this is the most major sort of flaw your image can have.

They shouldn't be just "getting the job done". They should be right.
Can you name a single truly memorable shot from these in-game cinematics? There are precious few, and the reason is that the visuals are good enough to "get the job done" but not good enough to truly get it right.

That's like saying every paragraph in a book should work as a separate narrative text. It doesn't and it can't. A shot is simply not long enough to tell a complete story, which is what narrative is all about.

No. It's like saying that every paragraph in a book should have good rhythm when read aloud and the precise dramatic impact you want it to have (both by itself and in the context of the overall narrative).

That's called "caricature": the emphasizing of the "important" details over the unimportant ones. That path leads to cartoonishness.

What leads to realism is having a consistent level of detail over an entire scene, just like real life. Walls in real life don't have less detail for the purpose of emphasizing character details. Consistency in detail is how you create verisimilitude in CG.

OK, here you are quite mistaken. Not just about images but about the fundamental way in which our perception of them works.

Here's why:

Things in real life (like walls) indeed don't have less detail for the purpose of emphasizing things, they in fact possess far more detail than our brains process unless we actually look at these things with the intent to see what they are like, and even then they often possess more detail than our brains can process at once. Needless to say, this applies even more strongly to a whole scene. Ever wondered how many things around you do you actually notice on your trip to buy groceries? I am willing to bet that far from everything.

So, our brains are highly selective in processing visual information unless we consciously make them focus on it, and even then they often can't process everything at once. And this is something that greatly aids artists and imagemakers everywhere, since they don't need to recreate a facsimile of reality to create a convincing scene but rather reproduce convincingly the details that matter (the ones that tell our brain that the image is real).

If you look at this painting by Brom, for example, you will see that while the creature and the figure before the altar are quite meticulously rendered the background is far less detailed, but not less convincing, and even the creature itself relays on very specific visual elements to make it work, the shadows are emphazised and brought forward to your attention by the artist since they are those crucial details that create visual versimilitude:

All the details on which the artist really worked on in this image are the ones that make it convincing, anything that is not important doesn't get the same treatment, the level of detail is anything BUT consistent, and yet it's a realistic image.

Therefore quality in an image is NOT a matter of consistency in the level of detail (in fact it could easily lead the image to become an overrendered mess) but rather of a certain threshold of quality that has to be maintained in those crucial details that make an image convincing. That threshold depends upon the creator's skill as well as on the tools at his disposal. And what you're arguing here for essentially is inferior and more limiting tools.

[TheEconomist]

Oh, how the mighty posters of SCL have fallen. The once great Nicol has given into to petty emotionality and trivial argumentation coupled with self-righteous egotism. What once could have been a constructive discussion has been turned into a rat race to make the other look stupid. I guess it gets us all someday.

Here, you equate the concept of her being "good" with the concept of her being a "damsel in distress".

No, I simply lack the patience to go into detail about something when it shouldn’t be necessary or it’s just going to be discounted if there’s not some way you can turn it around to make me look bad. In my example, “good” means desirable while “bad” is undesirable. The quotations should give you a hint that you need to look into the context to understand the true meaning of the word. I’m not making another paragraph when you won’t meet me half way. So far, judging by your complete misinterpretation of my simple statements, you’re scanning my posts to look for a hole that you can try to use to embarrass me. Not exactly something I’m going to waste more of my own time for.

Except that there was that little Protoss mini-campaign. Where we learn that Kerrigan not dying was kinda vital to the survival of the entire universe.

Reread the “Raynor perspective part” and try to understand this time. It was made ABUNDANTLY clear that Raynor’s primary motivation for de-infesting her was for personal reasons. StarCraft is no longer about the overarching story and the conflicts between figureheads. It now focuses on an individual by telling it from that perspective and focusing on smaller conflicts. This time it was Raynor’s turn and in the story he was driven by emotion. Therefore, in order to convey this, the storytelling focuses on emotion. Their implementation of the flashback video focuses more on emotion instead of action. Your idea focuses on action. I would prefer this, yes, but Blizzard has chosen a different path. You say that this is incompetence. I say it was a deliberate design choice. You say you know better than professionals, I say try to think more logically. Emotionality doesn’t suit you.

Which brings me to the most lulzy part of this topic and an excellent example of why I am becoming increasing disappointed in SCL posters. How does one take “any zoom-out scene whilst characters looks to the sky is to portray that person as a damsel in distress” from “Blizzard chose this path instead of yours because it was able to convey differently?” For the slow among us, I’m saying that IN THIS ONE CIRCUMSTANCE BEING TALKED ABOUT they chose the second option. Logically, that doesn’t mean just because someone looks up it’s the same thing. It’s like saying I said a close-up in [insert action movie] is meant to demonstrate the badassness of the character but then you chime in with some idiotic comment about a close up in [insert romantic movie] that is meant to show the emotional vulnerabilities of the character. If FanaticTemplar had spent an additional three second thinking about what I said and not assuming I’m a complete imbecile, he could have saved us both time. But, no, we’ve all got to make the other look stupid, right? Nicol, you need to ask yourself why you felt the need to post, "Besides the fact that it punches another hole in your theory, what's stupid about it? " when you yourself had two lines before explained why it's stupid. Also, you need to ask yourself why I needed to state my own personal reason for it being a stupid question when the reason is to obvious. Is it because you lack the mental faculties necessary to analyze? No. We all know better than that. The only other option I can think of is that you didn't think it through and only saw it as a instrument for a knee-jerk reaction to insult me.

That's like saying every paragraph in a book should work as a separate narrative text. It doesn't and it can't. A shot is simply not long enough to tell a complete story, which is what narrative is all about.

When I read Eligor's post, I understood what he meant. Either I'm a genius compared to the limp mental might of your mind or, simply, I took the time to assume Eligor knew what he was talking about and consider his argument. You, however, quickly jumped to the worst conclusion you could think of so you could beat up on that weak point and emerge the glorious victor while Eligor huddled in the corner, ashamed of even speaking his mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I try to give all of the (once) respectable posters I come across a benefit of the doubt by not hand-holding them through common sense that they should be able to reason on their own. I find that it insults my intelligence when it is done to me but, clearly, people do it to me because, well, emotion seems to be leaking into everyone’s thought process on Blizzard forums these days. I guess I understand now.

-- I feel the need to clarify that there are still many good posters on SCL. I don't want my habit of making things sound universal to make it appear that I see no good left in SCL.

[FanaticTemplar]

There is a difference: he saw the ship leave. He was actually looking at something that was there very recently. The cutscene very clearly shows us that Mengsk was well out of visual range.

I don't buy Tychus's explanation, but the scene makes more sense for the Marine than Kerrigan.

That's true, but though while Kerrigan could not actually see the Hyperion, she knew it was up there somewhere. Obviously there are other differences between the two cinematics as well, for instance the Marine from Brood War's intro wasn't aligned with the UED, or so I understand, and would not have any reason to expect support from the Aleksander aside from human decency (which isn't something to count on in StarCraft). Still, I found it surprising that the two cinematics were so similar.

EDIT: Although this is completely unrelated to the actual topic of this thread, so I apologise for that, I should have found a more appropriate thread.

[Triceron]

I don't really see the problem with the New Gettysburg cinematic or the message it's relaying. Why does Kerrigan look up? Who really cares? The point of the cinematic was to show how the events would have happened for the sake of telling WoL's story, not an indepth look into Kerrigan's character and personality.

New Gettysburg is a retelling of events. Its mood is set up to be tragic and somewhat depressing. There's no reason to break down the reasons why she is looking up other than the fact she did. It's what you make of it. She could be looking in the general direction of the fleet that she knows has abandoned her. She could be looking up to the heavens, ready to accept her fate. Hell, maybe the team just wanted Kerrigan looking at the camera while they do a wide shot. Whatever it may be, it doesn't do anything to change the overall message is that she is alone, defenseless and about to be attacked by the encroaching zerg.

[Eligor]

About the New Gettysburg cinematic.

Kerrigan drops her weapon and then looks up and sees a vortex of mutalisks circling right over her (while swarms of Zerg close in around). Unlike the soldier in the Brood War Intro whose gaze is both hopeful and accusing (he cannot believe this is happening), for Kerrigan it's a gesture of resignation to her fate. While at first she looks desperate and bewildered after dropping the gun, her expression while looking up is one of grim realization and acceptance, she knows she is about to die and while she sees that fighting back is futile she's not going to run and cry either. She understands her fate and is ready to face it, bitter though it may be.

Whether or not Kerrigan here is a "damsel in distress" seems to me to entirely the matter of the viewer's feelings towards her (we all can agree though that we'd like to see her saved at this moment, I think). None of it denies her courage in facing death. If she were the woman you love, you'd want to save her regardless of her attitude.

[TheEconomist]

To clarify, I didn't mean that the looking up made her a "damsel in distress" (I'm sooo starting to regret that phrasing) but that they wanted to convey the emotions you mentioned, Eligor, instead of just having her be some action-movie-esque emotionless character. She needs to have some weakness because much of the focus of the story is on Raynor trying to save her. Nevermind that it makes a more interesting character.

(See? If someone is trying to understand what I'm saying, I'm more than willing to explain and clarify where needed.)

[Romla]

I will not read everything what you said before, because it is pretty long now - you can ignore my post as a revenge if you want.

But is this thread about visual quality of the cinematics or about what and why is Kerrigan watching?

This:

... Why does Kerrigan look up? Who really cares? ...

And this:

My final thoughts is that the cinematics are not deteriorating in any way.
Like others have said, the content was just not there.

I agree.

The story team is directing SC2 so it focuses on Raynor and Kerrigan. Having random marines board a science vessel only to drink beer and get ambushed by Zerg is fine for SC1, but it's not needed (and totally random) for SC2's story.

Yes, but that doesn't mean there should be only Kerrigan and Raynor in the cinematics. We are watching a sci-fi game/cinematic here not a romantic movie. Moreover there were zergs and terrans in the cutscenes, only they were not together in the same one...

Anyways, if you guys are hell bent on getting something like that - go let Hanson get infested. Nice cinematic for that. Or just watch Star Ship Troopers and a Predator or Alien movie to get your space battle fix :P.

I have seen Starship Troopers, Predator and Aliens movies before, why should I go to watch them again if I want some action packed epic scenes when there is SC2? I know why: Because SC2 cannot deliver... But why? Because the scenes are sadder when Kerrigan is absolutely lonely? I don't think so. More unrealistic and less epic? Of course. But sadder? No.

I know I am off-topic again, but it is not only me in this thread.

[GnaReffotsirk]

I wish they made her look to the sky with disgust, anguish, and hate. This would have been better when tied to the eventual plot they have for HoTS.

If she was really that modest or accepting of her fate, then they would have to explain how she became so unforgiving.

They would have to show how tormenting it is for her to be zerg. This then would require them to explain why she enjoyed the feeling of being zerg in that meeting she had with raynor on char, which is a plot point they would either have to scratch out or explain for the story to be coherent.

[Turalyon]

I wish they made her look to the sky with disgust, anguish, and hate. This would have been better when tied to the eventual plot they have for HoTS.

Bit hard to display without resorting to grimaces and facial gymnastics if you asked me . Then again, who says she wasn't potentially showing (or feeling for that matter) those emotions at that particular point in the cinematic? Depends on your interpretation of that scene I suppose.

If she was really that modest or accepting of her fate, then they would have to explain how she became so unforgiving.

They would have to show how tormenting it is for her to be zerg. This then would require them to explain why she enjoyed the feeling of being zerg in that meeting she had with raynor on char, which is a plot point they would either have to scratch out or explain for the story to be coherent.

She was resolved to dying in that cinematic not to being kept alive and forced into becoming a twisted abomination saddled with conflicted and unresolved human emotions. That's enough to make anyone "unforgiving" without any further exploration necessary.

Kerrigan only "likes" being Zerg in SC1 because the Overmind was still around then. In BW (post OM death) there are hints that she may not like how she turned out.