Picture It: CGI trailers are a warning sign
by Vladimir Cole 
{ Oct 7th 2006 at 10:40AM }
See all previous "Picture It" posts.
A quick note on this series: we've received no small amount of positive and negative feedback on this series of graphs. Most of the negative feedback has to do with the frequency of the graphs. We'll continue to post these nearly daily for as long as our imaginations supply us with fodder for new graphs. We encourage commenters to move beyond feedback on frequency and move into the real discussion.
What's that real discussion? in this case, we're suggesting several areas for discussion.
- Should developers spend less time on flashy trailers and more time putting together games?
- Just who is the audience for a trailer anyway? One theory: investors. Corollary to that theory: only unfunded (or underfunded) projects need to put together trailers. Second corollary: the flashier the trailer, the more CGI (and the less gameplay) the less likely the game will ever be made.
- Gamers should learn to discount all trailers, especially those that don't show real gameplay. Every year, a new gamer is born. Therefore, every year, a new sucker takes a look at a trailer (like that infamous Killzone 2 trailer) and thinks "OMG WOW!" It's a continual education process to inure gamers to tricksy marketing hype.
We hope this is the last time we'll need to be so explicit (and so wordy) about the point of this series. The idea behind these simple relationships is to point out some of the absurdities and paradoxes of our favorite hobby and to lighten the density of text here on Joystiq. Part visual gag, part criticism: all fun. Ok?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
PeacefulOutrage @ Oct 7th 2006 10:44AM
Yeah, no more misleading adverts FTW!!
John @ Oct 7th 2006 10:46AM
But I like the trailers :(
I agree, developers should spend more time on gameplay than putting together good looking trailers.
Joe Mama @ Oct 7th 2006 2:10PM
I remember walking into my Gamestop 3 days after the Killzone 2 trailer came out, and there were two guys in there bragging about how the PS3 is going to own every other system. I guess the PS3's kill app back then was "Vaporware 2"
Patrick @ Oct 7th 2006 10:56AM
Am I the only one who had drooled over trailers for games like Gran Turismo, Final Fantasy VII - XI, even the Zelda games have beautiful trailers.
Another problem with your graph is that it clams that ugly trailers have a good chance of having tons of content, this also is rarely true.
Just my $.02
Tim @ Oct 7th 2006 10:57AM
I never look at trailers anymore...ever. The last trailer I saw where the game didn't disappoint was FF7.
Luis Zapata @ Oct 7th 2006 11:00AM
The X Axis should be: "% chance that trailer is a prerender" Cough cough.. Sony .. Cough
Heyasuki @ Oct 7th 2006 11:42AM
I dispise game trailers that do not show IN-GAME content. I love the way RE 04 did it with in-game sequences, really was a niice tough and I do hope more games follow suit. But I know many kids get tricked by the commercial on the TV.
Hatch @ Oct 7th 2006 11:04AM
Whenever I see an all CGI (Cinemagraphic Image) Trailer like the one for the new Marvel online game It' pisses me off cause all I wanted to see was actual gameplay footage. Cause usually the flashy cinemagraphics look nowhere near what the in-game final product graphics are like. You know like the Call of duty 2 Tv trailer. Sure it wasnt Vaporware but not once in the game did my companions huck me a spare magazine for my Grease Gun.
Devwar @ Oct 7th 2006 12:03PM
Hrmm... I'd actually say the graph should be more Hyperbolic, both ends of graphics tend to indicate how vaporware a game can be. I mean, if you're seeing Doom-quality game trailers in '06, I think the game might be vaporware.
Captain Obvious @ Oct 7th 2006 11:10AM
So I'll be the first to come out and bash Halo Wars then, right?
Pedro Van Faulk @ Oct 7th 2006 12:59PM
Umm, Vlad?
It isn't the frequency of the graphs, it's the graphs period. Instead of actually writing something, you just cook up some lazy ass graph or diagram that usually tunrs out to be wrong in terms of what it represents and as a graph.
Pal @ Oct 7th 2006 11:20AM
Just live up to the damn expectations and everyone will be happy.
Though I do recollect hearing the story of a guy who returned Final Fantasy VII since he didn't think that he'd have to read so much (he was drawn initially by the FMVs). Makes me shudder every time I remember this atrocity.
Dan @ Oct 7th 2006 11:19AM
The MGS series always have beautiful trailers (albeit most of the time they are not CG at all) But they always come out amazingly good (IMHO). Motostorm shown some amazing CG trailers earily on and the finished game is starting to look pretty good. There have been a lot of games that have amazing trailers that turn out really good.
I agree that I hate CG trailers for the same reasons hatch pointed out, I want to see gameplay to know what the game is really gonna look like.
On aside: I hadn't seen any Vlad posts in a while and had honestly really hoped he was gone. I was wrong tho :(
gLitterbug @ Oct 7th 2006 11:32AM
Maybe the point about pre-rendered trailers/intros should've been pressed more, as a trailer from cut-together actual game-scenes isn't up for discussion here I'd say.
The funny thing is, now that we get all those next-gen graphics in games that are supposed to make older pre-rendered stuff look like kids drawings, we start to see more of the CGI trailers again. While they were used to give you eye candy as a reward for completing a mission or to tell a story through nice cut-scenes back in the days of less glorious realtime graphics, they now seem to function as something different. Soemthing to make gamers think that it is in-game realtime graphics they see there and maybe even showing off that "cinematic experience" the game promises for gameplay.
There might be some truth to the whole investor publisher thing, but mostly I believe it's a dirty trick to fool people into false hopes. As obvious as the Killzone Video was pre-rendered, tons of people still firmly believed it would be realtime on a PS3. After all we WANT to believe.
I admit I loved pre-rendered cut-scenes and intros and trailers back the days, but now it is indeed a bad sign for any game. If a game is affraid to show actual REAL realtime footage of the game, then something is amiss. Also it's pretty wasted resources to hire a company to make a flashy intro trailer these days, when the game itself suffers from delays due to all kinds of reasons and lots of those involving money. All this talk about next-gen development getting more and more expensive only makes me wonder why money would be spent on pre-rendered mini-movies to put into the game unless to increase sales through the false advertising.
sracer @ Oct 7th 2006 11:43AM
These type of deceptive trailers reminds me of the ads found in comic books back in the 50's, 60's, and early 70's. You know which ones I'm talking about....
The X-Ray specs. Sea Monkeys. The 8 ft. Frankenstein. The footlocker full of army soldiers.
What they have in common with these trailers is the desire to part the naive from their money.
WUDDERSUP @ Oct 7th 2006 11:51AM
Your "Picture It" graphs are a warning sign of a bad article.
Doom3 @ Oct 7th 2006 11:55AM
Ok here is a good idea make good game play and put that in the trailer... God you guys are slow...
Loco Pollo @ Oct 7th 2006 11:56AM
Well, most flashy looking game cinematics are outsourced. That is to say that the game developers don't make them, because they ARE too busy making the game.
The Killzone cinematic was outsourced, as was the Lair cinematic, and some of the best cinematics these days are done by www.digicpictures.com and www.blur.com (like the War Hammer trailers)
All those crapy pre-rendered ending cinematics for Tekken? Out sourced.
SomaXD @ Oct 7th 2006 2:32PM
I think someone said it best...
Developers need to take a que from Konami and the MGS series... No CGI cutscenes but CGI quality (imo the graphics in snake eater really shine through for a ps2 game)
I cant remember where i read it but one company said they are not using CGI for their games.. (uh peter molyneux on fable 2 i think)and that CGI is "last generation"
vidGuy @ Oct 7th 2006 12:07PM
Can I ask: are any of your graphs based on any data? Or do you just say 'Hmm, I think this is how it works"? I assume the latter and accept it as a form of "humor"...
Regarding the issue at hand,
1) I doubt the people that put together the trailer are the same ones actually coding and designing the game. I have no first hand experience with this, so feel free to prove me wrong, but wouldn't it make more sense for the developers to dump off some in game scenes and already finished CGI to a marketing team that would then design the ad?
2) The trailer is meant for everyone. It creates interest in the game for those who may not have known about it, and it gives fans a sense of relief that the game they are waiting for is in progress/nearly done. All projects need trailers. You can release the game of the year, but if no one knows about it, sales are going to be in the dumps. Word of mouth works, but not in the millions. The second corollary doesn't even make sense.
3) Discount trailers? No. Learn that WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) doesn't work for game trailers? Yes. Trailers still serve a very important marketing function, and they can be very exciting and fun for a gamer, too.
Zorak @ Oct 7th 2006 12:22PM
I don't think that the nature of the "picture it" series has been questioned so much as its quality. A commenter in a previous "picture it" put it best:
"9. What makes the "Indexed" blog great is the insight encapsulated in the charts. You read it and go, "That's an interesting way of looking at things". These are just dumb statements of well-known facts. :("
Vlad, you don't need to explain the point of the series or do them less frequently - you just need to do a better job.
Conbus @ Oct 7th 2006 12:24PM
I guess it's nice too see how cool everything looks in trailers, but I agree that they shouldn't be taken too seriously. The graph is pretty accurate. I don't know why ppl would complain about the graphs, they are true and funny, but should be combined with a bit of text to inspire discussion of the subject; keep em' coming.
Didly @ Oct 7th 2006 12:25PM
The audience isn't just investors, but people who play games. Every time some amazing trailer comes out, there is always loads of hype that gets people interested in that game (eg. Halo Wars...). So it's always beneficial to that specific developer and console.
Izuna Drop @ Oct 7th 2006 12:35PM
Darn. Tat Halo Wars trailer is so pretty. Of course it's CGI, but still... :(
BioShock, however, is rendered from the in game graphics engine, so that is going to be awesome. Good times.
Spilt_Milk @ Oct 7th 2006 12:32PM
The only game who's gameplay seems to live up to the cgi trailer has been Assasin's Creed.
/crosses fingers
Izuna Drop @ Oct 7th 2006 12:37PM
I meant "That," not "Tat."
laserboyjc @ Oct 7th 2006 12:50PM
@Captain Obvious
The Halo Wars trailer shows no gameplay whatsoever, but I like it anyway...though honestly, I'm not interested in the game, but it makes me wish they would make a movie that looks like that; and makes me wish for the day when real time graphics will look like that...same with many games.
I think trailers should show actual gameplay, and/or be made with the in-game engine...and ideally, if you use CGI it should not be taking up room on the game disc/data itself, but be for online/tv distribution to complement the storyline, not merely to sell something which really isn't there (like Madden which I still refuse to buy).
Joe A. @ Oct 7th 2006 3:33PM
WUDDERSUP:
Your comments are a warning sign of an idiot at your keyboard.
Insults aside, sure the graphs on notebook paper are pretty cheesy, but it sure gives a good topic to discuss. I, for one, like CGI trailers but only to the point where the trailers are somewhat indicative of the gameplay. Take the GRAW clips from E305 as an example. Sure it was prerendered, but if you compare it to the finished product, it truly gave an impression of the gameplay. Some bad examples are the EA trailers for the 360 launch just because the gameplay is nowhere near that smooth.
Sintax @ Oct 7th 2006 1:13PM
Most Game company's hire out other professionals to do the CGI game trailers they don't waste time on them only money.
David @ Oct 7th 2006 1:12PM
Yep, the graphs are pathetic, usually scientifically incorrect, and pure filler drivel. It has nothing to do with the frequency.
On this topic, Final Fantasy 7 is the original offender. Sony used it to pretend the PS1 was more powerful then the N64, and only ever showed video. Irrespective of the game's quality, the advertising was totally misleading, but worked, so the tactic has been copied ever since (The Killzone 2 lies being the most infamous recent axample).
True story: The Sony lies were so effective, I remember showing a PS1 owner Ocarina of Time's intro, and they were expecting the 'video' to stop and the real game to look much worse, much like FF7. When the camera panned behind Link and I started playing the 'video' their jaw hit the floor!
BPM? @ Oct 7th 2006 2:01PM
Here's an example that really bugs me: Final Fantasy III (DS).
The pre-rendered videos have a completely different art style than the in-game graphics. The gameplay footage looks more cartoonish/artistic, say like FF Tactics. Whereas the CG clips have a more realistic approach to them (like FFX and newer).
Darren Tilley @ Oct 7th 2006 2:06PM
Sintax (#28) is right. Companies rarely make these trailers themselves, and they often use the game assets, so there isn't any additional time spent on them. There are companies who specialize in just this work. And you want them to loose their jobs just because you don't like seeing newbie gamers getting swayed by their content? Am I the only one who thinks this is a ridiculous stance to take?
This is all besides the point anyway, as the simple fact remains that there is significant return on the investment made into these trailers.
Not to mention the misuse of the word "vaporware" in your little chart there (Ok, I did actually mention it)
zymman @ Oct 7th 2006 2:18PM
I'm sorry, but am I the only one that thinks Joystiq needs Robert Summa back posting again. The man makes one stupid judgement call and he's banned for life or something. There has been more uninspired drivel, such as these graphs, since he's been gone than in all the time he was posting. We understand the point of the charts, many of us just don't like them. There are better ways to start a discussion than saying "all things being equal" or showing a chart that took 2 seconds of time (1 for thought, 1 for drawing) to put together. Bring back Summa!
hola como estas? @ Oct 7th 2006 2:47PM
Zymmann: don't be an idiot. Summa was awful. Did you never see his post mocking the death of Steve Irwin? Did you never see all the awful grammar errors? The idiotic fanboy drivel? Summa sucked and it's great he's gone. Joystiq was right to fire him.
h2c @ Oct 7th 2006 3:05PM
I disagree with Pedro (#25) - I don't think these graphs are lazy, I actually think they take more time to come up with than just pumping out a couple sentences to convey the same idea.
With that said, I'm tired of seeing the graphs as a medium for conveying ideas. I laughed at first, but now it's old and feels like a gimick. Just my opinion. /shrug
As to the real discussion, a game trailer is supposed to be a preview of a game, just like a movie trailer is supposed to be a preview of a movie.
A movie trailer is made entirely from in-movie footage, and a game trailer should also be made from entirely in -game footage. Can you imagine if the trailer for The Departed (http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/thedeparted/) was footage of some guy on a stage reading Hamlet? No? Then you also shouldn't be able to imagine the trailer from any game being anything but in-game footage. It's simple misrepresentation otherwise.
Sure, movie trailers are cut a certain way to portray a movie as an action, comedy, whatever. Some movies even have several trailers that convey the movie as being in several different genres, with Hollywood Homicide (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0329717/) coming to mind. But it is still all footage from the movie. A game trailer should be the same.
headn00b @ Oct 7th 2006 3:24PM
The still aren't funny, Joystiq.
azesino @ Oct 7th 2006 3:54PM
Vlad my man, Keep on doing what your doing, The graphs are a great way of braking the ice and engage in some discusions that will never be talked about unless is here on the blog community. I think you should allow request and let people send you a graph and posting one readers graph a week. In consern with your graph I think you should post it as long as you want, people dont understand that there arent just news sometimes, and that you are going out of your way just to entertain the readers and engage us on a discusion so we wouldnt be waiting countless hours for an update.
I salute your graphs and keep them comming, the more content the better.
regarding the graph. I think CG trailers deliver in some ocations, not always tough. now less than before, because gamers are expecting that cinematic gameplay and the values get mixed up and even the most expert on CG animation cant tell sometimes if its real gameplay or just a CG trailer.
Alex @ Oct 7th 2006 11:25PM
Square's demonstration of the PS3 White Engine (i.e. FF7 trailer) was so gorgeous that people thought it was CG. A year later, they showed off gameplay for FFXIII that looked even more beautiful, so I don't understand what the big deal is. Sony held the conference; developers made the videos.
If you want to talk about CG lies, Microsoft showed CG off for Forza 2, Halo Wars, Gears of War, Blue Dragon, and Lost Odyssey. The gameplay footage of Forza, Gears, Blue Dragon, and LO have already fallen short of the CG trailers, so it makes one wonder if Halo Wars is going to live up to the hype.
Slashbunny @ Oct 7th 2006 6:07PM
Thank god VC spelled it out for us this time, we are so feeble minded.
Superdotman @ Oct 7th 2006 5:30PM
I'm afraid I have nothing interesting to say on the content of the graph. However, I feel I must emphasize that you should give credit to Indexed on EVERY SINGLE POST. Come on, just a See Also: or a Read link. If you fail to give credit for the concept, readers will assume that Joystiq came up with it. That there is plagiarism. You're bloggers, not plagiarists.
SquirrelPhister @ Oct 7th 2006 6:20PM
Hatch:
"Whenever I see an all CGI (Cinemagraphic Image)"
HAHAHAHAHA!!!! that's hilarious! unless you're being serious. some people reading this might read your post and actually think that's what it means.
for those kids, CGI actually stands for Computer Generated Image. And frankly we need to stop using this term when referring to pre-rendered video in games. EVERYTHING in a video game is a computer generate image!
vidGuy @ Oct 7th 2006 6:33PM
Regarding definitions:
"Video games most often use real-time computer graphics (rarely referred to as CGI), but may also include pre-rendered "cut scenes" and intro movies that would be typical CGI applications. These are referred to as FMV."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-generated_imagery
"The PlayStation was probably the first console to popularize FMVs (as opposed to earlier usage of FMV which was seen as a passing fad). A part of the machine's hardware was a dedicated M-JPEG processing unit which enabled far superior quality relative to other platforms of the time. The FMVs in Final Fantasy VIII, for example, were considered movie-quality at the time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_motion_video
nick @ Oct 7th 2006 6:55PM
No trailers = Less sales
Less sales = Companies going out of business
Companies going out of business = Less game news
Less game news = Less content on Joystiq, but an increase an articles featuring graphs talking about why we need more game trailers
SquirrelPhister @ Oct 7th 2006 7:06PM
CGI is a term used for movies. It doesn't really apply to videogames since, as I already said, EVERYTHING in a videogame is a computer generated image. So using this term for pre-rendered video in video games is a bit ridiculous.
Also, the term Full Motion Video (FMV) is a bit antiquated. It's a term that refers to frame rate and was developed to differentiate newer (at the time) games which had video in 'full-motion' (24,25,30fps) as opposed to slower-frame-rated video in games like NightTrap and other for SegaCD and TurboGrafx CD
People just kept using the term up to this day, even though it has little meaning today. You'd be hard pressed to find a new videogame system not capable of FMV. I prefer the term 'pre-rendered video' (PRV?) as it sharply differentiates the PRE-RENDERED movies (like the Halo Wars trailer) from the in game movies which are rendered in real time (like the Halo 3 trailer)
Hal @ Oct 7th 2006 7:19PM
Vlad, you don't need to be more explicit about the point of your wanky little graphs, you just need to stop posting them.
Sintax @ Oct 7th 2006 8:26PM
Alright someone, who failed to leave there name posted on my blog, Here is what he wrote.
"You sir are retarded. that comment on Joystiq about CGI was wrong, game dev companies do not hire out CGI producers. It's done inhouse to keep the art direction and other details in sync with the game itself, keeping full creative control over the project.
Oh and nobody cares about your blog. Am I the 2nd person to post a comment? Rubbish."
Now I don't know who Mr anonymous is but I do know he has no idea what he is talking about. I work for a major game developer you probably all know and a lot of you dislike them. I'm an artist, and I know that they hire a lot of outside small company's to do there Pre-Rendered trailers or the "CGI" that hes mentioning. Also his comment about no comments on my blog?.. I don't post on a blog for random strangers but you can by all means see whatever junk I post.
Please reasearch before commenting especially trying to take it personally to my insinificant blog.
m3mnoch @ Oct 7th 2006 9:55PM
david. you're funny. your comment essentially says this: "these graphs are dumb, but, i want to meaningfully participate in the conversation about their subject."
heh. nothing like being self-contradictory.
m3mnoch.
Burnt Meatloaf @ Oct 8th 2006 12:48AM
When they make trailers for movies, they generally use clips of the actual movie, even if they are horribly edited so you still don't know what the movie is about.
Trailers look more like clips of cut scenes.
Yardarm51 @ Oct 8th 2006 12:12AM
You folks need to remember that here in Japan people do buy games specifically for the cut scenes. In fact there is a genre of "game novels" which are interactive in only the most rudimentary sense. The pre-rendered parts are the reward for playing the game. For these folks the pre-rendered trailers are all important. Quite a few of the big games out there (MGS,FF...) are designed with that kind of sensibility in mind, not for the North American market exclusively.
bigsexy @ Oct 8th 2006 12:27AM
everytime i see a new graph i just say to myself, 'yup, duh'. if you dont like them, youre gay and jesus hates you. go read gamespot.
and keep these coming.