Baldur's Gate 3 "feels so alive" because it used mo-cap and 248 actors to bring its characters to life
Baldur's Gate 3 "feels so alive" because it used mo-cap and 248 actors to bring its characters to life
Baldur's Gate 3 drew on the expertise and motion-capture of 248 actors to bring its cast – including NPCs –…
You're viewing a single thread.
A lot of games do mocap on the face but what strikes me most about BG3 is how much body language the characters use. They aren’t an emotive head on a stiff body switching between obvious static poses. Dame Aylin isn’t just shouting at me she’s leaning into it, arms up, fists clenched and shaking. It really adds a lot to the character performances.
The other day Astarion jutted his chin up and out (very smugly) and his neck stretched and the Addams apple moved correctly. Games have come so far
Astarion's mocap in particular is just excellent. He's so deeply weird and it's completely appropriate. I love how during most normal gameplay, his whole body is constantly on the edge between breaking into raucous laughter or total exasperation. Kudos to the actor(s) and techs that put the whole package together.
I knew having a Lucifer type character would be one of the more entertaining features of having a vampire as a party member before I even knew he was a vampire
I feel dumb not seeing that one coming.
Man, I felt like I was supposed to already know he was a vampire day 1. Aside from his give away physical features, he straight up sleeps like one.
Similarly, I feel like they did a great job in Horizon: Forbidden West. A lot of the animations are rote, sure, but then there's facial expressions, like Kotallo thinking about Zo's abilities, that are just amazingly human.
Gaming has stepped up the production in recent years, and the standouts are obvious.
Saying "gaming has stepped up" while praising the most over-hyped, bland-ass open-world action series in recent history doesn't lend much credibility to your comment.
Guess you haven't spent time with the game.
Too bad, missing out.I agree with you. It hit a good niche that hasnt been beaten into the ground yet. It had great world building, acting, story and soundtrack
Horizon hit a niche that hasn't been beaten into the ground? An Ubisoft style open world game with far too many collectables and garbage to waste time?
It's not treading new ground from a genre standpoint.
But the combat is a style that isn't really very common in open world games, and the commenter you are replying to specifically was talking about the story, characters, and world building...all three of which set Horizon apart from other games, IMO.
You mean Horizon?
Calling DnD bland always strikes me as funny. It's bland compared to most modern fantasy for the same reason Seinfeld is bland compared to most modern sitcoms: it's one of the the foundations upon which most of the rest of what we've consumed since its inception is built. We've seen all the innovations upon its formula, so going back to the original can feel lacking if you don't bother to think critically about why it feels that way.
The important thing is that even without all those innovations, they nailed the source material and created the richest experience they could within its boundaries. If it's not for you, it's not for you, and that's fine - no game is for everyone. But it's a pity you dismiss it so flippantly, and I hope one day you can grow to see what's executed well in a project even when its end goal isn't to your tastes. Or just grow out of trolling, whichever applies. I'm not going to pick that apart.
I think they were talking about Horizon, not DnD or BG3.
Oh, you might be right. That's even odder to me then; I haven't played any of the Horizon games myself, but I find their setting premise fascinating. Is it so poorly executed?
If I misunderstood, my bad, but I'll leave it since there are people who rant about BG3 in a similar direction.
I have to say that I played Horizon: Zero Dawn, and after the first couple hours it felt very samey. Basically a Ubisoft open-world game with slightly better movement and combat. Haven't tried the new one, but I don't think any open-world will ever really catch me again like Elden Ring did.
That's a pity. Still, the setting (time period/tech levels/world population composition etc) is worth taking away as something good that people can learn from, I hope, even if they messed it up so badly.
It took me several hours to get into HZD, but once it hit its stride it really hooked me. The opening few hours are quite weak, IMO. It takes that time for the story to start to reveal, and for the more deliberate pace of combat to make itself apparent.
I personally haven't played Horizon myself; but from what I saw if it, it doesn't look poorly made; it just looks by the numbers. Over the shoulder "cinematic" open world game with that Sony trope of the protagonist telling you the solution to a puzzle upon seeing it.
If my impression is accurate I would compare it to Quake II or Blue Beetle, if you are already a fan of Sony's style of games you'll most likely love Horizon, if you don't like that kind of game then there isn't much Horizon can offer you.