Aside from the obvious reasons (see above), it’s a good question! One that we were kicking around only a few weeks ago. In this day and age of fancy polygons and rendered sequences, why do EA still insist on littering their Command & Conquer games with full-motion-video cutscenes? Aren’t they relics of the 1990s?
Not at all, says EA’s Greg Kasavin:
There aren’t a lot of games with live action video anymore. And in this game in particular, I think we did a lot more than the previous games to inject it into the gameplay.
It’s not just this thing that’s off to the side, where you play a mission, you watch a video, and so on, especially since you’re playing with these co-commander characters.
Hopefully it will help pull the whole experience together again in a unique way to make this game not just stand out from other RTS games, but from other games in general.
Keep on keeping on, EA, the world needs more hammy live-action cutscenes, not less.
Red Alert 3 – Why The Actors? EA’s Kasavin, Ajami Explain [Gamasutra]
dartmerc
October 24, 2008 at 9:41 AM
I love the FMV’s, they are part of the RA universe and it would be a shame to ever see them go. I hope the game has an awesome custom install too, not some boring Windows standard crap.
Report PermalinkThe Gunslinger
October 24, 2008 at 2:46 PM
I’d be annoyed if I saw FMV’s popping up in other EA games (they were a miserable failure in the Need for Speed games), but FMV’s are a part of any Command and Conquer game, just like the Red Vs Blue factions, rediculous superweapons and flame tanks. It wouldn’t feel right without them, regardless of how good or bad they are (besides, turtle-related hilarity will forever redeem FMV’s in the C&C universe).
Report Permalinksnowgim
October 24, 2008 at 11:24 PM
lol, Mr. Plunkett answered his own question in the opening paragraph.
Report PermalinkYes, the Command & Conquer games are relics from the 1990s, hence FMV. :P