Pix Scans: On the Set of Privateer 2 (June 28, 2012)

[Bandit LOAF]

Pix's Origin Adventures has posted an extremely cool set of Privateer 2 Preview scans, featuring an article from the October 1995 issue of PC Format magazine. It includes interviews with The Darkening's acting talent and the men behind the cameras, Steve Hilliker (director) and Erin Roberts. There's also some cool set photography, for everyone who always wanted a better look at the Sinner's Inn!

​

--
Original update published on June 28, 2012

 

[c0mc0]

quite probably the first film of its kind to feature the line, "God, I love that boy's spunk...

lol

 

[Aginor]

I loved that John Hurt played that barkeeper, he is one of my favourite actors.
And now that I think about it... The Roberts brothers seems to like him as well, because he also played Rothgar in Outlander.

btw: The same seems to go for Jürgen Prochnow who was also in Priv2 and the Wing Commander movie.

The cast was awesome anyway. Owen, Hurt, Walken, Prochnow, Warner.... I may have to play the game again. The visual style and mood are just great.

 

[Wedge009]

I like John Hurt's positive opinion of Interactive Movies from an actor's perspective, even if the genre wasn't something that lasted.

As for the fourth 'worst' IM acting moments, I don't recall Rachel saying that particular line. Must be some creative interpretation going on there.

 

[c0mc0]

I like John Hurt's positive opinion of Interactive Movies from an actor's perspective, even if the genre wasn't something that lasted.

I see the IM as something that was tried in the 90s, but technology and audiences weren't ready for it. It hasn't clicked yet. But, much like the resurgence of 3d films (for better or for worse, depending on your opinion of them), I think we'll see the genre revisited, with greater success in the future.

 

[Quarto]

I see the IM as something that was tried in the 90s, but technology and audiences weren't ready for it. It hasn't clicked yet. But, much like the resurgence of 3d films (for better or for worse, depending on your opinion of them), I think we'll see the genre revisited, with greater success in the future.

I think the genre is constantly being revisited, it's just that it's no longer called that. What's the difference between Wing Commander III and StarCraft II? They're both games (or... interactive movies!) where you have a non-cinematic mission followed by a bunch of pseudo-interactive cinematic sequences. The only difference is that StarCraft II only uses voice actors, while Wing Commander III used live actors.

 

[Aginor]

I agree, there are quite some games on the market that are very movie-like, even during missions. SCII is one example that I instantly compared to Wing Commander when I played it, but a good part of the RPG genre is also very close to the narrative structure of movies now.

 

[c0mc0]

...What's the difference between Wing Commander III and StarCraft II...

A fair bit, if you read what John Hurt is talking about. He's talking about real actors playing out different scripts based on viewer feedback. Certainly, SC2 is quite WC-eque in the whole "click on the 2d pic of the character to play a dialogue sequence", but that's where the similarities end, in terms of the discussion Hurt was having, anyway. A true "interactive movie". I'm honestly not convinced that any of the actors who talked about IM in the Wing Commander games ever really felt that the gameplay sequences were part of the "IM" anyway - they saw a script and that was all. The script - specifically, the new concept of having branching scripts - was what pulled them in, at least as far as I can tell.

 

[Quarto]

A fair bit, if you read what John Hurt is talking about. He's talking about real actors playing out different scripts based on viewer feedback. Certainly, SC2 is quite WC-eque in the whole "click on the 2d pic of the character to play a dialogue sequence", but that's where the similarities end, in terms of the discussion Hurt was having, anyway. A true "interactive movie". I'm honestly not convinced that any of the actors who talked about IM in the Wing Commander games ever really felt that the gameplay sequences were part of the "IM" anyway - they saw a script and that was all. The script - specifically, the new concept of having branching scripts - was what pulled them in, at least as far as I can tell.

Well, see, this is the problem with the classic definition of interactive movies (as something with live actors, doing branching scenes). It's something that's attractive to actors (or at least: was, fifteen years ago). But that's not the same as being attractive to an audience.

Fifteen years ago, live acting was great. But today? Do I care if the next WC game has a digital 3d model of Blair, istead of the real Mark Hamill acting as Blair? You're right that SC2 didn't have all that branching stuff (at least, it only had very little of it), but do you need Mark Hamill for branching? He actually makes branching harder, by making it more expensive.

Arguably, had the Origin team come up with the idea of branching dialogues one game earlier, back when they were making WC2, they could have really gone wild with it, in the same way that classic adventure games of the era used to have hundreds of dialogue choices.

 

[Quarto]

Just for the record, I'm not one of those obnoxious people claiming that live acting in games was a stupid fad that should have been avoided in the first place. I think live acting pushed us forward, way forward. They were kind of an evolutionary dead end, in the sense that they couldn't really get much better while computer graphics could - but at the time, they offered a superior form of storytelling that wasn't surpassed until ten years later. Live acting was well worth it - but it's just not economical to continue with it now. If you're choosing what to fit on your single bluray disc (when was the last time you've seen a multi-disc game?), your choice is to tell three-four hours of story in HD quality with live actors, or twenty, thirty hours in HD quality with 3d graphics and voiceovers. You still can't show emotions with 3d graphics as well as with live actors. In terms of the range of emotions, Jim Raynor is nothing compared to a real human being. But he's good enough, and he can talk for twenty hours longer in the same amount of space.

 

[c0mc0]

I don't disagree with any of that. I was just observing that the "interactive movie", as John Hurt was discussing it, was a "movie", with interactivity.

I completely agree that live actors are not required in modern gaming. A game with high production values can now do character animation in real time that rivals animated movies. Check out Uncharted, from back in 2007 for a good example.

If a new Wing Commander game featured graphics like that, I'd forgive them for not having live action. Unfortunately, knowing EA, they'll do a Red Alert 3 and spend more money on the hammy live action than they did on the actual game development, to the detriment of the entire project. Sorry - that's my pessimistic side coming out.