The Future of Trailers
Matt posted in Games, Playstation 3, The Industry, Xbox 360 on December 10th, 2006

The big news this week was the Halo 3 trailer came out. Now, I don’t like FPSes on consoles (I find the controls frustrating), so I was never really into Halo. I played through about half of the single player campaign in the first game and got bored. After seeing the trailer, I was really excited about Halo 3. I started reading about the plot of the Halo saga and the Halo universe, and it actually seems quite interesting. I never thought I’d pick up Halo again, but now I’m tempted (although I probably won’t have time… I have a HUGE backlog of games). That seems like really effective advertising if it can get someone with no interest in a game more excited. Another example is the Gears of War trailer with the version of Mad World used in Donnie Darko that many people are talking about. I was already quite excited about Gears of War when it came out, but that was a really well done trailer. (David Fincher, director of Fight Club, was a consultant on the trailer. Many sites erroneously credit him with directing it, but that’s not the case.)

Now, if you are one of the few gamers who hasn’t seen either of these trailers, you definitely should check them out. The Halo 3 trailer is not in game footage. In fact, it’s not even done by Bungie. It’s done by FX shop Digital Domain, that worked on many movies such as “The Day After Tomorrow” and “X-Men”. Digital Domain is no stranger to commercials. They have quite a few commercials under their belt. When I was at University of Michigan, an employee from Digital Domain came to give a lecture and talked about what the visual effects industry was like. He said that the only reason they did features was to get the name out there and earn a reputation to get more commercials. So I guess if you are going into visual effects, commercials are where the money is at. At any rate, it starts with an apparently live action shot of two kids discussing the possibility of aliens. I say apparently live action because the shot was dark, and I watched it super low res. (I haven’t had a chance to download it off Xbox Live in 720p) Part of the trailer was live action according to Bungie, and this is the only candidate for live action section. Then, there’s a battle scene that was rendered using in game assets, that is really exciting. It didn’t explain anything. It just showed a quick glimpse of fast paced combat that really gets your adrenaline flowing. Well, why don’t you just watch it?

The Gears of War one is really cool because they are even showing it before movies in the theater. As I mentioned, it uses the version of Mad World featured in Donnie Darko (an amazing movie, in my opinion), and really builds on the theme of Destroyed Beauty. Marcus Phoenix, the protagonist of Gears of War, walks through a destroyed town on the planet Sera and looks down at a half destroyed statue in a puddle. One might even say a tear splashes down into the pool of water, but we all know Marcus is so badass he probably cut his own tear ducts out. Soon, Marcus ends up in a firefight with the locust only to find himself completely outnumbered. The end completely implies that if you want to find out what happens, play the game. If you would like to see the trailer for yourself, check it out. I recommend you do so.

Now, neither of these trailers show anything from inside the game. The Gears of War trailer was actually created in the game engine, but isn’t actual game play. Despite the Halo 3 trailer featuring some in game assets, I expect that it looks nicer than the actual game will (the particle count seems a bit high to me). Bungie never fails to push the performance of the hardware, so maybe we’ll actually see that level of visual fidelity, but I doubt it.

So, if these aren’t accurate depictions of the gameplay, are they worth releasing? Are they things gamers should get excited about? I’d say yes. One might say the trailers are dishonest because they are showing things that aren’t actually in the game. That is true, but I wouldn’t say they are dishonest. Although Halo 3 is not out yet, so I have no idea what the game will be like, I think the trailer for Gears of War was more effective at expressing the theme of “destroyed beauty” than any minute of gameplay would. The theme of Gears of War is subtle, but it’s prevalent throughout the game (or at least the sections I’ve played so far). It’s more about the ambiance of the world and the experience, so it’s hard to express that in a minute. Honestly, I think the theme of the game is one of the things that really makes it such a great experience. The beauty of the civilization is juxtaposed against the destruction and violence. That stark contrast really makes you hate the enemy all the more and want to fight them. This emotional investment adds to the immersiveness of the game world and is gripping.

Sometimes, trailers or sizzle reels for games are shown off and the game clearly doesn’t match the prerendered footage’s visual quality. Motorstorm is an example. The sizzle reel shows off the burnout style crashes combined with all the dirt and mud of off-road racing. The visual quality of the game, although good, doesn’t look nearly as good as the prerendered footage. There’s a larger disparity between that footage and the real game than between the Gears of War trailer and the game. (Perhaps Halo will suffer from the same thing) Does this seem dishonest about it? Maybe. It’s pretty sad when people are claiming either the PS3 or the Xbox 360 has more graphical horsepower based on a pre-rendered movie. They both can play video at 1080p (although Blu-ray has a lot more space for it), so that’s a bad comparison. Here’s the question – when a video simulates gameplay similar to Killzone 2 or Final Fantasy XIII, then it becomes more deceptive. It’s easier for game developers to recognize which the video is, but I imagine it can be confusing for people outside the industry. Another example is White Knight Story. A number of people are REALLY excited about it (including Jerry and Mike from Penny Arcade), and the trailer does indeed seem quite cool. Whether it’s indicative of the actual gameplay remains to be seen (in my opinion). It’s a very short trailer and could just be a mock up of what they are actually planning on doing. Yes, I’m definitely interested, and its refreshing to see something that resembles gameplay, but I’m not convinced that is actually a video of gameplay. This generation, it seems wise to remain skeptical of anything that isn’t playable. Hopefully the game will be as exciting as they plan, but I’d rather be pleasantly surprised than disappointed.

I can imagine you are wondering what I’m getting at. Basically, I’m trying to say that showing a video that is not representative of actual gameplay is a double edged sword. On one hand, it can express things that gameplay clips can’t like the theme in Gears of War. On the other hand, it can set up unrealistic expectations about gameplay and visual fidelity. Regardless of whether showing off trailers that aren’t from the actual game is a good idea or not, I suspect we are going to see a lot more of them this generation. The target video or sizzle reel is an effective way to pitch a game to both publishers and the general audience. I heard the “theme” or the new idea that the Assassin’s Creed development team was trying to push was “crowds”. Now, when I heard that the game’s big feature is “crowds” I had trouble visualizing how that could be an entertaining premise for the game. In fact, it sounded kind of silly. But, on seeing the E3 trailer, I started to understand how that would work and the potential for a new style of stealth – blending into crowds.

Now, selling your games to audiences isn’t really important before you sit down and code the gameplay. Getting a game green-lit is very difficult especially with the cost of next gen games. If a pre-rendered movie or sizzle reel can help get a game funded, then it’s worth doing from a developer standpoint. Is it best off for the industry for publishers to expect them? That’s harder to say. As I mentioned, it can demonstrate to a publisher what a game is trying to be. A design document isn’t as effective at communicating the spirit of the game. A picture is worth a thousand words and at 30 pictures per second, a 2 minute sizzle reel has the value of an encyclopedia. Yes, sizzle reels take money and time away from actually developing the game. But, from the publisher’s side of things, they’d rather invest a bit up front to see if the product is something they think they can sell. My guess is that sizzle reels are here to stay.