|
|
| Page 1 of 4 |
|
|
 Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2010 10:41 Post subject: Westwood's Blade Runner game |
|
 |
http://deadendthrills.com/issues/1-the-lost-art-of-westwoods-blade-runner/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/duncanjharris/sets/72157624529675881/
| Quote: | | The biggest problem [with an HD update] would be the massive amounts of data those assets took – close to a terabyte. That just couldn’t be stored easily in that day and age, so it all ended up on magnetic platters. And the platters were lost in the move from Las Vegas, so there’s no way to recreate those original assets except from scratch. But if someone did try to make the game again, I think it would play well exactly as it was. And it would cost you tens of millions of dollars. – Louis Castle, Director |
Damn..
TWIN PEAKS is "something of a miracle."
"...like nothing else on television."
"a phenomenon."
"A tangled tale of sex, violence, power, junk food..."
"Like Nothing On Earth"
~ WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY CAN ONLY BE SEEN ~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHTUOgYNRzY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hierofan
Banned
Posts: 3807
Location: Internets
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2010 11:01 Post subject: |
|
|
played this for like 5 minutes about 10 years ago , should give it a try even tho adventure games aren't my thing
would probably have enjoyed a hd remake tho
Some people might argue that these remakes are about profit (which they probably are) , butt fuck that (  ) , some games are just too good to be left aside and the genres they are represeting got so twisted , dumbed down and all in all fucked , it would be like a breath of fresh air for experience gamers to replay these gems .
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14261
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2010 11:17 Post subject: |
|
|
Now theres one game that really needs a modern reboot on consoles. It would be best to use UE3 for this!
 Spoiler: | |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ixigia
[Moderator] Consigliere
Posts: 65038
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2010 13:46 Post subject: |
|
|
That would be great, but seems that it isn't practicable 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2010 14:42 Post subject: |
|
|
| DarkPassenger wrote: | Seeing those makes me wanna watch the movie again. 
|
Downloading it as we "speak"...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OchoBits
Posts: 717
Location: In Unknown Kadath
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2010 15:26 Post subject: |
|
|
Blade Runner is so overrated, I don't know why people love them so much. The themes were better presented in other movies. The atmosphere's the only thing it had going for it, but as a sci-fi story, as philosophy ... it is weak. Very shallow. Style over substance ... etc...
*runs away, hides, puts anti-flame suit on*
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OchoBits
Posts: 717
Location: In Unknown Kadath
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zipfero
Posts: 8938
Location: White Shaft
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73194
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2010 17:14 Post subject: |
|
|
| OchoBits wrote: | Which movies? I just want to know  |
Probably Transformers, Transformers 2, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2010 17:20 Post subject: |
|
|
| zipfero wrote: | | Style over substance? christ when you write shit like that atleast back it up with examples, references or explicit situations.. "'other movies' classic troll |
Thanks for having a minimal respect for fellow posters! It's proof of maturity from your behalf ...
Okay, here are some movies, that explore the main theme better, and there are much, much more in literature, but I doubt you read any, by the way you react.
AI for one presents the "almost-human" condition way better
Dark City explores the the correlation of memory and emotions way better
Solaris(72) presents a credible reaction to one's realization of his/her true existence
And finally, if you want a very good drama about genetic engineering, then you can bet on Gattaca
The main theme of Blade Runner is what it means to be human, what it means to be a conscious being without freedom but potential, on a basic level, a theme that is very shallowly presented, and with characters, that are two dimensional.
The genre of the movie is a neo-film noir, that's partially the reason we have such two dimensional characters, like the femme fatale, the cop with flexible morality ... etc. The only good part of this is the retrofitted future, which is goes hand in hand with the dark atmosphere a film noir should have.
Also, I'm sure many of you have read, I mean, if you're true fans, you must have, about the conflicts on set: Harrison vs Scott. Anyway, look it up ... you might find out Harrison is damn right on this one.
Very shallow, yet pretentious, self-important movie ... perfect for snobs... much like anything, with style over substance.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doh!
Posts: 1361
Location: Wellhigh DK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zipfero
Posts: 8938
Location: White Shaft
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2010 19:09 Post subject: |
|
|
Seen all the movies you list(without really going further) and I enjoy/love them all. Neither of them are as action oriented as Blade Runner(only Dark City comes close). You call it a neo-film noir, I'd call it an action film that lends heavily on noir to achieve it's goals. I see hubris as a strong aspect of this film as well and there for you can even argue that this is perhabs the main theme and the plot is only a vehicle for his because the standards of film noir lends itself so great this movie. The ambiguity of Decard(is he a replicant is he human) is a perfect parallel to what a typical film noir protagonist deals with.
And as for 'style'. The style itself is a powerful storytelling device in this film, imo. Glowing huge and beautiful buildings in contrast to the allmost perverse slum.
I love how the movie is set up so ambiguously as it is. It is a standout in how open ended storytelling can bring about so many feelings and so different views on central emotions and ideas of human nature.
However, I don't really mind you disliking the film. There are several great films in your mind that I probably view as complete crap or someone else will. This should be self evident. I took offense to your crappy post which had only one purpose; to confront the general opinion of this movie as a modern classic providing no room for discussion really cause there was no actual content in your post.
I'd venture as far to say that you are guilty of much more snobbery than anyone else in this thread or the movie
edit: I loved Do Androids Dream of Electrical Sheep, I really like Philip K. Dick in general.
8 out of 10 dentists prefer zipfero to competing brands(fraich3 and Mutantius)!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2010 21:11 Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't like this movie so much , don't get why people love it when the book that its based on is 100x better then this wash... where are the philosophy questions , where is mesmerism , where is Deckards wife , where is his electronic sheep , where is the fake android police station , where are the empathy Boxes ,why did they had to change the first android into a stripper SHE WAS A FUCKING OPERA SINGER... and so on
even Harrison Ford didn't like it ,
and if you look at how they redone it again and again... you realize they fucked it up sooo bad... first one had narration and a happy ending they escaped he falls in love , second one is made like you think he is a android with implanted unicorn memory with sad ending (no stock mountains at the end) ... and so on , its funny how Ridley Scott wanted to fix his mistakes that he did ,but yet still he fucked it up even worse...
oh and yeah the game was GOTY for me , with its un-linear story line and the best thing about it was every time you started it a new, they changed the androids... you where never sure who was human
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2010 21:30 Post subject: |
|
|
I still play this game Still have my copy from when I bought it like a millions years ago
Oh and I agree with Hfric, they REALLY stripped the movie. The book was amazing. That said i still love the movie regardless.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2010 21:48 Post subject: |
|
|
Brings back epic memories. Was such a great game, especially the setting and atmosphere. Nothing today matches that game in terms of feel. Simply Epic!
For the Motherland!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
upstart_69
Posts: 1094
Location: Right behind you!
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2010 22:30 Post subject: |
|
|
Funny someone bashing a movie for "style over substance" when movies are at their base, a visual medium. And in that regard the movie was ahead of its time in so many ways. I believe it pushed the boundaries of what was thought possible with sci-fi pictures.
And of course it was an action movie. Do you really think the type of budget that was spent would've gone into a deep philosophical movie that would've had at most a handful of people go see it on opening day? But for an action movie, what other movie at the time actually had any of the complex topics that were touched upon in the film? Not very damn many is the correct answer.
Even most of the films presented as alternatives were made 10 or more yrs after BR. And none of these even come close to touching sci-fi classic novels in the "substance" category, which is why I would rather read than watch a movie if I want what BR is supposedly lacking. Movies that try only seem to spoonfeed a biased set of beliefs held by the filmmakers on the audience in a very dumbed down way a majority of the time.
Anyways the movie was an undeniable success in theaters and in countless re-releases that made people think about topics they normally wouldn't have even considered. Don't think it failed at all based on that. And the visuals are still, IMHO unmatched today even with the advances(hah) in CGI.
More on-topic, really enjoyed the game and loved the many choices you could make and how it affected the outcome of the game. Really would have loved an HD update, but hell, if GOG or some other download service gets their hands on the original, would buy it again without hesitation. Think I have lost all but 1 cd of the original, sadly.
Core i7 920 @ 3.8Ghz | 6GB OCZ DDR3 8-8-8-24 @ 1600mhz | eVga x58 Mobo | 2 x eVga GTX 460 SLI | Intel X25-M + 3x Seagate + WD Black = 2.75TB | X-Fi Titanium | PCP&C Silencer 750 | G15 KB | G5 Mouse | G35 Headset | Z-5500 Digital | Samsung T260HD
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2010 22:37 Post subject: |
|
|
It was a great game with a great atmosphere, some things were annoying, can't remember what really I think the last 1/4 of the game was shit.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2010 23:47 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The biggest problem [with an HD update] would be the massive amounts of data those assets took – close to a terabyte. That just couldn’t be stored easily in that day and age, so it all ended up on magnetic platters. And the platters were lost in the move from Las Vegas, so there’s no way to recreate those original assets except from scratch. But if someone did try to make the game again, I think it would play well exactly as it was. And it would cost you tens of millions of dollars. – Louis Castle, Director |
I say this and whole story is bullshit. Just look up what this guys were talking before Blade Runner was released and you'll realize they were full of it even then.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2010 23:51 Post subject: |
|
|
What do you mean by "bullshit"? Which part sounds unlikely? That they no longer have the data or that it would cost tens of millions of dollars to remake a game like this?
TWIN PEAKS is "something of a miracle."
"...like nothing else on television."
"a phenomenon."
"A tangled tale of sex, violence, power, junk food..."
"Like Nothing On Earth"
~ WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY CAN ONLY BE SEEN ~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHTUOgYNRzY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 28th Nov 2010 00:12 Post subject: |
|
|
| consolitis wrote: | | What do you mean by "bullshit"? Which part sounds unlikely? That they no longer have the data or that it would cost tens of millions of dollars to remake a game like this? |
That they lost the data, that does sound likely. That it would take terabites of data to reproduce it in 'HD' and that it would cost tens of millions of dollars is total bullshit. This are the guys that boasted that whole game will be in 3D, then after it was apparent that wasn't to be the case, they blamed poor processor power for it.
From gamepoint view, they still made a decent adventure game. From technical side, it was a disaster. It swallowed huge amounts of money (for the time), and even when it was released it didn't look all that special, while at same time it was highly demanding on hardware.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 28th Nov 2010 02:13 Post subject: |
|
|
I wouldn't consider those 3d rendered images as anything more then "3d concept art". Something like proof of concept.
That was eventually just a reference point for actual game resources.
It looks great, but was just too much for games of that time.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 28th Nov 2010 05:38 Post subject: |
|
|
| upstart_69 wrote: | | Funny someone bashing a movie for "style over substance" when movies are at their base, a visual medium. And in that regard the movie was ahead of its time in so many ways. I believe it pushed the boundaries of what was thought possible with sci-fi pictures. |
In what regard did it push boundaries, other than aesthetically? The genre was established well, it was built upon clichés.
| Quote: |
And of course it was an action movie. Do you really think the type of budget that was spent would've gone into a deep philosophical movie that would've had at most a handful of people go see it on opening day? But for an action movie, what other movie at the time actually had any of the complex topics that were touched upon in the film? Not very damn many is the correct answer. |
Truth be told, it bombed at the box office. That's pretty much a fact.
| Quote: |
Even most of the films presented as alternatives were made 10 or more yrs after BR. And none of these even come close to touching sci-fi classic novels in the "substance" category, which is why I would rather read than watch a movie if I want what BR is supposedly lacking. Movies that try only seem to spoonfeed a biased set of beliefs held by the filmmakers on the audience in a very dumbed down way a majority of the time. |
I agree with this point completely, good sci-fi, to this point, can be mostly found in books, not movies, but the ones I mentioned I think are not spoon-feeding types, unlike BR.
Also, why does it matter, if some of the movies I brought up were made later in time? According to this backwards logic then, no Sci-Fi would ever be better than Metropolis, because that was "first". I judge movies in 2010, I don't know how it would have been to watch the movie in the 80ies, and I don't care either, because then, the first movie ever made would be of better quality than anything after it, purely on a normative basis. We're in 2010, and it doesn't hold up to better sci-fis.
I hope we can agree here, that we should not give plus points just because it was made thirty years ago. Clockwork Orange was made in '71, it aged brilliantly. It compares brilliantly to anything made up to this very day, that doesn't need plus points to keep the edge.
Yes, the movie perhaps made some people think about some stuff, that they wouldn't have otherwise, but that's not an artistic nor a philosophic merit. It's a didactic merit, well done, but that's not what I judge sci-fi by.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuckyStrike
Posts: 1753
Location: Somewhere in the Portuguese Colonial Empire
|
| Posted: Sun, 28th Nov 2010 07:25 Post subject: |
|
|
| Radicalus wrote: | | upstart_69 wrote: | | Funny someone bashing a movie for "style over substance" when movies are at their base, a visual medium. And in that regard the movie was ahead of its time in so many ways. I believe it pushed the boundaries of what was thought possible with sci-fi pictures. |
In what regard did it push boundaries, other than aesthetically? The genre was established well, it was built upon clichés.
| Quote: |
And of course it was an action movie. Do you really think the type of budget that was spent would've gone into a deep philosophical movie that would've had at most a handful of people go see it on opening day? But for an action movie, what other movie at the time actually had any of the complex topics that were touched upon in the film? Not very damn many is the correct answer. |
Truth be told, it bombed at the box office. That's pretty much a fact.
| Quote: |
Even most of the films presented as alternatives were made 10 or more yrs after BR. And none of these even come close to touching sci-fi classic novels in the "substance" category, which is why I would rather read than watch a movie if I want what BR is supposedly lacking. Movies that try only seem to spoonfeed a biased set of beliefs held by the filmmakers on the audience in a very dumbed down way a majority of the time. |
I agree with this point completely, good sci-fi, to this point, can be mostly found in books, not movies, but the ones I mentioned I think are not spoon-feeding types, unlike BR.
Also, why does it matter, if some of the movies I brought up were made later in time? According to this backwards logic then, no Sci-Fi would ever be better than Metropolis, because that was "first". I judge movies in 2010, I don't know how it would have been to watch the movie in the 80ies, and I don't care either, because then, the first movie ever made would be of better quality than anything after it, purely on a normative basis. We're in 2010, and it doesn't hold up to better sci-fis.
I hope we can agree here, that we should not give plus points just because it was made thirty years ago. Clockwork Orange was made in '71, it aged brilliantly. It compares brilliantly to anything made up to this very day, that doesn't need plus points to keep the edge.
Yes, the movie perhaps made some people think about some stuff, that they wouldn't have otherwise, but that's not an artistic nor a philosophic merit. It's a didactic merit, well done, but that's not what I judge sci-fi by. |
Yes ive seen kubrick's orange. GREAT.
Yes im drunk...and high..and im not in disposition of reading your last post.
I get that you arent the person to have played Torment eihter.
For what Bladerruner shows is yet the same, what is, or what can change the nature of a man? that is if you dont add electric sheep to your dreams. if you do then youd know the why its classic stuff.
Its classic, period, you just dont compare it to starship troopers.Have a nice flight. Cherioos.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 28th Nov 2010 09:17 Post subject: |
|
|
| fawe4 wrote: | | That it would take terabites of data to reproduce it in 'HD' and that it would cost tens of millions of dollars is total bullshit. |
The rendered images were actually 160GB (source: http://media.bladezone.com/contents/game/BR-PCGame1.html ), but the data used to render them were close to a TB. I suppose the FMVs took a lot of space too.
The images in the OP indicate they were working with resolutions as high as 5100x3000.
I don't see why they would be lying about this, both in 1997 and 13 years later when their company doesn't even exist.
TWIN PEAKS is "something of a miracle."
"...like nothing else on television."
"a phenomenon."
"A tangled tale of sex, violence, power, junk food..."
"Like Nothing On Earth"
~ WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY CAN ONLY BE SEEN ~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHTUOgYNRzY |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 4 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
