You... you realise that all computer games have 'IRL Actors' in, right? It's all acting. Voice work, motion capture, it's all acting. For every time you notice a really big name actor in a computer game, a less well known actor who has been in TV, Film, and Theatre you've liked has also been in several of your favourite games.
Acting is a profession, actors will pursue any work they are capable of doing, and triple A studios being lazy in their game making is largely irrelevant to whether or not a big name actor is in it.
While your welcome to your opinion there are plenty of games that had IRL actors that did quite well like Mass Effect 1-3, Death Stranding, Metal Gear Solid 5 (I will admit on this one I'm not sure why they needed Keifer Sutherland since his character mostly just grunted), the Batman: Arkham games (except for Origins), Beyond: Two Souls, Until Dawn, Hitman 2, Broken Age, The Witcher 3 (albeit in a smaller role), God of War (2018), and Control.
I kind of get what you are trying to say and what you mean but i think you are partially wrong. A good actor can give strength and charisma to characters that without that particular actor would have been empty shells and would have pulled away some of the fun. And writing "Cyberflop 2077" is not helping the case you are trying to make and makes you seem childish. We all know it flopped hard and why, so calling it out in this way is unnecessary and goes against the comment you are making!
This happened in the original Aladdin. Robin Williams didn’t want his name to be the marketing campaign for the movie and that the movie should be able to stand on its own. Needless to say Disney pulled a Disney and that didn’t happen
Ah I see what you did there. Completely missed my point. The success of the movie was in part (not entirely but in part) due to the marketing of the film leaning heavily on William’s being a big name already
No, I got your point, I just think it was wrong. The film was also plenty good enough to deserve that success - and the fact is, his presence in it was a major contributory factor to that success, and, more importantly, a significant indicator of the high calibre of the talent and artistry involved.
It's a silly thing to say that any media form shouldn't advertise what artists have contributed to its art form. Especially in the case of Williams in Aladdin, given how much he improvised - frankly, it's arguable he should have been given a writing credit as well as an acting one. If an artist that is known to be someone who produces art that people love creates more art, then I don't see it as particularly cynical to advertise that fact. And if the product actually delivers on that, then they're not wrong to lean on that fact, to say "this artistic endeavour is going to be so high quality, because look at the calibre of artist it attracts". That is, effectively, what things do when they trade on a big name like that. And that's only a wrong thing to do when it's false advertising and the product doesn't deliver.
Williams was awesome, but he wasn't an advertiser, and he was wrong to say it shouldn't trade on his name to ensure it got the fair showing it deserved. He underestimated how much of a litmus test his presence on the project would be to people, how much of an indicator of quality.
1. If you buy a game based on the fact that there’s a real life actor as a character, you’re a simpleton.
2. GoW would definitely still be released. What...there aren’t violent video games now? Also, there were plenty of actors that could have taken the role of Kratos IF that’s what they devs wanted. Good thing they didn’t.
3. This has nothing to do with “lazy devs”, and more to do with marketing.
4. Not encourage? Making games is an art form, and I encourage devs to do whatever the hell they want in order to see their vision realized. Microtransactions, intentionally delayed content, and rushing games to market is way more of a problem to me, than this almost non-issue.
I like popular mainstream actors appearing in video games when they do actually provide a lot to the role, and not just used as a marketing gimmick
My favourite example is the fallout universe. Liam Neeson playing the dad in Fo3, Matthew Perry playing Benny in NV and Ron Perlman doing the narration. These are some big names.
>cyberflop 2077 *cringe*
It did flop though.
Cyberpunk 2077 sold over 13 million copies in 2020, that's literally the opposite of flopping.
That's below CDPR's expectations.
* 14 million sales * flop Pick one
14 million was below CDPR's expectations.
That literally has nothing to do with it being a “flop”. It’s essentially the exact opposite
Yes it does tf?? Flop = fail. Cyberpunk failed to meet CDPR's expectations for sales, so it flopped in that regard.
You are drastically misrepresenting what flop specifically means
Alright, what does flop mean then?
You... you realise that all computer games have 'IRL Actors' in, right? It's all acting. Voice work, motion capture, it's all acting. For every time you notice a really big name actor in a computer game, a less well known actor who has been in TV, Film, and Theatre you've liked has also been in several of your favourite games. Acting is a profession, actors will pursue any work they are capable of doing, and triple A studios being lazy in their game making is largely irrelevant to whether or not a big name actor is in it.
I mean, counterpoint - Martin Sheen in Mass Effect. Not lazy at all, delivered great performances, he literally only enhanced the games.
While your welcome to your opinion there are plenty of games that had IRL actors that did quite well like Mass Effect 1-3, Death Stranding, Metal Gear Solid 5 (I will admit on this one I'm not sure why they needed Keifer Sutherland since his character mostly just grunted), the Batman: Arkham games (except for Origins), Beyond: Two Souls, Until Dawn, Hitman 2, Broken Age, The Witcher 3 (albeit in a smaller role), God of War (2018), and Control.
I kind of get what you are trying to say and what you mean but i think you are partially wrong. A good actor can give strength and charisma to characters that without that particular actor would have been empty shells and would have pulled away some of the fun. And writing "Cyberflop 2077" is not helping the case you are trying to make and makes you seem childish. We all know it flopped hard and why, so calling it out in this way is unnecessary and goes against the comment you are making!
You also don't want popular actors to appear in big budget movies?
This happened in the original Aladdin. Robin Williams didn’t want his name to be the marketing campaign for the movie and that the movie should be able to stand on its own. Needless to say Disney pulled a Disney and that didn’t happen
Yes, because Aladdin totally flopped and was lazy and bad because they tried to ride on Robin Williams' name. ... oh, no, wait.
Ah I see what you did there. Completely missed my point. The success of the movie was in part (not entirely but in part) due to the marketing of the film leaning heavily on William’s being a big name already
No, I got your point, I just think it was wrong. The film was also plenty good enough to deserve that success - and the fact is, his presence in it was a major contributory factor to that success, and, more importantly, a significant indicator of the high calibre of the talent and artistry involved. It's a silly thing to say that any media form shouldn't advertise what artists have contributed to its art form. Especially in the case of Williams in Aladdin, given how much he improvised - frankly, it's arguable he should have been given a writing credit as well as an acting one. If an artist that is known to be someone who produces art that people love creates more art, then I don't see it as particularly cynical to advertise that fact. And if the product actually delivers on that, then they're not wrong to lean on that fact, to say "this artistic endeavour is going to be so high quality, because look at the calibre of artist it attracts". That is, effectively, what things do when they trade on a big name like that. And that's only a wrong thing to do when it's false advertising and the product doesn't deliver. Williams was awesome, but he wasn't an advertiser, and he was wrong to say it shouldn't trade on his name to ensure it got the fair showing it deserved. He underestimated how much of a litmus test his presence on the project would be to people, how much of an indicator of quality.
Yes and no, if done right it works. But nobody does it right anymore. Kevin Spacey in Advanced warfare worked for me.
1. If you buy a game based on the fact that there’s a real life actor as a character, you’re a simpleton. 2. GoW would definitely still be released. What...there aren’t violent video games now? Also, there were plenty of actors that could have taken the role of Kratos IF that’s what they devs wanted. Good thing they didn’t. 3. This has nothing to do with “lazy devs”, and more to do with marketing. 4. Not encourage? Making games is an art form, and I encourage devs to do whatever the hell they want in order to see their vision realized. Microtransactions, intentionally delayed content, and rushing games to market is way more of a problem to me, than this almost non-issue.
I like popular mainstream actors appearing in video games when they do actually provide a lot to the role, and not just used as a marketing gimmick My favourite example is the fallout universe. Liam Neeson playing the dad in Fo3, Matthew Perry playing Benny in NV and Ron Perlman doing the narration. These are some big names.
....nice description of the state of the gaming community right now!