The biggest argument against FMV - real people or cartoons - is one of cost. Games cost enough as it is, and to try and get Hollywood-level video production into games is probably asking too much. We only have to look at the awkward acting and the cardboard sets in the vast majority of FMV games to see how anything less can look as ludicrous as the worst 3D models. There's a reason why all mainstream animated movies for instance are all computer generated - besides the public showing a strong preference for the format - the associated costs are far less and the quality far greater than anything that could be achieved by hand. That's my point about synthesized everything being the future of gaming versus a return to some type of FMV. The key is to drive down costs and the only way to do that is to have as much done by the technology as possible..
I think you've identified the key obstacle. I think I've thought of a good analogy here:
Making a good FMV game is not like making a movie. It's like making an entire season of a TV show.
Thus, instead of 2 or even 3 hours worth of footage, you need 24-26 hours for a game. Of course, just like a TV show, a lot of that footage will be stock footage, recycled stuff, etc. There will be other cost cutting measures, too, such as filming on a set schedule and planning ahead so that a lot can get done. Also, I don't think it is necessary to have blu-ray quality here. Even if it were only the quality level of something like the Simpsons (before HD) or Star Trek: TNG, I think most people would be happy with it. In short, even though you can play through the game in, say, 4-6 hours, you probably need something like 3-5X that amount of footage to ensure lots of different choices can be made. Also, it is vital that we take the type of game and gameplay into consideration, and you could also "cheat" with CGI just like in real movies for special effects and what-not.
There is a point where the technology to simulate something might be more expensive than the actual thing. We definitely see that with photographs. Why hire a painter to meticulously render a scene, which might very well take days, weeks, or even months, when you can just snap a photo that will be more accurate and detailed than anything she could ever do? I get your point, though; if something can be automated, that is a cost-cutting measure.
The biggest argument against FMV - real people or cartoons - is one of cost. Games cost enough as it is, and to try and get Hollywood-level video production into games is probably asking too much. We only have to look at the awkward acting and the cardboard sets in the vast majority of FMV games to see how anything less can look as ludicrous as the worst 3D models. There's a reason why all mainstream animated movies for instance are all computer generated - besides the public showing a strong preference for the format - the associated costs are far less and the quality far greater than anything that could be achieved by hand. That's my point about synthesized everything being the future of gaming versus a return to some type of FMV. The key is to drive down costs and the only way to do that is to have as much done by the technology as possible..
I think you've identified the key obstacle. I think I've thought of a good analogy here:
Making a good FMV game is not like making a movie. It's like making an entire season of a TV show.
Thus, instead of 2 or even 3 hours worth of footage, you need 24-26 hours for a game. Of course, just like a TV show, a lot of that footage will be stock footage, recycled stuff, etc. There will be other cost cutting measures, too, such as filming on a set schedule and planning ahead so that a lot can get done. Also, I don't think it is necessary to have blu-ray quality here. Even if it were only the quality level of something like the Simpsons (before HD) or Star Trek: TNG, I think most people would be happy with it. In short, even though you can play through the game in, say, 4-6 hours, you probably need something like 3-5X that amount of footage to ensure lots of different choices can be made. Also, it is vital that we take the type of game and gameplay into consideration, and you could also "cheat" with CGI just like in real movies for special effects and what-not.
There is a point where the technology to simulate something might be more expensive than the actual thing. We definitely see that with photographs. Why hire a painter to meticulously render a scene, which might very well take days, weeks, or even months, when you can just snap a photo that will be more accurate and detailed than anything she could ever do? I get your point, though; if something can be automated, that is a cost-cutting measure.