Hey, welcome to New Frame Plus,

a series about video game animation.

We have spend the last month marveling at
Red Dead Redemption 2’s tiny little details.

The way your main character’s facial hair
grows in real time and requires regular shaving.

The way you have to dress appropriately 
for the weather.

The way your guy visibly gains or loses weight
depending on how much you feed him.

This game seems to have an infinite quantity
of those novel elements,

a million tiny recreations 
of realistic detail from our world.

I want to talk about the animation
in Red Dead 2 today,

because animation (naturally) plays a huge role
in creating that sense of simulated realism,

and it highlights a question
I’ve been pondering for a while now:

To explain what I’m talking about,

let’s look at a particular subset
of these animation details:

the way your main character interacts
with collectable objects in the game world.

You know: the looting system,
the gathering system... that particular stuff.

Say you’ve just survived a shootout and
your opponents lay scattered before you...

You can loot all of them, and when you do,

Arthur (your character) will approach them,

bend down, lift them by the collar
and pat them down for valuables.

There are multiple versions of this animation.

Say you’re in a building and you want to
loot the place…

If you see a collectable item sitting on a table,

just hold the loot button
and Arthur will actually reach out,

pick it up and stuff it into his satchel.

He will physically open cupboards and drawers,
and grab the contents individually.

Is there a piece of paper or a photo over
there you want to check out?

Arthur will approach, pick it up
and hold it for you to see,

flipping it over if you like
before returning it to its place.

Did you spot an herb out there in the wild 
that you want to gather?

Watch Arthur kneel down to pluck it,
actually strip it of the leaves and bits he wants

then stuff all that into his satchel!

Feeling hungry at camp?

Arthur will actually spoon himself up
some stew from the pot,

then you can walk around and eat that stew,
bite by bite, at your leisure.

And then he drops the bowl on the ground because
I guess we were raised in a barn, ARTHUR.

We’ve all got to live on this hill, man.

Pick up after yourself.

Did that mean old bandit punch your hat right
off?

Better go pick it up and put it right back
on your head, like that's an EASY thing to do.

You want to head out on foot
but then you realize you forgot your rifle?

Well, just head back to your horse and watch
Arthur grab the rifle off of his horse’s saddle

and sling it over his shoulder.

Do you realize how HARD
that had to have been to get right?

And I know the horses' balls shrinking in cold
weather is kind of a played out punchline at this point

but *BLEEP* man, that ACTUALLY HAPPENS.

I feel like we’ve become numb to the fact
through sheer repetition but that’s actually real!

I can barely fathom the thousands upon thousands
of animations and supplemental animation systems

built into this game, much less the technical
wizardry required to make it all actually

look and function the way it was intended.

This is mind boggling.

Most games don’t DO stuff like this.

They don’t actually show these kinds of
actions in animation.

And if they DO actually animate some interactions
like this, they don’t animate NEARLY this many.

It’s really impressive what Red Dead Redemption 2’s
dev team have achieved here.

But the question I’m now left asking
as a game animator

(now that my jaw is finally up off the floor) is this:

To what extent does this massive showcase
of realistically-animated detail

enhance the Red Dead game experience?

Enough to be worth the thousands of expensive
work hours that were no-doubt required to create them?

And I’m not even asking this in reference
to the working conditions

and the excessive quantities of unpaid overtime Rockstar demands of its employees

(although that is unquestionably
the most important factor here).

But let’s put that aside for a second
and just talk strictly in terms of cost-benefit:

is the impact these animations
have on the play experience positive?

And is it positive enough to be worth the
enormous financial investment required to create them?

On the one hand...

...maybe so?

I mean, it IS amazing to look at.

And knowing what went into creating it
only makes the spectacle more impressive.

There is something to the fact
that half of the positive buzz
surrounding this game since release

has been the lot of us marveling
about all these little details.

It’s not often these days that a AAA game
can push fidelity far enough past what its

competitors are doing for us to actually sit
up and take notice and 'ooo' and 'ahhh' over it.

That novelty value alone has almost certainly
led to SOME increase in sales, right?

But has it led to enough to offset the costs?

Because this stuff IS expensive!

You need skilled animators,
you need really skilled technical animators,

and really skilled engineers working with them.

Animation is just EXPENSIVE.

It is a slow process,
and every hour of that work costs money.

Is all that money best spent here?

On realistically-rendered simple interactions
like picking up a can of beans?

...Maybe?

In most any scenario, for most any other game,
I would say...

NO

Absolutely NOT

Are you KIDDING me?

but Rockstar just isn’t subject to the
same limitations as most studios, so...

You know what?

Let’s look at this from a different angle…

Red Dead Redemption 2 is
clearly intended to provide a robust

simulation-style open world experience.

This enormous sandbox
that we’ve been given to play in

is painstakingly designed to immerse you
in that 'Wild West outlaw' fantasy.

But a big part of the appeal of that wild
west fantasy is how grounded it is

in the historical reality of the
late 19th century American west

(or at least, a romanticized approximation of it).

And a big part of creating that sense of
historical, lived-in reality is in the details.

So, in a very real way, this robust suite
of unusually realistic game animations

is contributing to that sense of simulated reality.

By removing as much of the 'video game-y' animation
shorthand as possible and respecting the realistic

detail of the world being presented, these
animation systems are unquestionably enriching

that wild west fantasy simulation.

But THEN AGAIN...

there’s a reason other games don’t do this,
and it’s not just because of the expense

(although that is definitely a big reason).

It’s also because realism can get really
repetitive and boring!

Reality is boring!

Seeing Arthur reach out and open a cabinet
to loot its individual contents

is impressive as heck THE FIRST TIME,

but having to sit through
one of these animations

every single time you just want to pick something up

gets TEDIOUS.

And when almost every single interaction with
the world takes several seconds to play out,

it has a significant effect on the game’s pace.

The thing about animating for games is that
you've always got to be mindful of how your

your animation impacts
the play experience as a whole.

This is one of many many places where the
disciplines of Animation and Game Design overlap.

All that game-animation shorthand that 
other games usually do instead of this?

We came up with (and still use) that shorthand
for a REASON.

It’s more fun!

It gets all the tedious stuff out of your
way so you can get back to the fun parts.

In Breath of the Wild, when you want Link
to pick something up, he doesn’t reach down,

grab it and stuff it into his pants.

You press the button and BAM.

You have that item.

It’s quicker, it’s easier, it happens
as fast as you can think it, and it just works!

Players are cool with that.

No one is sad that Link didn’t spend four seconds picking up each one of these items individually.

Heck, a lot of the time, we don’t
even really consciously NOTICE

animation shorthand like this in our games.

Do you ever stop and think about how many
doors you walk through in these games that

your character doesn’t physically open?

Even in some extremely AAA games,
you just click on that door and...

...look at that.

It opens on its own!

You basically opened the door FOR that character,
like a perfect gentleperson.

And I think that’s great!

It’s a difference that no one really notices
while playing, and not only does it save the

devs some unnecessary work, but it actually
makes the experience of walking through a

video game door that much less cumbersome
for the player.

Sure, it’s unrealistic, but
in a way that bothers nobody and

tends to actually improve the play experience.

Or look at Monster Hunter.

That one is an interesting case,
because it’s a franchise that is becoming

increasingly AAA in its presentation,
but has ALSO simultaneously

started using more
animation shorthand than it used to.

One of the things that makes Monster Hunter
World such a huge step up over its predecessors

is the way it’s done so much to streamline
the tedious bits of Monster Hunter gameplay.

Unlike in the previous games,

grabbing plants and insects and stuff
is INSTANTANEOUS now.

You don’t even have to stop running!

Just hit the button, your character kinda
does a grabbing motion with their hand

and BAM.

That thing is in your inventory.

And climbing in Monster Hunter World is effortless!

Unlike your Uncharteds or your Tomb Raiders,
where every jump or climbing motion is tied

to a button press, scaling a wall in Monster
Hunter requires nothing more than

just running at that wall.

The hunter takes care of the rest.

And that makes it so you, the player,
don’t have to worry nearly so much about terrain
while you're out hunting!

You can just focus on the exciting bit: tracking
and fighting that giant monst--

AH GEEZ

But then again (again)...

Zelda and Monster Hunter?

These games aren’t aiming for any kind of
grounded realism.

I mean… clearly.

They are both much more video game-y play
experiences than Red Dead is trying to be.

Maybe you like game-y games more than
the simulation-y ones (I tend to favor them myself),

but each of these play experiences does require a very
different approach to animation design.

That said:

there is a point at which additional
animation fidelity DOES start to detract from

even a grounded, realistic game experience.

That point may be different from game to game,
but it does exist.

And Rockstar was clearly aware of that too,
because - even in Red Dead 2,

even in a game where you pick up and loot
every single thing individually - they have compromised

on that sense of animation reality.
In a lot of little places!

I mean, there’s a reason that your character 
picks up ammunition automatically just by

running over the guns his enemies drop.

[ammo pickup sound effects]

That is a VERY video game-y thing to do!

But Rockstar know that nobody... NOBODY....
wants to watch Arthur stop and

realistically collect individual bullets
from each weapon in the middle of a firefight.

So they just have him do the game-y thing.

And we are all kinda grateful for that, right?

Even in our simulators, players do appreciate
those little conveniences.

And, if streamlining ammo collection was a
good idea, maybe streamlining item gathering

would have been a good idea too?

Maybe having to loot or interact with every
little thing individually DOESN’T enhance

the Red Dead gameplay experience
quite as much as it first appears?

I’ve been bouncing these questions around
in my head for weeks, and (clearly) I don’t

have a definitive answer for them, probably
because there ISN’T one.

Changing the way looting animates in Red Dead
wouldn’t just be making a change to how

realistic the game looks.

It would be making a fundamental change 
to both the game’s pace

and the game world's sense of internal realism.

Maybe for worse, but... maybe for better.

Different games do have different needs, and
making the best decision for your own game

especially when you’re in the middle of making it
can actually be REALLY challenging.

If you happen to be working on a game right now,
I guess the best advice I can give is:

Know experience you’re trying to create, and always
ALWAYS look for opportunities to streamline

It can be really easy to default to realism
sometimes when you’re just trying to

figure out how to visually present something.

Like, it’s easy to think: “Oh man we’ve got
doors in our game...

hmm... I guess I HAVE to animate
our character opening them..."

But no! Maybe that door can just... open.

Maybe that’s fine!

The video game-y animation answer won’t always be
the right choice for your specific game, but

look for those opportunities anyway, because

It’s good to at least know what your simpler
alternative options are.

[Zelda cooking sounds]

But I also want to say this:

Hats off to Rockstar’s animators and
technical animation team for ALL of this.

Like, this is a stunning achievement.

As a person who plays games, as a person who
does this work for a living…

I am in AWE of what you folks created.

This is breathtaking, and you should all
be proud as hell.

And I really hope that your employer decides to respect
its talent enough to give you

the sustainable working life you deserve,
because DAGGUM.

You lot sure have earned it.

Anyway, thank you all for watching
and listening to me ramble.

We’ll get back to our more usual thing next time.

Until then, subscribe if you want to see more
game animation videos, and I’ll see y’all soon!