Games No Longer Want To Be Games: An Identity Crisis Or A Maturing Industry?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -

[QUOTE="GunSmith1_basic"]

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

Yeah not really... maybe if you stack the best up against the best, but average to average they are about the same...

GD1551

not even close. Video games at best are B movies. This trend towards the cinematic in video games shows that the video game industry is in bad shape. They think they have to be movies to be appealing. Being games is not enough.

So you don't think VG stories stack up to the likes of Total Recall (2012), Terminator (all), Titanic, Transformers, Expandables, Rambo, Rocky, TDK (series), Avengers, Skyfall etc etc .. or are all those B movies?

I don't see how expanding on VG narrative (when it actually has way more potential than film) is a bad thing, and most games aren't this overly movie type experience like uncharted is, infact movie type games are in an extreme minority. Just because you guys only see what the major publishers throw out doesn't make that the only games on the market. Additionally, if you think I am wrong, please tell me what makes a game trying to be a movie. Cutscenes? Trying to have a story? Occasional set pieces? I really want to know.

You're listing Transformers, The Expendables, and the Total Recall remake alongside Skyfall, First Blood, The Terminator, and The Dark Knight?
#52 Posted by GD1551 (9155 posts) -

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

[QUOTE="GunSmith1_basic"] not even close. Video games at best are B movies. This trend towards the cinematic in video games shows that the video game industry is in bad shape. They think they have to be movies to be appealing. Being games is not enough.

PannicAtack

So you don't think VG stories stack up to the likes of Total Recall (2012), Terminator (all), Titanic, Transformers, Expandables, Rambo, Rocky, TDK (series), Avengers, Skyfall etc etc .. or are all those B movies?

I don't see how expanding on VG narrative (when it actually has way more potential than film) is a bad thing, and most games aren't this overly movie type experience like uncharted is, infact movie type games are in an extreme minority. Just because you guys only see what the major publishers throw out doesn't make that the only games on the market. Additionally, if you think I am wrong, please tell me what makes a game trying to be a movie. Cutscenes? Trying to have a story? Occasional set pieces? I really want to know.

You're listing Transformers, The Expendables, and the Total Recall remake alongside Skyfall, First Blood, The Terminator, and The Dark Knight?

This is only about stories, nothing else is factored in here.

#53 Posted by ArchoNils2 (6238 posts) -

why_not_both-1.jpg

I think it works pretty good right now. Whoever want wannabe movies can get AAA games, whoever searches something else has smaller / Indie devs

#54 Posted by GunSmith1_basic (9867 posts) -

So you don't think VG stories stack up to the likes of Total Recall (2012), Terminator (all), Titanic, Transformers, Expandables, Rambo, Rocky, TDK (series), Avengers, Skyfall etc etc .. or are all those B movies?

I don't see how expanding on VG narrative (when it actually has way more potential than film) is a bad thing, and most games aren't this overly movie type experience like uncharted is, infact movie type games are in an extreme minority. Just because you guys only see what the major publishers throw out doesn't make that the only games on the market. Additionally, if you think I am wrong, please tell me what makes a game trying to be a movie. Cutscenes? Trying to have a story? Occasional set pieces? I really want to know.

GD1551

I'm not going to say that every movie is better than every game in terms of story. It's just that video games are one or two steps behind at very turn. Video games have never reached the heights of other fiction, and the average story quality is much lower. Film and video games are filled with lazy elements like cliches, but it is much more prevalent in video games. I just watched an entertaining Bmovie called Screamers:The Hunting. While watching it I was struck by just how similar this was to a video game plot. If this movie were a video game, gamers would be defending it as a great piece of writing. The standards for gamers are so low, and most don't even realize it.

I don't want to say that cinematic games should never exist though. It's just that it has become THE defining characteristic of this gen. When a game company wants to improve their game, they don't think about gameplay options as much anymore. It becomes the easy way out to just add in a bunch of cutscenes, QTEs, and characters. Video game reviewers are not allowed to punish trends. They have to judge games on their own merits.

#55 Posted by OB-47 (10909 posts) -

[QUOTE="OB-47"]

Signs of the medium maturing: Sleep is Death.

Signs of it ruining itself: Heavy Rain.

I think the term video games ia bit restrictive though.

MBirdy88

Heavy Rain, along with other good adventure games are great GAMES. This childish opinion that interactive movies are not games is obsurd. And no, mass effect has lots of gameplay, it may not be the best, but I would like to see YOU pull off a better r[pg/shooter hybrid that manages to attract as many fans as mass effect has. pleanty of gameplay in there, wether anyone likes it or not. I would play it a 1000 times over compared to boring pac man. Competitive gaming is now incredible large and that is all about gameplay. th eMOBA genre on PC has consistantly around 500-700k players at peak times across only 3 games. MMOs, Shooters ect all focus on gameplay outside of single player campaigns. Graphics are tech based, Gameplay is design based, the latter is much harder to focus on, it really is a stroke of genius or pot luck to get it right. Don't blame graphic focus... graphics are just at tool.

What you said didn't have anything to do with what I was saying.

#56 Posted by FPSfan1985 (2008 posts) -
Publishers and game developers will only produce what sells well. AKA what the fans enjoy. If gaming is becoming more cinematic it's because thats what gamers are buying and enjoying. Don't blame the industry, blame the consumer. Personally I couldn't care less about story in videogames. I'm pretty much a 100% of the time multiplayer gamer. And imo thats where the industry is moving. Single player games are a thing of the past.
#57 Posted by Vari3ty (11111 posts) -

I'm not too concerned about cinematics overrunning games. Why? Look at the most popular games right now - they're multiplayer titles, where the multiplayer modes have little to no cinematics at all. It's generally singleplayer games which get the most cinematic crap shoved in.

#58 Posted by ampiva (1249 posts) -
AAA games are doomed to fail sooner or later because of this. Luckily there's plenty of games that do not follow this cinematic standard, especially on PC.
#59 Posted by jsmoke03 (13029 posts) -

What happens when games decide they dont want to be games anymore? What happens when developers dont want their games to be "GAMEY" anymore. Is that an identity crisis, or is that just a sign of the industry maturing?

Hmm.......Well its incredibly ironic!

Compare pacman to, idk, mass effect 3. Just notice how much video games have changed. Gaming has evolved in so many ways, but I think the big difference we can notice between say pacman and mass effect is this: games have been progressively transforming into interactive movies.

pacman.gifMass-Effect-3-.jpg

THIS IS NO SMALL MATTER. In fact right now the gaming industry is hitting a fork in the road. While on one hand games want to stick to their roots and focus on high scores, achievements, grinding, statistics, there is also a movement in the industry that is wholeheartedly convinced the future of gaming is to make games indistinguishable from movies. And perhaps that is just the logical next step for gaming, a step id jokingly say hideo kojima has been promoting for ages.

But here is the main focus, i think we all generally dont mind our games becoming cinematic with moderation. For example mass effect 3 is extremely cinematic but at least players have plenty of involvement. Even a game like GTAV can be admired for how movie-like it presents itself. But there have been many developers that we accuse of taking this movement too far. Developers like naughty dog and the devs of heavy rain for example, many fans would argue their new products arent games at all but rather movies with quicktime events.

SO THEN!! the question for you guys, the industry is quite convinced the future of gaming is CINEMATICS. Becoming closer and closer to movies. Is that truly a horrific direction for our industry or is it time we redefine our definition of what a game really is and make a martyr of the old school ways in the name of evolution

ms555

the beauty about video games is we don't have to choose. there will always be an audience for the mario's as much as there is for the halo's and cod's of the industry.

lets not get it twisted, there are movies like it wreck it ralph and toy story...not everything is like 300 or dark knight

#60 Posted by GD1551 (9155 posts) -

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

So you don't think VG stories stack up to the likes of Total Recall (2012), Terminator (all), Titanic, Transformers, Expandables, Rambo, Rocky, TDK (series), Avengers, Skyfall etc etc .. or are all those B movies?

I don't see how expanding on VG narrative (when it actually has way more potential than film) is a bad thing, and most games aren't this overly movie type experience like uncharted is, infact movie type games are in an extreme minority. Just because you guys only see what the major publishers throw out doesn't make that the only games on the market. Additionally, if you think I am wrong, please tell me what makes a game trying to be a movie. Cutscenes? Trying to have a story? Occasional set pieces? I really want to know.

GunSmith1_basic

I'm not going to say that every movie is better than every game in terms of story. It's just that video games are one or two steps behind at very turn. Video games have never reached the heights of other fiction, and the average story quality is much lower. Film and video games are filled with lazy elements like cliches, but it is much more prevalent in video games. I just watched an entertaining Bmovie called Screamers:The Hunting. While watching it I was struck by just how similar this was to a video game plot. If this movie were a video game, gamers would be defending it as a great piece of writing. The standards for gamers are so low, and most don't even realize it.

I don't want to say that cinematic games should never exist though. It's just that it has become THE defining characteristic of this gen. When a game company wants to improve their game, they don't think about gameplay options as much anymore. It becomes the easy way out to just add in a bunch of cutscenes, QTEs, and characters. Video game reviewers are not allowed to punish trends. They have to judge games on their own merits.

The thing is I don't believe VG stories are much different than average movies. I don't see how cliches are more prevalant in VGs than films, because I see them prevelant in both forms of media. Again Screamers: The hunting? (I assume the sequel to screamers..? I've only seen that one) may have a ridiculous story but so does alien.. and that's one of the better movies. Only look at the plot for the movies, don't look at the execution, only the plot, and you would realize the average movie and average game isn't very far apart in the story department. Most of them aren't very complex or very unique, the difference between them is execution, and VGs have way more room for better execution than even film, because VGs can do everything film does and more.

#61 Posted by superclocked (5863 posts) -
More complexity usually = more fun. I prefer recent games over older games personally. And the indie/arcade game market is filling the gap with plenty of new, older style games, so it's all win this gen IMO...
#62 Posted by GamerwillzPS (8530 posts) -

Yeah, games are becoming bad nowadays. I used to LOVE PS3 exclusives, but later I was thinking "Did I actually play games?" and started to disapprove those kind of games.

I want to see the growth of gameplay orientated games like the old days.

#63 Posted by locopatho (20438 posts) -
Telling a story isn't the same as aping movies. You talk about Mass Effect as a symbol of the problem, which is ironic since Mass Effect is one of the best games ever at incorporating player choice into it's gameplay, a n interactive feature only possilbe in games. Cutscenes need to be used sparingly but apart from that, gaming is pretty great at being it's own medium.
#64 Posted by DarkLink77 (31736 posts) -

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="GD1551"]

So you don't think VG stories stack up to the likes of Total Recall (2012), Terminator (all), Titanic, Transformers, Expandables, Rambo, Rocky, TDK (series), Avengers, Skyfall etc etc .. or are all those B movies?

I don't see how expanding on VG narrative (when it actually has way more potential than film) is a bad thing, and most games aren't this overly movie type experience like uncharted is, infact movie type games are in an extreme minority. Just because you guys only see what the major publishers throw out doesn't make that the only games on the market. Additionally, if you think I am wrong, please tell me what makes a game trying to be a movie. Cutscenes? Trying to have a story? Occasional set pieces? I really want to know.

GD1551

You're listing Transformers, The Expendables, and the Total Recall remake alongside Skyfall, First Blood, The Terminator, and The Dark Knight?

This is only about stories, nothing else is factored in here.

That still makes you just as wrong.
#65 Posted by clone01 (25047 posts) -

Meh. I think there's room for both. I actually somewhat enjoy the interactive movie here and there. There are games like Dark Souls though, that seem focused mainly on gameplay. Choice is a good thing.

#66 Posted by AdobeArtist (22982 posts) -

It is true that games are an interactive medium, which should as JG said, be the driving force behind the story telling which you can't get from film. But let's not forget that video games are also a visual and artistic medium - the "video" in the games.

So why shouldn'twe want to see the presentation of the story and world advance in cinematic ways? When done right it enhances our interactivity by making it so much more immersive. In fact as a medium it not only encompasses art & visuals, and interaction, but out of its infancy (from those by gone arcade days) has grown to become a new form of story telling. A part of the equation that should not be forsaken.

What truly distinguishes games from film as a story telling medium, is that in film the screen is a barrier that seperates the viewer from events we can only passively observe, whereas in games the screen is our doorway to events that we get immersed in and become a part of through our avatar. And this is augmented by fleshed out and polished presentation that translates as the "cinematic" experience, just as good art direction in movies has us engrossed in its story.

As long as the interaction and the presentation work in tandem, and not clash with one another, gaming continues to become a more and more engaging experience for us. The two need not collide in a zero sum manner.

On the flip side while old school games (from PacMan, to Centipede, Missle Command, and even games of the 8bit era like Mario and the original Zelda) may be "pure" as a form of gaming, they can never achieve the heights of immersion we have today. I see no reason to sacrifice immersion for the sake of "gameyness" when it can enhance the gaming experience in ways old titles could never realize.

#67 Posted by TheEroica (14116 posts) -

It is true that games are an interactive medium, which should as JG said, be the driving force behind the story telling which you can't get from film. But let's not forget that video games are also a visual and artistic medium - the "video" in the games.

So why shouldn'twe want to see the presentation of the story and world advance in cinematic ways? When done right it enhances our interactivity by making it so much more immersive. In fact as a medium it not only encompasses art & visuals, and interaction, but out of its infancy (from those by gone arcade days) has grown to become a new form of story telling. A part of the equation that should not be forsaken.

What truly distinguishes games from film as a story telling medium, is that in film the screen is a barrier that seperates the viewer from events we can only passively observe, whereas in games the screen is our doorway to events that we get immersed in and become a part of through our avatar. And this is augmented by fleshed out and polished presentation that translates as the "cinematic" experience, just as good art direction in movies has us engrossed in its story.

As long as the interaction and the presentation work in tandem, and not clash with one another, gaming continues to become a more and more engaging experience for us. The two need not collide in a zero sum manner.

On the flip side while old school games (from PacMan, to Centipede, Missle Command, and even games of the 8bit era like Mario and the original Zelda) may be "pure" as a form of gaming, they can never achieve the heights of immersion we have today. I see no reason to sacrifice immersion for the sake of "gameyness" when it can enhance the gaming experience in ways old titles could never realize.

AdobeArtist
Great post... I think for me I sometimes play games that feel too cinematic and chalk it up to the notion that the industry simply hasnt perfected the formula to balancing great set piece/cinematics with compelling gameplay. When i watch a twenty minute cut scene, walk two feet and watch another thats simply bad game design that is inexcusable. I love that the technology of todays gaming allows us to experience narratives in hollywood-esque ways but Im not afraid to call out a game that spits story at the expense of gameplay... ultimately I want to interact with the world. Probably why i like Assassins Crees so much... lots of gameplay, great story cinematics are the supporting character.
#68 Posted by BrunoBRS (73263 posts) -
there's room for both, no need to cry.
#69 Posted by GD1551 (9155 posts) -

That still makes you just as wrong.DarkLink77

What a well thoughtout post, I commend such intelligence.

#70 Posted by GreekGameManiac (6439 posts) -

This is gonna sound weird,but....

Games should stop being.....gamey.

Lol.

Come on,it's about f*cking time they mature,and get respect from the general public as a media & form of art.

#71 Posted by locopatho (20438 posts) -
[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

It is true that games are an interactive medium, which should as JG said, be the driving force behind the story telling which you can't get from film. But let's not forget that video games are also a visual and artistic medium - the "video" in the games.

So why shouldn'twe want to see the presentation of the story and world advance in cinematic ways? When done right it enhances our interactivity by making it so much more immersive. In fact as a medium it not only encompasses art & visuals, and interaction, but out of its infancy (from those by gone arcade days) has grown to become a new form of story telling. A part of the equation that should not be forsaken.

What truly distinguishes games from film as a story telling medium, is that in film the screen is a barrier that seperates the viewer from events we can only passively observe, whereas in games the screen is our doorway to events that we get immersed in and become a part of through our avatar. And this is augmented by fleshed out and polished presentation that translates as the "cinematic" experience, just as good art direction in movies has us engrossed in its story.

As long as the interaction and the presentation work in tandem, and not clash with one another, gaming continues to become a more and more engaging experience for us. The two need not collide in a zero sum manner.

On the flip side while old school games (from PacMan, to Centipede, Missle Command, and even games of the 8bit era like Mario and the original Zelda) may be "pure" as a form of gaming, they can never achieve the heights of immersion we have today. I see no reason to sacrifice immersion for the sake of "gameyness" when it can enhance the gaming experience in ways old titles could never realize.

TheEroica
Great post... I think for me I sometimes play games that feel too cinematic and chalk it up to the notion that the industry simply hasnt perfected the formula to balancing great set piece/cinematics with compelling gameplay. When i watch a twenty minute cut scene, walk two feet and watch another thats simply bad game design that is inexcusable. I love that the technology of todays gaming allows us to experience narratives in hollywood-esque ways but Im not afraid to call out a game that spits story at the expense of gameplay... ultimately I want to interact with the world. Probably why i like Assassins Crees so much... lots of gameplay, great story cinematics are the supporting character.

Cutscenes should be used very sparingly and kept short. Like QTEs, they can be good in SMALL doses. When games go nuts with them its annoying...
#72 Posted by GreekGameManiac (6439 posts) -

Cutscenes should be used very sparingly and kept short. Like QTEs, they can be good in SMALL doses. When games go nuts with them its annoying...locopatho

I disagree,having as many cutscenes as possible makes it awesome,if it has a really deep & well-thoughted story.

#73 Posted by NaveedLife (17179 posts) -

BLAH BLAH BLAH. I hear this crap all the time and it is quite annoying :P.

Of course games need gameplay, and SOME violate this. But the vast majority do not, and many cinematic games have great gameplay. While I do not disagree games should focus on being fun to play, being cinematic can be very positive to the experience, depending on the genre and title. I am so happy we are able to have deeper, more cinematic experiences today. The problem is certain devs and games, not gaming as a whole. This has ALWAYS beem a problem though. SOme devs just suck, end of story.

#74 Posted by BrunoBRS (73263 posts) -

[QUOTE="locopatho"]Cutscenes should be used very sparingly and kept short. Like QTEs, they can be good in SMALL doses. When games go nuts with them its annoying...GreekGameManiac

I disagree,having as many cutscenes as possible makes it awesome,if it has a really deep & well-thoughted story.

the worst part is that i can't even tell if you're serious. and as for QTEs, nothing is worse than playing the game or watching a cutscene and a huge ass button prompt pops in the middle of the action, completely destroying any immersion you had.
#75 Posted by TheEroica (14116 posts) -
[QUOTE="TheEroica"][QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

It is true that games are an interactive medium, which should as JG said, be the driving force behind the story telling which you can't get from film. But let's not forget that video games are also a visual and artistic medium - the "video" in the games.

So why shouldn'twe want to see the presentation of the story and world advance in cinematic ways? When done right it enhances our interactivity by making it so much more immersive. In fact as a medium it not only encompasses art & visuals, and interaction, but out of its infancy (from those by gone arcade days) has grown to become a new form of story telling. A part of the equation that should not be forsaken.

What truly distinguishes games from film as a story telling medium, is that in film the screen is a barrier that seperates the viewer from events we can only passively observe, whereas in games the screen is our doorway to events that we get immersed in and become a part of through our avatar. And this is augmented by fleshed out and polished presentation that translates as the "cinematic" experience, just as good art direction in movies has us engrossed in its story.

As long as the interaction and the presentation work in tandem, and not clash with one another, gaming continues to become a more and more engaging experience for us. The two need not collide in a zero sum manner.

On the flip side while old school games (from PacMan, to Centipede, Missle Command, and even games of the 8bit era like Mario and the original Zelda) may be "pure" as a form of gaming, they can never achieve the heights of immersion we have today. I see no reason to sacrifice immersion for the sake of "gameyness" when it can enhance the gaming experience in ways old titles could never realize.

locopatho
Great post... I think for me I sometimes play games that feel too cinematic and chalk it up to the notion that the industry simply hasnt perfected the formula to balancing great set piece/cinematics with compelling gameplay. When i watch a twenty minute cut scene, walk two feet and watch another thats simply bad game design that is inexcusable. I love that the technology of todays gaming allows us to experience narratives in hollywood-esque ways but Im not afraid to call out a game that spits story at the expense of gameplay... ultimately I want to interact with the world. Probably why i like Assassins Crees so much... lots of gameplay, great story cinematics are the supporting character.

Cutscenes should be used very sparingly and kept short. Like QTEs, they can be good in SMALL doses. When games go nuts with them its annoying...

Yeah, i mean i think its a case by case scenario, but yeah i agree.... dont disengage me from the game itself, just give me what i need to feel empowered in the gameplay.
#76 Posted by GreekGameManiac (6439 posts) -

the worst part is that i can't even tell if you're serious. and as for QTEs, nothing is worse than playing the game or watching a cutscene and a huge ass button prompt pops in the middle of the action, completely destroying any immersion you had.BrunoBRS

I'm dead serious.

I'm not annoyed by QTEs,as long as they aren't overdone.

I already told you my opinion about cutscenes.

#77 Posted by Blabadon (27651 posts) -
It depends what we can mostly agree on is a movie in games. Is it a game with more cinematics and time off gameplay, like MGS4 may be? Is it a game with very simple gameplay like HR? Is it a linear game focused on set pieces like Uncharted 3? In the end, it depends. While I can't always say that games are being more like movies because as many as there are that are, many are not. Their storytelling methods are, but that depends on what type of movie we literally mean.
#78 Posted by GunSmith1_basic (9867 posts) -

It is true that games are an interactive medium, which should as JG said, be the driving force behind the story telling which you can't get from film. But let's not forget that video games are also a visual and artistic medium - the "video" in the games.

So why shouldn'twe want to see the presentation of the story and world advance in cinematic ways? When done right it enhances our interactivity by making it so much more immersive. In fact as a medium it not only encompasses art & visuals, and interaction, but out of its infancy (from those by gone arcade days) has grown to become a new form of story telling. A part of the equation that should not be forsaken.

What truly distinguishes games from film as a story telling medium, is that in film the screen is a barrier that seperates the viewer from events we can only passively observe, whereas in games the screen is our doorway to events that we get immersed in and become a part of through our avatar. And this is augmented by fleshed out and polished presentation that translates as the "cinematic" experience, just as good art direction in movies has us engrossed in its story.

As long as the interaction and the presentation work in tandem, and not clash with one another, gaming continues to become a more and more engaging experience for us. The two need not collide in a zero sum manner.

On the flip side while old school games (from PacMan, to Centipede, Missle Command, and even games of the 8bit era like Mario and the original Zelda) may be "pure" as a form of gaming, they can never achieve the heights of immersion we have today. I see no reason to sacrifice immersion for the sake of "gameyness" when it can enhance the gaming experience in ways old titles could never realize.

AdobeArtist

excuse me? Simple games are not immersive? Pure games like that are the ultimate in immersion. Games like Pacman and tetris will make you forget you are on this planet while you are in the zone.

Cinematic games literally pull the gamer out of the action. QTEs have you push a button while someone else does the work. How is that immersive?

With game devs today, gameplay serves the cinematic elements. It should be the other way around. A truly great dev does this. Look at Halo:CE. That game has cutscenes and story but the main plot turn occurs in the middle of a mission without a single interruption (the entrance of the Flood). Beautiful. The protagonist was featureless and without character. A major appeal of the series is the multiplayer, which has absolutely zero cinematic elements and is an experience many times more immersive than a trash game like Heavy Rain could ever hope for. Speaking of Halo, I think it is fair to say that as the series has moved towards the cinematic, it has noticably diminished. More and more backstory and character has been added to the Master Chief. This has meant that fewer gamers can insert themselves into that role as if they were truly in the game. This is a general trend that has diminished the single player experience to such a high degree that multiplayer has almost completely taken over the appeal of mainstream gaming. Does anyone really care about the BO2 campaign? Could Halo 4 have survived without the multiplayer? Noooooooooooooooooooooo

But like you say, the cinematic has value. I don't deny that. That great plot turn in Halo was amazing (and often copied). I like how in Vanquish, a character will pop up in your HUD via a video link to your power suit, and your character will have a discussion in the middle of the action. Mikami turned a cinematic element into a gameplay challenge by having the plot show up as a distraction. But then of course the game has bad parts that slow down the action, namely some bad unskippable cutscenes, dialogue, and QTEs. In video games, when you are in the mood for fun, 30 seconds of waiting can feel like 5 minutes.

#79 Posted by MBirdy88 (8582 posts) -

[QUOTE="MBirdy88"][QUOTE="OB-47"]

Signs of the medium maturing: Sleep is Death.

Signs of it ruining itself: Heavy Rain.

I think the term video games ia bit restrictive though.

Ravenshout

Heavy Rain, along with other good adventure games are great GAMES. This childish opinion that interactive movies are not games is obsurd. And no, mass effect has lots of gameplay, it may not be the best, but I would like to see YOU pull off a better r[pg/shooter hybrid that manages to attract as many fans as mass effect has. pleanty of gameplay in there, wether anyone likes it or not. I would play it a 1000 times over compared to boring pac man. Competitive gaming is now incredible large and that is all about gameplay. th eMOBA genre on PC has consistantly around 500-700k players at peak times across only 3 games. MMOs, Shooters ect all focus on gameplay outside of single player campaigns. Graphics are tech based, Gameplay is design based, the latter is much harder to focus on, it really is a stroke of genius or pot luck to get it right. Don't blame graphic focus... graphics are just at tool.

The game in your avatar could not live up to its hype since it attempted to put a lot of focus on storytelling but failed in the execution. Banal story is no better than no story at all. In fact, having far less focus on story would free up the game and could have made it what it was supposed to be.

Your takin crap, Diablo failed because of the bad NEW game design choices, nothing to do with the story focus. and why do you bring it up evrey time? I like the character.
#80 Posted by parkurtommo (27505 posts) -

"Games no longer want to be games"

You realize how stupid that sounds, correct?

#81 Posted by Gue1 (10689 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreekGameManiac"]

[QUOTE="locopatho"]Cutscenes should be used very sparingly and kept short. Like QTEs, they can be good in SMALL doses. When games go nuts with them its annoying...BrunoBRS

I disagree,having as many cutscenes as possible makes it awesome,if it has a really deep & well-thoughted story.

the worst part is that i can't even tell if you're serious. and as for QTEs, nothing is worse than playing the game or watching a cutscene and a huge ass button prompt pops in the middle of the action, completely destroying any immersion you had.

I agree with him; cutsecens are good.

I like games with long cut-scenes and story elements because it motivates me to continue playing. Yakuza games are like a fusion of the old with the new, they have long cut-scenes but they have lots of grinding too. I like playing the game on its hardest difficulty and then grind and grind and make my characters really powerful to then go all out saving the Tojo Clan from a disaster of epic proportions.

That beginning of the demo of Y5 when Kazuma's in a restaurant eating some ramen and Haruka appears on TV on a contest about becoming an idol people starts to talk crap saying stuff like: "she's so young! What kind of parent would let her daughter participate on such a thing" (because there are rumors that idol contests are full of shenanigans) and then Kazuma stops eating his ramen and leaves the restaurant really pissed and frustrated but without hurting anybody. He was genuily worried about her and at the same time ashamed of himself but he knows that she's old enough to choose her own way. ----Man this part almost made me cry and that is just the beginning of this game...

Then we have 2 Tojo members trying to talk Kazuma because it seems the Tojo Clan is having some huge issues (again!) but Kazuma is not a Yakuza anymore. He already has a girlfriend and a life of his own but you know that he's going back to the Yakuza way to protect the things that are important to him and some real epic stuff will happen (like always). This is an experience than can't be replicated on "gamey" games with bad story like Vanquish. This epic feeling, this anciety it creates within you to know more, to play more, to make your characters stronger and kick the butts of the people that are messing up with the things "your character" wants to protect, this is what makes Yakuza so unique. It's fusion of the old with the new, it's very cinematic but very"gamey" too! Yakuza games are one of a kind and I hope Yakuza 5 sells well because if there's a franchise that deserves better sales is this.

I'm so hyped for this game that when I think about it my excitement drives me crazy. New gameplay demo BTW (longer, more stuff)

#82 Posted by Silenthps (7279 posts) -
some games will turn more like movies some games wont infact most games wont
#83 Posted by jg4xchamp (49286 posts) -

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]Identity Crisis more often. I'm not against cinematic games completely, but trying to be like the movies will consistently point out how much better film is as a medium at story telling. What we should be working on is doing things that only this medium can pull off. The interactivity/gameplay is what makes the medium what it is. If it's supposedly the art form that it is, then that needs to be driving force behind it. Ly_the_Fairy

It's one of the things I appreciate about Half Life 2 so much.

The game is still linear, and the story isn't amazing, but it does not funnel you to locations, and force you to see certain events unfold.

I had played the game a handful of times at this point, and this specific time I walked out into City 17 (quite a ways into the game when the civilians were rebelling at this point), and I will always remember seeing a group of them tearing down a monitor which was playing Dr Breen's propoganda.

It's something you may never see as you play the game, but it just amazes me that the story can change, even just that little bit, simply based on my own personal interaction with the game.

Yeah Valve's presentation is always fantastic.
#84 Posted by jg4xchamp (49286 posts) -

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]Identity Crisis more often. I'm not against cinematic games completely, but trying to be like the movies will consistently point out how much better film is as a medium at story telling. What we should be working on is doing things that only this medium can pull off. The interactivity/gameplay is what makes the medium what it is. If it's supposedly the art form that it is, then that needs to be driving force behind it. GD1551

Yeah not really... maybe if you stack the best up against the best, but average to average they are about the same...

Why the hell would I care about the average work or hollywood filler? Best on best film wins, the same way TV wins, the same way literature wins, the same way music would win. Gaming being better than transformers on average(and even that feels like a stretch, it's more like a tie) is about as impressive as the worlds tallest midget.
#85 Posted by BrunoBRS (73263 posts) -

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"]the worst part is that i can't even tell if you're serious. and as for QTEs, nothing is worse than playing the game or watching a cutscene and a huge ass button prompt pops in the middle of the action, completely destroying any immersion you had.GreekGameManiac

I'm dead serious.

I'm not annoyed by QTEs,as long as they aren't overdone.

I already told you my opinion about cutscenes.

it's not that i dislike cutscenes, it's the way you worded. "as many cutscenes as possible". if you do that, it's no longer a game, just a movie with some pauses between the scenes for you to play something. a wise professor once said, "there's a time and place for everything". cutscenes have to be used to enhance the game, not to overtake it.
#86 Posted by jg4xchamp (49286 posts) -

It is true that games are an interactive medium, which should as JG said, be the driving force behind the story telling which you can't get from film. But let's not forget that video games are also a visual and artistic medium - the "video" in the games.

So why shouldn'twe want to see the presentation of the story and world advance in cinematic ways? When done right it enhances our interactivity by making it so much more immersive. In fact as a medium it not only encompasses art & visuals, and interaction, but out of its infancy (from those by gone arcade days) has grown to become a new form of story telling. A part of the equation that should not be forsaken.

What truly distinguishes games from film as a story telling medium, is that in film the screen is a barrier that seperates the viewer from events we can only passively observe, whereas in games the screen is our doorway to events that we get immersed in and become a part of through our avatar. And this is augmented by fleshed out and polished presentation that translates as the "cinematic" experience, just as good art direction in movies has us engrossed in its story.

As long as the interaction and the presentation work in tandem, and not clash with one another, gaming continues to become a more and more engaging experience for us. The two need not collide in a zero sum manner.

On the flip side while old school games (from PacMan, to Centipede, Missle Command, and even games of the 8bit era like Mario and the original Zelda) may be "pure" as a form of gaming, they can never achieve the heights of immersion we have today. I see no reason to sacrifice immersion for the sake of "gameyness" when it can enhance the gaming experience in ways old titles could never realize.

AdobeArtist

Except in large cases it doesn't add in immersion as much as it creates a disconnect between game and story.

Major offenders being obvious stuff like MEtal Gear Solid, or even pretty good cinematic stuff like GTA 4/RDR. Where you can go around being an outlaw causing all kinds of mayhem(because the gameplay is still a major chunk of the experience, and as such tells a story), but then in plot sequences they are a completely different character from the one causing carnage.

I'm not in the SW camp of b1tch about accessible/cinematic games. I understand the appeal, and the type of audience it attracts. But it doesn't help the medium as an art form, as much as it exposes its many short comings while its fanbase keeps abusing the "videogames have so much potential". The mediums best and most powerful work has been stuff where you the player had a say in the matter. Even in a franchise like lets say Metal Gear Solid.

The Boss's death(MGS3) is one of the more powerful sequences in the entire franchise, but shooting her yourself is what makes that scene. Yes Kojima could have done it in cutscene, but it was the part where the player is the one that has to pull that trigger that makes it a memorable sequence. Again I'm not against cinematic games, hell I don't mind a game like heavy rain(as much as I want better execution), but for this medium to be that art form. It's gotta be able to convey its emotion on a more interactive level. Because making me a passive viewer in this medium takes away the "massive potential" this medium has in the first place.

#87 Posted by nintendoman562 (5593 posts) -

Nintendo is one of the only remaining video game developers. The rest of them are sub-par movie studios.

#88 Posted by AdobeArtist (22982 posts) -

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

It is true that games are an interactive medium, which should as JG said, be the driving force behind the story telling which you can't get from film. But let's not forget that video games are also a visual and artistic medium - the "video" in the games.

So why shouldn'twe want to see the presentation of the story and world advance in cinematic ways? When done right it enhances our interactivity by making it so much more immersive. In fact as a medium it not only encompasses art & visuals, and interaction, but out of its infancy (from those by gone arcade days) has grown to become a new form of story telling. A part of the equation that should not be forsaken.

What truly distinguishes games from film as a story telling medium, is that in film the screen is a barrier that seperates the viewer from events we can only passively observe, whereas in games the screen is our doorway to events that we get immersed in and become a part of through our avatar. And this is augmented by fleshed out and polished presentation that translates as the "cinematic" experience, just as good art direction in movies has us engrossed in its story.

As long as the interaction and the presentation work in tandem, and not clash with one another, gaming continues to become a more and more engaging experience for us. The two need not collide in a zero sum manner.

On the flip side while old school games (from PacMan, to Centipede, Missle Command, and even games of the 8bit era like Mario and the original Zelda) may be "pure" as a form of gaming, they can never achieve the heights of immersion we have today. I see no reason to sacrifice immersion for the sake of "gameyness" when it can enhance the gaming experience in ways old titles could never realize.

jg4xchamp

Except in large cases it doesn't add in immersion as much as it creates a disconnect between game and story.

Major offenders being obvious stuff like MEtal Gear Solid, or even pretty good cinematic stuff like GTA 4/RDR. Where you can go around being an outlaw causing all kinds of mayhem(because the gameplay is still a major chunk of the experience, and as such tells a story), but then in plot sequences they are a completely different character from the one causing carnage.

I'm not in the SW camp of b1tch about accessible/cinematic games. I understand the appeal, and the type of audience it attracts. But it doesn't help the medium as an art form, as much as it exposes its many short comings while its fanbase keeps abusing the "videogames have so much potential". The mediums best and most powerful work has been stuff where you the player had a say in the matter. Even in a franchise like lets say Metal Gear Solid.

The Boss's death(MGS3) is one of the more powerful sequences in the entire franchise, but shooting her yourself is what makes that scene. Yes Kojima could have done it in cutscene, but it was the part where the player is the one that has to pull that trigger that makes it a memorable sequence. Again I'm not against cinematic games, hell I don't mind a game like heavy rain(as much as I want better execution), but for this medium to be that art form. It's gotta be able to convey its emotion on a more interactive level. Because making me a passive viewer in this medium takes away the "massive potential" this medium has in the first place.

Like I said, cinemtic presentation enhancing the immersion of the gameplay hinges on the designers implementing it properly, that the two elements (presentation and interactivity) don't get in the way of each other. When done right, where the visual presentation dynamically complements the players actions, it really immerses them in the experience.

#89 Posted by ms555 (2660 posts) -
Hey guys, I leave this topic,come back and its got tons of new replies. Really appreciate the critical thinking u guys put into ur posts. Seems some people are mistaken that im arguing against cinematics. My topic us actually neutral, its up to u guys to pick ur argument. Personally, I actually think Last of Us is the future of gaming. Im getting tired of gamey games honestly, im losing interest in high scores and headshots. I want experiences, i sant to see gaming evolve. And i think games like beyond and last of us are ways this industry can evolve. They are still fun, but Last of Us is mature in a way games almost never have been.
#90 Posted by DarkLink77 (31736 posts) -

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]That still makes you just as wrong.GD1551

What a well thoughtout post, I commend such intelligence.

I really shouldn't have to explain why Skyfall and The Terminator have better writing than Transformers.
#91 Posted by battlefieldfan4 (258 posts) -

Games becoming more and more like movies is the worst possible thing that can happen to this medium and anyone who disagrees is, quite frankly, wrong.

DarkLink77

I'm so sorry... I guess developers will actually have to come up with a mature, intelligent storyline unlike the garbage that comes out of epic games and microsoft.

#92 Posted by MonsieurX (31177 posts) -

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

Games becoming more and more like movies is the worst possible thing that can happen to this medium and anyone who disagrees is, quite frankly, wrong.

battlefieldfan4

I'm so sorry... I guess developers will actually have to come up with a mature, intelligent storyline unlike the garbage that comes out of epic games and microsoft.

That's why you like BattleField I guess :lol:
#93 Posted by DarkLink77 (31736 posts) -

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

Games becoming more and more like movies is the worst possible thing that can happen to this medium and anyone who disagrees is, quite frankly, wrong.

battlefieldfan4

I'm so sorry... I guess developers will actually have to come up with a mature, intelligent storyline unlike the garbage that comes out of epic games and microsoft.

I'm sorry, do you have some sort of problem with what I said or are you just trying to get attention?
#94 Posted by ms555 (2660 posts) -
[QUOTE="battlefieldfan4"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

Games becoming more and more like movies is the worst possible thing that can happen to this medium and anyone who disagrees is, quite frankly, wrong.

DarkLink77

I'm so sorry... I guess developers will actually have to come up with a mature, intelligent storyline unlike the garbage that comes out of epic games and microsoft.

I'm sorry, do you have some sort of problem with what I said or are you just trying to get attention?

I dont understand why u talk like this. Why do u have such a nasty, prideful, self rigtheous way of stating ur opinions. Dont u think people would be less offended by ur posts and respond to u with more intellignce and manners if u just learned some humility and made respectable posts. U know well what kinda fight ur starting when u say "bla bla bla and if u dont agree with me ur a moron bla bla". U know well!
#95 Posted by DarkLink77 (31736 posts) -
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="battlefieldfan4"]

I'm so sorry... I guess developers will actually have to come up with a mature, intelligent storyline unlike the garbage that comes out of epic games and microsoft.

ms555
I'm sorry, do you have some sort of problem with what I said or are you just trying to get attention?

I dont understand why u talk like this. Why do u have such a nasty, prideful, self rigtheous way of stating ur opinions. Dont u think people would be less offended by ur posts and respond to u with more intellignce and manners if u just learned some humility and made respectable posts. U know well what kinda fight ur starting when u say "bla bla bla and if u dont agree with me ur a moron bla bla". U know well!

He's an alt account and a troll. He would have responded the exact same way to any post.
#96 Posted by battlefieldfan4 (258 posts) -

[QUOTE="battlefieldfan4"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

Games becoming more and more like movies is the worst possible thing that can happen to this medium and anyone who disagrees is, quite frankly, wrong.

MonsieurX

I'm so sorry... I guess developers will actually have to come up with a mature, intelligent storyline unlike the garbage that comes out of epic games and microsoft.

That's why you like BattleField I guess :lol:

It's 100x more mature than the pokemon-esque crap that epic and microsoft makes.

Gears of war: No intelligent sentences or quotes. Vocabulary level of all the characters combined is no greater than a 2-year-old. Game was specifically made for children such as yourselves.

Halo: Same as above.

#97 Posted by Ravenshout (1210 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ravenshout"]

[QUOTE="MBirdy88"] Heavy Rain, along with other good adventure games are great GAMES. This childish opinion that interactive movies are not games is obsurd. And no, mass effect has lots of gameplay, it may not be the best, but I would like to see YOU pull off a better r[pg/shooter hybrid that manages to attract as many fans as mass effect has. pleanty of gameplay in there, wether anyone likes it or not. I would play it a 1000 times over compared to boring pac man. Competitive gaming is now incredible large and that is all about gameplay. th eMOBA genre on PC has consistantly around 500-700k players at peak times across only 3 games. MMOs, Shooters ect all focus on gameplay outside of single player campaigns. Graphics are tech based, Gameplay is design based, the latter is much harder to focus on, it really is a stroke of genius or pot luck to get it right. Don't blame graphic focus... graphics are just at tool.MBirdy88

The game in your avatar could not live up to its hype since it attempted to put a lot of focus on storytelling but failed in the execution. Banal story is no better than no story at all. In fact, having far less focus on story would free up the game and could have made it what it was supposed to be.

Your takin crap, Diablo failed because of the bad NEW game design choices, nothing to do with the story focus. and why do you bring it up evrey time? I like the character.

Deciding on how much story should be emphasized is a design choice. They decided to focus more on story than the previous games, and the result didn't sit well with their intention. It made the game less randomized, and more funneled than ever before. I brought the game up just to point out how much of a hypocrite you are.

#98 Posted by MonsieurX (31177 posts) -

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"][QUOTE="battlefieldfan4"]

I'm so sorry... I guess developers will actually have to come up with a mature, intelligent storyline unlike the garbage that comes out of epic games and microsoft.

battlefieldfan4

That's why you like BattleField I guess :lol:

It's 100x more mature than the pokemon-esque crap that epic and microsoft makes.

Gears of war: No intelligent sentences or quotes. Vocabulary level of all the characters combined is no greater than a 2-year-old. Game was specifically made for children such as yourselves.

Halo: Same as above.

Don't see how BF is mature exactly
#99 Posted by DJ-Lafleur (34205 posts) -

I do think (some) games should have story, but it shouldn't be at the expense of gameplay. Ideally, there should be a balance, where the game has a story and/or creates a world and lore, and the gameplay is fun and immersive, maybe even enforcing the game's story world in some way.

that or I'm fine with a game mostly centralized on gameplay.

I just don't need a game that's only about presentation, cniematics, or story. At that point I'd rather just get a movie or get into a TV series.

#100 Posted by battlefieldfan4 (258 posts) -

[QUOTE="battlefieldfan4"]

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"] That's why you like BattleField I guess :lol:MonsieurX

It's 100x more mature than the pokemon-esque crap that epic and microsoft makes.

Gears of war: No intelligent sentences or quotes. Vocabulary level of all the characters combined is no greater than a 2-year-old. Game was specifically made for children such as yourselves.

Halo: Same as above.

Don't see how BF is mature exactly

I do. Average storyline, dialogue seems like it was written by an adult unlike the dialogues in Halo and Gears. A **** 4-year-old wrote the dialogue for Gears and Halo. Anyone who has never playing Halo and Gears before only need to watch Teletubbies to know the kind of "intelligence" shown in gears and halo.