Gamespot: "Should games try to be films?" TLHBO

  • 78 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by John_Matherson (2031 posts) -

He makes quite a few solid points and I say TLHBO because all the comments made against most PS3 games are actually countered by some things he said in this video.

Games like Heavy Rain and Uncharted and such brought a more amateur/casual audience to gaming. Not everyone wants to sit there and chase levels and head counts and whatever other things people do in those "gamey" games you pc gamers/lembots love to brag about so much. I like story and I like feeling like I'm doing something that contributes to a story. "See the problems with games is that they throw out some barriers to new gamers. The complexity of their controls and the focus on mechanics....the amount of time it takes to play them..." Yes I get that games are games but at the same time, we're living in a generation where things are coming closer to reality. Characters are now being made much more complex and aren't no longer avatars you have to drag along your screen. Characters are making more effort to relate to the person behind the controller and to connect so there'es nothing wrong with wanting to move on.

Now, that being said. I still stand by my opinion. Games like heavy rain and beyond 2 souls are games that want you to take them for exactly what they are. These titles don't pretend to be anything otherwise so there's not much to say. They're exactly what David Cage wanted them to be, and they're successful at being that. Cinematic experiences. That is all. Thank you.

#2 Posted by Big_Red_Button (5479 posts) -

Seeing video games turn from gameplay focused games to "experience" driven "interactive stories" is like watching your best friend slowly die.

You visit him in the hospital, and you remember the good times you had, but you know that it's almost over, and what it is now is just a shallow, pathetic shell of what used to be great.

RIP in pieces vidya gaems.

#3 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

Im sorry but whatver contribution you made in Uncharteds story is purely in your head. Its a movie, its not like a movie, it is a movie.

#4 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@ Big_Red_Button

You said Interactive Stories, I think people are finaly getting it. :D

#5 Edited by nervmeister (15191 posts) -

The video makes good points, and I agree that immersive storytelling does have a place in gaming. However I can also sympathize with some naysayers who say that games like Heavy Rain focus WAY too much on story and as a result detract from strong central gameplay mechanics. Now a more healthy balance between gameplay and strong storytelling (mastered by devs such as Bioware, Naughty Dog, and Rockstar) I feel is the more ideal route to take.

#6 Posted by WilliamRLBaker (28360 posts) -
A gamer sad that gaming had died

#7 Edited by jg4xchamp (47340 posts) -

Those games that try to be like films, have storylines that would barely cut it as straight to dvd films.

#8 Posted by nervmeister (15191 posts) -

Im sorry but whatver contribution you made in Uncharteds story is purely in your head. Its a movie, its not like a movie, it is a movie.

I'm sorry, but whatever worthwhile contribution you've made to this thread is purely in your head.

#9 Posted by megaspiderweb09 (3686 posts) -

The hardcore audience vs casual audience, the bane of developers at the moment. I did an experiment last night, i had two chicks who are my colleagues try play The Puppeteer, they said it was difficult cause controller and they just did not have the patience, they felt Angry Birds was cool and more better laid out, those words are what an hardcore gamer like me cringe over. So yes, the popular mass still see video games as some domain for violence driven low lives, a sentiment these girls echoed despite admitting they spent 10's of ours playing candy crush, they feel they would rather buy their kids Tablets/Phones than dedicated gaming devices. A lot of core gamers do not see the disconnect between the gaming audience because why should they. A casual wants cheap, instantly satisfying, easy to grasp game while hardcore wants the opposite of those and more. COD was the only hardcore game that managed to enter inbetween both audiences, hence why it sells so much, it caught on with the casuals like a fad and brought more gamers to the industry but hardcores think those people are ruining games, they should get out. What hardcores do not realize is that the hardcores alone cannot sustain the industry, an industry that thrives of innovating with every single release (cost)

#10 Posted by Big_Red_Button (5479 posts) -

The hardcore audience vs casual audience, the bane of developers at the moment. I did an experiment last night, i had two chicks who are my colleagues try play The Puppeteer, they said it was difficult cause controller and they just did not have the patience, they felt Angry Birds was cool and more better laid out, those words are what an hardcore gamer like me cringe over. So yes, the popular mass still see video games as some domain for violence driven low lives, a sentiment these girls echoed despite admitting they spent 10's of ours playing candy crush, they feel they would rather buy their kids Tablets/Phones than dedicated gaming devices. A lot of core gamers do not see the disconnect between the gaming audience because why should they. A casual wants cheap, instantly satisfying, easy to grasp game while hardcore wants the opposite of those and more. COD was the only hardcore game that managed to enter inbetween both audiences, hence why it sells so much, it caught on with the casuals like a fad and brought more gamers to the industry but hardcores think those people are ruining games, they should get out. What hardcores do not realize is that the hardcores alone cannot sustain the industry, an industry that thrives of innovating with every single release (cost)

>COD

>hardcore

top lel

#11 Posted by Snugenz (11816 posts) -

Those games that try to be like films, have storylines that would barely cut it as straight to dvd films.

This, if they actually told great stories it would be forgiveable but telling bad stories with feck all gameplay, meh.

#12 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@ nervmeister

If Im nice and polite people don't respond.

#13 Posted by DanteVincent (25 posts) -

Im sorry but whatver contribution you made in Uncharteds story is purely in your head. Its a movie, its not like a movie, it is a movie.

WTF?Uncharted is far from a movie, do yourself a favor and go play the game lembot.

Heavy Rain and Beyond 2 Souls can arguably be considered interactive movies but you still change the world around you and it changes accordingly to your actions.

All that said, I never saw anything but praise for the The Walkind Dead game, which was, too, an interactive movie.So stop being hypocrites playstation is about options if you don't like The walking dead, heavy rain or beyond 2 souls go play uncharted, killzone, gran turismo, no no kuni, the last of us, tales of xilia.

#14 Edited by mystic_knight (13801 posts) -

Danny is a very good presenter. One of the only people on here that actually gets my full attention. His opinions are generally very open minded and he doesnt sound dull while presenting. Its a good piece this one. I'm kind of in agreement with him, but quantic dreams games have never been my type of games. I could not get into heavy rain or fahrenheit. While David Cage games may appeal to newer gamers/softcore and some hardcore, this never worked for me.

Not dismissing his games by any means, but this is what makes humans as interesting as we are, we don't all like the same thing, subjectivity is present because our feelings to something such as media, play a role in our perception.

I for one love my JRPG's to bits, but many find them as silly anime infested long and tedious grinds.. They have every right to their opinion, there is no game out there that is universally loved... in saying that i think Portal 2 might be the closest thing there.

#15 Posted by Lucianu (9349 posts) -

There's a place for cinematic adventure games in the wide spectrum of gaming genres, but you'd be lying to yourself if you think that this is the future of gaming as a whole, simply because gaming is incredibly varied and certain genres cannot function properly with cinematic elements.

If your ideal future of video gaming is the death of variety, then you should be ashamed of yourself. Fortunately, that will never happen as long as people remain creative and imaginative.

#16 Posted by DanteVincent (25 posts) -

Danny is a very good presenter. One of the only people on here that actually gets my full attention. His opinions are generally very open minded and he doesnt sound dull while presenting. Its a good piece this one. I'm kind of in agreement with him, but quantic dreams games have never been my type of games. I could not get into heavy rain or fahrenheit. While David Cage games may appeal to newer gamers/softcore and some hardcore, this never worked for me.

Not dismissing his games by any means, but this is what makes humans as interesting as we are, we don't all like the same thing, subjectivity is present because our feelings to something such as media, play a role in our perception.

I for one love my JRPG's to bits, but many find them as silly anime infested long and tedious grinds.. They have every right to their opinion, there is no game out there that is universally loved... in saying that i think Portal 2 might be the closest thing there.

Thanks for your words of wisdom mystic, if everybody thought like that this board wouldn't exist! :lol:

#17 Posted by FireEmblem_Man (8625 posts) -

@jg4xchamp: The beacon of truth has spoken, this thread should have ended there.

#18 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@ DanteVincent

I don't mean the entire game, and yeah I played all three. Anyway I mean its story, its not even an interactive movie, its just a movie, it was good but it kept getting in the way. As for Heavy Rain and Beyond, they've got my full support, but a multiplat wouldn't hurt though. Can't keep playing Fahrenheit forever. And "lembot" ? Seriously ? Never been called that before, its not nice.

#19 Posted by xWoW_Rougex (2755 posts) -

Not gonna read 250 replies so I'll just reply to the title: These games you call interactive films such as Uncharted and Heavy Rain. What is wrong with it? As long as there is loads of games that aren't interactive films it shouldn't be a problem. Why can't we mix it up a little?

#20 Posted by Big_Red_Button (5479 posts) -

@xWoW_Rougex: Because there's a huge audience of people who don't want to play games with good gameplay. They want effortless casual crap, and developers are catering to them more and more.

There AREN'T tons of good games being made any more. Year after year it's more and more about interactive movies and less about good gameplay focused game.

Look at The Wonderful 101. Fantastically deep, difficult and fun game. It's like pure, unfiltered fun made by gamers for gamers. And it sold about 50 copies, because people don't want good games.

#21 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

xWoW_Rougex, Uncharted is not an Intetactive Film, its A Film, wedged by gameplay sections. Big difference.

#22 Posted by Lucianu (9349 posts) -

@xWoW_Rougex: Because there's a huge audience of people who don't want to play games with good gameplay. They want effortless casual crap, and developers are catering to them more and more.

There AREN'T tons of good games being made any more. Year after year it's more and more about interactive movies and less about good gameplay focused game.

Look at The Wonderful 101. Fantastically deep, difficult and fun game. It's like pure, unfiltered fun made by gamers for gamers. And it sold about 50 copies, because people don't want good games.

I don't agree, the amount of games that don't focus on cinematic elements dwarf those that do, especially on PC were there are a ton of people expressing their creative minds. I think you're just looking at the most popular angle of the mainstream market.

I believe it sold so poorly because of a combination of three things - the marketing was pure shit (note: practically nonexistent), it released exclusively on a system with a extremely low install base (in comparison to the others) and it's a completely unique IP (these types sell over time)..

#23 Posted by UnrealLegend (5888 posts) -

I really have no idea why people are so against a "movie" game every now and then. It's something that no other medium can possibly do, and as long as there's plenty of traditional games as well (which there are), it shouldn't be a problem. Variety is a good thing.

#24 Posted by MirkoS77 (7164 posts) -

I have no problem with cinematic driven games as I know they will always be a supplement to traditional games. There's room for all types.

That said, two things need improvement: the writing and consequences for decisions need to be better. Taking away interactivity needs to be made up in these other areas. Unfortunately, both have been lacking so far but then again these types of games are very much in their infancy.

I've always wanted to be able to watch a movie that I have a hand in determining the outcome. These "games" seem to be heading in that direction. But the story needs to be there, as does finality of decisions taken.

#25 Posted by II_Seraphim_II (20493 posts) -

Seeing video games turn from gameplay focused games to "experience" driven "interactive stories" is like watching your best friend slowly die.

You visit him in the hospital, and you remember the good times you had, but you know that it's almost over, and what it is now is just a shallow, pathetic shell of what used to be great.

RIP in pieces vidya gaems.

What you are complaining about is the evolution of an art form. If people just kept making the same thing over and over again, video games would never evolve. People called Rock n' Roll bastardization of music, but look at how popular it became. Same can be said for Rap and other art forms. Just because you don't like something doesnt mean the entire art form is dying. There are still people who make the traditional games you long for, but other people are trying something new. If the new idea is terrible, no one will buy it and it will die out. But if people enjoy it, it will strive and while you may not enjoy it, you need to understand that video games are not made specifically for you, but for the masses at large.

#26 Posted by Lumpy311 (673 posts) -

Oh please.

Gamespot gets worse by the day, it seems.

Anyways, if you want to make movie games, make sure they aren't 7/10 games.

#27 Posted by uninspiredcup (7837 posts) -

@Lumpy311 said:

Oh please.

Gamespot gets worse by the day, it seems.

Anyways, if you want to make movie games, make sure they aren't 7/10 games.

Or better yet, just go play a Lucas arts adventure game.

#28 Posted by nini200 (9604 posts) -

This is an iffy question. Some games can work great as films and vice versa but it's the developers that screw it up most of the time. Take Aliens: Colonial Marines for instance. The game had sooo much potential yet it failed to no end. It could be adapted into a great sequel but I'm pretty sure the director would blotch it up too.

#29 Posted by Lumpy311 (673 posts) -

@Lumpy311 said:

Oh please.

Gamespot gets worse by the day, it seems.

Anyways, if you want to make movie games, make sure they aren't 7/10 games.

Or better yet, just go play a Lucas arts adventure game.

Those games were great.

Also, we looks like alts.

Hehe.

#30 Posted by John_Matherson (2031 posts) -

Whether you like it or not, video games are evolving. Ever since Nathan Drake showed up no one wants to play some cookie cutter action level chasing headcount character anymore. People want to know who's behind the gun.

#31 Posted by blackace (20287 posts) -

First of all, the new sites still sucks. Fix all the bugs already. Interactive films are fine when 80% or more of the game is the interactive part of it. Just sitting there for 5-10min with no interaction is a flawed game. Sure, you'll have some cut screens and all, but they should last no more then 30secs and they should be meaningful. There's a right way and a wrong way to make these games. Before there was David Cage, there was Dragon's Lair. Sure, there wasn't much replay value to it, but it was short, fun and entertaining for that small period of time. That's what these type of games are.

#32 Posted by John_Matherson (2031 posts) -

@blackace said:

First of all, the new sites still sucks. Fix all the bugs already. Interactive films are fine when 80% or more of the game is the interactive part of it. Just sitting there for 5-10min with no interaction is a flawed game. Sure, you'll have some cut screens and all, but they should last no more then 30secs and they should be meaningful. There's a right way and a wrong way to make these games. Before there was David Cage, there was Dragon's Lair. Sure, there wasn't much replay value to it, but it was short, fun and entertaining for that small period of time. That's what these type of games are.

Sir, I demand that you change your profile picture. I find it both distracting and demeaning to women. Thank you.

#33 Posted by Lumpy311 (673 posts) -

@blackace said:

First of all, the new sites still sucks. Fix all the bugs already. Interactive films are fine when 80% or more of the game is the interactive part of it. Just sitting there for 5-10min with no interaction is a flawed game. Sure, you'll have some cut screens and all, but they should last no more then 30secs and they should be meaningful. There's a right way and a wrong way to make these games. Before there was David Cage, there was Dragon's Lair. Sure, there wasn't much replay value to it, but it was short, fun and entertaining for that small period of time. That's what these type of games are.

Sir, I demand that you change your profile picture. I find it both distracting and demeaning to women. Thank you.

I demand you delete your account, you fucking moron, your posts are shit and they are distracting and demeaning to humans. Fuck you.

#34 Posted by blackace (20287 posts) -

@blackace said:

First of all, the new sites still sucks. Fix all the bugs already. Interactive films are fine when 80% or more of the game is the interactive part of it. Just sitting there for 5-10min with no interaction is a flawed game. Sure, you'll have some cut screens and all, but they should last no more then 30secs and they should be meaningful. There's a right way and a wrong way to make these games. Before there was David Cage, there was Dragon's Lair. Sure, there wasn't much replay value to it, but it was short, fun and entertaining for that small period of time. That's what these type of games are.

Sir, I demand that you change your profile picture. I find it both distracting and demeaning to women. Thank you.

Tell that to the girl who's dancing in the picture. lol!!

#35 Edited by Lumpy311 (673 posts) -

Man, i love being able to finally say "fuck".

#36 Edited by cfisher2833 (1583 posts) -

My biggest gripe with "cinematic" games is that they often have the most generic, overdone gameplay you could imagine. Instead of relying on strong and unique gameplay, they rely on their settings/stories to fill the void. It's not that those games are bad per se, it's just that they rarely make me excited to play them.

#37 Posted by DarkLink77 (31695 posts) -

Those games that try to be like films, have storylines that would barely cut it as straight to dvd films.

Truth.

Games need to seriously step their ability to tell stories up if they're actively going to sacrifice gameplay to do it.

#38 Posted by rjdofu (9170 posts) -

Bu..bu..but movie is art :(

#39 Posted by Zensword (3885 posts) -

No I want videogames, not interactive movies that have far worse "gameplay" than proper games and "stories" that are garbage.

#40 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@ DarkLink77

Thats like saying movies have to step their storytelling if they wana sacrifice its visuals/cinematography. If a game makes that kind of sacrifice then what would be the point ? Its like selling your car for gas money.

#41 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@ Zensword

Jesus Christ :l ! Nobody said you couldn't have that. Thats quite the overeaction you just displayed !

#42 Posted by DanteVincent (25 posts) -

@ DanteVincent

I don't mean the entire game, and yeah I played all three. Anyway I mean its story, its not even an interactive movie, its just a movie, it was good but it kept getting in the way. As for Heavy Rain and Beyond, they've got my full support, but a multiplat wouldn't hurt though. Can't keep playing Fahrenheit forever. And "lembot" ? Seriously ? Never been called that before, its not nice.

Oh sorry for the lembot, since you called uncharted a movie i thought you hadn't played it and was taking the words of biased people, namely lems.Uncharted's story keeps you wanting more of it until you finish it and all of its characters have lots of charm, it's why i love it!As for the multiplat thing, wouldn't hurt me as well, but it's probably for the same reason some multiplat devs don't release jrpgs and anime based games on the 360, maybe they think they won't appeal to its audience, which i can't blame them for.

#43 Edited by rjdofu (9170 posts) -

@ DarkLink77

Thats like saying movies have to step their storytelling if they wana sacrifice its visuals/cinematography. If a game makes that kind of sacrifice then what would be the point ? Its like selling your car for gas money.

Such a wonderful analogy,

j/k.

#44 Posted by John_Matherson (2031 posts) -

So then it's all about balance then. It's about story telling without losing game elements, which is something Uncharted2 blends perfectly. Not sure what you lemmings' problem is. Games like Heavy Rain and Beyond are the exception because to be precisely a cinematic gaming experience is EXACTLY what the creator intended to create.

#45 Posted by rjdofu (9170 posts) -

So then it's all about balance then. It's about story telling without losing game elements, which is something Uncharted2 blends perfectly. Not sure what you lemmings' problem is. Games like Heavy Rain and Beyond are the exception because to be precisely a cinematic gaming experience is EXACTLY what the creator intended to create.

Does it mean we can't tell how shitty a POS is just because its creator intended to create it that way?

#46 Posted by Innovazero2000 (3135 posts) -

Not sure how lemmings are owned by this when Mass Effect did it first and better and found a balance between the cinematic story arc and gameplay imo. On top of that how many cows take digs at the casual crowd? Weekly....there is no ownage for anyone.

#47 Posted by cainetao11 (16891 posts) -

@John_Matherson:

TC I agree with much of what you said. Except any faction being owned by the video's points. I also love story in games. I don't expect Shakespeare, or judge to harshly of them. I just want to believe there is a reason for what the character is doing. There are plenty of Xbox gamers who feel the way you do. Hence Games like Alan Wake. In SW of course HR aand B2S will get fanboy bashing. I enjoyed HR, will play B2S, just not for $60.

#48 Posted by anab0lic (271 posts) -

@Big_Red_Button said:

Seeing video games turn from gameplay focused games to "experience" driven "interactive stories" is like watching your best friend slowly die.

You visit him in the hospital, and you remember the good times you had, but you know that it's almost over, and what it is now is just a shallow, pathetic shell of what used to be great.

RIP in pieces vidya gaems.

What you are complaining about is the evolution of an art form. If people just kept making the same thing over and over again, video games would never evolve. People called Rock n' Roll bastardization of music, but look at how popular it became. Same can be said for Rap and other art forms. Just because you don't like something doesnt mean the entire art form is dying. There are still people who make the traditional games you long for, but other people are trying something new. If the new idea is terrible, no one will buy it and it will die out. But if people enjoy it, it will strive and while you may not enjoy it, you need to understand that video games are not made specifically for you, but for the masses at large.

I wouldnt call cinematic type games an evolution..its a devolution to me... the number one thing that matters when it comes to what is and what isnt a good game is the GAMEPLAY....THE NUMBER 1 THING! Look at games like Ni No Kuni...that game has beautiful visuals, a great story, sound... everything... but its flawed combat mechanics (the gameplay aspect) are what stopped it being the classic it could have been... If you want to see a good example of the evolution of games think: mario bros----> mario world------> mario 64-------->mario galaxy....now if we go further here and the next mario is 90% cinematics with the rest being moving mario around for a few mins and with some QTE action sequences.... you think thats an evolution? seriously? Thats one ugly genetic mutation in my eyes.

#49 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@ rjdofu

Come on, admit it you know I'm right. :D

#50 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@ anab0lic

Don't worry, nobody's trying to lure you out of your little gameplay hidey hole. More importantly you're right, but only to games like uncharted. Heavy Rain is a whole different animal, its gameplay (yes I said gameplay) serves the narrative instead of some type of Risk Reward system or whatever it is conventional games use these days. Heavy Rain is more unorthodox and isn't trying to entertain the player. It may not be evolution to gaming but its definatley evolution to interactive entertainment/narratives. Nobodys gona stop you from saving peach, go for it.