The Point - Should games try to be films?
Danny wonders if games are trying too hard to be movies, or if experiences like Beyond: Two Souls are opening up new avenues for the medium.
devs mentality that easy gameplay results in more sales is ruining alot of franchises that were once amazing. there should be a limit to make a game easy, battlefield is just one example, lock on weapons, 3d spoting, active radar... is crossing that limit alot. using what is basically cheats to balance a game is just realy realy bad gameplay design.
Most games boil down to simple "get from point A to point B". However some players no longer accept that at face value we want to have an invested reason as to WHY we want to get there and more than one option of doing so. The addition of a back story, decent voice acting and visuals add to the NPC's found along the way and the ability of the game to disguise the otherwise simple objective.
I love this show ' The point' .
I guess individuals have diffrent point of view when it comes to playing games. Personally I don't usually care what the story is is really about- I don't even wathch those cinematics between the games - i would usually skip it.
so for me, definitely the game play first.
But i appreciate the storylines ( especially when it changes by the choices i have made duiring the game play) i am sure that i enjoy playing game more because of the stories in the game. -
Kinda reminds me why I hated to waste time lambasting and badmouthing other genres, while this softcore variety helped to enrich the industry. Except Sports games, I hate 'em! lol
well whatever you enjoy I guess :) I personally find games like Heavy rain and uncharted too restricting, I had fun playing them but not as much playing Fallout games for example.
Gameplay first. Everything else is optional. If you want movies, there great movies to watch and you can actually let your hands and rest
I like the analogy water and oil (can't remember where I got that from). Cinematic experience is one thing and gameplay experience is another. Instead of having narrative part of the gameplay, too many games have narrative excerpts in a cinematic presentation isolated between gameplay sequences that are oddly incoherent with the narrative and themes.
I'm still playing Skyrim, and GTA Online will consume many more months of my life. Mass Effect is one of my favorite games of all time, and shockingly, I have yet to play ME2 and ME3. Fallout 3 is another favorite game of mine, and I have not completed New Vegas, but only because of freezing problems. I put around 30 hours into it and I think I was enjoying it more than FO3 until the freezing and long loading times started. I imagine the Ultimate Edition version of the game offers a better experience.
Lastly, there's a game called Dark Souls 2 that will be releasing for current gen consoles only, and I cannot wait for it. Next gen consoles can wait, they aren't going anywhere.
Hard to say what the point is, cause games nowadays are so much more than what they used to be. I agree with the point that they mix way too much so they can be related as games only, but this is a good thing. They are art, they are interactive, alive, and they give you a sense of place like nothing else. And if we really want games to break new ground, we need people like David Cage, Ken Levine etc. Rehashing material with new graphics every year is not the way to go. We need new ways of storytelling and thinking and no developer should be afraid to go that route.
I remember when Alan Wake was in the making, pretty sure they said it was going to be a new way of playing games where it resembles a TV show, and that would become common. Well it didn't. But regardless, Alan Wake is one of my favorite games of all time. Don't know why, i just love it.
the new site...has...lots...of...stuff...all..over it everywhere. Like everything is trying to be on 1 screen
Love these videos keep'em up. New site is okay...probably just need to get used to the Giant Bomb look and feel.
The more games move towards movies, the less fun i have with 'em. Hours flew by faster with tetris, double dragon, mario, wonderboy, mortal kombat, space invaders, outrun and all the old sierra and lucasarts text adventures than they have with anything i've played in the last twenty years
Interactive movies can be cool IF they allow the player's choices to impact the outcome. If not, I'd rather be watching an actual movie.
definition of games movie like? one game.. Bioshock Infinite. Both gameplay and story, absolutely mind fuck.
I love D Cage, I have yet to play a game of his that I didn't enjoy. Break away from the shooters and fighting games and broaden your gaming horizons by playing something you wouldn't usually play.
I agree with the video. I can only add that a few games have stumbled trying to be like movies adding emotional scenes that miss the mark because they don't play out the same way as non-interactive media. Once a game takes the control away from you and tells you what you're supposed to feel, it often comes off not as emotional, but like your player choice has been taken away. Not all games are based on decision making, but it still has that effect. One reason why gamers don't like the ending to games like Mass Effect 3, Bioshock Infinite, or The Last of Us.
I have always been an oddly big fan of the series.
It has great art and music, but the gameplay can be even more tedious than Dynasty Warriors.
But I respect games that at least try to do something new. It was a fresh mix of Panzer Dragoon and Dynasty Warriors.
That's worth some praise.
I always wanted to know what ever happened to this slasher.
I may have to replay Drakengard again, it wasn't that bad.
more important: should movies try to be games? I swear I've seen checkpoints in my last 3 movies. (in time, checkpoints between cities, mission impossible, "im at the checkpoint", and gamer "checkpoint reached...saving..." .... I can even tell someone had a "1 up" during one of the scenes... well maybe it was a 7up....
Diversity is the answer. Some gamers like Zelda, some gamers like Heavy Rain, some gamers like Call Of Duty.
And good show Danny.
I think when a video game tries to be a film, it can work if they reach a middle ground where it doesn't take away from the interactive experience. There are many games that do this successfully and you have a high level of control with the characters, but at the same time there is extremely cinematic moments and high quality writing ( Grand Theft Auto V, The Last of Us, etc...), but there are also games that come out that try so hard to be a movie that they actually remove interaction to strengthen their artistic intentions. This has the effect of giving a low level of control and the player is basically playing a movie which requires some infrequent interaction.
This can be a very slippery slope and while I cannot speak for others, I believe that gamers prefer more interaction and if they really wanted to go to a movie they would do as such. Gamers want their games to contain superb writing and acting, because they want to experience a great story, not a cinematic with quicktime events.
okay again none of the videos are working for me i have latest flash player installed and from looking at comments it works for others? am i missing something??
Hey Danny, didn't I see you the other night on London Irish?
The show not the Rugby club, unless you have talents I'm unaware off.
BTW, good opinion piece. Better story telling in games! Let's do this!
That's a very interesting point I hadn't thought about. I do think about casual gamers. I think it's great that's there is stuff for them. or easy/casual modes in more hardcore games But i hadn't thought about them coming in to play just because "this game looks like the Indian Jones movie." or this looks like a eerie sci-fi movie.
Maybe cause a lot of casual or non gamers use to tell me "I hate when the talk. I think the game should just start."
i'd like for games to try to tell more by showing. Take control away from me as little is possible. That said. I've always wanted most of my games to have more character and story. "Role-Play" has pretty much always been a strong draw to why I game. I don't just want to beat the level and collect junk solve the puzzle and overcome the challenges. Those are all great but I want to BE the hero/villain just as much with most games.
I like my games to have cinematic qualities, if they're done well. Uncharted, Metal Gear, The Last of Us, the new Tomb Raider and even Puppeteer have done a great job mixing gameplay with cinematics.
Beyond Two Souls, Heavy Rain and some other games take the concept too far though. Those are just interactive movies and hardly qualify as video games in my opinion.
Take most cinematics out of games and instead invest in better/more game mechanics or story. All they do is cut up the fluidity of the gameplay
In the case of an action game like god of war or assassins creed, making the in game camera able to do cinimatic style motions while in a fight scene makes the game that much cooler.
For instance XCOM made use of this idea when performing the actions of the turn weather it be breaking through doors, or getting a good camera angle on shooting the bad guy and I think it enhanced the genre with that.
Adding cinematic cutscenes to a game or even making the gameplay look cinematic doesn't turn it into a movie. As long as the interactivity is there it is still a game.
Problem is how you make a game not like a movie? Games, just as movies or books, have plots that begin and end in a specific spot. Sure you can have some freedom in the middle to some point but in the end the story finishes at the same point. End result may vary in respect to what you'd done but it's always a finite number and most times the differences are not very varied.
The way I see it, games always were like movies. Take a look at point and click adventures of the 1980s and 1990s. Those were the most linear games possible with firmly set plot that you couldn't progress until you do a specific thing. Sure you could go wander the place all day, but in the end you had no choice of what to do to set thing running again. Similar things go for other generes be it RTS (missions set with specific objective to be met to win and advance a story via cut-scene) , cRPG (go there do that kill those level up and repeat till the final boss gets it), FPP/TPP shooter (plow through enemies till the final boss) or a side scrolling platformer, though in those no-one really cared for the plot. The only thing that has changed in the years past is the graphic and audio fidelity. Yesterday's 2D point&click adventures evolved into a 3D FPP/TPP quick-time event assisted, hi-res textured, motion-captured, physics based adventures. The core idea haven't changed as much as you might think. It just looks better now than it did 20 or so years ago.
So, should games try to be film? No. They always were films, only 80 years late and are evolving much faster.
Why should anyone care if the medium they are experiencing is a game, tv show or movie as long as it is fun and enjoyable? Do gamers not watch movies? If there are people out there saying "I really liked this but since its not a game then I'm angry". If so then I just don't understand that type of reasoning.
The only David Cage game I've played was Indigo Prophecy, and I thought it was excellent. First scene you've seemingly just murdered a guy in a diner bathroom; what do you do now? Make sure I clean my hands, hide the body, start to walk out - oh no a cop is going to the bathroom. Go to leave, stopped by cashier because I forgot to pay my bill. Oh shit, I forgot to dump the bloody knife, the cop's putting two-and-two together... And so on. I really loved that game, it was a great ride from the start to finish, and certainly a different experience than I would have had were it a movie; I felt more invested because I was controlling these people, making choices, etc.
@Wensea10 That was the most inane comment I've seen since the famous "Duh!!??" incident.
@breathnac ever heard about different timezones?
@jakeofjakeness The only way it would resemble a TV show is if you could only play an episode of the game a week, which would be really hard to get past marketing.
@dkeppens Cause your a gamer, I think interactive movie games should be left to casuals.
Remember a not so old interview about difficulty how "we spent several mill on this one sequence but if its to hard the player will give up and not see it". Dev's need a clear vision before making an ip. Is it for gamers or for casuals to maximize sales.
Like you, I'd take gameplay over a multi-million dollar sequence any day.
The industry needs to learn the difference between the two. For instance in terms of a hobby the only difference between hardcore and casual is the about of time spent doing that activity. Sorry boys and girls it doesn't mean (hardcore=fps) and (casual=mario).
Casual: 5< hours a week, doesn't like complexity, unwilling to pay more than the average phone game price, buy 10< games a year
Hardcore: well over >10 hour a week, prefers complexity, willing to pay $60 initial price plus dlc + season pass + $15mo, pays $400-$1000 for console or gpu, buys many games a yr.
But the industry wants billion dollar games sales for casual games. They don't spend that kind of money! Wii sold the most hardware (like phones) but the least amount of games.
@altairdarius Story? Maybe. Gameplay? Streamlined sub-par.
@GeneralMufinMan try disabling ad blocker or something ;)
@HipHopBeats still better than 99 percent of modern games.