Games and "Cinematic": what it would take to make a truly "Cinematic" game

[Savagezion]

I too think cinematic holds meaning, just not 24/30 FPS nonsense. Uncharted is cinematic, Last of Us is cinematic, Mass Effect is mostly cinematic. I could even see someone making it a genre itself. To me it has to do with merging cutscenes with gameplay. Those moments when the protagonist is standing there and you are watching and realize, "oh shit, I can move" or those moments where you aren't sure if a cutscene has taken control or you are still controlling so you continue pushing buttons just in case. (And the protagonist jumps when you want them to, etc.) I have caught myself in these positions enough times in games to acknowledge it. Cutscenes used to always be severed from the gameplay and now many games like to make them transition so smoothly you can't even tell. Games have the camera start panning around no longer fixed on your character as if it were a cutscene, yet if you jump, your avatar still jumps.

There are many ways you could approach cinematic gameplay too, not just smoothly transitioned cutscenes, like interactive cutscenes (I have many ideas I would like to see in the future for this), a game with multiple paths due to no fail states, etc. However, chasing "Hollywood" isn't the way to do it. Lighting has little to do with it, camera angles has little to do with it, and framerate has NOTHING to do with it.

The way I see it, a cinematic game simply has good story presentation that MERGES WELL with the gameplay. (Underlined merely to stress the actual point.) SO you really need 3 things.

1. Good gameplay (Responsive and Intuitive controls) that never feels yanked away from you.
2. Good story presentation (Good Pacing, proper camera angles, quality sound/dialogue, good animation, etc.)
3. 1 and 2 must blend well. The goal being that the game uses cutscenes only to highlight player action.

A good example is the finishing moves from Skyrim. Those are a good example of what I consider cinematic for games, but Skyrim itself isn't cinematic.

 

[CaitSeith]

The way I see it, a cinematic game simply has good story presentation that MERGES WELL with the gameplay.

I have another name for that: a good game. Period.

 

[Savagezion]

The way I see it, a cinematic game simply has good story presentation that MERGES WELL with the gameplay.

I have another name for that: a good game. Period.

OK, but a good game doesn't have to have good story presentation or even any story presentation. and it doesn't have to merge well. The only criteria for a good game is good gameplay. (#1 on the list of 3 things - and only half of my criteria for #1 as a good game can still yank control from the player at times.)

Going off your previosu post:

It seems the point of the video was missed. The point was that cinematic is a meaningless term, that has been used to imply that movies are better than games. Their perfect cinematic game would be one where you can't tell if it's a game or a movie. So far, gameplay denies that possibility, because the only way to not to feel like you're playing a game is to have no gameplay at all (making the game just a really long cutscene)

If a specatator has a hard time telling the difference between a cutscene and ingame footage, you got yourself a cinematic game.

 

[CaitSeith]

The way I see it, a cinematic game simply has good story presentation that MERGES WELL with the gameplay.

I have another name for that: a good game. Period.

OK, but a good game doesn't have to have good story presentation or even any story presentation. and it doesn't have to merge well. The only criteria for a good game is good gameplay. (#1 on the list of 3 things - and only half of my criteria for #1 as a good game can still yank control from the player at times.)

Then a great game. Good gameplay alone may make it a good game (and even there are great games without story); but if it contains good story presentation and merges it well, then it's a much better game than having a bad story presentation or having it badly merged. Not more "cinematic".

It seems the point of the video was missed. The point was that cinematic is a meaningless term, that has been used to imply that movies are better than games. Their perfect cinematic game would be one where you can't tell if it's a game or a movie. So far, gameplay denies that possibility, because the only way to not to feel like you're playing a game is to have no gameplay at all (making the game just a really long cutscene)

If a specatator has a hard time telling the difference between a cutscene and ingame footage, you got yourself a cinematic game.

If a spectator has a hard time telling the difference between a cutscene and ingame footage, then you have a spectator inexperienced in videogames. In their definition of cinematic game, the player is the one who shouldn't be able to tell the difference.

 

[Savagezion]

The way I see it, a cinematic game simply has good story presentation that MERGES WELL with the gameplay.

I have another name for that: a good game. Period.

OK, but a good game doesn't have to have good story presentation or even any story presentation. and it doesn't have to merge well. The only criteria for a good game is good gameplay. (#1 on the list of 3 things - and only half of my criteria for #1 as a good game can still yank control from the player at times.)

Then a great game. Good gameplay alone may make it a good game (and even there are great games without story); but if it contains good story presentation and merges it well, then it's a much better game than having a bad story presentation or having it badly merged. Not more "cinematic".

Or a super duper game! The fact is, the word cinematic does have meaning outside of the film industry. It can be a bit subjective but overall, everyone mostly ends up on the same page. It is aesthetical comparison to other styles. Consider this:

All these so called cinematic games look suspiciously fucking similar to each other. Because the industry doesn't really know what it means by the term cinematic.

Now if they are using a descriptive word to describe aethetic consistantly, then it makes sense. All cinematic games look very fucking similar?

Probably like all "cartoony games" look suspiciously fucking similar to each other, no?
Or all Anime games look suspiciously fucking similar.
Or all Steampunk games look suspiciously fucking similar.

I would say this means they actually do know what they are talking about. However, just like this thread people have different ideas concerning aesthetic choices. Not everyone is gonna agree on a set of requirements for the term cinematic. Just like not everyone is gonna agree on a set of requirements for the term good. Or clunky. Or micromanagement. Everyone will end up on the same page for these things but specifics will vary from person to person. That doesn't mean the words have no meaning, it means they have loose meanings. Generalized meanings. It's why the industry is so quick to go running behind them as a defense. However, every word we use to describe our game and their aesthetical appeal have loose meanings. Cell shading could get soeone to refer to the game as "comic booky", or use the same thing to describe inFamous. Loose meaning doesn't negate ALL meaning.

If a specatator has a hard time telling the difference between a cutscene and ingame footage, you got yourself a cinematic game.

If a spectator has a hard time telling the difference between a cutscene and ingame footage, then you have a spectator inexperienced in videogames. In their definition of cinematic game, the player is the one who shouldn't be able to tell the difference.

No, many people who know games and see game footage will often be surprised to find out something is actual gameplay footage instead of a pre-rendered cutscene. Plus, moments I have spoke of before where your avatar is standing there and you realize "oh shit, I can move" because you still though you were in the cutscene. I have done it and was gaming clear back to the Atari 2600 and every generation since, I have seen Let's Players do it, and I have seen people talk about it. All people who play games regularly.

Who's definition are you talking about? I am talking about my definition. According to the industry's definition, it has to do with framerates... it certainly isnt because of hardware limitations. But I see no one claiming that someone who is playing the game won't be able to tell they aren't playing a game. You are projecting that into the discussion from an unknown source.

 

[CaitSeith]

All these so called cinematic games look suspiciously fucking similar to each other. Because the industry doesn't really know what it means by the term cinematic.

Now if they are using a descriptive word to describe aethetic consistantly, then it makes sense. All cinematic games look very fucking similar?

And which description are the developers using to define that aethetic? And I say developers because Jim's argument was against them:

Quantic Dreams perfectly nails the problem that this industry has with cinematic pretensions. See, developers know how films look like ...but that's about all they know. It's a shallow understanding which is why, boiled down, they think frame rates and black bars are enough to make their games awesome; forgetting things like pacing, and good writing, and strong creative direction. Like if you could throw just some good looking cutscenes and you get yourself a Citizen fucking Kane. It ignores, first of all, that movies all have very different looks. The Hobbit doesn't look like Donnie Drako, which doesn't look like Sin City, which doesn't look like The Blair Witch Project, which doesn't look like Wreck It Ralph, which doesn't look like Fight Club.

He wasn't talking about your definition of cinematic as a aesthetic style.

It seems the point of the video was missed. The point was that cinematic is a meaningless term, that has been used to imply that movies are better than games. Their perfect cinematic game would be one where you can't tell if it's a game or a movie. So far, gameplay denies that possibility, because the only way to not to feel like you're playing a game is to have no gameplay at all (making the game just a really long cutscene)

If a specatator has a hard time telling the difference between a cutscene and ingame footage, you got yourself a cinematic game.

If a spectator has a hard time telling the difference between a cutscene and ingame footage, then you have a spectator inexperienced in videogames. In their definition of cinematic game, the player is the one who shouldn't be able to tell the difference.

No, many people who know games and see game footage will often be surprised to find out something is actual gameplay footage instead of a pre-rendered cutscene. Plus, moments I have spoke of before where your avatar is standing there and you realize "oh shit, I can move" because you still though you were in the cutscene. I have done it and was gaming clear back to the Atari 2600 and every generation since, I have seen Let's Players do it, and I have seen people talk about it. All people who play games regularly.

Who's definition are you talking about? I am talking about my definition. According to the industry's definition, it has to do with framerates... it certainly isnt because of hardware limitations. But I see no one claiming that someone who is playing the game won't be able to tell they aren't playing a game. You are projecting that into the discussion from an unknown source.

I was talking about the definition from those who think movies are better than games. Meanwhile, by your definition, I could think that once you finish a cinematic game, it's no longer cinematic for you. Because now you can tell when you have control and when it's a cutscene in that game.

PS:

However, every word we use to describe our game and their aesthetical appeal have loose meanings. Cell shading could get soeone to refer to the game as "comic booky", or use the same thing to describe inFamous.

*facepalm*
Cell shading isn't an aesthetical style, but a rendering technique. If someone describes inFamous as cell shaded, it isn't because it's a loose meaning, it's because he is an ignorant.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

You know what the most cinematic game is?

5 Nights at Freddy's.

You sit there, stare at a screen, and push a couple of buttons every now and again. It perfectly encapsulates what it's like to watch a movie.

GENIUS!

 

[CrystalShadow]

'Cinematic' is a meaningless term, but even if it wasn't, why would you WANT a game to be cinematic? It's stupid. Games are games for a reason, and we really should be exploring what makes them work in their own right, not aping something else in a counterproductive way that actually makes games weaker for it.

But still, this reminds me of the arguments of cinema people too. (Because of the editor I use for youtube videos, I get a mailing list which is often about 'cinematic production issues').
One thing that keeps cropping up is reasons why 'lower framerates' and 'traditional film cameras' are somehow better than newer digital cameras and film techniques.
A similar argument crops up with the claim somehow that records are better than digital audio, for... some reason.
(The reasons you get if you ask them to explain tend to be rather nebulous most of time)

OK, so if you're going for a particular aesthetic, you can actually benefit from certain things.
Like a game was going for a typical Anime style with it's visual design, and as part of that they made the character animations run at 15 fps (not the game as a whole mind you, just the character animation).

Visually this did indeed make it look more authentic.

But the thing is, 'cinematic' is not a style in any sense. It's something vague and nebulous.

If a game were trying to copy the visual aesthetic of something like sin city, that would make much more sense than some vague thing like calling it 'cinematic'...

 

[balladbird]

I agree with those who maintain that as a term "cinematic" has no meaning.

If I take the term away, and assume that you mean a game that blends its storytelling and gameplay together well, such that both sides strengthen the other and the lack of one would cost the other its appeal, then I think the best game like that I can offer is "Catherine"

Seriously, the dubious gender politics aside, that was a STELLAR example of a story driven game with strong gameplay, sadly a bit overlooked in its time.

 

[duwenbasden]

- There is 1 cutscene in the entire game.
- All the player can do is pause the cutscene.
- The cutscene's run time is the same as the game's length.
- The cutscene starts as soon as the player press start.

There, your "cinematic experience"; anything else and someone's using it as an excuse for pretentious bullshit.

 

[josemlopes]

What I liked about what Jim said is that we try to mimic only the film style of Michael Bay and JJ Abrams, while ignoring the influence of Riddley Scott, Stanley Kubrick, Hitchcock. Cinema isn't a single monolithic thing, there are a lot of instesting visual themes to explore and we are obsessed on making our AAA blockbusters look like the summer blockbusters people see ones in theatres and instantly forget.

Honestly, imagine a game inspired by Hitchcock films.

Didnt watch the video but I disagree with Jim if he really said that it was only Michael Bay and JJ Abrams. The new Metal Gear seems to be directed like the movie Children of Men for example (that movie had a lot of long shots and basicly every cutscene of Ground Zeroes is a long single shot), then you have games like Alan Wake, Deadly Premonition, Max Payne, Payday and some others that take heavy inspirations in certain movies and their style.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

I want to contribute by providing my own definition of cinematic:

Cinematic means that it's a game that can evoke the same type of reactions that we have to characters in movies. Ultimately, that comes down to the characters and writing and that's a department I find that most games are lacking in.

The challenge comes from balancing gameplay with story because you can have a well crafted story but if you can't make the player's input mean anything or it's so minimal that it's just a VN, there is no point to calling it a game.

 

[Savagezion]

All these so called cinematic games look suspiciously fucking similar to each other. Because the industry doesn't really know what it means by the term cinematic.

Now if they are using a descriptive word to describe aethetic consistantly, then it makes sense. All cinematic games look very fucking similar?

And which description are the developers using to define that aethetic? And I say developers because Jim's argument was against them:

Once again it varies from developer to developer - Jim is ONLY talking about the developers who use it as a cop out for technical limitations yet he is taking a broad stroke against all of them. A valid point against those who are trying to hide behind the term, however, he completely dismisses those like Naughty Dog who have taken a more cinematic approach to game development and haven't used it as a crutch. Mass Effect dialogue is cinematic in style even going so far as to use film grain.

Quantic Dreams perfectly nails the problem that this industry has with cinematic pretensions. See, developers know how films look like ...but that's about all they know. It's a shallow understanding which is why, boiled down, they think frame rates and black bars are enough to make their games awesome; forgetting things like pacing, and good writing, and strong creative direction. Like if you could throw just some good looking cutscenes and you get yourself a Citizen fucking Kane. It ignores, first of all, that movies all have very different looks. The Hobbit doesn't look like Donnie Drako, which doesn't look like Sin City, which doesn't look like The Blair Witch Project, which doesn't look like Wreck It Ralph, which doesn't look like Fight Club.

He wasn't talking about your definition of cinematic as a aesthetic style.

I know, I think my first post shows I disagree with Jim. While he has a point against framerates not mattering at all, he is lumping all developers who use the term cinematic into a group and calling them all cop outs. All those films are cinema by the very difinition of cinema. A movie that is trying to be cinematic makes no sense because it is a film, thus "cinematic" by default. "Cinematic" for a game is a loose term used to pitch the style of presentation - it has a meaning. However, what style of cinema are they trying to emulate? As Jim points out Cinema itself has many styles. For example, Uncharted uses a similar slapstick/adventure style as Indiana Jones movies. Last of Us uses a style similar to Spielberg in War of the Worlds. Now, the AI can fuck up the atmosphere, but you can see what they are TRYING to do in the presentation.

If a specatator has a hard time telling the difference between a cutscene and ingame footage, you got yourself a cinematic game.

If a spectator has a hard time telling the difference between a cutscene and ingame footage, then you have a spectator inexperienced in videogames. In their definition of cinematic game, the player is the one who shouldn't be able to tell the difference.

No, many people who know games and see game footage will often be surprised to find out something is actual gameplay footage instead of a pre-rendered cutscene. Plus, moments I have spoke of before where your avatar is standing there and you realize "oh shit, I can move" because you still though you were in the cutscene. I have done it and was gaming clear back to the Atari 2600 and every generation since, I have seen Let's Players do it, and I have seen people talk about it. All people who play games regularly.

Who's definition are you talking about? I am talking about my definition. According to the industry's definition, it has to do with framerates... it certainly isnt because of hardware limitations. But I see no one claiming that someone who is playing the game won't be able to tell they aren't playing a game. You are projecting that into the discussion from an unknown source.

I was talking about the definition from those who think movies are better than games. Meanwhile, by your definition, I could think that once you finish a cinematic game, it's no longer cinematic for you. Because now you can tell when you have control and when it's a cutscene in that game.

It is still cinematic because it has nothing to do with not knowing you are playing the game, it is about the smooth transition from player control to pre-rendered scene, camera angles and panning, etc. I was pointing out those moments about not knowing when you are in control to illustrate that some game developers have gotten REALLY good at cutscene transitions. The transition still maintains that quality even if you are aware of it.

PS:

However, every word we use to describe our game and their aesthetical appeal have loose meanings. Cell shading could get soeone to refer to the game as "comic booky", or use the same thing to describe inFamous.

*facepalm*
Cell shading isn't an aesthetical style, but a rendering technique. If someone describes inFamous as cell shaded, it isn't because it's a loose meaning, it's because he is an ignorant.

I take it you haven't played inFamous. It's cutscenes look like this with narration:

Still images with almost no animation.

It could be referred to as "comic booky" because of the cutscene presentation looking like an animated comic.

Cell shading on the other hand tends to offer those thick black outlines like Borderlands making it appear simialr to many more mature content styles of comic book art. Whereas if you leave those black lines out you usually end up with a style used in more kid friendly comics like Casper. Both hold two completely different approaches to the style and yet both styles could be called "comic booky" with good reason. They just are looking at different styles within comics. Just like many developers are looking at different styles within cinema. (And some are using it as a crutch) However, it would be stupid for a comic to claim it is going to be "comic booky". Just like it would be stupid for a movie to pitch itself as "cinematic". A game saying it is cinematic means that they are attempting a cinematic presentation for the game. Yeah, FPS is a stupid and weak claim for it and it doesn't even really validate it because 24 fps isn't a style, its more like a format.

Cell shading is most certainly part of your aesthetic because if you choose it, you are choosing a non-photo realism aesthetic. Whether you choose to cell shade or not is going to influence your entire aesthetic. Borderlands was originally going to be photo realistic but changed up at the last minute to cell shaded completely having to redo much of the artwork.

 

[Lightspeaker]

I want to contribute by providing my own definition of cinematic:

Cinematic means that it's a game that can evoke the same type of reactions that we have to characters in movies. Ultimately, that comes down to the characters and writing and that's a department I find that most games are lacking in.

The challenge comes from balancing gameplay with story because you can have a well crafted story but if you can't make the player's input mean anything or it's so minimal that it's just a VN, there is no point to calling it a game.

Then its already been reached. Not everyone has the same reaction to characters in films and not everyone has the same reaction to games but considering how people have reacted to The Walking Dead games, Spec Ops The Line...even going back as far as the opening of Homeworld and Aerith dying in Final Fantasy VII. For decades now people have had strong reactions to games.

 

[CaitSeith]

I take it you haven't played inFamous. It's cutscenes look like this with narration:

Spoiler

Still images with almost no animation.

It could be referred to as "comic booky" because of the cutscene presentation looking like an animated comic.

Cell shading on the other hand tends to offer those thick black outlines like Borderlands making it appear simialr to many more mature content styles of comic book art. Whereas if you leave those black lines out you usually end up with a style used in more kid friendly comics like Casper. Both hold two completely different approaches to the style and yet both styles could be called "comic booky" with good reason. They just are looking at different styles within comics. Just like many developers are looking at different styles within cinema. (And some are using it as a crutch) However, it would be stupid for a comic to claim it is going to be "comic booky". Just like it would be stupid for a movie to pitch itself as "cinematic". A game saying it is cinematic means that they are attempting a cinematic presentation for the game. Yeah, FPS is a stupid and weak claim for it and it doesn't even really validate it because 24 fps isn't a style, its more like a format.

Cell shading is most certainly part of your aesthetic because if you choose it, you are choosing a non-photo realism aesthetic. Whether you choose to cell shade or not is going to influence your entire aesthetic. Borderlands was originally going to be photo realistic but changed up at the last minute to cell shaded completely having to redo much of the artwork.

Yes, I have played infamous. No, those aren't cel-shaded graphics. Those are pre-rendered cinematics.

Spoiler: This is cel-shaded:

Spoiler: And this:

Spoiler: And this:

Spoiler: And this:

Cel-shading is identifiable by the cartoonish style. But there are more ways to get "comic book" visuals (specially in 2-D animations) without using cel-shading.

 

[elvor0]

What do you guys see as the compromise that can be reached and what are examples of games that managed to be truly "cinematic".

None, games aren't films and we should stop striving to emulate them or "comprimise" the medium in order to impress people who don't get that GAMEPLAY is a really important part of the medium.

Obviously cut scenes should follow good cinematography because it's a visual medium, but then it should also have good audio quality and music compisition because it has auditory components too; how are we ever supposed to have gaming held up as a media art form in their own right alongside Books, Film and Music if we insist on gaming just copying Film? That doesn't make it smart or original, just able to regurgitate.

The industry should also stop trying to use "cinematic" as an excuse for bad optimization. I don't know who the fuck they're trying to fool, because the only people that read that stuff are the people who know it's bullshit. "Uhh yeah, Generic Brown Haired White Dude has 60 billion polygons on the sole of his show, you'll never see it, but as a result we've had to gimp the performance of the gameplay, don't worry though, it looks totes cinematic."

 

[Savagezion]

I missed this as you somehow misquoted.

Yes, I have played infamous. No, those aren't cel-shaded graphics. Those are pre-rendered cinematics.

Spoiler: This is cel-shaded:

Spoiler: And this:

Spoiler: And this:

Spoiler: And this:

Cel-shading is identifiable by the cartoonish style. But there are more ways to get "comic book" visuals (specially in 2-D animations) without using cel-shading.

True? I never said once that inFamous uses cel shading. I said it could be referred to as "comic booky" because its cutscenes play out like an animated comic. I also said that someone could say Borderlands is "comic booky" because the cel shaded graphic style is reminiscent of comic book art with bold outlines. That is why Champions Online used that aesthetic. Two completely different reasons to say a game is "comic booky" based on 2 different styles attached to the comic book world, yet both are valid. The term "comic booky", while vague, is valid. Just as the term cinematic, while vague, is valid.

Cinema has many styles to it as Jim points out, as most artforms tend to have. It has more to do with what they focus on. If we look at the term "survival" often used to describe games, every game is about survival in one way or another. Does this render the term survival moot? Survival in Day Z is different than survival in Minecraft. Just as the cinematic approach in Mass effect is different than the cinematic approach in The Last of Us. What the game's director(s) focus on about the cinematic stylings is going to change from title to title. Some are going to focus on just how pretty they can make the cutscenes, which is a weaker approach but Mass Effect sure made the most of it last gen. Naughty Dog and even Rocksteady do a different approach trying to blend the player action seamlessly with cutscenes that emphasize actions the player has taken or to elevate atmosphere.

Ultimately "cinematic" is always going to be talking about cutscenes. But it doesn't always mean "make it look like a movie" as Jim suggests. Some developers are actually trying to "make it feel like you are in control of a movie". Because that beats staring at the back of someone's head for 40 hours. Which is why I see gaming as a superior media. The problem is some devs have used the term to hide behind hardware limitations.