Games try to be movies. What is the point?

[Chicago Ted]

It's a hell of a lot better then the other way around.

The main example for this that comes to mind right now is a game I've always had a spot for. StrangleHold. That game fit what it needed to do perfectly. It combined the action and style of an action movie with the ability to play it as a game. I always love diving through the air firing duel berettas and onto a trolley for it to slide out from behind a car where I hit a sign post above a guy to have it come down and smack him in the face. After every fight in that game I always felt a bit more bad ass.

 

[Evil Tim]

"But if we make a game that successfully captures the general spirit of the movie while being an entertaining stand-alone game?"

The OP isn't talking about movie licenses, he's talking about when videogames wholeheartedly co-opt film concepts and use them without a thought that they might not be appropriate to an interactive medium, such as using dialog-heavy stories which require frequent pauses in any kind of playable content, or carefully blocking scenes the player might end up looking in the wrong direction to see at all.

This is different to taking the plot of a movie and using it as the starting point to build the scenario the videogame will take place in.

 

[geldonyetich]

"But if we make a game that successfully captures the general spirit of the movie while being an entertaining stand-alone game?"

The OP isn't talking about movie licenses, he's talking about when videogames wholeheartedly co-opt film concepts and use them without a thought that they might not be appropriate to an interactive medium, such as using dialog-heavy stories which require frequent pauses in any kind of playable content, or carefully blocking scenes the player might end up looking in the wrong direction to see at all.

This is different to taking the plot of a movie and using it as the starting point to build the scenario the videogame will take place in.

Well, taken as a whole umbrella observation, the critique seems a bit off. "Film concepts" are not a small bag if tricks, but rather a giant toolset. If you work in an auto shop and have to fit your bicycle, sure a lot of the tools in the auto-shop would be inappropriate to use, but not all of them.

So I wouldn't go as far as to say that having knowledge of how to make a good cinematic experience could not be leveraged, at all, towards making a good game.

That said, the main complaint seems to be don't make me sit through non-interactive cut scenes. While I'd like to say that is indeed a good critique, it's also relatively subjective. I'm a 26 year gamer, and I happen to like non-interactive cut scenes, provided that the developers provide me a means to skip it after I've seen it the first time and don't force it to repeat to often.

 

[Kollega]

Well, you're not alone. Simply copying movie tropes and conventions just plain does not work - in games you are not just watching the character. You are steering his actions. It's as if you are the actor in the movie. Yes, there still is a general script, yes, some other guy delivers the dialogue instead of you, dying in game can be equated to failed cuts - but navigating the set is up to you, and what you do in combat is improvisation. There's no hard script for these parts.

 

[Evil Tim]

That said, the main complaint seems to be don't make me sit through non-interactive cut scenes. While I'd like to say that is indeed a good critique, it's also relatively subjective. I'm a 26 year gamer, and I happen to like non-interactive cut scenes, provided that the developers provide me a means to skip it after I've seen it the first time and don't force it to repeat to often.

Why, though? You don't watch a movie expecting to have the whole thing grind to a halt until you've read ten pages of printed-out notes, so why is it acceptable for the game to grind to to a halt while you watch a non-interactive sequence unfold? Keeping the player participating is what keeps it a game rather than bits of a game and bits of a movie thrown haphazardly together.

 

[geldonyetich]

That said, the main complaint seems to be don't make me sit through non-interactive cut scenes. While I'd like to say that is indeed a good critique, it's also relatively subjective. I'm a 26 year gamer, and I happen to like non-interactive cut scenes, provided that the developers provide me a means to skip it after I've seen it the first time and don't force it to repeat to often.

Why, though? You don't watch a movie expecting to have the whole thing grind to a halt until you've read ten pages of printed-out notes, so why is it acceptable for the game to grind to to a halt while you watch a non-interactive sequence unfold? Keeping the player participating is what keeps it a game rather than bits of a game and bits of a movie thrown haphazardly together.

Sure, but I'm patient enough to wait for my interactive bit if there's a good reason, and that good reason could be a non-interactive cutscene that sets up that situation to enrich the following gameplay.

Take your average Final Fantasy game, for example. Sure, they've got a lot of non-interactive cutscenes and other extravagant pyrotechnics in there but take them out and what do you have? Fairly derivative gameplay.

Now, I'm not saying go completely ape with non-interactive content. Take Final Fantasy VIII's summoning sequences for example. There's an example of taking it a bit too far.

What I am saying is that good use of non-interactive elements can actually enrich a game's entertainment impact.

 

[Evil Tim]

Sure, but I'm patient enough to wait for my interactive bit if there's a good reason, and that good reason could be a non-interactive cutscene that sets up that situation to enrich the following gameplay.

Yeah, but for any such sequence it would be readily possible to think up some way to introduce it in playable terms; setting up a character's backstory with a playable flashback rather than just having them sit down and explain it, for example. I'm aware there are games that are better watched than played [Silpheed: The Lost Planet springs to mind] but this is a failure of the game aspect, not really a success of the non-game aspect. I'd rather creativity be focused on helping me discover a story on the terms given to me in the game rather than telling it in spite of my presence and participation as so many games end up doing.

Take your average Final Fantasy game, for example. Sure, they've got a lot of non-interactive cutscenes and other extravagant pyrotechnics in there but take them out and what do you have? Fairly derivative gameplay.

Well yes, exactly. The story and pretty things are there almost as an apology for the actual gameplay, which seems a rather backwards way to go about making a game.

 

[oliveira8]

L4D does it fine.

Ehhh...But L4D is suppose to be a homage/parody of zombie and horror movies. So it makes a bit sense why the developer would pursue that idea.

 

[IanBrazen]

So, the topic as proposed by the original poster:

"Games aren't movies, movies aren't games. Games, incidentally, are not movies. Nor are movies games. Pay attention, there will be a test on this later."

"But if we make a game that successfully captures the general spirit of the movie while being an entertaining stand-alone game?"

"SHUT YOU FACE RIGHT UP AND DO NOT EVEN TRY YOU FESTERING WRONG-MINDED FOOL, GAMES ARE NOT MOVIES AND MOVIES ARE NOT GAMES."

"But I'm not saying that, I'm saying-"

"NO, SHUT UP, GET OFF MY THREAD."

"Like Ghostbust-"

"SECURITY!"

I should be insulted by this but I cant stop laughing.
Fuck you, you hilarious bastard.

However in responce to the other things you have said (which are very good points), yes I do hate sitting through long cut sceans when there is no need for them.
There are plenty of times in games when the main character starts beating up some dude or fighting someone important, and I get hyped up for a fight about to happen when the bad guy gets his ass kicked.
I feel a little cheated after that.

Also games like final fantasy, and afew others to me are not really "games".
Dont get me wrong I love those games to death, but to me they are more interactive storys than anything.

Well yes, exactly. The story and pretty things are there almost as an apology for the actual gameplay, which seems a rather backwards way to go about making a game.

exactly.

 

[samo8]

Is that why FPS's have more engrossing stories do you think? Because it is easier to immerse yourself in that character? Except Gordon Freeman, do no ask me why but even with other FPS silent protagonists he just seems like the most boring 2-d irritation there is, I mean with some of the others you can understand, a Private in a war (is supposed) to just follow orders no questions asked, not much need to talk, but he is supposed to be like a genius and the fucking messiah to the Vance crew and the dick can't talk? That is just dumb to me, made me stop playing The Orange box Half-Life 2 games.

 

[Gnargy]

I can see the point of the OP. I think however it's a matter of taste. I personally love those kind of games, like final fantasy or metal gear. Since I interact with the character through (pretty trivial) gameplay I feel alot more attached than when watching a movie. This makes the cutscenes very enjoyable to watch.

I can imagine that when developers manage to combine gameplay with deep story telling it would be superior, but I cant think of many games that do that.
The problem is just that there are about 12 buttons on the controller and you cant tell a deep story with just 12 types of actions.

 

[Weaver]

If games didn't try to be movies what would Kojima fans do?

 

[IanBrazen]

I can see the point of the OP. I think however it's a matter of taste. I personally love those kind of games, like final fantasy or metal gear. Since I interact with the character through (pretty trivial) gameplay I feel alot more attached than when watching a movie. This makes the cutscenes very enjoyable to watch.

I can imagine that when developers manage to combine gameplay with deep story telling it would be superior, but I cant think of many games that do that. I think Uncharted is a good example of very good gameplay with good story telling, I was never wondering when I got to play again during this game.

The problem is just that there are about 12 buttons on the controller and you cant tell a deep story with just 12 types of actions.

I would almost say that MGS3 is the exception to my rule, almost.
MGS3 is definitely in my top 10 but I still find myself skipping scenes when i play it.
More cinematics doesn't mean a better story.

and btw how many buttons there are doesn't factor into the story.

If games didn't try to be movies what would Kojima fans do?

***** like always.

 

[Thaius]

I think there's nothing wrong with games that look cinematic, but I also think that the time for using it as a crutch is over. Some games do a good job of mixing cinema with gameplay, and that's what we need to start doing. It's time that games stopped trying to be like movies and instead tried to actually mix cinema with interactivity.

 

[Gnargy]

You know what I meant. You cant make a scene like "The main character looks at the picture of his lost friend and ponders" interactive.

 

[humanbeaing]

i have stopped playing games all together. i just sit down in front of a movie and fiddle with the remote for hours of interactive fun!

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Ok this rant might be because I'm a "games are art" kinda guy, and feel that if game are going to evolve into something more than a big toy, they need to be their own thing, but hear me out all the same.

I sort of agreed with you up to a point until you said this. The "cinematic" people are more honest about games than you because they still mostly understand that the games are something to play with. They are providing a different sort of play.

Something more than a big toy is the kind of statement that sort of pisses me off. Like high brow art is never fun or playful? It makes me think that you just want to get rid of all the interesting game parts of the game and just make them boring story presentations about the horror of war, a failed relationship, or some other shit.

So basically, I think that you are the worst unless I have read you wrong. And CoD MW is how to do it right? Ugh, just ugh.

 

[Doc.Nick]

I think this guy put it very well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmucAjnfyTk&feature=related

 

[SultanP]

The way I see it, some games are as interesting to watch as movies, and that is how they become like movies. I have played a few games, can't remember which, that others have been quite happy to just sit and watch me play. This is another way of bringing people into gaming. I'm not going to sit and watch someone play Bubble Bobble for hours. But if one of my friends were playing Rise of the Argonauts I would sit and watch it like a movie because it relies heavily on storytelling, and does it well. So I would like a game that is packed full of story, they are interesting, immersive, and fun.

I'm sick of people complaining about games trying to be movies or books, someone might listen to them, and then we're left with games without stories, that'll bring about the age where we get nothing but sports games, driving games, brawlers, and repetitive arcade games to play.