Games try to be movies. What is the point?
- Thread starter IanBrazen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.htmlbagodix said:
Oh, there we are. Nobody is suggesting games need to become more primitive, they are suggesting a narrative told through player action and experience rather than through non-interactive sequences. Otherwise, you're playing a cut-up game with bits of movie thrown in because you couldn't write a story that properly fit the medium.
It is indeed not that choice, because Half-Life also has non-interactive cinematics that the player has no meaningful role in; witness the infamous extended train journey that kicks off HL1 where the player has the option of looking at the precisely one thing that is happening in the area at any given time or [gasp!] not looking at it! Not only is it not an improvement, the only difference is a flimsy veneer of false interaction and the fact that you're not allowed to skip it. Um, thanks.bagodix said:
The ideal is a story written in such a way that the player is constantly immersed in it, not made to step outside and look in because it's the only way to tell it; that means no cutscenes and no cinematics where you're locked in a room and exposition is levered awkwardly into your ear while you scurry around looking for a way out. Both are like being made to read script pages during a movie because the writers have done something that can't work visually [with the classic example being a plot twist where a character looks in a mirror and realises he's actually a tomato].
Maybe, but saying that they want a return to simpler times or that they just want Space Invaders back is a gross misrepresentation of their opinions. In many ways the games industry goal to have games that differentiate themselves by story and presentation with identical gameplay makes here and now the "simpler times." It is much more simple not to have to learn how to play new games and work out what abstract symbolism of game mechanics and simple graphics mean to you. It's a steeper and more rewarding challenge to play a game designed to run with an arcade stick and 60 fps gameplay than an analogue nub and 30 fps cinematic gameplay.bagodix said:
Story and presentation is a substitute or alternative to things like game design and challenge, not a natural progression or technological advancement as your argument would suggest.
Interactivity by itself is a fine thing, I'll not knock it. There are different levels of interactivity from interacting with a child's toy to changing the parameters on a complicated mathematical model. A game is a whole other level on top of that though and is something that a more mature mind normally demands from something interactive to make it complex and interesting enough to stick with. Games are often much better than something that is just interactive and an "interactive" cutscene where you have limited agency while a scripted scene plays out is a very weak and frustrating form of interaction. Like giving a baby a rattle to play with while you read them a story.
I'm sure its easier to get random studios that don't like video games on board when you say thigns like "but we'll make it like a movie" or something. Then again, companies like Blizzard teehee all the way to the bank at anyone that thinks video games are crap.
Their is no point at all.
What did a successful game francise work as? a game right? by definition being a rouphly ten hour long interactive experience in a genre where a story is optional, and the satisfaction of playing is from what the player dous. And what is a movie? a rouphly one and a half hour experience that relies heavily on story to keep the watchers intrest.
so why is it that developers keep trying to make game movies all the damn time?
What did a successful game francise work as? a game right? by definition being a rouphly ten hour long interactive experience in a genre where a story is optional, and the satisfaction of playing is from what the player dous. And what is a movie? a rouphly one and a half hour experience that relies heavily on story to keep the watchers intrest.
so why is it that developers keep trying to make game movies all the damn time?
Give me evidence then. It misrepresents me and other people who are bored of Space Invaders but still want advancements on it and other games but not in the ways that you think are "progressive." Even if you can find one idiot who thinks that everything after Space Invaders was wrong then I still disprove your position by existing.bagodix said:
Story and presentation can compliment gameplay but the way they are often used and advocated to be used is as a substitute. Are you happy with the puzzles and text parser in text adventures or do you think they are also a step backwards and as bad as Space Invaders?
I don't mind some cutscenes but a good game has the player being good and knowing what they are doing. An interactive cutscenes made by a director who knows what they are doing is still weak in interaction and not a good game no matter how you dress it up.
I like games that have non-interactive cut scenes. I also like games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age that allow you to choose what you say but I also liked the long cut scenes of MGS4. It seems like people want cut scenes that say press X to continue the conversation, move analog stick to walk and continue to press X to talk. yeah that sounds fun. honestly the reason for non-interactive cut scenes is because they are trying to tell a story, not you telling the story. I mean you wouldnt buy an fps like MW2 and think that every cut scene made you do all the work. Is it so hard to let the game designers tell the story?
Look, you are the one who started with this losing cinematics is like rolling back to the eighties thing so drop the ingénue act. By the way, there were Eighties games with cinematics and Space Invaders is from the Seventies.bagodix said:
Dialog trees are interaction but I'm not the one arguing that every moment in a game should be interactive. I see that as part of the the interactive cut-scene/immersion first person game fallacy.
I believe there are many people who enjoy a game with a cinematic feeling in it.That's more than enough to make me say that movies + videogames = not wrong.
Personally,i'm not absolute on this,it always depends on the game itself.
Personally,i'm not absolute on this,it always depends on the game itself.
I think the point isn't for games to be 'more like movies', but rather to be more cinematic in the way we experience them.
Some games do this very well, where the cinematic scope extends into all aspects of the game. Assassin's Creed is a good example. Climbing high towers, leaping down from them, hiding in a crowd, assassinations - nearly every moment of the game feels very cinematic.
Some games do this very, very poorly. They take the idea of games trying to be like movies too far, removing the idea of an interactive medium and just going for long drawn out cutscenes and overblown dialogue. I'm looking at you, entire Hideo Kojima library.
My biggest problem is that writing is often not taken seriously in a game attempting to tell a cinematic tale. They think just having lots of words, plot twists, and someone turn evil in the end makes for a good 'movie-like' game. They ignore the idea of shot composition, camera work, suspenseful situations, believable dialogue, and a logical story arc.
Being cinematic isn't a bad thing, but some video game developers see the actual GAME part as a means to an end - little annoying bits of filler in between their 'masterfully written' cutscenes.
Some games do this very well, where the cinematic scope extends into all aspects of the game. Assassin's Creed is a good example. Climbing high towers, leaping down from them, hiding in a crowd, assassinations - nearly every moment of the game feels very cinematic.
Some games do this very, very poorly. They take the idea of games trying to be like movies too far, removing the idea of an interactive medium and just going for long drawn out cutscenes and overblown dialogue. I'm looking at you, entire Hideo Kojima library.
My biggest problem is that writing is often not taken seriously in a game attempting to tell a cinematic tale. They think just having lots of words, plot twists, and someone turn evil in the end makes for a good 'movie-like' game. They ignore the idea of shot composition, camera work, suspenseful situations, believable dialogue, and a logical story arc.
Being cinematic isn't a bad thing, but some video game developers see the actual GAME part as a means to an end - little annoying bits of filler in between their 'masterfully written' cutscenes.
Ok now your just being juvenile.bagodix said:
If you want to have a conversation stop trying to belittle peoples arguments.
I dont think everyone should resort to absolutely not cut scenes, I just think there is a more interactive way to get the story across.
In afro samurai (this is the only thing in the game I liked) when afro is fighting his old master, instead of a cut scene we actually get to fight him. then to tell the story they lock swords at certain points and yell at each other.
there is a good example of how to get the story across in a fun way without resorting to cut scenes.
the only games that i think have succesfully pulled off the movie game thing are some of the square enix ones like some of the better final fantasy games, lost odyssey and i hear last remnant is quite good as well i hear. apart from that i cant think of many games that arnt jrpg games well. like i couldnt sit down and watch someone else play mw2 because i would get bored and the same thing goes for nearly all other games i have seen.
p.s dont get me wrong im not a jrpg fan i own quite a lot of shooters that i play a lot of like cod4 tf2 and l4d to name but a few and i would much rather buy a good shooter or rts game then a jrpg game so dont label me as a die hard jrpg bloke
p.s dont get me wrong im not a jrpg fan i own quite a lot of shooters that i play a lot of like cod4 tf2 and l4d to name but a few and i would much rather buy a good shooter or rts game then a jrpg game so dont label me as a die hard jrpg bloke
Show me these straw men, oh no, that is right, conveniently none of them use the Internet. You could probably bully someone into saying that what they want is simple and outdated or returning to "simpler times" as you say but what some people really want is more complicated. Like what they want is an RPG with a deep combat system where they can just start killing things and exploring or a shoot 'em up game with lots of interesting game mechanics where you don't have to hear about the space pilot's life story before you start blasting things.bagodix said:
Some games have become more complicated in line with their narratives becoming more complicated but that does not mean that having a very streamlined or abstract narrative necessarily makes all games old fashioned or simpler.
How relevant do you want something that starts with "by the way" to be? It is a sign that your grasp of the history of video games and understanding of what sort of games people want to play isn't as solid as you make out to be.