I'd want to see a game that is indisguishable from a movie

[Some_weirdGuy]

Not like current movie-like games are, where there's lots of cutscenes, or the environment is rather cinematic as you play though a linear storyline, or you basically play a big quick time event. I mean something you'd feel better defining as not a game, but an interactive movie.

I'm interested in seeing a game that plays as if you are the player characters subconscious, always present and gently nudging, but not actually controlling. A game so much like a movie that someone else watching it(or someone who had lost their controller) wouldn't actually be able to tell it's interactive, control that is completely transparent, yet still making this gentle influence meaningful and constant.

Maybe you'd only realise how meaningful your influence is after a second or third play/watch-through, sometimes it might seem like you're doing nothing, but in truth each influence brings with it a butterfly effect of potential changes.
((Hell, talking 'wishlist', so forget scope, imagine an interactive movie that could completely change genre and subject matter simply based on your small nudges as an agent of the subconscious, yet at no time feel disjointed or un-movie-like because of it.))


I was inspired to this line of though probably in some part by all the film school animations I was watching the other day(serious, go on a youtube film school animation binge, lots of it is really good stuff), and just now specifically this tech demo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhoYLp8CtXI

which I'd watched a while ago but decided to watch again after it showed up in related videos(though i can't recall how i went from catbug [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFWb7DG7zTc] to tech demos XD), and trying to think of how something so movie-esque could also be made fuly interactive, indeed making something that feels like that, and still looks and 'acts' like that, while retaining a layer of player input that wasn't just binary 'press X to do bla' or QTE-style path picking, nor was it full player control, but more like a gentle push that you were in control of at all times.

----
So does anyone else think something like this might be an interesting way of getting a new take on 'cinematic games'?
Anyone already know a game that's works like that?
Anyone just think movies and games should stay separate and everyone should stop trying to meet in the middle?

 

[tilmoph]

First thought; how would you pull off control so subtle that it doesn't seem to be doing anything but is? Would this be like a quick time event, jam the X button to make the protagonist more aggressive, jam O to make them more emotionally vulnerable? I'm just not sure how to do a control scheme with the effect you want that wouldn't just turn into a movie where you have to play with the remote occasionally, at which point, why not just make a movie?

Secondly, as an overall point, movies and video games are extremely different storytelling mediums. I know, I know, this seems obvious, but I bring it up because I think they are different enough that there's a limit to how much you can actually merge elements from one to the other without creating a hybrid product that is worse than if it was fully one thing or fully another. Making something a full movie allows for tighter script focus and pacing by dropping the interactive element, while making it a role playing type game allows for more viewer/player involvement in the course of the story and it's outcome. Both have positive points, but those positives don't mesh well. In addition, games are meant to entertain through, well, game-like elements, points of player interactivity via an avatar with the world they're seeing. This is a huge chunk of a game's appeal. Making this too subtle will hurt the game aspect of you're interactive movie, returning us to the question "why not just make a movie?"

Overall, I'm not big on the trend some genres of games have of stopping the gameplay to run a movie where you, the player, aren't involved. I don't mind dialogue trees, as strange as the conversations they produce may seem. I turn to story heavy gaming to interact with the game in large ways, to direct the outcome. If I have to play/watch something two or three times to see an effect, I'm very unlikely to do so, and depending on how good of a movie the movie-game is, I may not bother watching through the whole thing the first time. Some measure of feedback to the player for the choices they make and the influence they exerted are necessary for a game which wishes to push it's story, at least for me. Otherwise, I'm watching a movie that has me fiddling with a keyboard now and again for seemingly no reason, which makes the product less interesting to me than either a more gamey game or a straight movie.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well we already has choose your own adventure movies and interactive movies(full on QTE games), and there is more in the making so if that is what you are into keep a look out for David Cage stuff.

And no they don't "completely change the genre" they just mix up same old stuff, from my view they did so very badly thus far.
What I would like to see again is live action cut scenes (in games where it can be pulled off), and advanced options on movies (separate sound levels, silencing individual characters, skipping shitty scenes, flare level adjustment, shaky cam adjustment,...).

 

[Flatfrog]

I think we're a long, long way short of having the technology to do this in a way which is more sophisticated than a 'choose your path' branching narrative - and even that is so exponentially expensive that it's impossible to do more than a few choice points. To do it properly would require incredibly sophisticated AI.

(For what it's worth, I spent many months thinking about a system to do just that, but didn't have the time or talent to actually implement it)

 

[EHKOS]

Mmmm. That's not the way games are meant to be. You're better off just watching a movie, or playing The Last of Us. Games are meant to be interactive, it's what separates them from movies nowadays. Games are meant to be fun, as well as interesting and visually pleasing. A lot of developers are forgetting that in this day and age.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Games are already getting too cinematic for my liking, but that's just me.

 

[Olas]

I remember thinking that the first hour of the Tomb Raider reboot was the best Tomb Raider movie yet.

But really I think any semblance of a game being movie-like would be destroyed the first time you die, since that's something that doesn't happen in very many movies.

 

[Zhukov]

Unlike many others, I don't have a problem with games being "cinematic". Although obviously it's something that can be done badly. (Yes, QTEs, I'm looking at you.)

However, even if the technology was there to make something like what you describe, it would be crazy expensive and work intensive.

No idea what you're talking about with the controls.

 

[teebeeohh]

That is a terrible idea. I actually stopped reading a site because the boss editor had the same idea an after the release of heavy rain insisted that it was the pinnacle of gaming( and gave it a 94 and listed nothing in the bad column in their good/bad boxes) and compared everything to it. So stop it, games need to be interactive. We just need things other than killing or rubbing items together to open doors to connect the good parts in story driven games( hello infinite).

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Go play Heavy Rain. Or better yet, watch a movie and leave gaming the hell alone.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

Games are meant to be a different medium than movies right?
So why would you want a game that is like a movie,Games cant be as "movielike" as movies can and it would just end up being QTE the gameovie.
Heavy rain (The game most like a movie yet to my knowledge) wasn´t a good game it was really good to watch but it was very boring to play and game are supposed to be fun that´s why people play them.

'fun', or do we really just mean 'engaging'?

a game needn't necessarily be fun, any more than a movie needs to be. Being interesting is really the only goal of any form of entertainment.

First thought; how would you pull off control so subtle that it doesn't seem to be doing anything but is? Would this be like a quick time event, jam the X button to make the protagonist more aggressive, jam O to make them more emotionally vulnerable? I'm just not sure how to do a control scheme with the effect you want that wouldn't just turn into a movie where you have to play with the remote occasionally, at which point, why not just make a movie?

Certainly not, quick time events were among my opening sentences 'not like current movie-like games are' elements.
As i said, it would be like you are the subconscious, or even some sort of even further arching meta-physical 'influences'.

The example i first thought up, and if we forget realistic scope and go for 'entire different movie based on your influence':
The protagonist is walking down a street during the opening moments of the movie. You hold the left directional button, and after a few minutes or so, as if some nagging doubt is playing at him or some unseen element catches his eye, the protagonist turns over their left shoulder. Just so happens they catch a glipse of some shadey guy passing something to another futative looking figure down the side alley across the road.
The movie you watch ends up that it is a crime thriller, with the shock conclusion being that shady man turns out to be the killer.

Different 'watch-through', you push in the opposite direction, and the protagonist ends up straying towards that side of the path. They don't look over their other shoulder, and infact cross the road shortly after, where upon they bump shoulders with a pretty young lady. The movie you watch this time ends up as a romantic comedy. (potentially cool tie-in, love interest mentions in one scene how they planned to go to place X, you recall that a woman was murdered in place X during the previous 'crime thriller' movie.

all because of your influence as this 'subconcious', you dramatically changed the entire movie, yet you wouldn't know this if you hadn't decided to watch again. If you pull it back a bit, and go for a more realistic scope, this 'player as subconscious influence' could be used to simply change slightly the events of an otherwise more usual movie/plot.

As i said, it just seemed in theory something quite interesting, 'completely transparent control', game controls which are worked so unobtrusively that someone watching doesn't even know they're there, or to take it that extra step further someone even playing questions if they are even there.
It's also kinda like making more replayable movies. Single player games tend to be static, while mutiplayer games set a scene and then are all emergent, meaning people can play the same level over and over and over yet it's still new and interesting. This was like 'well, what if we apply that to movies/'the transparently controlled game''.

Go play Heavy Rain. Or better yet, watch a movie and leave gaming the hell alone.

How DARE you mention a mild interest in a method of more subtle interactive control schemes! the AUDACITY of finding it interesting to see a new way of making cinematic games that avoids current on-off cutscenes and dreaded quick time events. Out! Out with you I say!

...?

 

[Plasticaprinae]

Im fine with how games are. A few cutscenes are fine and I like the idea of endless changes, but "being someones subconcious" makes me think of a game I hated where a dude got stood up on a date and monologues inside his head. What's special about games to me is you're in control and your gaze is naturally drawn to places in the game. Game developers have to grab that natural curiosity. An issue with a movie game is the basic beginning, middle, and end. You cant give too many options as a developer due to budget, it might not be a good story due to variations int he game, and just possibilities. Possibilities are literally endless and it could just turn into a movie about watching a dude and turn out to be a horrible movie.

But! A way to get rid of HUD and make controllers LOADS more expensive is to put small screens that pop up next to the buttons that just have text saying what they do and it changes game from game. Or say... and this is some science fiction stuff... you take the form of a controller and you make it touch screen. It has a familiar feel to classic controllers, but it also has flexibility, allowing for the text to pop up and tell you what various buttons do and allows developers to add and remove buttons when necessary. Its just a bit excessive.

 

[WhyWasThat]

Well we already has choose your own adventure movies and interactive movies(full on QTE games), and there is more in the making so if that is what you are into keep a look out for David Cage stuff.

And no they don't "completely change the genre" they just mix up same old stuff, from my view they did so very badly thus far.
What I would like to see again is live action cut scenes (in games where it can be pulled off), and advanced options on movies (separate sound levels, silencing individual characters, skipping shitty scenes, flare level adjustment, shaky cam adjustment,...).

Live action cut-scenes? Yikes. Keep an eye on Quantum Break then.

As for being able to manipulate the settings on movies... That's actually a kinda cool idea.

 

[Johann610]

Wasn't Dragon's Quest like that? One long movie punctuated by failure?

 

[Hero in a half shell]

I understand what you are saying about having a less intrusive HUD, and I'd love to see that in every genre of the games I play.
We've already seen innovation in that field (with varying success) with health being shown as bloody screens instead of floating healthbars, or using the literal in game gunsights to aim with in FPSs, and I recall someone saying that in the Thief games a gem held by the character on screen reveals how hidden you are instead of a floating meter.

There are other clever ways of disguising the HUD , like Halo working the HUD into the game by pretending it is projected onto your helmet's screen, or the way Skyrim only shows your health/stamina/magic bars when they are being used.

I'd love to see more of this in videogames, especially in third person games where they can show your health meter by how bloody the character is. I'd love to get a game where I still have all the necessary info on the screen easy to read at a glance, but not in 4th wall breaking boxes and diagrams that don't exist in the game world.

On your other points I have to say I see where you are coming from with your sub-concious nudging events idea, and I would be interested in seeing someone attempt to do that just to see how it turns out, but I think that it would be a very particular thing for a particular game, and I do hate the way publishers try to make all their games more 'cinematic' by doing things like adding tiny cutscenes everywhere to introduce new areas/stuff that just ends up breaking your immersion while playing, [latest Splinter Cell] or turn what would be cool moments to play into scripted quick time events that become no challenge whatsoever once you know it's coming and mean you're just watching your character do stuff and be awesome, and are not actually able to play that awesome bit yourself, which should have been the point of you playing a game instead of watching a movie. [Halo 4: final confrontation with Didact]

Saying a game is 'cinematic' has become a negative thing in the eyes of gamers, and for good reason, because it mainly means that there is less interaction and more passive watching in the game, which isn't a good thing, but the idea of a game becoming more immerse through a HUD that blends seamlessly into the gameworld is a really good idea, and should be examined more by studios.

 

[Nouw]

And here was me getting all excited because I thought the OP meant the opposite of what he actually means. Having said that, I recall an indie game where you're waiting for a dinner date or something similar. Sounds right up your aisle OP.