Is Cinematic Approach to Games a valid excuse for poor game design ? (RE6 spoilers)

[rob_simple]

I didn't say it was above criticisim , but i don't think it was poorly designed . They could have easily designed it another way , but they chose to do it that way , for ...reasons . Counter intuitive , maybe , poorly implemented , sure , poorly designed ? No. It works exacly as intended .

If I point a gun at someone's head and pull the trigger and it blows their head off, that's the gun working exactly as it was intended. Does that mean it's a good idea?

Game developers make stupid decisions, it happens, and, in particular, it's often a problem with cinemtaic games, where gameplay can become hampered by the curse of the 'artist's vision'.

A good developer will keep themselves in check and change things when they don't work, but it's also common to find them staunchly refusing to sacrifice their precious cinematic feel for the sake of not making the player repeat the same section of the level for the fiftieth time. And if there's one thing Capcom have made clear in recent years it's that they're not above making ball-crushingly stupid decisions; especially with the Resident Evil franchise.

You're right to say that people often mix up their own inability to do something with bad design, but at the end of the day, rapidly changing camera angles while expecting a player to constantly keep running in a straight line is a bad design choice, no matter how you slice it.

 

[Greg White]

Honestly, so long as a game is entertaining, it doesn't matter how well put together the gameplay is. Great story can make up for shortfalls in gameplay(see Bioshock: Infinite), much like a great community can make up for lack of defined story(see the Souls series), and there are even examples of gameplay that can make up for bad story, but these can only make up for minor shortfalls in other areas. If the game is an unplayable mess, no amount of graphics or story is going to make it an entertaining game beyond what watching the cutscenes on youtube could have accomplished.

 

[BrotherRool]

A cinematic approach to games is only an excuse for good game design.

Game design should achieve whatever objective you have for your videogame. Whether there's challenging gameplay, a fantastic story or an impressive visual auditory experience. If you're trying to do something and the bad camera angles/whatever stop the player from having that experience then it's bad game design.



On the other hand, if a videogame doesn't tickle your game fancies because it's aiming to be a narrative/creative product etc then that isn't bad game design. Case in point, Heavy Rain's gameplay isn't bad game design because it achieves exactly what it intends to achieve which is incredibly satisfying for those into that. In Heavy Rains case, putting in an extensive challenge based gameplay segment would be bad game design.


And as you've said, there are plenty of games aiming to be cinematic that didn't have these problems, so it#s not like it's some unavoidable flaw of the objective. The RES designers just weren't particularly smart about this

 

[Tyrant_Valvatorez]

Personally I dislike games going for a cinematic approach. Why do developers want to emulate movies or re-create "the perfect movie like experience?" I mean games interactivity gives them a massive edge over other mediums. An analogy could be like a guy with loads of potential who purposefully limits himself because he knows it will make him more money, it is one thing to try and match or even beat something but when you have such potential that goes to waste it's just a shame really.

With regards to actual gameplay I would use Shadow of the Colossus and Uncharted as examples. SOTC has a minimalistic approach in which the only cinematics are minor story pieces such as opening and endings, what it does best is give a short 5-15 sec introduction to a colossus and then away you go! The colossus fights are grand in scale giving a great experience without resorting to fancy cinematics where as Uncharted is set-piece after set-piece with some puzzles now and again. Don't get me wrong Uncharted can be loads of fun but I just feel that is not the way to go about designing games, why settle for copying movies or even trying to be movies when you can end up being something far greater and much more fulfilling.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Yeah but this was most likely intentional . Is it bad game design if they did it on purpose ?

YES!

You know why? Because ALL game design decisions are made on purpose. Unless the problem in question is a glitch then it was purposefully designed that way. This means that every single design element that is poorly made in the game was poorly made ON PURPOSE.

So yeah, it doesn't matter that it was intentional, or that it's exactly the way the developers wanted it, that doesn't suddenly put it above criticism.

I didn't say it was above criticisim , but i don't think it was poorly designed . They could have easily designed it another way , but they chose to do it that way , for ...reasons . Counter intuitive , maybe , poorly implemented , sure , poorly designed ? No. It works exacly as intended .

If they intended the section to be "cinematic" then it was poorly designed, because nothing is less cinematic than failing a chase sequence 14 times.

 

[blazearmoru]

I personally feel that anything is fine as long as it works... as in the end result.

 

[aguspal]

So for the past hour and half i have been stuck on Chris's final boss where you have to run from the boss and jump from platforms to platforms while it destroys the platforms. I have been unable to clear this chase sequence for the past hour due to the excruciatingly poor camera while running. The camera changes angles and positions so badly and so often that its become impossible for me to know where am going. The camera is so bad so as to make the sequence as "Cinematic" as possible completely sacrificing practicality just for the sake of being cinematic and movie like. Is this the correct approach to making video games ? Should games sacrifice playability just for giving the players a more cinematic feel ? Lot of games provide a cinematic gameplay without sacrificing playability like Tomb Raider and Uncharted. I really tried to pass the chase sequence 50 times and still no success.I have almost cried in frustration and anger and am very disgusted and feel cheated. Its artificial difficulty and makes me want to punch the people in the face who made this thing. So what is your opinion about "Cinematic Video Games" and would you rather want a cinematic game that gives you a hollywood movie like feel(RE6) or a functional and practical game like say Dishonored ?

Just ouf of curiosity, was the one where you have to run from boat to boat (Aka platforms?)

I am thinking not, since it is not a final boss... but that part was fucking annoying and the camera was not helping.

If the final boss section is even worse than that... well... I am speechless.


But RE6 is still a pretty good game IMO. It has its boring/annoying parts, but hey what game dosnt?