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

[mohit9206]

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 ?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

It's not a problem with the game being cinematic. As you said, there are plenty of games that manage to be cinematic while also being perfectly playable, good (or even great) games. The problem isn't that Resident Evil 6 is cinematic, the problem is that Resident Evil 6 is a bad game that was poorly thought out, poorly designed, and poorly implemented. I'm 100% sure that a studio like Naughty Dog could have had the same chase sequence in their game, and have made it just as cinematic while making it function perfectly.

 

[mohit9206]

It's not a problem with the game being cinematic. As you said, there are plenty of games that manage to be cinematic while also being perfectly playable, good (or even great) games. The problem isn't that Resident Evil 6 is cinematic, the problem is that Resident Evil 6 is a bad game that was poorly thought out, poorly designed, and poorly implemented. I'm 100% sure that a studio like Naughty Dog could have had the same chase sequence in their game, and have made it just as cinematic while making it function perfectly.

Yes RE6 is a really poorly designed game . So many QTE's , really poor camera, repetitive boss fights, cheap deaths,etc etc. I really think its time for the Resident Evil franchise to die. Its not really worth it anymore when the final boss is the camera and not the BOW. Anyway i have rage quit the game. It deserved it.

 

[krazykidd]

Because of you can do it , nobody can. What i mean is , different people have different problems with different things . If we made everything easier because some people have a harder time doing some things , difficulty curbs would be a flatline . See when you play a game , identify the difficulty , then find away to surmount it .

 

[Legion]

Because of you can do it , nobody can. What i mean is , different people have different problems with different things . If we made everything easier because some people have a harder time doing some things , difficulty curbs would be a flatline . See when you play a game , identify the difficulty , then find away to surmount it .

It isn't about difficulty, it's about game design.

Like how in some games the movement controls change depending on which way you are facing, or how they angle the camera so you cannot see what you are doing properly.

Not everything is the players fault when they struggle. Some games are just designed badly.

 

[Woodsey]

As far as I'm concerned the word "cinematic" should be banished from the game development lexicon. Set-pieces have been destroyed in recent years by it.

 

[ScruffyMcBalls]

It's not a problem with the game being cinematic. As you said, there are plenty of games that manage to be cinematic while also being perfectly playable, good (or even great) games. The problem isn't that Resident Evil 6 is cinematic, the problem is that Resident Evil 6 is a bad game that was poorly thought out, poorly designed, and poorly implemented. I'm 100% sure that a studio like Naughty Dog could have had the same chase sequence in their game, and have made it just as cinematic while making it function perfectly.

You've nailed it right on the head, sir. I quite like cinematic gameplay, but it has to be given so much attention and time in order to get it right, and those are two things that certainly did not go into Resident Evil 6's development.
Hopefully Capcom's suggestion for a Resident Evil reboot might bring some honor and quality back to the franchise.

 

[VoidWanderer]

No. Declining standards are the only reason for poor game quality.

Uncharted took a cinematic approach. Gears of War took a cinematic approach.

Capcom are taking game design advise from the Umbrella Corporation.

 

[krazykidd]

Because of you can do it , nobody can. What i mean is , different people have different problems with different things . If we made everything easier because some people have a harder time doing some things , difficulty curbs would be a flatline . See when you play a game , identify the difficulty , then find away to surmount it .

It isn't about difficulty, it's about game design.

Like how in some games the movement controls change depending on which way you are facing, or how they angle the camera so you cannot see what you are doing properly.

Not everything is the players fault when they struggle. Some games are just designed badly.

Yeah but this was most likely intentional . Is it bad game design if they did it on purpose ? It makes perfect sense for you to press a different direction if you are facing a different angle . I'm not defending bad design , but bad design happens by accident . But in this case they purposely have the angle change rather than having swing sporatically .

 

[mohit9206]

Because of you can do it , nobody can. What i mean is , different people have different problems with different things . If we made everything easier because some people have a harder time doing some things , difficulty curbs would be a flatline . See when you play a game , identify the difficulty , then find away to surmount it .

It isn't about difficulty, it's about game design.

Like how in some games the movement controls change depending on which way you are facing, or how they angle the camera so you cannot see what you are doing properly.

Not everything is the players fault when they struggle. Some games are just designed badly.

Yeah but this was most likely intentional . Is it bad game design if they did it on purpose ? It makes perfect sense for you to press a different direction if you are facing a different angle . I'm not defending bad design , but bad design happens by accident . But in this case they purposely have the angle change rather than having swing sporatically .

But why purposely change camera angles full 180 degrees every 30 seconds just to give the players a "cinematic" viewpoint ? The forward key becomes the back key every time the camera angles change. You battle the camera and controls more than the actual boss.This is artificially ramping up the difficulty when there is none. RE6 is still a decent game but moments like this destroy the fun though its certainly not a 4.5/10 game that Gamespot made it out to be. So whats next for RE7 ?

 

[sanquin]

When it comes to game design, NOTHING can be an excuse. It's the main purpose of a game; to be a game. If they get that bad or wrong, they have failed. Devs need to learn that games are not movies. That gameplay and game design should always take precedence over such things as cinematics.

 

[Lilani]

-snip-

I think it depends entirely upon how it's used, just like quick time events and anything else in games. Personally, I love the cinematics in the Professor Layton games. They don't feel like a cop-out, because the games are consistent in how the action unfolds--you poke around, talk to people, solve puzzles, and reveal bits of the story as you go.

On the other hand, Bastion didn't need such elaborate cinematics. The most you got was a bit of narration over still illustrations every now and then. And that's fine, too. It works for Bastion because from the beginning it establishes that's how the action unfolds.

What you described in RE6 just sounds like bad planning. And it sounds like it wasn't done for any reason but for the sake of itself. Cinematics in some form or another can sometimes be unavoidable depending on your format, but they should always facilitate what the player is trying to accomplish. It doesn't sound like the problem was the fact that they wanted to make it cinematic--they were probably trying to achieve a different pace for the climactic finish, which is a good thing to do toward the end. Just because it was executed poorly doesn't mean the idea behind it was a failure. And poor execution also doesn't invalidate the method they tried to employ to make that change in pace happen. The problem was the obnoxious camera angles, yes? I'm sure there's a way they could change up the camera angles without hindering the player as much, and that with other little things could achieve the change in pace they wanted.

 

[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.

 

[krazykidd]

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 .

 

[RJ Dalton]

How do you define valid? Does being entertaining validate a game? Or is a game only valid if it makes use of the medium's strengths? I don't know that I mind the idea of cinematic games, but I've never really played any that were described as cinematic, so I don't know how all that works. I don't think it's inherently invalid, it's just a matter of how you approach it. Possibly.

Personally, I prefer games where control is taken away from the player as little as possible and where the player has as much freedom as possible to control their experience.

 

[theSteamSupported]

If you, as a game developer, are ready to sacrifice playability for the sake of a more cinematic experience, why can't you just go ahead and make a movie instead?

 

[WanderingFool]

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 .

And by that you mean, its works horribly.