# Cinematic Video Games Degrading Gameplay



## Ryukouki (Mar 8, 2015)

Video games are interesting. They're moving into the territory of cinema lately - with hyper-realistic graphics and longer winded cutscenes that tell their story. These types of games started taking off during the days of the XBOX 360 and the Playstation 3, and seem to be increasingly common in games lately. Lately though, games seem to have stopped focusing on the gameplay element, relying on their same tried and true formulas, staying safe, in order to create this cinematic experience. Games like _Ninja Gaiden III _were plagued by this, featuring cutscenes that required minimal input in order to encapsulate the experience as a series of events. _Final Fantasy XII_I was plagued by these cutscenes, and it got chided as being excessively linear for the sake of experiencing the story. Heck, when games ask you to select a difficulty, sometimes they do not even hide the fact that the easy difficulty is for those who "want to experience the story." And then the game becomes mind-numbingly easy with extremely simplistic AI that don't quite seem to know what they are doing. So why is the video gaming industry moving towards this cinematic model, and what exactly are some of the _hypothetical_ factors that are causing this? 

[prebreak]Continue reading[/prebreak]

Does this come down to an innovation issue? Could gaming immersion be going too far to get the player hooked with eye candy graphics? Does gaming in general seem to be going simpler, following their tried formula to make their money based on their fanbase, or is this the new direction that gaming seems to be going in? Gaming in general has seen huge advances, such as virtual reality technology, that creates a more immersive experience. Does virtual reality have a chance to bring another paradigm shift back to focusing on gameplay rather than these visually pleasing cinematic sequences? On top of that, these cinematic sequences take up absurd amounts of space that could have been spent on gameplay elements. And with game updates, patches, or full-blown downloads reaching the dozens of gigabytes lately, it's raising a high bar standard for my expectations as to what I want to see in the game, but instead it's too cinematic focused and doesn't do anything to distinguish itself from the crowds with innovative gameplay elements, instead dumbing their level of complexity down quite a bit. As such, it was generally observed that games like _The Order: 1866_ got derided by the gaming community for sacrificing their gameplay and opting for the cinematic experience. They've opted to make a game fancy and try and sell using famous people in order to show that the visuals and cinematics are more important - for instance, look at Kevin Spacey's role in _Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare._



​Video games have lost a lot of complexity lately with these cinema sequences, so it's definitely a nice refresher when something like _Dark Souls _comes out that puts the mind to work, invoking many feelings of frustration. A lot of our Nintendo related reviews have criticized the games for being too simple, and having a bit too much in the eye candy department, favoring colorful visuals. Games lately also seem to have a get out of jail free card for when the situation gets tough, to help the player further experience the story. _Ninja Gaiden III_ did away with exciting gameplay elements and instead opted for "quick time sequences," cutscenes that the player was forced to interact with, to continue the gameplay. I still miss the days when _Ninja Gaiden_ was an insanely hard play through back on the days of the NES. 

But then, are there other factors at work here? Are these cinematic experiences designed to open up the game to a more accepting audience? Are gamers nowadays too impatient and spoiled by instant gratification to want to sit down and have an engaging play through? Game play times have been incredibly low nowadays - a game like _Captain Toad Treasure Tracker_ only took about eight hours to complete 100%, when compared to the old days where an average game took dozens of hours to complete. Games back then, like _The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time_ took up to fifty hours, often more. Are games trying to compete and get an edge over the mobile gaming industry? 

Mobile games are also something that need to be kept in mind. With many people moving to the more advanced smart phone, games can be downloaded and played instantly. Games played mobile are often played in quick spurts and then lock the player to a pay wall that prevents proceeding. A lot of these games are addicting, and are easy enough for anyone to pick up most of the time. Is it safe to say that mobile gaming has had an impact on the quality of the console front video games? 

Now, a lot of this stuff is just theory that I was thinking about, and I would love to find some correlations that tie the cinematic experience to some of the factors I noted above. What are your thoughts on this? Do you see cinematic gaming as the new shift in video gaming? Where is the cutoff for a game that has just the right amount of cinema and good gameplay? Does mobile have enough of a fingerprint as to why the games industry is moving in such a direction? (If you find any kind of concrete proof, do tell me!) Have at it in the comments.


----------



## VinsCool (Mar 8, 2015)

Completely agreeing with you.
Cinematic videogames sucks. I'm more into older/retro games than next-gen.
Why? Because most are better at their time.


----------



## Wellington2k (Mar 8, 2015)

Totally agree. This is why I've turned to independent games and classic retro games. And while some newer games do have fun gameplay, there's nothing like pulling out The Curse of Monkey Island and Battletoads.


----------



## avran89 (Mar 8, 2015)

Some games like Last of Us or Uncharted is cinematic like a movie and it gotten great reviews by the consensus in the gaming media perhaps it's a different taste for some gamers


----------



## jonthedit (Mar 8, 2015)

What!?
Metal Gear Solid : Movie was a great game...
or was it?
_


			
				SomeMGSForum said:
			
		


			The longest cutscene sequence is also from MGS4 - 71 minutes of cutscenes are combined together in the game's climax to explain events after the game's story has concluded.
		
Click to expand...

_


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Mar 8, 2015)

Heavy Rain was a great game....was it most like a movie??? yes, but the story was so good we almost didn't care..


----------



## Walker D (Mar 8, 2015)

Some games nowadays are more like "press A to continue the movie"  ....pfff  I prefer to _actually_ play a game


----------



## endoverend (Mar 8, 2015)

Jus' sayin... Binding of Isaac Rebirth is the answer...


----------



## KSP (Mar 8, 2015)

Video Gaming as an entertainment medium is changing and growing to become something more. The idea of gameplay and what is gameplay is also changing.
The notion of difficulty, and remembering button combinations and combos, and learning boss flowcharts, and doing speed runs and etc. are things of the past. They will always be there in some form, but as gaming evolves, so will the idea of gameplay.

"Beyond Two Souls", "Heavy Rain" have tackled traditional notions of gameplay and as the future progresses more cinematic games will tackle even more conventional ideas of what we perceive to be "gameplay". Does a game need a boss? Do you need to fight something? Do you need to have a stage? Do you need to have challenging motives defined by repetitive memory reflexes with repeated trial and error? Do games have to fall into a subset genre with standardized control methods and objectives. i.e fighters, rpgs, fps, rts, etc, etc?

The very notion of what is a video game and what determines whether a game is challenging and fun is changing as the medium grows from what once was a kids toy to something more.

Only the future can answer all these questions, but its safe to say that the era of gameplay being defined by traditional systems are going away. Maybe one day all games will have no defined motives, no bosses, no stages, no challenges other than a world where a player makes choices and experiences the results of such choices in a narrative thread not to dissimilar from cinema, but fully within your control. Who knows.

But one thing is certain is that gaming is changing as we are changing with it. I recently found myself playing a game called "Remember Me" by Capcom and found the idea and world behind the game to be so fascinating that I almost felt ripped off by the fact that the game had to fit within a childish genre of a brawler. It was the first time where I felt that the game could have discarded all of its gameplay elements and have been better for it. I would have been content with simply walking around talking to people and manipulating memories and seeing the story unfold through a more adult manner, the combat and other traditional gameplay elements felt pointless, and juvenile. This was the first time I ever felt this way about any game. So, have I changed, or has my expectation of gaming changed?


----------



## K3N1 (Mar 8, 2015)

Why don't they just call them Movie games?


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Mar 8, 2015)

Ryu, I know this wasn't your intention, but don't compare play times of games like Captain Toad, a puzzle game, to LoZ, an adventure (rpg?) game. Back in the "good, ol' days" there were plenty of games that could be completed in less than 8 hours. What you _need_ to do is compare games, within the same genre, and preferably in the same series. Final Fantasy 7 vs. 13, for example.

Yes, some games developers/series are leaning towards shorter, more cinematic games, and the gameplay often suffers for it. The problem is, this is occurring in the most popular series. Final Fantasy, CoD, MGS, and other AAA (I'm not sure if MGS is, but I'd imagine it is) series are more cinematic and QTE-filled nowadays. It's easy for some people (developers) to see that and go "Oh hey, look at how popular QTE are! LET'S GIVE THEM MOAR!" when in actuality players don't want QTE, they just want the games that happen to contain them. Some games pull them off, like Telltale Games' (although some series are hit and miss), while others, like FFXIII-2, make you wonder why you have to stop paying attention to the cutscene so you can avoid a giant golem hitting you in the face.

I doubt mobile games are to blame. Mobile games are mostly about the ability to pick it up whenever you want, letting you not worry about whether or not you'll be able to save before you get off the plane/bus/toilet. Cutscenes, especially QTE ones, go in the opposite direction, forcing you to pay extra attention and delay the ability for you to get to a safe/save zone.

Honestly, I love cutscenes. One of my favorite games of all time, Xenosaga III, is chock full of them. There are many instances where you could just sit, without any controller input (except for maybe hitting x to advance text, although I think it had auto-play) for dozens of minutes at a time. Those are the kinds of cutscenes I enjoy. I can't tell you how many times I've been playing a game like The Wolf Among Us, where I was laid back, focused on the story, and all of a sudden a QTE pops up and I'm like "Oh right, this is a video game, I need to keep my hands on the keyboard." Unfortunately, it looks like QTE are here to stay, at least for a while. There's a good amount of big-name RPGs coming out this year and next (FFXV, Persona 5, KH3) and I'm hoping they restore my faith in the QTE-less video game.


----------



## Ryukouki (Mar 8, 2015)

Pedeadstrian said:


> Ryu, I know this wasn't your intention, but don't compare play times of games like Captain Toad, a puzzle game, to LoZ, an adventure (rpg?) game. Back in the "good, ol' days" there were plenty of games that could be completed in less than 8 hours. What you _need_ to do is compare games, within the same genre, and preferably in the same series. Final Fantasy 7 vs. 13, for example.
> 
> Yes, some games developers/series are leaning towards shorter, more cinematic games, and the gameplay often suffers for it. The problem is, this is occurring in the most popular series. Final Fantasy, CoD, MGS, and other AAA (I'm not sure if MGS is, but I'd imagine it is) series are more cinematic and QTE-filled nowadays. It's easy for some people (developers) to see that and go "Oh hey, look at how popular QTE are! LET'S GIVE THEM MOAR!" when in actuality players don't want QTE, they just want the games that happen to contain them. Some games pull them off, like Telltale Games' (although some series are hit and miss), while others, like FFXIII-2, make you wonder why you have to stop paying attention to the cutscene so you can avoid a giant golem hitting you in the face.
> 
> ...


 

Oh, god damn it. Heh, first off, yeah I realize what you're saying about the comparisons in the first part of your post. It's been a long day at work and I needed to unwind... And I had Telltale games in my notes but forgot to include them. 

I personally love cutscenes too, but sometimes it's a bit excessive for me and if the majority of the game is in cutscenes that doesn't really add to the gameplay overall, then it just kinda... sours the experience for me. One of the titles that I felt did cutscenes right was the Onimusha franchise. I fucking LOVED that franchise, and I'm legitimately pissed that the series has been snubbed on since like 2005 or 2006. Whenever the heck Dawn of Dreams came out.  Holy crap I feel old. I feel like cutscenes need to be done just right with advancement of the plot (but this is completely subjective) otherwise people just kinda gloss over it, like they do the credit sequences.


----------



## TemplarGR (Mar 8, 2015)

I will just a copy a recent comment i made somewhere else about cinematic games. I don't want to write it again...

“Cinematic” games are just better for their profits. The true reason AAA developers prefer “cinematic” games, is because they are more suitable to sequels and anual/frequent releases.

Imagine for a moment a game that has good gameplay and it can be played for a long time. The gamer would then be less inclined to buy another version of the same game next year. What for? He could enjoy the game he has now… Any newer additions could just be lower priced expansions.

But big publishers want moar. How could they convince their customers to ditch their games and buy the new releases? Well, make the games more “cinematic” AKA more story driven, and make the games shorter and with less good/replayable gameplay. That way, no one is really satisfied with PLAYING games anymore, they just play for the story, and as soon as a new game comes out, they have to get it ASAP in order to continue this story.

The investment needed is less as well. With “cinematic” games, you don’t need to really invest heavily for each sequel. You use the very same game engine, you reuse most art assets, and voila, another 60+plus cut cont… ahem DLC each year! Think Mass effect trilogy. Objectivily mediocre Gear of Wars clones with a dialogue wheel, and lots of dialogues and cutscenes… Same game engine for each game, reused assets in the extreme, tons of dlc. Imagine how much profit EA made from this one…

The problem with this approach, is that even those stories are not that good most of the time. We just tend to overrate them because of the interactivity. When you are watching a boring movie, you can accurately tell it is a boring movie, because you are not invested in it personally. But with a game, you are the protagonist, so no matter how bad the story is, you are concentrated on it for many hours and so get to give it much more significance than it really has.

There is a problem when it is much more preferable to watch a movie version of a “cinematic” game on Youtube, instead of actually playing. You get to spend no money, spend much much less time (which is far more valuable than money in this life), and you get the same actual content, minus the boring experience of the gameplay segments which only cut from the immersion of the story anyway… That way, you can also more accurately judge if a story is actually good, and you can even quit in the middle if it seems it is not worth it.

For example, there is a movie version of “The last of us” with a 6 hour length. Much less than the actual game, which is boring to play anyway. 10 hour movie versions exist of FFXII and each of the FXIIIs… Much less than the actual BORING games. And the list goes on…

If this trend continues, we will have a repeat of the 80s: Western part of the industry will crash, and Nintendo will save the day. *again*…


----------



## Qtis (Mar 8, 2015)

Much depends on what you're actually asking of the game. Heavy Rain has been one of the rare cases where I've been standing instead of sitting while playing. Then we have games with unskippable cut scenes after which you get boss fights.. In my opinion, there has to be a reason for gameplay and cinematics. If the game is short but had a good story, I'd rate it high. If it was on the contrary, it would depend quite a bit.


----------



## Trevor Belmont (Mar 8, 2015)

Cinematics in videogames goes back wayyyy before the current or last gen.
Ever played games like the original Resident Evil, Metal Gear Solid or Final Fantasy VII on the original Playstation...?


----------



## Disco (Mar 8, 2015)

Well, I love cinematic games, and I also love ''real games'' ....aaaand I also love visual novel games which in essence are ''chose your adventure'' interactive books 
As you can see I just love gaming. Having completed COD:AW Sp on my PC, and also platinumed aforementioned Order 1886 in just 9hrs (it took me 8:30h to complete the game and 30 more mins to find two collectibles for platinum trophey), I can say that I still love COD's cinematic SP campaigns but Order has a dull and extremely limiting gameplay. The graphics are some of the best I have ever seen, sound, and voice acting also, but gameplay is so dull that it brings down the ''game''.
I borrowed Order from my friend so I didn't have to pay for it, so that's a vig plus for me 
And also the game lenght isn't everything, for me it's in the gameplay! Also graphics and sound take a big part in the games overall appeal, but gameplay gameplay, gameplay...that's why the medium is called videogames!

Example of short but awesome game is Another World, I completed that game like 50+ times, I love it! Example of good lenghty game is Diablo 3.
Example of lenghty and IMHO dull and boring game is Destiny, I'm calling it Diablo in first person, but boy that game can't compare to the awesomness of Diablo!
Also I prefer shorter games, because I am an older gamer, and I have to work, work around the house etc, so I don't have much time as I had as teenager 

Oh and just to mention, MGS is one of my favourite series of all time!!


----------



## NicEXE (Mar 8, 2015)

I'm just going to leave this here:


----------



## Steena (Mar 8, 2015)

( ! disclaimer: opinion ! )



KSP said:


> Video Gaming as an entertainment medium is changing and growing to become something more.


When something gradually loses its uniqueness, and instead opts to become another medium's bastard child for the sake of better marketing and recognition, you can argue it's becoming something less, not something more.

This industry is filled with developers who publicly hate videogames for not being movies. When you see them in a preview claiming: "We made the game better, now it feels more like a hollywood movie!". Any "evolution" this is gonna take us, no matter which, is going to be for the worse.

As for "cinematic games", this term is often being used to excuse poor gameplay rather than defining a unique type of game. Why come up with good gameplay, balancing and designing, when you can just pour raw money on production with mocap/QTE/cutscenes/dialogue/voice acting? One relies on quality mechanics and design efficiency, the other is almost entirely reliant on throwing piles of funds to a number of different established professions. I wonder what path will a big AAA studio take!



> I recently found myself playing a game called "Remember Me" by Capcom and found the idea and world behind the game to be so fascinating that I almost felt ripped off by the fact that the game had to fit within a childish genre of a brawler. It was the first time where I felt that the game could have discarded all of its gameplay elements and have been better for it.


Yeah, that's because its gameplay was poorly designed. It's not much a matter of a game being better without combat, as it is having coherent gameplay that properly fits your game.

A game like shadow of the colossus, is an example of a great cinematic game. And that game has fantastic gameplay; you're spending the entirety of your game time exploring and fighting. Gameplay and interactivity have nothing to do with being cinematic or not. Cinematic is the way you present your tools, not removing some of the tools. That would make for a half assed movie that would have been better/more complete as an actual movie. Like Heavy Rain.

Games like heavy rain, they have absolutely no purpose of being a videogame. You don't feel the panic of a father looking for his son by spamming X, you don't feel a character's struggle by alternating L1/R1. That game could have been a movie with multiple versions and absolutely nothing would have changed in the player experience. It does a horrible job at communicating with the player.

I will give you two examples of games that do a much better job at connecting the player with their characters, that perhaps may surprise you:

Souls games are great games because they present their story/world/lore through player interaction (exploration, risk/reward situations), coupled with the design choice of an aggressive environment: you WANT to look for help, perhaps finding a piece of information, a consumable, or a piece of gear. Different players have very diverse first playthroughs of the souls games, because standard items are locked behind secrets that you may or may not find. Souls is not good because it's difficult for the sake of difficulty; Souls is good because difficulty is a core design choice that ties in with its universe/setting.

Dwarf Fortress is an even better example at this. In this game, the "game over" state is not just a binary state, it's a butterfly effect with massive build-up (sometimes hours long), and as a result happens very differently every single time. "game over" in dwarf fortress is not one, but several gameplay mechanics in itself. You could say that every time you restart it's a different story. I've witnessed more engaging stories in DF than any david cage game, supposedly "deeply emotional and cinematic games". And DF is a game made in ASCII.

In my 3 examples, there are plenty of epic moments, stories and storytelling, but they deliver them 100% through interactivity in one way or another, infact they are very much known for not focusing on cinematics/cutscenes/spoonfeeding a story, in traditional terms. This is something only videogames can ever achieve, therefore developers should be focusing on this. A movie will always be better at being a movie than a videogame.


----------



## Reploid (Mar 8, 2015)

And even games that branded as interactive movies, like Heavy Rain, have better story and gameplay, than lame-ass Call of dooty or FF13. So the shitty games from shitty developers are to blame, not the craze itself.


----------



## TemplarGR (Mar 8, 2015)

NicEXE said:


> I'm just going to leave this here:




Tell me this isn't true... I haven't touched this franchise since the first MW, but WTF?

You get a fscking achievement/promotion for simply pressing X to continue a cutscene?

And since when cutscenes need user input?


----------



## CathyRina (Mar 8, 2015)

Cinematic is a word people started using while trying to describe what a game looks like.
Metal gear Solid is so cinematic, FF7 is so cinematic. However that's all what the term in conjunction with video games is, colloquial language.
Triple-A devs however started to misunderstand what makes cinematic games so great. When people were amazed by FF7 for being cinematic they were amazed because it was a fully fledged JRPG whose Story is presented in a, at the time, very cinematic way. And it didn't use PS1's full graphical potential as shown by FF8/9. MGS isn't liked because it's a playable movie it's liked because it's a enjoyable game, that presents its story like a movie.
What Triple-A's seem to forget is that if I want to see a movie I go and watch a movie. If I go play a video game I go and play a game. If you going to make a cinematic game, you at the very least gotta have good story, which cinematic games like, FF13, Heavy Rain and The Order 1886 lack. Sure these games are cinematic but they are not enjoyable to play. If a game is not enjoyable to play then a game failed.
But the problem is not that the Triple-A keeps doing that, the problem is that there are more than enough people who buy these games.
I think the Graphical fidelity issue has to be discussed in another topic as there are more factors as to why graphical fidelity also negatively influenced the gaming experience.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 8, 2015)

Interesting article. And aside from it being way too generalizing, I agree with you.

The 'generalizing' is easy: there are plenty of games who don't go that route. Sure, these are often indie hits or smaller budget titles, but they're there. In fact, nintendo never seem to emphasize cinematics over gameplay*. This entire notion of "modern gaming" seems to indicate that everyone follows suit. And that's simply not true.

I would also argue that this trend started appearing much sooner than last console generation (FF VII also had some lengthy cutsènes, and I think quite some CD-i games attempted this as well). But that's nitpicking.

The problem is that this is a trend that is starting to take over, to the point where it has become 'normal'. I don't play modern military shooters (spunkgargleweewee), but I can't but scratch my head at why anyone would love this. I just happened to watch this totalbiscuit's video, and he sums up things nicely. Oh, and this what if doom was done today video also pokes fun at this.

I normally wouldn't care much about how much MMS are sucky games with great visuals, and I don't mind others liking them, either. However, it seems like plenty of video game makers tend to go for that 'me too!' attitude. I even quit playing tomb raider because it had to interrupt gameplay with cutscènes around every corner, usually with unnecessary QTE's (note: I wrote about this, as well as about the walking dead, in this blog post). And I feel sad for games like The order 1886. I watched some trailers, but now that independent reviews are coming out, it seems like the game is just great in the cinematic department.
It may be farfetched, but I think AAA-games nowadays take more notion to how a game looks when someone else is playing, and actually playing the game itself. When I see someone playing tomb raider, the game comes over as much more fun than I actually have while playing it. I also love TheSpoonyExperiment's reviews of the later final fantasy's, but I notice that despite it being a huge stackpile of its negatives, I find myself somewhat attracted to it because it looks nice (and while watching someone play, it doesn't show how corridor-like the entire game is).


Now...it has to be mentioned that cinematic experiences can be great too. I have one or two of David Cage's games on my 'to play' list; I know in advance the whole thing is mostly going to be a cutscène. But because I know this, I won't expect it to be anything else. The same for the telltale games. Having just played through The Walking Dead pretty much in one go**, I have to say this game uses cinematics and QTE's in a correct matter. When the only 'choice' given is to not die (or something stupid like 'pay respect or wait indefinitely'), it's not compelling in the least. 


As for the questions:

_Do you see cinematic gaming as the new shift in video gaming?_

It's more than a hype. And for good reasons, because some games are worth playing 'despite' them relying mostly on cinematics (again: telltale games). But a shift? No. Gamers aren't a unified group. And while it's fun to bash at preferences of call of duty players, as long as they're happy with their purchase, who cares? As long as I can find games I like, I won't complain.


_Where is the cutoff for a game that has just the right amount of cinema and good gameplay?_

I think this depends on the genre, and what people come to expect of it. By now, I think hardly anyone is going to play modern warfare shooters for their explorative element. They just want to use fancy gadgets and be lead through the experience.

_Does mobile have enough of a fingerprint as to why the games industry is moving in such a direction?_

Huh?   Sorry, but...is it possible you accidentally wrote a piece of your next article in this one? I read your paragraph on mobile games, but I honestly cannot see how that's in any way relevant to the overly use of cinematics (in fact, mobile games are anything but made for cinematics).
In an attempt to answer: I don't think mobile gaming has any influence over some AAA-titles using more cinematics than needed.



*out of curiosity: is there even a single nintendo game that uses the 'press X to not die' kind of QTE's? 
**it has already earned a high spot on my 'best games of 2015' list.


----------



## SLiV3R (Mar 8, 2015)

I agree as well. Nowadays it's mostly the indie development that are interesting.  Vvvvvv, mutant Mudds,  shovel knight,  Steamworld Dig,  gunman Clive etc. on the 3ds. Spelunky and Rogue Legacy are fantastic too <3 Otherwise it's most retro games that are fun to play!


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Mar 8, 2015)

The last interactive/cinematic game I played was Uncharted 3 and had I knew what I was in for, I'd have avoided because it's barely anything like Uncharted 2; the game was too scripted and most of the time it felt as if I were watching a movie than playing a game.

I don't want this, I want an actual game that I can play 'cause if I wanted a movie then I'd fuckin' watch one!

Btw, David Cage yours games are games!


----------



## NicEXE (Mar 8, 2015)

TemplarGR said:


> Tell me this isn't true... I haven't touched this franchise since the first MW, but WTF?
> 
> You get a fscking achievement/promotion for simply pressing X to continue a cutscene?
> 
> And since when cutscenes need user input?


Hehe. This is not really what happens. This was done as a joke for games forcing the player to interact expecting him/her/it to get the feels just by pushing a button.
This is what actually happened:


----------



## Arras (Mar 8, 2015)

Eh, there's room for both more cinematic and more gameplay-y games. Some people prefer one, some people prefer the other. I don't really mind either way, as long as it's a good game. Just depends on the mood I'm in more than anything else. Also, gameplay time is lower because production costs are much higher and modern games usually have much less backtracking/grinding or other means of increasing game time by repeating content. Especially the need to create new graphical assets for each area is killer, unlike ye olden days where you just use a tileset to build a new level.


----------



## VeniaSilente (Mar 8, 2015)

Interesting how the times have changed.

_Ninja Gaiden III_ (the new one) has cutscenes. But the game is mostly something like a visual novel, or an _interactive theather_ experience. You are watching a movie with a lot of gore but have to periodically press X to advance. That's about it. It's like watching a movie in a theater, except progressively - every forty five seconds or so you have to disengage from the watching the movie and have to go to the cashier and pay a fraction of the ticket.

_Ninja Gaiden III_ (the NES one) had cutscenes too. Heck, _Ninja Gaiden I_ had cutscenes. Damn good ones for the time. But the game was an action platformer... well, _game_. The cutscenes were there to inform you about the story unfolding, and to give you a fun and well deserved rest after fifteen minutes of timing your jumps and strikes and careful usage of the Fire Wheel Art to be able to avoid those damn friggin' eagles. Not to mention cutscenes happened in between levels / "arcs". Not right in the middle of you timing a jump to attack a friggin' eagle.

Needless to say, I rather prefer the version that doesn't break immersion in a _stupid_ way.


----------



## zeello (Mar 8, 2015)

Making linear games makes sense in a way because it helps ensure that everyone has the same experience. Nonlinear games sound really complicated to make because then you should be curating each possible outcome but this probably takes a lot more time. It doesn't really make sense either since then you end up making content that many players won't see. Logically speaking, if a game has more than one route, then all but one of those routes must be suboptimal, because one of those routes is the most fun while all the others are less fun, and arguably the effort should have went into making the best route better/longer.

But probably the real reason behind the degradation of gameplay in favor of cinematics is because gaming has become hype driven and preorder driven. Making flashy graphics and cinematics is a way of marketing the game so that people buy it in the first place. Once you buy the game all bets are off because the game had already accomplished its goal before you even start playing.


----------



## kingofgamesgx (Mar 8, 2015)

i don't mind cutscenes in a game but they in my opinion should take a backseat in favor of gameplay


As an example of a new game that does cutscenes well i'll say Bayonetta 2. The cutscenes are short and sweet and lead into gameplay and can often times set the stage for different types of gameplay. These types of cutscenes are just fine they take nothing away from the game.


As an example of a game from the past few years who does cutscenes bad i'll say Naruto Shippuden Ultimate Ninja Storm 3. This game has some ridiculously long cutscenes for the sake of retelling a story that has already been told in the manga, but over the course of 40min for one big series of cutscenes with little to no gameplay! It totally kills the interest in even continuing on with the game after sitting through that. Worst of all is it detracted from the gameplay! As instead of taking all that time to put in those cutscenes which kill any replay value story mode may have had they could have fixed the various bugs in the soul of the storm series which is the 3D fighting gameplay, but instead of fixing it they decided to in several months time to release an "updated" version of the game which was either $40 retail or a $20 DLC for one character and some fixes. These types of cutscenes need to go they can rune a series for someone as Naruto Shippuden Ultimate Ninja Storm 3 was that last game of its series i bought and don't see myself buying any of the others anytime soon.


----------



## Jiehfeng (Mar 8, 2015)

Oh man, I remember the intro from MGS Ground Heroes, the cutscene was TOO DAMN LONG.


----------



## Arras (Mar 8, 2015)

Jiehfeng said:


> Oh man, I remember the intro from MGS Ground Heroes, the cutscene was TOO DAMN LONG.


It's MGS, what were you expecting?


----------



## Obveron (Mar 8, 2015)

Honestly I think I'm in the minority,  I hate all video game cutscenes.   I hate readin dialogue too.    I play videogames ONLY for gameplay.   I'm 36, I've been playing games about an average of 30hours a week for the past 31 years.    I've never once watched an entire cutscene,  I skip the cut scenes if possible,  I play another game if not possible.   I rapidly skip written dialogue.
I know developers put a lot of energy and thought into cutscenes, but I just can't be interested.   Perhaps it's my rampant ADD.
Friends berate me for skipping cutscenes and dialogue,   they apparently want to know the story.   Ugggh..


----------



## Edgarska (Mar 8, 2015)

I preface this comment by admitting that I have no idea if I'm actually talking out of my ass. With that out of the way:
I think cinematic games are a detriment to the medium as a whole when taken as far as new games are taking it, because gameplay is taking a backseat to everything else.
Sadly, one of the things I think cause this is the relative lack of power of new consoles, since making a game with nice graphics (which are usually just average graphics with a lot of post-processing) and low framerate where 50% of the play time is cutscenes is easier/faster than one that grants more freedom by being mostly gameplay (less things can go wrong when you're just watching something play out).
Another thing I'd factor in is the human element, which makes people more likely to finish a game, and buy potential sequels, if they're having fun, and sadly these days fun = I win all the time, for people who only got into gaming because of smartphone games, this means difficulty must be lowered. Of course, there's always exceptions, but compare sales figures of games deemed hard by most people who played them with sales from games where it's almost impossible to lose.
I'd also mention the old notion of colorful = childish rearing its head again, but that's a discussion for another day.


----------



## Blebleman (Mar 8, 2015)

I think you've mistaken "cinematic games" for "garbage games"...

There are plenty of *really good* cinematic games -- just look at the Metal Gear series, or the recent Final Fantasy titles, Xenosaga, Heavy Rain...

The problem is that companies are making games with no *soul*. They are pumping out sequels for the money, and have no desire to tell an interesting story.


----------



## Jiehfeng (Mar 8, 2015)

Arras said:


> It's MGS, what were you expecting?


 

Never played a MGS game before.


----------



## Arras (Mar 8, 2015)

Jiehfeng said:


> Never played a MGS game before.


http://mgsforums.com/topic/7644188/1/
Metal Gear Solid 4 had literally over 8 hours worth of cutscenes.


----------



## uyjulian (Mar 8, 2015)

FMV games evolved :-)


----------



## dubbz82 (Mar 8, 2015)

There's a point where it can actually add to the the game (for example, the cutscenes from the NES Ninja Gaiden games) however as of say the last decade or so, a lot of games are going overboard and taking it to an abusive level.  If they were to scale it back some, and only do it where it actually added to the game, I think it'd be great.  In some cases this very well might mean cutting it out entirely, which I'd be fine with, because sometimes even one or two of these things can detract from the game play experience.  It really depends on the game.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 8, 2015)

Listening to the devs of The Order: 1866 was beyond sad. In their desperate attempts to sell how much it was like a movie, they sounded utterly embarrassed to be making a game.

Personally, I think this "cinematic" direction is entirely the wrong move; you're rejecting the unique strengths and features of the medium (aka gameplay, interactivity, choice, etc.) in a poor attempt to mimic another, as if that will somehow give you legitimacy. Imagine a film that tried to mimic a play down to the letter; all action occurs on one flat stage, the camera doesn't move, no cuts, etc. It'd be rightfully panned by critics and audiences alike. So why do these developers think that it'd work any better here?

It feels like there's too many failed filmmakers in games today. Maybe that's the source of the problem.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 8, 2015)

I'm actually curious to know how many resume's from game studio employees get send to studio's like pixar and dreamworks. It's in no way a strange step, and there have been crossovers on all sides.


Too bad they usually suck, because cinematic games more often than not revolve around simple power fantasies where the story isn't so much important as it is to have things exploding in an exotic environment.


----------



## SomeKindOfUsername (Mar 8, 2015)

Just a heads up: _Unnecessary cynicism and assumptions below!_


I agree that it probably has more to do with the game makers themselves and how they might simply in the wrong industry, or more rather they couldn't make the grade in Hollywood so they decided that video games were the next best thing. Writers in particular fit this bill. They so badly want to create these grand and epic tales but more often than not writing in games is bland at best and laughable at worst. The overall setting and world have enough potential (thanks in part to the artists making it come to life) but when it comes to characters, plot, and dialogue the writing typically falls apart. This is why it's foolish to request a game be rated more on its story or viewed as something you'd pay for to go see in a theater - you're just asking for them to pick apart a sloppily written story.

Directors come next, particularly "creative directors," as they're the ones who love to harp up how "just like a movie" their game is. I know it's a tired target by now, but The Order: 1886 is a great example of putting literally everything else above gameplay, going so far as to go on the record saying that working on the actual game bits is a bit of a drag for them. This ties into why I think QTEs are so awful nowadays. They're a way to do a finishing more or are there merely to require the player to get the cutscene moving along, even if there's no way to fail them. It's like at some point the director said "hmm, we have a really long string of cutscenes here...how about you add in a couple of button prompts here and a walking segment there" in order to get some form of gameplay in. Shenmue at least had QTEs that you could fail and still progress through the game, and some were actually beneficial to the player in the form of a shortcut as opposed to something that you had to do.

I think this stems from the way the industry has attempted to mature in the past few years. No matter how mainstream the headlines say it is, the truth is somebody is far more likely to boast about the work they do for films than they would a video game (unless it's something most people would know, like CoD). Game journalists especially feel this way I think. In a way, it's almost as if they're in a way embarrassed that their line of work involves making or talking about video games as opposed to something like movies so they want to sort of make them like ones. This isn't true of everyone mind you. Some journalists probably love what they do and the talented 3D artists, sound engineers, and programmers no doubt have the sort of drive to create amazing things and continue to improve. It's just the ones that cannot ever accept that what they do in this medium will never win them an Oscar and something like The Order: 1886 is important because it shows that you cannot get away with pretty visuals and crap everything else.


----------



## kehkou (Mar 8, 2015)

kenenthk said:


> Why don't they just call them Movie games?


I second.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Mar 8, 2015)

This shit started long before the last generation. I put the blame on the dark ages of gaming, when cdrom games first came out and everything was a shitty fmv game. The success of early 3d titles like metal gear solid, perfect dark, and conker's bad fur day, in which the studio paid real money for voice actors who were actually talented, cemented the idea that gamers wanted a more cinematic experience.
That brings us to today, where the games take a decade to make and amount to a couple hours of button mashing and 6 hours of badly rendered 3d footage. If I wanted to watch a low-poly 3d movie, I'd watch some bullshit like veggietales or the music video to Dire Straits' "Money for Nothin"


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 8, 2015)

Agreed, video games are becoming too cinematic in nature, this is why I don't play anything super recent.


----------



## OncRN (Mar 8, 2015)

I don't care for all the cinematic stuff, either.  A little here and there to build and transition the story, but if there is more cutscene than game, it's now an interactive movie.  There were some NES/SNES games that you couldn't skip/speed thru the cutscenes, almost made the game torturous when replaying.  Makes me wonder if this is a financial strategy:  More movie= less game play= less programming, fewer features, less creativity= lower cost to make.

Hmmm...wonder when E.T. for Xbone/PS4/WiiU that includes a blu-ray of the movie be released?


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 8, 2015)

SomeKindOfUsername said:


> Writers in particular fit this bill. They so badly want to create these grand and epic tales but more often than not writing in games is bland at best and laughable at worst. The overall setting and world have enough potential (thanks in part to the artists making it come to life) but when it comes to characters, plot, and dialogue the writing typically falls apart. This is why it's foolish to request a game be rated more on its story or viewed as something you'd pay for to go see in a theater - you're just asking for them to pick apart a sloppily written story.


 
I don't see why you hold writers responsible, as they're clearly not in command of things. Usually, writers only come into play in a relatively late state, when the stage is already decided. There's usually a tight budget for actors (you rarely see anything above B-voice actors in games) and sometimes even the cutsènes are already being worked on. As a result, writers have little to no margin on what to ACTUALLY write, which is furthered even more by the fact that it should prepare the gamer for the next mission (which usually comes down to things the player has done 1000's of times already).

This isn't so different in blockbuster movies, by the way. There, scenarios are timed almost to the second as to when a fight/explosion is to take place, when humor is called for and when romance is needed. All of this has its impact, of course. And in games, it happens even more that the "written by" is the same guy as the director or the producer of the game (or one of the guys).


----------



## kehkou (Mar 8, 2015)

NicEXE said:


> Hehe. This is not really what happens. This was done as a joke for games forcing the player to interact expecting him/her/it to get the feels just by pushing a button.
> This is what actually happened:


 
What happens if you fail to show your respects? Try again?


----------



## NicEXE (Mar 8, 2015)

kehkou said:


> What happens if you fail to show your respects? Try again?


I guess you wait forever until you press x.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Mar 9, 2015)

OncRN said:


> Hmmm...wonder when E.T. for Xbone/PS4/WiiU that includes a blu-ray of the movie be released?


It wouldn't surprise me, and you'd still have to pay $60 for the piece of shit, when you could buy the actual movie for $5!


----------



## Locke644 (Mar 9, 2015)

I agree that games today are different than back then. And, sadly, I feel like these cinematic games are just going to continue to roll out. I think this is partly due to the ever growing amount of reviewers and websites dedicated entirely to gaming.I know it may sound a little convoluted, but hear me out.

I think this whole "gaming" culture that has been rapidly developing for the past few years is partly to blame. Some games just receive enormous amounts of praise and fanfare when it's just the same old thing over and over again with a little extra "flair" added in. Having a game that is basically 2 hours of gameplay and 6 hours of cut-scenes is just not a fun game for me. But, when you get enough people who buy the game and others like it, then why change it? I think that might be a prevailing mindset with developers nowadays.

For example, take Bioshock Infinite (I know I'm going to get flak for it). I loved the original Bioshock and played through it many times and still love it. But, when playing though Infinite, I noticed something. I felt like I was just playing a modern FPS and not an actual bioshock game. The gameplay was extremely repetitive and bland with me mostly just using the sniping rife and shotgun to get the job done. Hell, I didn't even hardly use the vigors since they seemed just like a waste of time (they all basically did the same thing anyway). By the time I was actually done with the game, I was just glad it was over and I literally said to myself "that was just stupid..." I didn't feel like anything was resolved in the end and the gameplay helped to contribute to that. Sure, the final boss in Bioshock was kinda over too quickly, but infinite just dragged and dragged and I just wanted it to be over. But, while I think that it's just ok, you have reviewers and others praising the ever-loving crap out of it calling it one of the best games ever made and how the story is SO ENTHRALLING, and elizabeth is JUST SO COOL HOW SHE PASSES YOU THE AMMO AND HAS TEARS AND BLAH BLah blah blah blah........................... I just didn't see the game that. But, now that the overwhelming majority has spoken, what are game developers going to do? Make an entirely different game with entirely different mechanics and story? Why would they when all they have to do is slap a big ole' "2" on it and they know it's an instant seller.

I know I'm rambling a bit, but this is where I see gaming going. When you get one genre that performs well above all others and is practically guaranteed sales, why in the blue hell would anyone say "hmmm, let's do something entirely different and original" when they can just say "let's slap a numerical value on our last thing and throw it out there". If more people want to have play/movies, then developers will just continue to throw out more movie games with reckless abandon to cash in on the current market.

...../rant


----------



## Hielkenator (Mar 9, 2015)

Yup, it's a horrible fact.
I've been telling everybody lately about this.
Then I start my Wiiu and let them play Bayonetta 2 and everything is good.
There's still hope, and most of all PLAY WHAT YOU LIKE.
Never follow a game console because of these graphical "masterpieces". Just because your friend likes it or that a game is uber violent should not be a good reason to play a game.
Be honest to yourself....
I'm so happy company's like Nintendo ( do not mention Metroid Mother M....) and some Indie devs are here to save us from this stream of games.
Besides all my consoles I feel a special bond with my Wii and Wiiu, I know this is where I will have the best memories in the end. Also Pure love went into a lot of games and are alway genuine good family time. 
Gameplay first, good graphics are just a bonus. ( btw, nowadays graphics are always "good" as long as they serve their purpose and can set the "mood'I am happy.)


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 9, 2015)

kehkou said:


> What happens if you fail to show your respects? Try again?


 
Loiter around the funeral forever, apparently.

It's times like these where it would be fun to call their helpdesk...

*Me:* hi...I seem to be having a problem with Call of Duty - modern warfare. I'm stuck...
*Helpdesk:* okay...just one moment, please. 
*Helpdesk:* here we are. What problem do you seem to be having, sir? 
*Me:* I'm stuck after the first mission. On the funeral. It just doesn't go on after that.
*Helpdesk:* I see...now what you need to do is get close enough to the coffin and press F.
*Me:* yeah, that's the problem. I can't do that.
*Helpdesk:* you mean it doesn't work? That the text doesn't show, or pressing the button doesn't do anything?
*Me:* no. I mean that by pressing F, I pay tribute. And I don't want to do that.
*Helpdesk:* erm...okay? And why not?
*Me:* Because it is never properly explained why the US troops where in South Korea in the first place. And this dead guy may have been my best friend, but that doesn't justify him, or any of us, to terrorize another country. Him in particular, as he apparently was 'the best the army had to offer'.
*Helpdesk:* but...you play as the army. You're not terrorists.
*Me:* why not?
*Helpdesk:* because you're the army, sir. Surely you wouldn't think that the army, the US army least of all, would do terrorist acts, right?
*Me:* the first mission involves dropping from a plane in a shuttle and seriously damaging a building in the process. Doesn't that say enough?
*Helpdesk:* I don't follow.
*Me:* haven't you payed attention to 9/11? Damaging skyscrapers is a MAYOR act of terrorism.
*Helpdesk:* but...but...it wasn't intentional!
*Me:* I tried avoiding it, but it's a scripted scene. So yes, it is intentional, and yes, it's an act of terrorism.
*Helpdesk:* but...no! Your group goes in with good intention. To save the local populace.
*Me:* <slowly, as if speaking to a child> which are never shown or even implied. Look at it from another way: if you played as a bunch of South-Koreans who drop into the US for no clear reason and seriously damage the statue of liberty in the process...would you also think they were justified, even if it was 'the army'?
*Helpdesk:* I...see your point. But since your character was also there, doesn't that mean he (meaning: you) believes in this cause?
*Me:* hmm...good point. So you're basically saying that it's roleplaying.
*Helpdesk:* <more on familiar ground> Yes...it's partially a roleplaying game. You play as someone you're not in reality.
*Me:* and in this case...a terrorist who has to pay respect to his fallen comrade?
*Helpdesk:* ...if that's how you choose to look at it, sir.
*Me:* well, yes! And it bothers me. I'm not an American, but I'm worried about how this game spoonfeeds players into becoming terrorists without them even be aware of it.
*Helpdesk:* I, erm...I'll make sure to pass that on to the developers.


Locke644: I'll bring some flak but not in the way you may think. I think bioshock infinite was overhyped too (heck...it shouldn't have been called 'bioshock' to begin with). But aside from the ending, I wouldn't say the game had too much cinematics. you have to differentiate between cinematics (cutscènes and scripted events) and aesthetics. Bioshock infinite was praised mostly for how it looked and how the story told itself while you were walking through it. It didn't got in the way.
The problem, perhaps, with it was that this aesthetic was so good, and it was one of the very few games that made you care for a sidekick, that the rather bland gameplay was moved to the background and even forgotten by professional critics. This may not even be unintentional: the 'why do you play video games?' question has many answers, and if it left the critics with a good impression, they aren't wrong about it. It just doesn't mean the audience will think the same.


Hielkenator: I remember 'defending' nintendo against the general opinion that nintendo was going down the toilet if they didn't kept up with the competition. Then, almost accidentally, I watched the first independent review of 'the order 1886'. Now I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better if those 3rd parties would be better to keep up with nintendo.


----------



## Vipera (Mar 9, 2015)

...just skip it? Seriously, every good game lets you skip unimportant cinematic. 
I don't know why I'd do that in the first place anyway. If a game has a big cinematic it means that I'm playing a big game. And if I'm playing a big game, I want to be immersed as much as possible. Do you want to play a game where you are taken into action the moment you press Start? Play smaller games. And they are smaller for a reason, you know.

Now, if we want to talk about games with unnecessary cinematic, then I can agree. I played DoA and I was impressed it had an actual story. Even more, it had Cinematic after every single battle. I want to play a fighting game, not to watch a japanese version of Beautiful. Thank God for that skip button.


----------



## Jiehfeng (Mar 9, 2015)

Vipera said:


> ...just skip it? Seriously, every good game lets you skip unimportant cinematic.
> I don't know why I'd do that in the first place anyway. If a game has a big cinematic it means that I'm playing a big game. And if I'm playing a big game, I want to be immersed as much as possible. Do you want to play a game where you are taken into action the moment you press Start? Play smaller games. And they are smaller for a reason, you know.
> 
> Now, if we want to talk about games with unnecessary cinematic, then I can agree. I played DoA and I was impressed it had an actual story. Even more, it had Cinematic after every single battle. I want to play a fighting game, not to watch a japanese version of Beautiful. Thank God for that skip button.


 

Some good games I've played don't allow cutscene skipping. Also, MGS V has huge cutscenes, but the game is REALLY short. But I guess that counts as an exception.


----------



## Vipera (Mar 9, 2015)

Jiehfeng said:


> Some good games I've played don't allow cutscene skipping. Also, MGS V has huge cutscenes, but the game is REALLY short. But I guess that counts as an exception.


 
Did it allow you to skip it? If it did, I don't see why complain.


----------



## Jiehfeng (Mar 9, 2015)

Vipera said:


> Did it allow you to skip it? If it did, I don't see why complain.


 

Then again, you wouldn't know what's going on, but the story sucked anyways.


----------



## Obveron (Mar 9, 2015)

I prefer when the story is delivered in-game, like Half Life 2.


----------



## Sakitoshi (Mar 9, 2015)

I'm with the ones that say that the game need to feel cinematic because of the gameplay itself.
Just look at Super Metroid, after a brief introduction ("the last metroid is in captivity" and the text after it) you are left in a space station and the story unfolds itself once you start proceeding. you see the station is empty, there are death bodies and the metroid you delivered earlier isn't there anymore, you see what is happening and don't need to be told "Samus, look, the scientists are dead and the metroid is missing!!" to realize it.
If you wanted further explanation of the setting in a game you looked at the manual, there they explained who the protagonist is and what the situation is when starting the story.

But I don't want to say that cutscenes are all that bad, there are games that pull them off very well, the Tales of series is a good example.
There are numerous(and when I say that I mean there are like 100) short _optional_ cutscenes, are more like fully voiced(since the japanese Tales of Symphonia PS2 onward) VN segments to give you a better idea(the called skits). this skits add nothing to the gameplay and general story, but are important because the Tales of games focuses in character interaction and development and that is explained in those skits adding to the overall experience.


----------



## Locke644 (Mar 9, 2015)

Tailweaver: Yeah, I know there weren't many cutscenes in that particular game. I was just trying to make the point if so many people like it, due to the game being overhyped and sheeple falling in love with it, then why is there a need to change it if it sells? The same could be said about cinematic games. If people don't like a genre, they won't buy it. If we're seeing more and more movie games, then sadly that's whats going to be shoved out at an alarming rate with hidden gems that are hard to find after shoveling through all the crap we call modern gaming. /2nd rant


----------



## ShadowOne333 (Mar 9, 2015)

MOOOMMM!!!
I have some mini-games in my Blu Ray movie! Dx

^That is exactly how I feel whenever I see freaking LOOOONG cutscenes in a videogame.
If they are going to make the game cutscene heavy, just release a god damn CGI movie instead of making it a CGI movie with shot, run and another cutscene kind of game.

MGS4 anyone? XD


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 9, 2015)

If only there were a way to not play these kinds of games, but alas it's not possible because we're forced to purchase all games that're released...

So, sarcasm aside, I see no issue with cinematic games at all, I think the more options the better.

Developers want to tell grander and deeper stories and aren't always sure the best way to do this, it's not the stories it's the implementation.

People saying final fantasy has now turned into long cutscenes must be forgetting the old ones.

Regularly taken out of gameplay in ffvii to read text for 15 minutes was never a complaint, yes 13 goes a tad overboard with it but I'd say the cutscenes lengths are the same overall. It's jut 13 didn't have great content.

JRPGS especially are long Winded, it's a genre I adore but implementation is often bad.

Tales of games are a great example of this, cutscenes are largely very static, characters simply stand stiff most of the time, even doing it the bravely default way would work better IMHO and that's still simple as hell.

Some stories blend seemlessly with gameplay whilst others do not, mgs having all it's optional codecs is fine, but having 15-20 minutes of needles exposition is not.


----------



## Social_Outlaw (Mar 9, 2015)

Games are evolving to give you a story of it's purpose it plays, Cinematic only Degrades game play when you can't skip that shit  . Some people don't understand the concept it's trying to put out. We know that games are shifting towards movies, but why all of the sudden? It's 2015, and although while going back in time isn't the answer, we sure can make it a option if it's that big of a deal.

Honestly, I don't prefer this method of gaming, but I like how everything else is updating. Games like Half-Life 2 was perfect, and it gave you a story through game play, and not separate. I really do miss those days, but people need to get this out of this way, If I have to go to a cut scene, and wait for it to load the game then that is a no right there for me. Anybody can do this, but the execution needs to follow, which is supposed to be great.

It is time to have that option in games now: Cinematic Experience or Real Time Rendering?


----------



## Xzi (Mar 10, 2015)

Exactly why PC gaming > all. If you haven't played recent roguelikes/lites, you're missing out big time. Same applies if you only focus on playing AAA titles. Smaller studios and indie studios are producing a lot of games of much higher quality, albeit minus some of the shinies usually. More importantly, the focus sits squarely on the gameplay, as opposed to the boring crap you have no influence over.

Personally I was happier with the gaming industry influencing Hollywood than what results as a vice-versa. Maybe that's just me.  At least some things were awesome, like the Judge Dredd remake. 

Not to say a balance might not be better struck some day, but cinematic video games as they stand now do not interest me.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 10, 2015)

Xzi said:


> Exactly why PC gaming > all. If you haven't played recent roguelikes/lites, you're missing out big time. Same applies if you only focus on playing AAA titles. Smaller studios and indie studios are producing a lot of games of much higher quality, albeit minus some of the shinies usually. More importantly, the focus sits squarely on the gameplay, as opposed to the boring crap you have no influence over.


 
Damn...I was going to say this (I've been thinking over this in bed last night).

there are complaints that "more and more" games are overshadowed by their cinematics. Which may be true in itself, but misses the fact that more and more games are being released to begin with. And in relative terms, things certainly don't look as bleak. And with game engines easier and cheaper than ever (source2 and the unreal engine recently became free), that's more than likely to change in terms of gameplay*. We should really stop living in the '00-ties: indies aren't a borderline phenomenon anymore. There are plenty of great studios out there that produce top notch quality if gameplay is what you want. Sure, maxis and westwood may be gone, but paradox software and petroglyph games already fill the void with cities: skylines and grey goo**. Klei entertainment is building an impressive resume, double fine is rather known, there's telltale games, the games by curve studios are fun to play (for me) and of course let's not forget gaijin games (the bit.trip series).



*unless, of course, we have a vocal minority of gamers here, and the majority of upcoming game devs can't _wait_ to start creating their own cutscène fests chopped up with boring gameplay sections and QTE's. 
**btw...am I the only one who totally did NOT see this C&C-like RTS coming? At all?


----------



## anhminh (Mar 10, 2015)

About the gameplay time being low and the game being easier nowadays, I think it because people are become busier to actually spent hour and hour to complete the game.
To be honest, I find it hard for me to have enough time to playing game like I use to be when I was a kid. Mostly because the work are harder now and also I have to spent time to "connect" to my related on Facebook or they will thing I'm dead or something, I could only find an hour or so to sit down and play some game.
That why console are cover in dust and I only play on my handheld. For the the same reason, people now start to attract to smartphone game but I find those game are mostly plague.


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Mar 10, 2015)

anhminh said:


> About the gameplay time being low and the game being easier nowadays, I think it because people are become busier to actually spent hour and hour to complete the game.
> To be honest, I find it hard for me to have enough time to playing game like I use to be when I was a kid. Mostly because the work are harder now and also I have to spent time to "connect" to my related on Facebook or they will thing I'm dead or something, I could only find an hour or so to sit down and play some game.
> That why console are cover in dust and I only play on my handheld. For the the same reason, people now start to attract to smartphone game but I find those game are mostly plague.


People who were kids back then are busier, sure, but don't forget, there's new kids, like, almost every day.


----------

