Is cinematics killing games?

There is one thing that seems to be consistent with the majority of games that being their crappy to mediocre storylines. What makes it worse is the developers' great desire to tell this mediocre story and in the process ruingameplay. Games are slowly become more like an interactive movies as developers try their "best" to give a cinematic flavor to their games. Less and less focus is being placed on replay value because of this direction. In general, most of the popular games are only good for one play through because the second play is normally painful ortedious especially if the devs don't allow cut scenes to be skipped.

It seems as though every recent game I have played I spend more time watching than interacting. It is also becoming the norm where you play a little and then you watch a cut scene. This consistent interruption of gameplay is stifling the very purpose of games which is to play not watch. With the introduction of QTE, devs are now able to further limit gamer's interactivity and lengthen the watching the screen time. It wouldn't be long games are reduced to nothing but interactive movies.

I wouldn't say it was the cinematics that are doing it for me. It's the shoddy story (there are enough exceptions to keep me entertained though).

If the story is good I can probably cope with this. Not that I see it in the degree you have mentioned, but I assume there is a level of hyperbole in your statement.

As for replay, I rarely find a story driven game I can play a second time. I become far too involved with the game and the story. So I play it to death the first time round. Come the second time I already know the story inside out, and in the games I have played the choice options have not created enough difference for the game to feel dramatically different,

There is one thing that seems to be consistent with the majority of games that being their crappy to mediocre storylines. What makes it worse is the developers' great desire to tell this mediocre story and in the process ruingameplay.
Pedro

Games are slowly become more like an interactive movies as developers try their "best" to give a cinematic flavor to their games. Less and less focus is being placed on replay value because of this direction. In general, most of the popular games are only good for one play through because the second play is normally painful ortedious especially if the devs don't allow cut scenes to be skipped.
Pedro

It seems as though every recent game I have played I spend more time watching than interacting. It is also becoming the norm where you play a little and then you watch a cut scene. This consistent interruption of gameplay is stifling the very purpose of games which is to play not watch. With the introduction of QTE, devs are now able to further limit gamer's interactivity and lengthen the watching the screen time. It wouldn't be long games are reduced to nothing but interactive movies.

Pedro

Kill Zone 3 is a game that could of done with being fully interactive, as it's pathetic attempts to bring any life out of the grunts it created were to no avail. I found myself pressing that O button to skip during a third of the way.

If I was looking for an easy answer I could say that it depends on the game, that's true, but then again I look at a lot of games and I wonder why they don't put the effort to weave the story elements or cutscenes into the actual gameplay. The answer to that is because of the player, take Half Life for example, where you walk into a room and outside the window the developers have gone into great effort to create a battle between two spaceships and a robot dog, but you were too busy looking for health packs in the toilet utensils to of taken any notice. Also in Duex Ex, when the chief is trying to tell you about an important mission while instead of listening your jumping up and down on the desk and sticking flower pots on his head. Basically the player is an arse, so the story teller has to strap you down and sedate you in order to make sure you can take in the story.

Since games these days are beyond the days of Jet Set Willy and Monte Mole, we are no longer jumping over boots from platform to platform to complete a series of screens for a simple "Congratulations" screen, our games these days are like an alternative for movies, but of course not every game should be that way, which leads to my first answer, it depends on the game. You may have a point, but if you look at it, Kill Zone 3's story already takes a back seat, would be a better game if they told it to piss off completely?

I don't think cinematics are ruining games but there are some games which try and use cinematics too much and this spoils the experience. A lot of games use cinematics well, which helps tell the story and enhance the experience. I wouldn't say story or plot has much to do with cinematics to be honest. The story could be boring as hell, for example a plane crashes into a building you have to go and recover something from the crash. The story might be poor but if the cut scenes and cinematics look fanastic then there's no problem. Story and cinematics are different things.

There is one thing that seems to be consistent with the majority of games that being their crappy to mediocre storylines. What makes it worse is the developers' great desire to tell this mediocre story and in the process ruingameplay. Games are slowly become more like an interactive movies as developers try their "best" to give a cinematic flavor to their games. Less and less focus is being placed on replay value because of this direction. In general, most of the popular games are only good for one play through because the second play is normally painful ortedious especially if the devs don't allow cut scenes to be skipped.

It seems as though every recent game I have played I spend more time watching than interacting. It is also becoming the norm where you play a little and then you watch a cut scene. This consistent interruption of gameplay is stifling the very purpose of games which is to play not watch. With the introduction of QTE, devs are now able to further limit gamer's interactivity and lengthen the watching the screen time. It wouldn't be long games are reduced to nothing but interactive movies.

Pedro

i disagree with you even though its personal opinion i like cinematics and cutscenes games without sotries are boring

I don't think cinematics are ruining games but there are some games which try and use cinematics too much and this spoils the experience. A lot of games use cinematics well, which helps tell the story and enhance the experience. I wouldn't say story or plot has much to do with cinematics to be honest. The story could be boring as hell, for example a plane crashes into a building you have to go and recover something from the crash. The story might be poor but if the cut scenes and cinematics look fanastic then there's no problem. Story and cinematics are different things.

LazyMushroom

Yes and no... I terms of Quick Time events, well Shenmue was the first game to use Quick Time Events which Sega developed. And it really worked for that game even in this age there are die hard fans of Shenmue games.

But however, back to the true question. Yes cinematics is killing gaming, and why.2 reasons. 1) Because it is easier to tell a story through cinematics over gameplay narritive and 2) With the online game community, Single Player Experiences are kind of lost. Look at an old game that was able to tell the story through the actual gameplay, Silent Hill on the PS, or even Shenmue on the dreamcast, or Shadow of the Colossus, or Bioshock. These told alot about the story just about the enviroment they were in. I am going to go into more depth with the game Shadow of the Colossus. Look at how the waste land in Shadow of the Colossus is so empty and almost creepy feeling. Ever wondered why?.... Well much of what Shadow of the Colossus is, is a story about bringing true love back to reality. The producer of the game views the absence of love as lonely, dark and rather creepy. Too add more of an effect, the Colossi were added as the only road block between Wander(the main character) and Love. Now i could talk about this game forever, but we get a small part of the story being told without using any cinematics at all.

The bottem Line is that Games need more narritive in the Gameplay then relying on cinematics.

Most games that are released are storybound, which is fine but I am tired of playing games in which the game is design in such a storydriven manner that it only worth playing once. .Pedro

That sentance says a lot, there are not enough games like Fallout New Vegas, were every character no matter how important to the plot is not immortal, and can be taken out at any time in any order to provide an ending which fits in to what you did in the game world.

But still that contains story, there is a start and an end to the game. The trouble I find with things like Little Big Planet and Minecraft; total sandbox games, is that they don't feel very fuffilling, it's like they are a constant reminder that I am wasting my time, I am just playing a game for the sake of playing a game, I feel no connection, no reason for what I am doing. It's why as soon as I completed Red Dead Redemption I had no intention of running about as his son, it's why in Fallout Broken Steel I stopped playing after I nuked the Brotherhood of Steel base (One of my favorite moments in game history I hate those pricks and having been forced to work with them up until that point). As soon as I lose sight of why I am doing stuff I find myself not wanting to do anything.

There is one thing that seems to be consistent with the majority of games that being their crappy to mediocre storylines. What makes it worse is the developers' great desire to tell this mediocre story and in the process ruingameplay. Games are slowly become more like an interactive movies as developers try their "best" to give a cinematic flavor to their games. Less and less focus is being placed on replay value because of this direction. In general, most of the popular games are only good for one play through because the second play is normally painful ortedious especially if the devs don't allow cut scenes to be skipped.

It seems as though every recent game I have played I spend more time watching than interacting. It is also becoming the norm where you play a little and then you watch a cut scene. This consistent interruption of gameplay is stifling the very purpose of games which is to play not watch. With the introduction of QTE, devs are now able to further limit gamer's interactivity and lengthen the watching the screen time. It wouldn't be long games are reduced to nothing but interactive movies.

Pedro

You're setting up a false dichotomy. Story and gameplay are not enemies. I think the MGS games have too much (skippable) noninteractive storytelling,but that doesn't stop the gameplay/game design from being excellent. Also, most game makers aren't terribly interested in storytelling. Many borrow inspiration from cinemas in terms of their visuals, character designs and settings, but most games don't spend much time on storytelling.

*Shrugs* But perhaps we have been playing different games, What games have sparked your complaint?

People have higher standards for video games nowadays, we expect a story that will keep us interested and help with immersion.

Same with Graphics, characters, and sound, if we are going to shell out 60 bucks we need the total package.

Graphics don't make a game, graphics are there to serve the games style. Mass Effect 2and Final Fantasy XIII are prime examples of how graphics are there to serve the games style. Look at Halo Reach, the game may not be the best but it felt like you were in a fantasy Sci-fi world of Reach right, then look at a game like Dante's Inferno, the game had great graphics... but that didn't make the game good?

The witcher 2 has very little cinematics actually it has none in the traditional sense and feels very natural with a great story and world and excellent character development. But I think some games need them like a God of War game because they wouldn't really work as well without them

I don't think that they are. Games have been using them for a while now. And usually when done right, are fantastic ways to add narration to a game. Having said that though, I think the problem lately is that some developers are just overusing them at the expense of gameplay. I actually think there's something else killing games, but that's another topic.

To tell more complex stories they need more cut scene and some people will not accept that game with a number of cut scene.

I think the poorer game play is from the players not caring that much.

No. Crappy development cycles and greedy publishers are. Too many games are being rushed out before they are finished or deep gameplay is being substituted for button presses so that more people can play the game, nevermind the fact that even when they do that, most of the time the combat is completely unbalanced or the game itself just lacks polish.

So basically it's publishers rushing to get more people to play their crappy game.

If there's more talking than action, then yes.face_ripper

You're setting up a false dichotomy. Story and gameplay are not enemies. I think the MGS games have too much (skippable) noninteractive storytelling,but that doesn't stop the gameplay/game design from being excellent. Also, most game makers aren't terribly interested in storytelling. Many borrow inspiration from cinemas in terms of their visuals, character designs and settings, but most games don't spend much time on storytelling.*Shrugs* But perhaps we have been playing different games, What games have sparked your complaint?CarnageHeart

I don't think that they are. Games have been using them for a while now. And usually when done right, are fantastic ways to add narration to a game. Having said that though, I think the problem lately is that some developers are just overusing them at the expense of gameplay. I actually think there's something else killing games, but that's another topic.

bluelf

If I was looking for an easy answer I could say that it depends on the game, that's true, but then again I look at a lot of games and I wonder why they don't put the effort to weave the story elements or cutscenes into the actual gameplay. The answer to that is because of the player, take Half Life for example, where you walk into a room and outside the window the developers have gone into great effort to create a battle between two spaceships and a robot dog, but you were too busy looking for health packs in the toilet utensils to of taken any notice.Evil_Saluki

No. If you think they are, you are doing it wrong.

The only time that I hate cinematics is when you are stuck in first person view and watching it from a video screen or other talking about it.

Kill Zone 3 is a game that could of done with being fully interactive, as it's pathetic attempts to bring any life out of the grunts it created were to no avail. I found myself pressing that O button to skip during a third of the way.

If I was looking for an easy answer I could say that it depends on the game, that's true, but then again I look at a lot of games and I wonder why they don't put the effort to weave the story elements or cutscenes into the actual gameplay. The answer to that is because of the player, take Half Life for example, where you walk into a room and outside the window the developers have gone into great effort to create a battle between two spaceships and a robot dog, but you were too busy looking for health packs in the toilet utensils to of taken any notice. Also in Duex Ex, when the chief is trying to tell you about an important mission while instead of listening your jumping up and down on the desk and sticking flower pots on his head. Basically the player is an arse, so the story teller has to strap you down and sedate you in order to make sure you can take in the story.

Since games these days are beyond the days of Jet Set Willy and Monte Mole, we are no longer jumping over boots from platform to platform to complete a series of screens for a simple "Congratulations" screen, our games these days are like an alternative for movies, but of course not every game should be that way, which leads to my first answer, it depends on the game. You may have a point, but if you look at it, Kill Zone 3's story already takes a back seat, would be a better game if they told it to piss off completely?

Evil_Saluki

It really depends on what the cinemetics offer, a cinematic is perfect for adding 'touch' to important in-game events.
However in many cases developers choose to replace events by cinematics instead of using cinematics as a addition.

Imagine the avarage run away from a huge monster/explosion situation, instead ofusing a cinematic to start the event and let the player run away themselves, the entire event is a single cinematic.

Games are slowly become more like an interactive movies as developers try their "best" to give a cinematic flavor to their games.

Pedro

That's a good thing when done well. Try playing Metal Gear Solid 4, I just beat that game last night, I was up from 10pm to 1am watching the final cutscenes and the epilogue. What an epic game. MGS4 is extremely polished and every minute of cutscenes in that game is utilized well. There wasn't a moment I was bored when watching any of the cutscenes of MGS4, and I was glad the epilogue was so long. They wrapped up the story very nicely.

In other games, cutscenes aren't nearly as long. The only time I have a problem with them is when you can't skip the ones you've already seen. Like in Kingdom Hearts 1, when I had to retry that boss fight against Riku about a gajillion times. XD There was a long, unskippable scene that was right before it that I had to sit through on each try.

But I love it when a game has cinematic cutscenes that advance the plot well. Metal Gear Solid 4 had outstanding cinematics.

That's a good thing when done well. Try playing Metal Gear Solid 4, I just beat that game last night, I was up from 10pm to 1am watching the final cutscenes and the epilogue. What an epic game. MGS4 is extremely polished and every minute of cutscenes in that game is utilized well. There wasn't a moment I was bored when watching any of the cutscenes of MGS4, and I was glad the epilogue was so long. They wrapped up the story very nicely.

In other games, cutscenes aren't nearly as long. The only time I have a problem with them is when you can't skip the ones you've already seen. Like in Kingdom Hearts 1, when I had to retry that boss fight against Riku about a gajillion times. XD There was a long, unskippable scene that was right before it that I had to sit through on each try.

But I love it when a game has cinematic cutscenes that advance the plot well. Metal Gear Solid 4 had outstanding cinematics.

GeoffZak

Funny thing is that "game" is one of the reasons for my rant. I should not be watching cinematics after cinematics if I am playing a game. Its is the sole reason I am gamer and not a movie watcher.

in short, yes. i believe that the obsession with cinema generally takes away from the interactive nature of play.

what can you do about it? educate gamers, write reviews, write intelligent feedback on the internet and most of all put your money where your mouth is and buy and play legitimate games. you kind of have to get political with your money, but it's the only way.

but if i was being more balanced, there are some good stories out there with good linear gameplay.

Cimematics are fine as long as they are not abused to death in the game. Some games, like Metal Gear Solid 2 or Xenosaga, turned me off because there was too much to sit through and watch. Isn't the whole point of a videogame to play it and have fun with it? It's not meant to be a full-length movie. Cinematics should only be used to tell a story, but not make it the main meat of the game, IMO.

I'm fine with it, as long as the cutscenes advance the story further. There are many games where there's a cutscene for opening a door or walking down a street. No, those we don't need. I always thought Halo's cutscenes were good (could even be longer) where it's pretty much intro, level break, outro for each level. I personally would like to see more story in between missions, but it does a nice job of setting the scene and prepping the player for action most of the time.

For the most part, yes.

I find that cinematics can improve the games.

[QUOTE="GeoffZak"]

That's a good thing when done well. Try playing Metal Gear Solid 4, I just beat that game last night, I was up from 10pm to 1am watching the final cutscenes and the epilogue. What an epic game. MGS4 is extremely polished and every minute of cutscenes in that game is utilized well. There wasn't a moment I was bored when watching any of the cutscenes of MGS4, and I was glad the epilogue was so long. They wrapped up the story very nicely.

In other games, cutscenes aren't nearly as long. The only time I have a problem with them is when you can't skip the ones you've already seen. Like in Kingdom Hearts 1, when I had to retry that boss fight against Riku about a gajillion times. XD There was a long, unskippable scene that was right before it that I had to sit through on each try.

But I love it when a game has cinematic cutscenes that advance the plot well. Metal Gear Solid 4 had outstanding cinematics.

Pedro

Funny thing is that "game" is one of the reasons for my rant. I should not be watching cinematics after cinematics if I am playing a game. Its is the sole reason I am gamer and not a movie watcher.

The story is one of the biggest reasons I play video games. Video games that have a great single player story mode are my favorite. Even though Shadow of the Colossus had minimal cutscenes and dialogue, it told a very deep and meaningful story. I rate video games as an experience, a video game is an art form. I'm a gamer and not a movie watcher as well. I'm not big on movies, there are only a select few that I really like. I think it's a great concept that video games are like interactive movies. With a story to follow, I'm motivated to play.

In Shadow of the Colossus it's not just about getting to the next level, because you're not just playing some video game, you're on an epic quest to bring the girl you love back to life. That's why I love good stories and cinematics in video games. Motivation to play to find out what happens.

A game story told through game play is very limited without cinematic. A game story need to focus on problems solving to start with. A game with good cinematic add some much feeling to the world. The games without it just feels a little plain and not that important.

When they're overdone, sure. Some games are good with them, but it you're doing more watching than playing, definitely no.

I'm fine with them so long as their using the game engine rather than rendered movies. Usually in movie cutscenes they completely change the look of the characters. The opening cinematics of each World of Warcraft game are guilty of that.

I find that cinematics can improve the games.

wiouds

I wouldn't say that they're killing games. Sure most videogame stories are far from top-notch, but cut scenes are hardly detrimental to gaming as a whole. Vexing instances where they just go and on maybe, but generally they're harmless.

I hated assassins creed for its long unskippable cutscenes. :(

But Uncharted 2 was awesome and wouldnt be any good without cutscenes.

I hated assassins creed for its long unskippable cutscenes. :(

But Uncharted 2 was awesome and wouldnt be any good without cutscenes.

lasseeb