What do gamers mean by "I want to play not watch"??

Ok, I understand action based games are different, but what about story driven games? I mean, so do gamers want TEXT instead nice cutscenes of emotional voice acting? That sounds like a horrible request. And this has nothing to do with reading (and I always thought listening attentively was more difficult task than reading anyways). Character conversations are very essential to the game's overall storyline. I understand if they do a cutscene of the character doing something meaningless, but in that sense are scenary cutscenes meaningless then? Obviously not....

Well consider that a lot of RPG's now tend to be 3/4 CGI scenes and 1/4 game, like XenoSaga for example. A Final Fantasy game nowadays you could probably spend more time watching the game than playing it, especially since the CGI scenes is usually the best thing about the game since the rest of the game is highly generic and the same old JRPG formula that hasn't really changed at all while western RPGs have advanced. And I don't mind JRPGs as long as there's an actual game, if I want a movie, I'll get one.

Great CGI scenes do tend to replace a game a tad too often these days since it's what people like to see, beautiful visuals which they can drool over.

R/T

Great CGI scenes do tend to replace a game a tad too often these days since it's what people like to see, beautiful visuals which they can drool over.

R/T

Smokescreened84

Hmm there's very interesting thing to think about.....gamers usually call these type of people idiots, since it's not the "source" of gaming, but at the same time roleplayers might think these people are smart, since they think it is the source of gaming (because of the artistic/plot significance of the CGIs). In this sense, gamers are idiots >

On a further note, all the editors who voted MGS 4 for GOTY certainly agree with me. They also agree that these 2 vastly different types of entertainment are coming together as whole. The best of both worlds, anyone? I certainly think so.

Gamers as idiots, hmm, maybe those who place graphics above the gameplay, but that's a tad harsh. A game can look incredible and be a lot of fun, but it is something that's fairly rare since it's easier to make beautiful visuals than it is to make a game that really sucks you in and has you coming back for more.

Take Metal Gear Solid 4 for example, I've not played it and not likely to since I've little wish to get a PS3 till something I would like to get the console for comes out, but I've seen the visuals and they're very good and the game seems to be hailed as a great game, but I have my doubts since the same was said for the previous Metal Gear Solids and I honestly found MGS 1 and 2 to be hollow, shallow, empty experiences that looked great with some interesting stories, well 1 did, 2 was a shambles at the end.
I kept wondering just why the games were so hyped when they were so dull, even after finishing the first 2 I didn't feel like returning to them, nor playing any more in the series. The same with the Halo series, I played and completed 1 and 2 and decided to not bother with 3 because to me it was the same old thing rehashed with a shiny new coat.

I want to play a game when I buy it, not be wading through boredom while admiring the visuals. If I want to watch something with great visuals, I'll watch a CGI fest or pure CGI movie or a nature documentary, a game is supposed to be something to play, not drool over for it's graphics.

R/T

Well consider that a lot of RPG's now tend to be 3/4 CGI scenes and 1/4 game, like XenoSaga for example.

Smokescreened84

No, they arnt, Xenosaga was the exception.

There's such a thing as a good BALANCE between story and gameplay. Just because a game is focused on story doesn't mean that people should be satisfied with the gameplay aspect being totally neglected.

Gamers as idiots, hmm, maybe those who place graphics above the gameplay, but that's a tad harsh. A game can look incredible and be a lot of fun, but it is something that's fairly rare since it's easier to make beautiful visuals than it is to make a game that really sucks you in and has you coming back for more.

Take Metal Gear Solid 4 for example, I've not played it and not likely to since I've little wish to get a PS3 till something I would like to get the console for comes out, but I've seen the visuals and they're very good and the game seems to be hailed as a great game, but I have my doubts since the same was said for the previous Metal Gear Solids and I honestly found MGS 1 and 2 to be hollow, shallow, empty experiences that looked great with some interesting stories, well 1 did, 2 was a shambles at the end.
I kept wondering just why the games were so hyped when they were so dull, even after finishing the first 2 I didn't feel like returning to them, nor playing any more in the series. The same with the Halo series, I played and completed 1 and 2 and decided to not bother with 3 because to me it was the same old thing rehashed with a shiny new coat.

I want to play a game when I buy it, not be wading through boredom while admiring the visuals. If I want to watch something with great visuals, I'll watch a CGI fest or pure CGI movie or a nature documentary, a game is supposed to be something to play, not drool over for it's graphics.

R/T

Smokescreened84

wow i cant disagree more with metal gear solid but i agree completely with halo. can i ask what games you absolutely love just for reference as to where your opinion comes from. personally i feel like a good story can make a mediocre game worth the purchase while a terrible story makes great gameplay feel hollow.

i can't figure out how you decided metal gear solid was dull, shallow, hollow, experiences. ithink its hard to find games that match the quality experience that is the metal gear series. perhaps its just a dislike for stealth that loses your interest. or you just cant be bothered to absorb the vast amounts of exposition. (i don't deny the series is heavy on exposition and occasionally crosses the line and over does it but i can easily forgive overdoing. what i cant forgive is games that fail to do anything with character or story and just expect you to)

i think character development is more important than story. they should both exist but plenty of games have intriguing stories but those stories dont grab you unless theyve created a character that people can identify with and impose themselves upon in order to fully experience the story

thats an interesting take. i guess my mind doesnt work the same way because i go into games expecting a film i get to control. i want a game that has a 10 min awesome introduction (although 10 min of an introductiont that i can at least partially control is even better) i am so disappointed when i pop in a game and it takes 30 seconds to set the stage and then you just encounter 6 hours of enemy waves over various backdrops with no understanding of what is driving the character or the enemies. perhaps its my love of film that allows me to enjoy long cutscenes.

[QUOTE="Smokescreened84"]

Gamers as idiots, hmm, maybe those who place graphics above the gameplay, but that's a tad harsh. A game can look incredible and be a lot of fun, but it is something that's fairly rare since it's easier to make beautiful visuals than it is to make a game that really sucks you in and has you coming back for more.

Take Metal Gear Solid 4 for example, I've not played it and not likely to since I've little wish to get a PS3 till something I would like to get the console for comes out, but I've seen the visuals and they're very good and the game seems to be hailed as a great game, but I have my doubts since the same was said for the previous Metal Gear Solids and I honestly found MGS 1 and 2 to be hollow, shallow, empty experiences that looked great with some interesting stories, well 1 did, 2 was a shambles at the end.
I kept wondering just why the games were so hyped when they were so dull, even after finishing the first 2 I didn't feel like returning to them, nor playing any more in the series. The same with the Halo series, I played and completed 1 and 2 and decided to not bother with 3 because to me it was the same old thing rehashed with a shiny new coat.

I want to play a game when I buy it, not be wading through boredom while admiring the visuals. If I want to watch something with great visuals, I'll watch a CGI fest or pure CGI movie or a nature documentary, a game is supposed to be something to play, not drool over for it's graphics.

R/T

wow i cant disagree more with metal gear solid but i agree completely with halo. can i ask what games you absolutely love just for reference as to where your opinion comes from. personally i feel like a good story can make a mediocre game worth the purchase while a terrible story makes great gameplay feel hollow.

i can't figure out how you decided metal gear solid was dull, shallow, hollow, experiences. ithink its hard to find games that match the quality experience that is the metal gear series. perhaps its just a dislike for stealth that loses your interest. or you just cant be bothered to absorb the vast amounts of exposition. (i don't deny the series is heavy on exposition and occasionally crosses the line and over does it but i can easily forgive overdoing. what i cant forgive is games that fail to do anything with character or story and just expect you to)

i think character development is more important than story. they should both exist but plenty of games have intriguing stories but those stories dont grab you unless theyve created a character that people can identify with and impose themselves upon in order to fully experience the story

gapinglotus9

My favourite games tend to be games like Harvest Moon, where I can make my own story as I go along, Saint's Row 2, again I've found I can make my own story as I play while still following the main story. A lot of the games I play I make additional stories for as an extra, keeps me playing, side stories mostly.

The MGS series started off well enough, but by the time I got half way I was beginning to wonder if the game was really more of an attempt to tell a novel and throwing in stealth, which tended to turn into gun play half way through. Since I tend to find too much shooting to be boring, I lost interest in the series, especially the second one when it suddenly switched to some kind of alien/computer grid nonsense after Raiden was rescued.
The story was a mess and it felt more like the game was skipping a lot, like large parts had been taken out in order to rush to the end.

I had liked the MGS 1story, I found the ideas quite well thought out, but the gun play got on my nerves and while MGS kept a solid story, but felt more like a shooter than a steath game, it felt empty to me, as if they had just rushed the ending. While with 2, the story started well, then just became a complete mess.
I'm fine with exposition, I use it at points in my own stories. I just felt like I was being hand held without being given the chance to take a risk and try something without having to whip out a gun and open fire. Stealth I'm alright with if it's done well, I liked one of the Splinter Cell games since the stealth was really good.

But to me, something felt missing from the MGS games I had played, something that the game needed. It had a story, it had the characters, it had the gameplay, but something was missing and whatever it was, it just killed the series for me. Maybe it was the way the endings felt very rushed or maybe I've become tired of resorting to guns when there has to be a better way.

R/T

it means that the fanboys hate MGS4 because it is exclusive to the PS3

Solid_Link22

Play Metal Gear Solid and you'll understand what they mean.

It's one thing when a game is story driven. I enjoy those games quite a lot. It is quite another when you spend almost as much time watching as you do playing. If that's the case, they should have just made a movie.

If a game is going to be story driven, the story should be conveyed mostly throuh gameplay rather than movies. Otherwise, what's the point?

It's one thing when a game is story driven. I enjoy those games quite a lot. It is quite another when you spend almost as much time watching as you do playing. If that's the case, they should have just made a movie.

If a game is going to be story driven, the story should be conveyed mostly throuh gameplay rather than movies. Otherwise, what's the point?

There's such a thing as a good BALANCE between story and gameplay. Just because a game is focused on story doesn't mean that people should be satisfied with the gameplay aspect being totally neglected.

Jackc8

Since when the gameplay is neglected?

What follows the cut scenes are usually well designed dungeons and well made battle system.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

It's one thing when a game is story driven. I enjoy those games quite a lot. It is quite another when you spend almost as much time watching as you do playing. If that's the case, they should have just made a movie.

If a game is going to be story driven, the story should be conveyed mostly throuh gameplay rather than movies. Otherwise, what's the point?

Solid_Snake325

it means that the fanboys hate MGS4 because it is exclusive to the PS3

Solid_Link22

I have to respectfully disagree Matty. While gameplay is always an important aspect of video games, I feel that a great story can mean so much more to the player in the end. One of the reasons that I enjoy JRPGs so much is because they tend to have emotional and engaging plots/characters. Now, all that gameplay that you speak of in Elder Scrolls is definitely fun and worthwhile, but I tend to look for games that will have lasting meaning for me. I want a game that I will become so attached to its story and characters that it actually leaves an impact on me. I just feel like games like Elder Scrolls are missing something that more story/character driven games achieve, a sort of sentimental value. I guess its just matter of opinion, but I believe that gaming has the potential to be the pinnacle story telling media. Unlike in a movie where you are introduced to some characters and are shown a story over the course of 2 hours, great games have plots and characters that unfold over 40+ hours. You tend to care so much more about these video game characters because you spend so time with them. Games are given the opportunity to focus in on character development and other aspects over a much longer period of time, and you the player gets to interract in this new world. This is just my opinion, but I believe that my greatest video game experiences have been infinitely better than my greatest movie experiences. Back to the original topic, I love cutscenes in gaming because of the previous reasons.

Means they're too lazy to wait a few minutes for some storyline.X360PS3AMD05

^^Example of a person who has never played Metal Gear Solid.^^

I'd say MGS4 is a prime example. Either make a game or make a movie, but not both.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for a good story, but it should go hand in hand with gameplay not in hour long chunks.

A lot of good points in this thread so I will try and not repeat ideas. Ultimately I think this is a problem that dates back to when the games industry was more a fledgling industry still trying to find its identity. As such we see influences from film and other mediums. The advent of the FMV seemed like the right way to expand the narrative in games at the time (around the original Playstation era) and this is a mentality that some developers still believe to be true 3 generations later.

Exploring ways to tell a story without taking control away from the player is something that developers are only beginning to explore and even then we have good examples were we are still made to watch with little to no interaction. While many people may complain about FPS not having evolved as a genre, I think its a great example of new ways to tell a story while impacting gameplay as little as possible (Half Life 2, Portal, Bioshock, come to mind). Ultimately I think there will always be a place for non interactive cutscenes but there must be a balance struck.

I think it's more of the MGS4 thing, with a intro lasting 45 minutes and a ending lasting a hour and a half.Treflis

Seriously? Are these times accurate or exaggerated? I haven't played MGS4 yet. I'm curious and I'd prefer to know if this is the case before going in.

Games that have too many cutscenes and/or cutscenes that are too long get annoying to me. If it was truly a great game, I think there is a way to get the storyline across in-game. By this, I mean, while you're running around in the game, you might discover stuff or talk to people, or get some item that helps elude to or explain plot points. To me, the cutscenes are good for helping to summarize everything and make sure the plot is clarified.

I must say, I really haven't run into that many games that had too many or too long of cutscenes.