Define movie game...

So I notice Playstation haters like to bash good narrative and production values by labeling high rated Sony games as movie game. A movie game is Detroit become human, Beyond 2 Souls, Heavy Rain, Until the Dawn, The Dark Pictures franchise. That term is being used for games crammed with gameplay like Uncharted and GOW. Throwing around terms with no definition is BS so I challenge the haters to define what a movie game. A movie game is on rails throughout, not something you explore in.

Really? 😅

A movie game is a game that emphasizes cinematics and non-interactive elements to the point where they come at the expense of interactive elements, especially if they take a toll on player agency.

Uncharted and its Climbing sections are a notorious example of this.

Edit: Modern Sony Games are not really movie games anymore. But it certainly was valid criticism of them during Gen 7.

Also, No. Sony games do not have good narratives. Even TLOU was just a vastly inferior retelling of better stories.

A movie game is a game on a system someone doesn't own.

You are 100 % correct. Unfortunately I don’t know what to do other than to ignore these people

@Maroxad:

Perfectly stated.

A movie game hallmark is a forced walking section that you CAN'T speed up, because the developers take control because they want something made clear to you.

Any game that's prone to removing/reducing player control/inputs in relation to exerting developer control.

@oof85: Anotrher example would be those tailing sections.

Or that section where you have to call in an airstrike to progress, just to show off some physics effects. Even if you take down the sniper it still instakills you if you try to progress without calling the airstrike. I think it was Medal of Honor or Call of Duty, can't remember which one.

^ This

+ Forced cinematic walking. Dumb QTEs. Walking around doing "nothing". Fake tension bullshit platforming. Constantly interrupted with cutscene after scene.

The opening of Resident Evil 8 is painful. Just couldn't carry on.

Is that why microsoft’s own internal review of the game had this to say about TLOU?

But ultimately, the analysis calledThe Last Of Us Part II an “exceedingly rare video game where what it accomplishes in moving forward the art of narrative storytelling in video games as a medium ultimately outweighs whether or not everyone ‘likes’ it or even if everyone has ‘fun’ playing it.

A lot of the walking scenes are loading screens. I'd rather that than watching a line slowly progressing across the screen. When I think of movie games, games like Erica, or life is strange. Games with cutscenes have been around forever and don't make a game a movie game.

@Maroxad: yep exactly, and I said I'm a fan of movie games. Not all of them, some are unbearable like the walking simulator gow. Uncharted is a great game, and I even like tlou1.

I think it's more a derogatory term to apply toward games that focus on the cinematic production values that surpass rather shallow and uninspired gameplay. Uncharted fits the bill because as a game they're very average in terms of combat, and despite the cinematic focus I didn't find the stories very compelling. MGS4 I'd also call one because the game is like 75% cutscene and the gameplay is so very meh and even the fact it's more story than gameplay wouldn't be as bad except the story is so very boring and every one scene wears out its welcome and they stack them back to back.

Though something like Telltale or David Cage games feel more appropriate to designate as such in a more literal sense, I tend to like those games for what they are considering the stories are fun and/or they offer something rewarding regarding choices and consequence and how the outcomes can very drastically. Beyond: Two Souls was probably worst of the David Cage games in terms of offering branching paths and outcomes but still a pretty good story that carries the experience by itself. Indigo Prophecy / Fahrenheit is probably my favorite of his regarding branching paths. Heavy Rain was mostly disappointing because the narrative regarding who-done-it kind of kills replay IMO once you know the story. I have yet to play Detroit but want to. Become a big fan of the Supermassive Games, loved Until Dawn but I mostly like the Dark Pictures Anthology for their co-op play and how it offers a greater degree of replayability.

@Sagemode87: a movie game is just how the name sounds. It's more of a movie than a game. The story line is very clear, game is linear, pushing you from point A to B, everything is scripted. Uses lots of cinematic. Not all movie games are bad, I like some of them, I'm not like ghosts.

Sum up this.

the thing is games liek detroit, life is strange, heavy rain are market as interactive movie while uncharted/GOW/last of us are also like that but they market as action games.

those games have barely any gameplay segments interrupt by forced walking segments and doing nothing and nothing.

Max payne and Alan wake are perfect example of cinematic games that are not movie games but infact they are games where most of time you are playing with few and here cutscenes.

Nothing wrong with that.

Read some actual literature. And the story of TLOU2 sucked.

A linear, 8-14 hour campaign with tons of dialog, lengthy cutscenes and 3 acts. Basically an interactive movie where you use a thumbstick to move the main character from point A to point B each chapter until the credits roll. Then you uninstall because there is zero replay value.

@Maroxad: read some actual literature? I played the game and it was absolutely glorious. If you can’t see the irony in the seething jealousy of Microsoft and its admission that their teams are incapable of creating this level of game - I don’t know what to tell you.

MS suits admitting their flagship games are failures and Sony’s games are superior is the most satisfying stuff to read. Must burn you lemmings deeply

@theam0g: lmao at uninstalling 🤣 . I don't know why the cows are so unsecure about movie games. Movies are great, games are great. Movie games are even better. End of the day, each game has its story and tells it in different ways.

I'm a fan of some games like tunic, they tell the story through the game itself, and it's something you piece together by collecting stuff. The developer of that game did a fantastic job. Day 1 gamepass by the way.

Well I can tell you what a failed movie game is, Gears 5

It’s a term used by gamers (particularly haters) to try to justify why their opinions of a game should be valued over the masses. To me, it’s just as senseless as the term “overrated“.

I'm a fan of movie games but I don't consider them to be the TLOUS or Uncharted series because it actually has gameplay. Even though they rely way be much on cinematics and taking away to much control away from the player which can be annoying. To me a movie game is David Cage type games which has no combat or tradition gameplay hence movie game.

Pretty bad criticism tbh

Theres more gameplay in life is strange than Uncharted 4 lol. i recently beat UC4. barely any gameplay moment.

@Maroxad:

Uncharted has more than just climbing sections. It's a game that combines everything together good and overall you get fun out of it. It's challenging, cinematic, great characters and gameplay. Plus the mp since uc2 is great as well. These are called 'VIDEO GAMES', good fun VIDEO GAMES don't all have to have the depth of a MGS or a Zelda game from Nintendo switch.

@Sagemode87: Very little gameplay mechanics.

But lots of heavy narrative/talking sequences/cinematics.

This is a definition of a movie game. You're literally walking in a straight line. Pathetic.

Let your overlord itself define it for you:

And if you want to understand a bit more, allow the gamers to explain it:

There is no singular definition because its classic video game gatekeeping.

People only coined the term in the PS3/X360 generation because games started to actually look realistic but, the truth is, games with the exact same "characteristics" have existed since we moved out of the arcade.

Always been a lazy crit, but (at one point at least) it was a quick way to communicate the kind of game you're getting into. Fine as an offhand comment, braindead as a crutch in discussion/debate.

Now? People just throw it out there at any old game, doesn't matter if it makes sense. Really lost whatever meaning it once had.

When I think movie game, I think along the lines of what Maroxad and Cup are driving at. Elements that are likely great for those who want their story and/or spectacle above all else, but for those who actually like playing good games? Fucked priorities and maddening design choices. The worst of them being the games that are still braindead even when the player is fully in control. Something that hit full swing in gen 7.

I hope they don't make one of these for Ragnarok or i will be more pissed than you ever saw me. I would literally flag their video if they did it.

When you push more buttons getting into the game, than you do playing the game, it’s a movie game.

The majority of the PS 1st party lineup is movie games.

@hardwenzen:

Maybe don't tie your identity and self-worth to games, and especially games that are the equivalent to 90s era Saturday afternoon trash shows like Xena/Hercules and the Lost World?

Or continue to rally around games that apparently play themselves.

Your choice.

Simple. If it's a Sony game then it's a movie game.

I am curious: are early 1980s arcade games like Dragon's Lair and Space Age be considered "movie" games? After all, the games are considered interactive cartoons.

Don't even think their example works. Its just as shit.

Like if thats the case what's the argument for Half Life 2 not being a movie game, because it's not cutscenes? It's hyper fucking linear, scripted segments of walking and talking. It may not do the canned, we force you to walk slowly shit, but there is a parade of just you can't move on sequences where the player has to wait for the guy to finish talking, so they can tell their poor story.

And when you're not shooting people, you are solving puzzles are a toddler can figure out because they get how seesaws work.

As bad as Uncharted games get about that shit, and 4 might be the most egregious. It has some genuinely large stretches of combat encounters, a lot of them multi layered from a verticality stand point to give the player some proper breathing room in options in combat, in a franchise where your core mechanics have been a lot of get behind chest high wall, shoot, jump, canned melee move. So it's very much a shooter (arguably a poor one).

ON the flip side Last of Us 2 straight up is a more mechanically dense set of systems with that same multi-layered encounter arenas.

Think its just a shit take out right even in its use. Only really works because the cows here get butt blasted, when the simpler thing is to just highlight that they play shallow video games that don't play well. It's not like that shit is hard when you've actually played good games before.

@jg4xchamp:

lol true. Has to be applied to very specific games and even then it can fall apart. That, or you can get a game that meets much of said checklist, but it ultimately doesn't matter.

It is a lazy crit that gets away from discussing the core weaknesses (or strengths) of a game. There are games that do some of those things and also happen to be straight up bangers.

Obviously fair to dislike a barrage of cutscenes, cinematic walking, QTEs, etc. but rarely the whole story. Plenty of games that have way more cutscenes than I'd like that are among the better games I've played. And when they're skippable, like who cares?

Yeah that's really it. The other stuff, while annoying, mostly serves to make an already poor gameplay experience that much worse.

@Sagemode87:

Define triggered.

I use the term cinematic games preferably. There is a reason I didnt like Half Life 2.

TLOU2 has good shooter mechanics for sure. After the gunplay that felt so off in Uncharted, it certainly is a sign of how much the devs have improved.

You know full well, butt blasting cows is most of the fun on this board :P Now I do agree calling modern Sony Games Movie games is extremely lazy, Sony games have been adding more player agency since TLOU1. Gone are the days with the 1 input climbing puzzles.

First off, I don't want to throw any shade at folks that do like "movie games", and if I was a bit more objective I might call it something else. If that's what you like, then that's what you like 😊

But I'm not objective, and I don't like "movie games". Plus they're pretty easy to dislike because they're so terrible😋

As for the question, I define a movie game as having one or multiple of the following:

• A very slow paced introduction.
• Regular interruptions for cutscenes or other stuff
• An abundance of quick-time events
• More cinematics/interruptions than gameplay
• Excessively high production values, often due to expensive mo-cap, voice actors, and production values

For me, it's the lack of immersion that really kills it for me. Being interrupted at regular yet unpredictable intervals and having the game essentially stolen from me and turned into a movie--something I did not want or pay for--is downright rude in my opinion.

I also don't like the big-picture of movie games concerning the industry. While I'm no industry insider, from what I've read they are often very expensive to make, they try to get Hollywood actors for voice-acting parts (HIRE VOICE ACTORS! They are good and available and deserve jobs!), and they always seem to misrepresent themselves as these action blockbusters when they're not.

Also I've got too many movies and show to watch, and too many games to play; I don't need to get movies mixed in to my games.

Pretty much this. And the immersion killing I mentioned above.

It's why I love small-budget and indie games for the most part. They don't have the money for this bullshit, but making good gameplay? That's free, (well, not really...) just takes time and creativity.

I'll take a quick tram ride in Half-Life or a short flight with a crow in Valheim over the high production values of movie games any day of the week.

I like Indigo Prophecy btw but I agree with OP.

I rest my case.

Some good definitions here. Movie games tend to have average to shallow gameplay and a focus on actors and visuals/cinematics. There is not much to do after you beat the game other than play again for some rather boring achievements.

Movie game = narrative focus over gameplay

They tend to have:

-scripted walking

-heavy use of cut scenes and CTEs

-long cutscenes

-most of the marketing is drumming up hype for the acting talent

-un-innovative shallow gameplay that serves no purpose other than to move the narrative along (see HZD and Spider-Man, New God of War, Until Dawn)

-Sony is typically making most of them at the moment

I'd say, any game that prioritizes cut scenes, animations that don't serve gameplay, or taking the controller out of my hands in exchange of cinematics. When I feel like a passive participant instead of gameplay being front and center I get the "movie game" vibes.

Games like Uncharted 4 took advantage of my time. It's a movie game that asked me to watch long cut scenes and play terrible gameplay segments that offered nothing to the experience.... Drake as a child in the mansion... Totally pointless. Tieing a winch to a tree to pull the jeep... Time sucking awful. The developers didn't respect the time of the gamer, they told us we have to just sit there and go through the boring motions.

It's just a derogatory term for Uncharted.

You know; because of the abhorrent "game play" in between the movie-like cutscenes.

No. If you don't get it by now, you never will.

"Games" for non gamers and reviewers.

Games that tend to take control away from the players (for example but not limited to showing cutscenes) instead of letting the player be in control.

I avoid movie games like the plague, however the one I did kind of enjoy was Days Gone, and that was painfully loaded with long cutscenes, and slow forced walking segments.

@hardwenzen:

Don't worry. This channel hasn't been producing content for years now.

Excellent news. Lets hope they never come back.

IT means nothing, it's just a descriptor thrown in to trigger fanboys on the other side. This thread is a good example.

Some people like their games more Arcadey other more story heavy, it's always been like that from Pong to text adventures, the contrast was always there. There's stuff I don't respect on Sony games, above all, for all the story present, you have no agency over it. Give me a broken Bethesda game over Sony's cinematic style but they still have good gameplay in their games. Everyone likes to shit on tLoU2 but the gameplay on that game is basically unmatched.