Games With Bad Gameplay Are Masterpieces Now? The Disease of Cinematic Design
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] You got it! I think we may be in the double digits now. :o
XVision84
Oh my! This isn't a rubik's cube. It's not a matter of getting it. It's a matter of agreeing with you or not. TC and some buddies just don't seem to want to admit this.
SW= Self-effacing Whiners.
Just a heads up, you're not exactly helping your moderation record by posting this ;)
It wouldn't have to be a rubik's cube if you actually understood the point of the thread instead of getting it wrong all the time and insulting people for trying to correct you. Well mr. rubiks cube, you DO understand that the point of this thread is to basically call out cinematic games and show that there isn't enough variety in today's games, right? Games shouldn't be interactive movies anways.
It does make me sad when people revert to the, "You're narrow-minded and it's all just opinion anyways," thing, instead of actual trying to debate the point at hand and then try to come off all superior.
Is it just me or what but IMO Uncharted isn't really the most ideal example to use :?
[QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] You got it! I think we may be in the double digits now. :o
XVision84
Oh my! This isn't a rubik's cube. It's not a matter of getting it. It's a matter of agreeing with you or not. TC and some buddies just don't seem to want to admit this.
SW= Self-effacing Whiners.
Just a heads up, you're not exactly helping your moderation record by posting this ;)
It wouldn't have to be a rubik's cube if you actually understood the point of the thread instead of getting it wrong all the time and insulting people for trying to correct you. Well mr. rubiks cube, you DO understand that the point of this thread is to basically call out cinematic games and show that there isn't enough variety in today's games, right? Games shouldn't be interactive movies anways.
Some people don't value their moderation history. And I call it like I see it. And others agree with me. So who is trying to correct me again? Because I need correcting?
[QUOTE="XVision84"]
[QUOTE="LOXO7"] Great game play to me is having options. Which way do you want to play? How many FPS or TPS have options in game play. Zero. There is sneak in these games, but you cannot sneak through the entire levels because the game doesn't allow you to do this. So saying Uncharted has bad game play is silly because there is only one way for you to play it. RTS games are the best game play games because they give you a certain amount of ways for you to achive your goal. This doesn't happen in FPS or TPS.
DarkLink mentioned clunky controls as game play. I would place that under a style of control. In Halo you can jump really high, and move quick and therefore are not clunky, because you are a super human marine. In Uncharted you are a so called average joe. Just the style of character of the game.
So Uncharted and other shooters have bad game play to begin with because they only allow the player to play the game one way.
darktx2005
Nope, that's not exactly correct. There are countless options in FPS/TPS games: Portal 2 - different ways to sovle a puzzle. CoD - aim for objectives, get killstreaks, camp, run and gun, etc. Battlefield 3 - rush with assault, snipe and support team as recon, support your team with Support, attack bases with vehicles, dogfight in the air, the list goes on and on.
Uncharted can have bad gameplay if you do not like the simplistic climbing mechanics and the shooting. The gameplay isn't as refined as in other games. Variety isn't the only thing that makes a game have good gameplay, one big thing is fun. The game needs to be fun to play. You can have 10 different ways of getting something done, but if none of them are enjoyable then what's the point of doing it? Uncharted's controls are clunky because of the sticky cover system, the melee system can cause some problems, and there are many times in the campaign where you can easily get stuck or go somewhere you're not supposed to because the camera angles or controls are interfering with the progression of the game.
2 examples of FPS games with fluid gameplay are RAGE and Battlefield 3. The controls in those games aren't clunky, they handle fairly well, and the animation transitions are very smooth which makes the game work well. You get to where you want to with minimal frustration. The same cannot be said about Uncharted 3.
If you are referring to BF3's single player campaign, that is an example of bad cinematic gaming, even if from a technical perspective it has better gameplay than UC3. The game is boring, and the quicktime events are ridiculous (much worse than anything in the UC series). The gameplay itself may be better (better shooting etc..) but the single player campaign as a whole isn't fun. Therefore, despite "better gameplay", I'd argue without a doubt single player UC3 > single player BF3.
Yeah, Battlefield 3's singleplayer isn't exactly something to write home about. I couldn't even finish it myself :P I'm bored to tears, but that just has to do with pacing. Uncharted 3's singleplayer is better than Battlefield 3's, but that's just because BF3 never had a focus on singleplayer to begin with. The singleplayer isn't fun due to bad pacing, a lack of motivation, and a bad overall story.
Uncharted 3's singleplayer is in no way bad, it's very good. It's not a problem with the game, like I said, it's a problem with the reviewers who dismiss one big problem of the game. Battlefield 3 lost a lot of points for having a poor SP, but many who reviewed Uncharted 3 dismissed the gameplay.
[QUOTE="XVision84"][QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]
Oh my! This isn't a rubik's cube. It's not a matter of getting it. It's a matter of agreeing with you or not. TC and some buddies just don't seem to want to admit this.
SW= Self-effacing Whiners.
DarkLink77
Just a heads up, you're not exactly helping your moderation record by posting this ;)
It wouldn't have to be a rubik's cube if you actually understood the point of the thread instead of getting it wrong all the time and insulting people for trying to correct you. Well mr. rubiks cube, you DO understand that the point of this thread is to basically call out cinematic games and show that there isn't enough variety in today's games, right? Games shouldn't be interactive movies anways.
It does make me sad when people revert to the, "You're narrow-minded and it's all just opinion anyways," thing, instead of actual trying to debate the point at hand and then try to come off all superior.Plenty of people have debated this. Nevermind that in order to debate it they would have to believe you had a valid point in the first place.
I'm not trying to come off as superior, just irritated. Should be obvious, no?
[QUOTE="XVision84"]
[QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]
Oh my! This isn't a rubik's cube. It's not a matter of getting it. It's a matter of agreeing with you or not. TC and some buddies just don't seem to want to admit this.
SW= Self-effacing Whiners.
NEStorianPriest
Just a heads up, you're not exactly helping your moderation record by posting this ;)
It wouldn't have to be a rubik's cube if you actually understood the point of the thread instead of getting it wrong all the time and insulting people for trying to correct you. Well mr. rubiks cube, you DO understand that the point of this thread is to basically call out cinematic games and show that there isn't enough variety in today's games, right? Games shouldn't be interactive movies anways.
Some people don't value their moderation history. And I call it like I see it. And others agree with me. So who is trying to correct me again? Because I need correcting?
You just agreed that the point of this thread is to call out cinematic games and show that there isn't enough variety in todays games. Yet, that's not the point of this thread. You basically just proved that you don't know what you're talking about.
Cinematic design can add a lot to games if you do it in ways that doesn't detract from the gameplay. In other words, adding good things is good when done in a good way.:o
The problem is that many developers pay less attention to the gameplay when concentrating on the cinematics, but they are not inherently bad.
[QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]
Oh my! This isn't a rubik's cube. It's not a matter of getting it. It's a matter of agreeing with you or not. TC and some buddies just don't seem to want to admit this.
SW= Self-effacing Whiners.
1oh1nine1
If you have logic, then Rubik's cube isn't a matter of getting it or not either, but rather a matter of time (I know, logic is a strange concept around these parts. And please pardon me, I couldn't resist, I'm a math guy, and wrote a thesis on Rubik's cube).
Getting it as in "I did it!" I'm not arguing how to solve a rubik's cube. But nice to know that about you.
It does make me sad when people revert to the, "You're narrow-minded and it's all just opinion anyways," thing, instead of actual trying to debate the point at hand and then try to come off all superior.[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="XVision84"]
Just a heads up, you're not exactly helping your moderation record by posting this ;)
It wouldn't have to be a rubik's cube if you actually understood the point of the thread instead of getting it wrong all the time and insulting people for trying to correct you. Well mr. rubiks cube, you DO understand that the point of this thread is to basically call out cinematic games and show that there isn't enough variety in today's games, right? Games shouldn't be interactive movies anways.
NEStorianPriest
Plenty of people have debated this. Nevermind that in order to debate it they would have to believe you had a valid point in the first place.
I'm not trying to come off as superior, just irritated. Should be obvious, no?
And none of them have made good points. :oHow is "game design should be focused on interactivity, the aspect of video games that sets them apart from other mediums, and not try to imitate film, and design that does that is bad for the industry, especially when it is as pervasive as it is today" not a valid point?
Oh, it's obvious that you're irritated, though I wasn't referring specifically to you. It's a big thread, and lots of people have been doing it.
Getting it as in "I did it!" I'm not arguing how to solve a rubik's cube. But nice to know that about you.
NEStorianPriest
Lol, I think I detect some sarcasm, and it's cool. I just couldn't resist putting in my 2 cents at the mention of the cube, mostly because I got a bit too much Wild Turkey in me tonight.
[QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]
[QUOTE="XVision84"]
Just a heads up, you're not exactly helping your moderation record by posting this ;)
It wouldn't have to be a rubik's cube if you actually understood the point of the thread instead of getting it wrong all the time and insulting people for trying to correct you. Well mr. rubiks cube, you DO understand that the point of this thread is to basically call out cinematic games and show that there isn't enough variety in today's games, right? Games shouldn't be interactive movies anways.
XVision84
Some people don't value their moderation history. And I call it like I see it. And others agree with me. So who is trying to correct me again? Because I need correcting?
You just agreed that the point of this thread is to call out cinematic games and show that there isn't enough variety in todays games. Yet, that's not the point of this thread. You basically just proved that you don't know what you're talking about.
Nowhere in that post did I agree with you about what this thread is about. It should be obvious that I know and have known.
Mr. Rubik's Cube. I like that.
"games shouldn't be interactive movies anyways"-XVision84. I don't think players should get to decide what games are. Devs create them, they should get to decide. But it is our money that decides most, so yeah, games should be whatever the people want. cainetao11
I didn't mean that when I said it, I just said that to represent what this thread isn't about. Read the later posts on that same page and you'll see.
[QUOTE="XVision84"]
[QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]
Some people don't value their moderation history. And I call it like I see it. And others agree with me. So who is trying to correct me again? Because I need correcting?
NEStorianPriest
You just agreed that the point of this thread is to call out cinematic games and show that there isn't enough variety in todays games. Yet, that's not the point of this thread. You basically just proved that you don't know what you're talking about.
Nowhere in that post did I agree with you about what this thread is about. It should be obvious that I know and have known.
Mr. Rubik's Cube. I like that.
You say you know, yet you haven't once explained it :) Mr. Rubiks Cube, do the honours of solving this puzzle, and tell us what this thread is about.
[QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]
Getting it as in "I did it!" I'm not arguing how to solve a rubik's cube. But nice to know that about you.
1oh1nine1
Lol, I think I detect some sarcasm, and it's cool. I just couldn't resist putting in my 2 cents at the mention of the cube, mostly because I got a bit too much Wild Turkey in me tonight.
Trust me, no offense taken. No Wild Turkey for me. I'm like this all the time.
Haven't actually addressed the OP, so I'll take a crack at it instead of just watching the thread: I agree with the point in the OP (well, sort of), but I disagree with the example.
Is Uncharted the pinnacle of third-person gunplay? No, that honor goes to Vanquish. The gunplay in Uncharted 3 isn't bad though, it's more than sufficient. And aside from that one guy, I didn't get that feeling from the IGN article either - referring to the gameplay as bad is misconstruing their words. I also think equating the gameplay to the gunplay is misrepresenting the game. Honestly, I'd call Uncharted 3 an action-adventure over a third-person shooter. Uncharted isn't the best at shooting, fighting, stealth, or platforming, but it is greater than the sum of its parts. The combination of these different gameplay elements is what makes the Uncharted franchise unique.
And so, I don't think the cinematic direction of Uncharted came at the expense of gameplay. The set pieces are obviously going to play out in the same fashion on subsequent playthroughs - the ship is still going to sink, the plane is still going to crash, etc. - yet Naughty Dog does a fine job of including the player in those moments, even if the level of interaction isn't a lot. When it comes to combat though, you do have more options in how things will progress. Like I mentioned earlier, there's more than shooting to Uncharted. Between silently taking out enemies, punching a few guys out, maneuvering around the battlefield, or just taking some headshots, you have a good amount of options at your disposal.
Uncharted is a cinematic experience, but still very much a game. Now, Enslaved or the latest Call of Duty on the other hand, I would consider prime examples of cinematic gaming done wrong. Both games, like Uncharted, attempt to provide a cinematic experience but the gameplay surrounding key set pieces is incredibly limited. That restrictive feeling is where they differ from Uncharted, and why I consider them more fitting examples.
But on to the actual point, I do agree emphasizing flash to the point of excusing poor substance is an issue with gaming journalism; though obviously I don't think that applies to Uncharted. That said, there isn't anything wrong with enjoying non-interactive parts of a game more than the gamey sections. Games are a multifaceted medium after all. Good gameplay is important obviously, but thinking it must stand at the forefront of every experience is a restrictive mindset, really. 999 is the best DS game available (if you disagree, you're wrong), and the best element of the title is its story. Silent Hill 2 is a damn fine example of the survival horror genre, but again, the best part of the game wasn't the gameplay - it was the story and atmosphere. Both games don't have bad gameplay (the gameplay is actually quite good), but they're not the best aspect of the titles and that's okay.
IGN fumbles around a lot (I don't like them personally), but I don't think the complaints directed at them in this particular instance are very valid. But again, the general sentiment of flash over substance in the industry is one I can agree with for the most part.
fake edit: this post went on much longer than I intended :>
Slashkice
you bring up Vanquish, which is the perfect example of what the OP is talking about. If cinematics is a disease then Vanquish is infected. The core of that game is so great that I can't belief I picked it up out of the bargain bin. But wow the cinematics of that game are extremely terrible.
Story: F
QTEs: prevailent
Dialogue: D
Characters: stereotypes
Cutscenes: longwinded
Gameplay: A (marked down because I don't like that the russian flying suits didn't overheat)
Now what I say is, the game would be so much better if it just ripped all those cinematic elements out. It seems like the devs felt like they had to have them in there to make the game a success, and it cheapened it instead. Have a simple plot with no attempt at intrigue and take the less is more approach to characters and dialogue. QTEs? Flush em. The only cinematic I liked was the dialogue box that popped up during the gameplay that was distracting but in a good way. Why not just embrace that model instead of the cutscenes?
[QUOTE="AcidSoldner"]Different types of games for different types of people. Get over it. Who says games have to be a certain way? If you don't like "cinematic" games then step away and play something you do enjoy.cainetao11well 'effin said!!
TRUTH! no need for further discussion.
[QUOTE="darktx2005"]
[QUOTE="XVision84"]
Nope, that's not exactly correct. There are countless options in FPS/TPS games: Portal 2 - different ways to sovle a puzzle. CoD - aim for objectives, get killstreaks, camp, run and gun, etc. Battlefield 3 - rush with assault, snipe and support team as recon, support your team with Support, attack bases with vehicles, dogfight in the air, the list goes on and on.
Uncharted can have bad gameplay if you do not like the simplistic climbing mechanics and the shooting. The gameplay isn't as refined as in other games. Variety isn't the only thing that makes a game have good gameplay, one big thing is fun. The game needs to be fun to play. You can have 10 different ways of getting something done, but if none of them are enjoyable then what's the point of doing it? Uncharted's controls are clunky because of the sticky cover system, the melee system can cause some problems, and there are many times in the campaign where you can easily get stuck or go somewhere you're not supposed to because the camera angles or controls are interfering with the progression of the game.
2 examples of FPS games with fluid gameplay are RAGE and Battlefield 3. The controls in those games aren't clunky, they handle fairly well, and the animation transitions are very smooth which makes the game work well. You get to where you want to with minimal frustration. The same cannot be said about Uncharted 3.
XVision84
If you are referring to BF3's single player campaign, that is an example of bad cinematic gaming, even if from a technical perspective it has better gameplay than UC3. The game is boring, and the quicktime events are ridiculous (much worse than anything in the UC series). The gameplay itself may be better (better shooting etc..) but the single player campaign as a whole isn't fun. Therefore, despite "better gameplay", I'd argue without a doubt single player UC3 > single player BF3.
Yeah, Battlefield 3's singleplayer isn't exactly something to write home about. I couldn't even finish it myself :P I'm bored to tears, but that just has to do with pacing. Uncharted 3's singleplayer is better than Battlefield 3's, but that's just because BF3 never had a focus on singleplayer to begin with. The singleplayer isn't fun due to bad pacing, a lack of motivation, and a bad overall story.
Uncharted 3's singleplayer is in no way bad, it's very good. It's not a problem with the game, like I said, it's a problem with the reviewers who dismiss one big problem of the game. Battlefield 3 lost a lot of points for having a poor SP, but many who reviewed Uncharted 3 dismissed the gameplay.
Now we can both agree on game journalism being crap. I don't even bother reading mainstream site reviews anymore. I'll sometimes watch GT review videos so i can see some gameplay and otherwise I rely on impressions from people on various forums.
[QUOTE="XVision84"]
[QUOTE="darktx2005"]
If you are referring to BF3's single player campaign, that is an example of bad cinematic gaming, even if from a technical perspective it has better gameplay than UC3. The game is boring, and the quicktime events are ridiculous (much worse than anything in the UC series). The gameplay itself may be better (better shooting etc..) but the single player campaign as a whole isn't fun. Therefore, despite "better gameplay", I'd argue without a doubt single player UC3 > single player BF3.
darktx2005
Yeah, Battlefield 3's singleplayer isn't exactly something to write home about. I couldn't even finish it myself :P I'm bored to tears, but that just has to do with pacing. Uncharted 3's singleplayer is better than Battlefield 3's, but that's just because BF3 never had a focus on singleplayer to begin with. The singleplayer isn't fun due to bad pacing, a lack of motivation, and a bad overall story.
Uncharted 3's singleplayer is in no way bad, it's very good. It's not a problem with the game, like I said, it's a problem with the reviewers who dismiss one big problem of the game. Battlefield 3 lost a lot of points for having a poor SP, but many who reviewed Uncharted 3 dismissed the gameplay.
Now we can both agree on game journalism being crap. I don't even bother reading mainstream site reviews anymore. I'll sometimes watch GT review videos so i can see some gameplay and otherwise I rely on impressions from people on various forums.
Smart man. :o
I haven't played uncharted 3 yet so I can't make a judgment but if it was anything like uncharted 2, I could understand if it was given a ten because it is the best example of a game mimicking a movie -like experience but if they are saying that it tops games with more game play – focus like Super Mario Galaxy, then I'm puzzled as well.
As for the whole cinematic destroying games statement, I'd have to disagree. Games with scenes and scripted events have been used sparsely since the emergence of 3D gaming and managed to deliver compelling game play. The problem this Gen is that Game developers have extended their audiences to the casual crowd. . Games like Rayman and Bayonetta will alienate the general public because of how un- realistic and weird they are. To ease the casual crowd into gaming, they're taking a page form Hollywood's playbook by using popular relatable scenarios that appeal to them like Modern warfare and Hollywood blockbusters
Hopefully this is part of the gaming industry's master plan(Yes I'm referring to the gaming industry as a sentient being) to get everyone in gaming so that next Gen, people will be warmed up to the idea of actual variety in games.(Hopefully:()
Techn0holic89
I don't think games should imitate movies so directly, have no choice, and just be a cutscene, nor should they be praised for doing so and QTE's should be punishable by no less than 3 years in prison.
I think the best example of a game incorporating story into a game would be Mass Effect/SW:ToR.The lovely thing about Bioware's model is that you never stop PLAYING the game, even when you're given story, you're still playing.
And I agree with the TC, I think it's disgusting that a game with sub-par Gameplay can be called a 'masterpiece' of Gaming.
Stop blindly buying games then.[QUOTE="forgot_it"][QUOTE="Snugenz"]
Agreed, when i buy a game i expect to play a game, not an interactive movie.
Snugenz
I dont... but its a trend i dislike thats seeping into alot of great games.
The trend is not as huge as some people are making it out to be.[QUOTE="XVision84"]
[QUOTE="darktx2005"]
If you are referring to BF3's single player campaign, that is an example of bad cinematic gaming, even if from a technical perspective it has better gameplay than UC3. The game is boring, and the quicktime events are ridiculous (much worse than anything in the UC series). The gameplay itself may be better (better shooting etc..) but the single player campaign as a whole isn't fun. Therefore, despite "better gameplay", I'd argue without a doubt single player UC3 > single player BF3.
darktx2005
Yeah, Battlefield 3's singleplayer isn't exactly something to write home about. I couldn't even finish it myself :P I'm bored to tears, but that just has to do with pacing. Uncharted 3's singleplayer is better than Battlefield 3's, but that's just because BF3 never had a focus on singleplayer to begin with. The singleplayer isn't fun due to bad pacing, a lack of motivation, and a bad overall story.
Uncharted 3's singleplayer is in no way bad, it's very good. It's not a problem with the game, like I said, it's a problem with the reviewers who dismiss one big problem of the game. Battlefield 3 lost a lot of points for having a poor SP, but many who reviewed Uncharted 3 dismissed the gameplay.
Now we can both agree on game journalism being crap. I don't even bother reading mainstream site reviews anymore. I'll sometimes watch GT review videos so i can see some gameplay and otherwise I rely on impressions from people on various forums.
Glad we can agree :P I do the same thing myself. I try not to watch the ones with spoilers though, since video reviews reek of spoilers.
[QUOTE="Snugenz"][QUOTE="forgot_it"]Stop blindly buying games then.forgot_it
I dont... but its a trend i dislike thats seeping into alot of great games.
The trend is not as huge as some people are making it out to be. You're right. It's bigger. :o[QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] It does make me sad when people revert to the, "You're narrow-minded and it's all just opinion anyways," thing, instead of actual trying to debate the point at hand and then try to come off all superior.DarkLink77
Plenty of people have debated this. Nevermind that in order to debate it they would have to believe you had a valid point in the first place.
I'm not trying to come off as superior, just irritated. Should be obvious, no?
And none of them have made good points. :oHow is "game design should be focused on interactivity, the aspect of video games that sets them apart from other mediums, and not try to imitate film, and design that does that is bad for the industry, especially when it is as pervasive as it is today" not a valid point?
Oh, it's obvious that you're irritated, though I wasn't referring specifically to you. It's a big thread, and lots of people have been doing it.
What a shame. Would have made a great OP.
You could argue that movies should be about telling a story with moving pictures. Then somebody else would say books can't produce special effects. Stories are for books, let movies be about spectacle only. Who needs acting and writing.
Then someone could say, games should be about gameplay and interactivity. Then someone says, things have changed so much since the 8/16 bit and DOS days. Now we can make games so much more immersive. We've played games with great hard core gameplay for years, let's do something with the technology that immerses us in a story while still retaining elements of gameplay we are familiar with, though are secondary to the overall experience.
It is not devolution, it is change.
Or is it something else?
And none of them have made good points. :o[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]
[QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]
Plenty of people have debated this. Nevermind that in order to debate it they would have to believe you had a valid point in the first place.
I'm not trying to come off as superior, just irritated. Should be obvious, no?
NEStorianPriest
How is "game design should be focused on interactivity, the aspect of video games that sets them apart from other mediums, and not try to imitate film, and design that does that is bad for the industry, especially when it is as pervasive as it is today" not a valid point?
Oh, it's obvious that you're irritated, though I wasn't referring specifically to you. It's a big thread, and lots of people have been doing it.
What a shame. Would have made a great OP.
You could argue that movies should be about telling a story with moving pictures. Then somebody else would say books can't produce special effects. Stories are for books, let movies be about spectacle only. Who needs acting and writing.
Then someone could say, games should be about gameplay and interactivity. Then someone says, things have changed so much since the 8/16 bit and DOS days. Now we can make games so much more immersive. We've played games with great hard core gameplay for years, let's do something with the technology that immerses us in a story while still retaining elements of gameplay we are familiar with, though are secondary to the overall experience.
It is not devolution, it is change.
Or is it something else?
It was a great OP, actually. Just more entertaining. ;) "let's do something that immerses us in a story while still retaining elements of gameplay we are familiar with, though are secondary to the overall experience." Gameplay is the experience. That's the whole point. Imitating other mediums doesn't push gaming forward.[QUOTE="el3m2tigre"]Because it's an industry-wide problem? This just happened to be a perfect example. have you tried playing other games, the hundreds of other games that aren't afflicted by this problem, the games that don't have a large budget for better media coverage and go under the radar?Hmmm, why do you care dl?:P
DarkLink77
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="el3m2tigre"]Because it's an industry-wide problem? This just happened to be a perfect example. have you tried playing other games, the hundreds of other games that aren't afflicted by this problem, the games that don't have a large budget for better media coverage and go under the radar? Yes, but that wasn't the point.Hmmm, why do you care dl?:P
savagetwinkie
I knew it was uncharted when I saw who made the topic, thanks for the small chuckle :Plbjkurono23I aim to please. ;)
Mafia 2 is an example of a bad overly cinematic game imo. It also felt like saints row was trying to go that route.
Woooooooo, not reading all the pages
Tho i added up the Title and Darklink making it that it was an anti uncharted thread lol
[QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] And none of them have made good points. :o
How is "game design should be focused on interactivity, the aspect of video games that sets them apart from other mediums, and not try to imitate film, and design that does that is bad for the industry, especially when it is as pervasive as it is today" not a valid point?
Oh, it's obvious that you're irritated, though I wasn't referring specifically to you. It's a big thread, and lots of people have been doing it.
DarkLink77
What a shame. Would have made a great OP.
You could argue that movies should be about telling a story with moving pictures. Then somebody else would say books can't produce special effects. Stories are for books, let movies be about spectacle only. Who needs acting and writing.
Then someone could say, games should be about gameplay and interactivity. Then someone says, things have changed so much since the 8/16 bit and DOS days. Now we can make games so much more immersive. We've played games with great hard core gameplay for years, let's do something with the technology that immerses us in a story while still retaining elements of gameplay we are familiar with, though are secondary to the overall experience.
It is not devolution, it is change.
Or is it something else?
It was a great OP, actually. Just more entertaining. ;) "let's do something that immerses us in a story while still retaining elements of gameplay we are familiar with, though are secondary to the overall experience." Gameplay is the experience. That's the whole point. Imitating other mediums doesn't push gaming in a direction I want it to go.I guess you didn't read my second paragraph. Sigh.
I can always go back and play Wizardry, Mega Man, or Super Metroid. But I enjoy the experience of taking down the MAWLR in KZ3 and watching the game seamlessly blend into the cinema. It's not nearly as original, challenging or replayable as those other games, but I still manage to enjoy it as much.
Go figure.
It was a great OP, actually. Just more entertaining. ;) "let's do something that immerses us in a story while still retaining elements of gameplay we are familiar with, though are secondary to the overall experience." Gameplay is the experience. That's the whole point. Imitating other mediums doesn't push gaming in a direction I want it to go.[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]
What a shame. Would have made a great OP.
You could argue that movies should be about telling a story with moving pictures. Then somebody else would say books can't produce special effects. Stories are for books, let movies be about spectacle only. Who needs acting and writing.
Then someone could say, games should be about gameplay and interactivity. Then someone says, things have changed so much since the 8/16 bit and DOS days. Now we can make games so much more immersive. We've played games with great hard core gameplay for years, let's do something with the technology that immerses us in a story while still retaining elements of gameplay we are familiar with, though are secondary to the overall experience.
It is not devolution, it is change.
Or is it something else?
NEStorianPriest
I guess you didn't read my second paragraph. Sigh.
I can always go back and play Wizardry, Mega Man, or Super Metroid. But I enjoy the experience of taking down the MAWLR in KZ3 and watching the game seamlessly blend into the cinema. It's not nearly as original, challenging or replayable as those other games, but I still manage to enjoy it as much.
Go figure.
Tho some games dont need the cinematics. Killzone 3 was more cinematic then 2, but it didnt make it better then 2. Cinematics work best with only a few type of games. Killzone is a more dark and gritty game, and it didnt feel ANYTHING like that in KZ3.
Tho some games dont need the cinematics. Killzone 3 was more cinematic then 2, but it didnt make it better then 2. Cinematics work best with only a few type of games. Killzone is a more dark and gritty game, and it didnt feel ANYTHING like that in KZ3.
eboyishere
Oh I never said KZ3 was better than KZ2. Less challenging, more fun. Overall, KZ3 wasn't as good of a game, but I had more fun.
There's a place for both really. I'm having a blast in Call of Duty or Half Life just looking at the enviroments, or paying attention to the minutae details in the world. But games like Halo really combine both quite well, and I hope the death of Halo doesn't mean the death of shooters like that.
It was a great OP, actually. Just more entertaining. ;) "let's do something that immerses us in a story while still retaining elements of gameplay we are familiar with, though are secondary to the overall experience." Gameplay is the experience. That's the whole point. Imitating other mediums doesn't push gaming in a direction I want it to go.[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]
What a shame. Would have made a great OP.
You could argue that movies should be about telling a story with moving pictures. Then somebody else would say books can't produce special effects. Stories are for books, let movies be about spectacle only. Who needs acting and writing.
Then someone could say, games should be about gameplay and interactivity. Then someone says, things have changed so much since the 8/16 bit and DOS days. Now we can make games so much more immersive. We've played games with great hard core gameplay for years, let's do something with the technology that immerses us in a story while still retaining elements of gameplay we are familiar with, though are secondary to the overall experience.
It is not devolution, it is change.
Or is it something else?
NEStorianPriest
I guess you didn't read my second paragraph. Sigh.
I can always go back and play Wizardry, Mega Man, or Super Metroid. But I enjoy the experience of taking down the MAWLR in KZ3 and watching the game seamlessly blend into the cinema. It's not nearly as original, challenging or replayable as those other games, but I still manage to enjoy it as much.
Go figure.
I see you're changing what I said because you're still stuck in, 'Well, that's just your opinion," mode. Sigh. And I did read it, by the way. The best films are the ones that know how to make use of an image, of certain types of cutting, etc, because that's what makes a good movie. Do you know how mediums evolve? Photography was stuck in a rut for a long time, because photographers were trying to imitate a painter's style with a camera. Books didn't come into their own until they threw off the restrictions of poetry. Films didn't begin to advance what they could do until directors started experimenting with the camera and other film techniques that are common today. No medium has ever evolved by imitating another one. Games will not evolve by trying to be more cinematic. Interactivity is their attribute, and the sooner developers realize that, the sooner the medium will really begin to push forward in new directions. That's not to say that they shouldn't borrow from film in some ways. Or books, or any of that. It's a composite medium, like film is. They need to (see: cinematics) and they should, but it should not be at the expense of interactivity, because then you lose the attribute that makes a game a unique form that can do things that no media can. When you have a game like Uncharted that railroads you down a linear path and treats the player like a necessary inconvenience, you're limiting the power of the game. Now, that in and of itself ain't bad. But when the whole mainstream industry begins to do it (as they are now), and reviewers begin to put more emphasis on the "cinematic" elements than they do the interactive ones, it becomes an issue. The medium stagnates. Hence the whole point of this thread. I'm not against adapting cinematic techniques into gaming. No one should be. But adapting so many that the game stops being a game and starts becoming a movie where you occasionally push X is not a good thing.
my point is that you defend games which have control issues (stated by some reviews and posters) which is the main part of gameplay Heck you said the Reviewer a long time Zelda fan a a long time gamer, played the game more than 35 hours in a wrong way :o and say that the gameplay part of games like U are bad. funnyGiancar
I just got to the first dungeon in Skyward Sword. Control issues only happened when I was too close. Wanna know when it never registered? When I waggled. It's no different than pressing the "fire" button in hopes that your gun will fire faster.
Your last sentence makes no sense either.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment