Games With Bad Gameplay Are Masterpieces Now? The Disease of Cinematic Design

Are you trying to tell me that all those famous adventure games are now awful, because all the gameplay the had was typing or clicking something?

So Grim Fandango sucked balls, right? Because it was all about the cinematic design. :|...:cry:

There are tons of games that don't have flawless gameplay but some people would deem them masterpieces; they make up for it in other aspects. Morrowind has pretty awful gameplay, but the exploration and freedom compensate (this is my masterpiece). I didn't like Bioshock's shooting but it has an amazing atmosphere and story. A lot of old survival horror games had tank controls and combat was beyond awful but many of those are classics.

I think what some people are getting hung up on is that TC chose to showcase a game where cinematic game design improves the experience; it's what people expect and love about the Uncharted series (God of War also comes to mind when I think cinematic games that kick ***). Imo a better idea would be to show games that are hurt by cinematic game design. I've seen BF3 campaign mentioned several times, and I'm sure there are other games that try to hide a lackluster game behind a cinematic style.

A quick run down of the games I've played this year, Portal 2, TW2, Gear 3, MW3, Skyrim, Resistance FOM, Dark Souls. Those are all pretty big titles, and I'd say only one goes nuts with the cinematic stuff, mw3. Dark Souls and Portal 2 rely heavily on gameplay. Gears 3 and Resistance are 95% shooting things. TW2 has infrequent QTEs and Skyrim has occasional finisher animations (which my friend playing a pure mage has never seen). From my personal point of view, I'm not seeing the disease.

And lastly, I have to disagree with the thought that during scripted scenes "The player becomes a necessary inconvenience." If they're done well, the player becomes a bamf, the star of the scene. The idea is usually to let the player actually take part and have control in scenes that could never work in regular gameplay mode. That's clearly not an appealing idea to the TC and others, but for some it's a lot of fun.

WithoutGraceXII

Just like watching a movie is fun.

I agree...it's a blast to watch a really fun, engaging movie with excellent writing and storytelling.

The real question is this: are "excellent" video game stories really of the same caliber as an excellent movie?

Or do we prop mediocre writing up on a pedestal because it's a rare treat to find halfway-decent video game stories?

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

[QUOTE="TrapJak"]CoD is getting negative reviews because it's damn near exactly like MW2.

To say Skyward Sword is the same as Twilight Princess is stretching it. And I mean REALLY stretching it.

TrapJak

Huh? I never said that, I am saying that every zelda prior to SS uses the OOT formula straight up but were all considered masterpieces even with the complete lack of evolution. SS comes around and here's what we find out. It follows the same design path as OOT only with multi-directional swings!!!!!!!

Zelda:SS has new things, alot of them that change the dynamics of the game. So it's reasonable that it keeps being praised as the best.

Wait what? They added new things and I listed the major ones from each version.

There are tons of games that don't have flawless gameplay but some people would deem them masterpieces; they make up for it in other aspects. Morrowind has pretty awful gameplay, but the exploration and freedom compensate (this is my masterpiece). I didn't like Bioshock's shooting but it has an amazing atmosphere and story. A lot of old survival horror games had tank controls and combat was beyond awful but many of those are classics.

I think what some people are getting hung up on is that TC chose to showcase a game where cinematic game design improves the experience; it's what people expect and love about the Uncharted series (God of War also comes to mind when I think cinematic games that kick ***). Imo a better idea would be to show games that are hurt by cinematic game design. I've seen BF3 campaign mentioned several times, and I'm sure there are other games that try to hide a lackluster game behind a cinematic style.

A quick run down of the games I've played this year, Portal 2, TW2, Gear 3, MW3, Skyrim, Resistance FOM, Dark Souls. Those are all pretty big titles, and I'd say only one goes nuts with the cinematic stuff, mw3. Dark Souls and Portal 2 rely heavily on gameplay. Gears 3 and Resistance are 95% shooting things. TW2 has infrequent QTEs and Skyrim has occasional finisher animations (which my friend playing a pure mage has never seen). From my personal point of view, I'm not seeing the disease.

And lastly, I have to disagree with the thought that during scripted scenes "The player becomes a necessary inconvenience." If they're done well, the player becomes a bamf, the star of the scene. The idea is usually to let the player actually take part and have control in scenes that could never work in regular gameplay mode. That's clearly not an appealing idea to the TC and others, but for some it's a lot of fun.

WithoutGraceXII

Your post punches too many holes into the TCs argument, prepare for him to ignore it. I already stated there was no disease of cinematic games, I already stated that the highest rated titles this year aren't cinematic games, and I already stated that he used Uncharted 3 simply to troll. You'd think it would be a no brainer to use BF3 as his example, but since he was trying to rile people up it was easier to use uncharted.

There are tons of games that don't have flawless gameplay but some people would deem them masterpieces; they make up for it in other aspects. Morrowind has pretty awful gameplay, but the exploration and freedom compensate (this is my masterpiece). I didn't like Bioshock's shooting but it has an amazing atmosphere and story. A lot of old survival horror games had tank controls and combat was beyond awful but many of those are classics.

I think what some people are getting hung up on is that TC chose to showcase a game where cinematic game design improves the experience; it's what people expect and love about the Uncharted series (God of War also comes to mind when I think cinematic games that kick ***). Imo a better idea would be to show games that are hurt by cinematic game design. I've seen BF3 campaign mentioned several times, and I'm sure there are other games that try to hide a lackluster game behind a cinematic style.

A quick run down of the games I've played this year, Portal 2, TW2, Gear 3, MW3, Skyrim, Resistance FOM, Dark Souls. Those are all pretty big titles, and I'd say only one goes nuts with the cinematic stuff, mw3. Dark Souls and Portal 2 rely heavily on gameplay. Gears 3 and Resistance are 95% shooting things. TW2 has infrequent QTEs and Skyrim has occasional finisher animations (which my friend playing a pure mage has never seen). From my personal point of view, I'm not seeing the disease.

And lastly, I have to disagree with the thought that during scripted scenes "The player becomes a necessary inconvenience." If they're done well, the player becomes a bamf, the star of the scene. The idea is usually to let the player actually take part and have control in scenes that could never work in regular gameplay mode. That's clearly not an appealing idea to the TC and others, but for some it's a lot of fun.

WithoutGraceXII

There are tons of games that don't have flawless gameplay but some people would deem them masterpieces; they make up for it in other aspects. Morrowind has pretty awful gameplay, but the exploration and freedom compensate (this is my masterpiece). I didn't like Bioshock's shooting but it has an amazing atmosphere and story. A lot of old survival horror games had tank controls and combat was beyond awful but many of those are classics.

WithoutGraceXII

Have you ever considered that maybe, and just maybe, great cinematic set pieces and story can make up for lackluster game design? Sure it's great to have both, but "games" like Uncharted or Heavy Rain are every good at what they do, and that deserves recognition. If a game isn't trying to to be the epitome of open exploration and level design, it shouldn't be criticized for not doing so. meetroid8

[QUOTE="Game-fu"]

No. The disease that gaming is currently suffering from are the insipid assembly-line rehashes of mundane shooting games where the main character(s) is just muscle_bound_mongoloid_003 with a new skin streched over it. Said main character(s) also may or may not be wearing space marine inspired armor and utter cryptic cliches like, "Wake me...when you need me" before the screen fades to black or "S**t yeah!" every time they blow someone's head off. Of course, it is imperative that said main character(s) is also saving the planet from some sort of unexpected alien threat and/or invasion. Following an incubation period of 2 weeks to 2 months, expect 15 dollar DLC that was already on the disc and the bad taste an utter lack of creativity leaves in your mouth once the novelty is gone. However, you will find all of this and more among various gaming sites who try and convince you that generic_futuristic_shooter_4 is the greatest game you have ever played and it will remind you of the chicken pox you had when you were a kid. So it gets a 9.5 and surreptitiously_greedy_gaming_journalism_site_1 gets more ad revenue next year while the rest of us get herpes.

DragonfireXZ95

[QUOTE="WithoutGraceXII"]

There are tons of games that don't have flawless gameplay but some people would deem them masterpieces; they make up for it in other aspects. Morrowind has pretty awful gameplay, but the exploration and freedom compensate (this is my masterpiece). I didn't like Bioshock's shooting but it has an amazing atmosphere and story. A lot of old survival horror games had tank controls and combat was beyond awful but many of those are classics.

I think what some people are getting hung up on is that TC chose to showcase a game where cinematic game design improves the experience; it's what people expect and love about the Uncharted series (God of War also comes to mind when I think cinematic games that kick ***). Imo a better idea would be to show games that are hurt by cinematic game design. I've seen BF3 campaign mentioned several times, and I'm sure there are other games that try to hide a lackluster game behind a cinematic style.

A quick run down of the games I've played this year, Portal 2, TW2, Gear 3, MW3, Skyrim, Resistance FOM, Dark Souls. Those are all pretty big titles, and I'd say only one goes nuts with the cinematic stuff, mw3. Dark Souls and Portal 2 rely heavily on gameplay. Gears 3 and Resistance are 95% shooting things. TW2 has infrequent QTEs and Skyrim has occasional finisher animations (which my friend playing a pure mage has never seen). From my personal point of view, I'm not seeing the disease.

And lastly, I have to disagree with the thought that during scripted scenes "The player becomes a necessary inconvenience." If they're done well, the player becomes a bamf, the star of the scene. The idea is usually to let the player actually take part and have control in scenes that could never work in regular gameplay mode. That's clearly not an appealing idea to the TC and others, but for some it's a lot of fun.

GD1551

Your post punches too many holes into the TCs argument, prepare for him to ignore it. I already stated there was no disease of cinematic games, I already stated that the highest rated titles this year aren't cinematic games, and I already stated that he used Uncharted 3 simply to troll. You'd think it would be a no brainer to use BF3 as his example, but since he was trying to rile people up it was easier to use uncharted.

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

[QUOTE="TrapJak"]

There''s a difference between rehash and formula-maintaining. CoD rehashes drastically, where the only difference between the series are new guns and maps. Zelda has various changes over it's years, from OoT, to WW, to TP, and SS. Change the main character, and you couldn't tell they were the same game until you delved deep into the gameplay. But there is nothing wrong for buyign CoD the way it is. You play it and have fun with it, ignore the others.

TrapJak

CoD doesn't rehash at all, actually MW3 would be the first in series I'd call a straight up rehash, COD4 started it all, WAW had zombie mode, MW2 had spec ops, BO had an improved zombie mode, gungame, wager matches, different online unlock setup and now MW3 was the rehash of MW2. Tell me how the combat and design of zelda games have changed please. SS just got multi-directional attacks.

And until you play SS, you can't really say it includes nothing but controls.

The difference is people call COD a rehash more so than Zelda cos people may not care.

A lot of games are rehases and sequels. You would expect some form of similiarity.

There are tons of games that don't have flawless gameplay but some people would deem them masterpieces; they make up for it in other aspects. Morrowind has pretty awful gameplay, but the exploration and freedom compensate (this is my masterpiece). I didn't like Bioshock's shooting but it has an amazing atmosphere and story. A lot of old survival horror games had tank controls and combat was beyond awful but many of those are classics.

I think what some people are getting hung up on is that TC chose to showcase a game where cinematic game design improves the experience; it's what people expect and love about the Uncharted series (God of War also comes to mind when I think cinematic games that kick ***). Imo a better idea would be to show games that are hurt by cinematic game design. I've seen BF3 campaign mentioned several times, and I'm sure there are other games that try to hide a lackluster game behind a cinematic style.

A quick run down of the games I've played this year, Portal 2, TW2, Gear 3, MW3, Skyrim, Resistance FOM, Dark Souls. Those are all pretty big titles, and I'd say only one goes nuts with the cinematic stuff, mw3. Dark Souls and Portal 2 rely heavily on gameplay. Gears 3 and Resistance are 95% shooting things. TW2 has infrequent QTEs and Skyrim has occasional finisher animations (which my friend playing a pure mage has never seen). From my personal point of view, I'm not seeing the disease.

And lastly, I have to disagree with the thought that during scripted scenes "The player becomes a necessary inconvenience." If they're done well, the player becomes a bamf, the star of the scene. The idea is usually to let the player actually take part and have control in scenes that could never work in regular gameplay mode. That's clearly not an appealing idea to the TC and others, but for some it's a lot of fun.

WithoutGraceXII

Yeah, that's true. Though I would argue that none of The Elder Scrolls games are masterpieces because their gameplay is so meh. The exploration is incredibly well done, and since that what they're focused on, that's good. Same with Bioshock. The story is great, but it's pretty much the definition of a one-and-done. As wonderful as the atmosphere and the storytelling is, there really is no motivation for another playthrough from a purely gameplay perspective. It just doesn't hold up. It wasn't all that great in 2007, and it's even worse now. I don't think that, by the definition of the word, you can declare those games masterpieces.

Battlefield 3 (Or Call of Duty, or most other mainstream FPS, practically, with a few exceptions) illustrate the problem in a much better fashion, but while they do the same things, the difference is they aren't praised to the heavens for them. Uncharted's gameplay is almost overlooked in favor of everything else, even by the IGN editors who worship the game, so it really illustrates the point. Again, Uncharted's gameplay isn't "bad," per se (hyperbole on my part in the title), but it's not the peak of the genre, either, and like I said, it gets overlooked in favor of everything else.

Gears has quite a few cinematic issues that I can think of off the top of my head, and I haven't even finished the campaign. I haven't played any of the others, but having seen a couple hours of Skyrim gameplay, I can agree with that, and having played Demon's Souls, Dark Souls is probably the same way. But if we look at many of the titles released in previous years, you can see that this design philosophy is becoming more and more apparent, and while I'll argue that God of War does it well, the gameplay in that game takes a hit for it, too, when compared to something like Ninja Gaiden or Devil May Cry. You can square, square, square, square, triangle your way through God of War 3 even on the harder difficulties. The gameplay is not the focus, and it sure as s*** isn;t deep. Uncharted has the same probem.

I would disagree and argue that the developer becomes the star, because they get to make the player largely passive, and say, "Look, look, isn't this cool? Look how we designed this! It will play the exact same every single time, and you have as little control as possible, but look at the spectacle!" I don't deny it can be fun (God of War 3's bosses, Uncharted 2's train, etc), but the player is doing as little as possible during that scene, and he has to be to make it work.

Guess people don't care about gameplay anymore, no wonder why Skyrim, Assassins Creed and Batman AC scored so high, they all have bad gameplay

[QUOTE="WithoutGraceXII"]

There are tons of games that don't have flawless gameplay but some people would deem them masterpieces; they make up for it in other aspects. Morrowind has pretty awful gameplay, but the exploration and freedom compensate (this is my masterpiece). I didn't like Bioshock's shooting but it has an amazing atmosphere and story. A lot of old survival horror games had tank controls and combat was beyond awful but many of those are classics.

I think what some people are getting hung up on is that TC chose to showcase a game where cinematic game design improves the experience; it's what people expect and love about the Uncharted series (God of War also comes to mind when I think cinematic games that kick ***). Imo a better idea would be to show games that are hurt by cinematic game design. I've seen BF3 campaign mentioned several times, and I'm sure there are other games that try to hide a lackluster game behind a cinematic style.

A quick run down of the games I've played this year, Portal 2, TW2, Gear 3, MW3, Skyrim, Resistance FOM, Dark Souls. Those are all pretty big titles, and I'd say only one goes nuts with the cinematic stuff, mw3. Dark Souls and Portal 2 rely heavily on gameplay. Gears 3 and Resistance are 95% shooting things. TW2 has infrequent QTEs and Skyrim has occasional finisher animations (which my friend playing a pure mage has never seen). From my personal point of view, I'm not seeing the disease.

And lastly, I have to disagree with the thought that during scripted scenes "The player becomes a necessary inconvenience." If they're done well, the player becomes a bamf, the star of the scene. The idea is usually to let the player actually take part and have control in scenes that could never work in regular gameplay mode. That's clearly not an appealing idea to the TC and others, but for some it's a lot of fun.

DarkLink77

Yeah, that's true. Though I would argue that none of The Elder Scrolls games are masterpieces because their gameplay is so meh. The exploration is incredibly well done, and since that what they're focused on, that's good. Same with Bioshock. The story is great, but it's pretty much the definition of a one-and-done. As wonderful as the atmosphere and the storytelling is, there really is no motivation for another playthrough from a purely gameplay perspective. It just doesn't hold up. It wasn't all that great in 2007, and it's even worse now. I don't think that, by the definition of the word, you can declare those games masterpieces.

Battlefield 3 (Or Call of Duty, or most other mainstream FPS, practically, with a few exceptions) illustrate the problem in a much better fashion, but while they do the same things, the difference is they aren't praised to the heavens for them. Uncharted's gameplay is almost overlooked in favor of everything else, even by the IGN editors who worship the game, so it really illustrates the point. Again, Uncharted's gameplay isn't "bad," per se (hyperbole on my part in the title), but it's not the peak of the genre, either, and like I said, it gets overlooked in favor of everything else.

Gears has quite a few cinematic issues that I can think of off the top of my head, and I haven't even finished the campaign. I haven't played any of the others, but having seen a couple hours of Skyrim gameplay, I can agree with that, and having played Demon's Souls, Dark Souls is probably the same way. But if we look at many of the titles released in previous years, you can see that this design philosophy is becoming more and more apparent, and while I'll argue that God of War does it well, the gameplay in that game takes a hit for it, too, when compared to something like Ninja Gaiden or Devil May Cry. You can square, square, square, square, triangle your way through God of War 3 even on the harder difficulties. The gameplay is not the focus, and it sure as s*** isn;t deep. Uncharted has the same probem.

I would disagree and argue that the developer becomes the star, because they get to make the player largely passive, and say, "Look, look, isn't this cool? Look how we designed this! It will play the exact same every single time, and you have as little control as possible, but look at the spectacle!" I don't deny it can be fun (God of War 3's bosses, Uncharted 2's train, etc), but the player is doing as little as possible during that scene, and he has to be to make it work.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

[QUOTE="WithoutGraceXII"]

There are tons of games that don't have flawless gameplay but some people would deem them masterpieces; they make up for it in other aspects. Morrowind has pretty awful gameplay, but the exploration and freedom compensate (this is my masterpiece). I didn't like Bioshock's shooting but it has an amazing atmosphere and story. A lot of old survival horror games had tank controls and combat was beyond awful but many of those are classics.

I think what some people are getting hung up on is that TC chose to showcase a game where cinematic game design improves the experience; it's what people expect and love about the Uncharted series (God of War also comes to mind when I think cinematic games that kick ***). Imo a better idea would be to show games that are hurt by cinematic game design. I've seen BF3 campaign mentioned several times, and I'm sure there are other games that try to hide a lackluster game behind a cinematic style.

A quick run down of the games I've played this year, Portal 2, TW2, Gear 3, MW3, Skyrim, Resistance FOM, Dark Souls. Those are all pretty big titles, and I'd say only one goes nuts with the cinematic stuff, mw3. Dark Souls and Portal 2 rely heavily on gameplay. Gears 3 and Resistance are 95% shooting things. TW2 has infrequent QTEs and Skyrim has occasional finisher animations (which my friend playing a pure mage has never seen). From my personal point of view, I'm not seeing the disease.

And lastly, I have to disagree with the thought that during scripted scenes "The player becomes a necessary inconvenience." If they're done well, the player becomes a bamf, the star of the scene. The idea is usually to let the player actually take part and have control in scenes that could never work in regular gameplay mode. That's clearly not an appealing idea to the TC and others, but for some it's a lot of fun.

g0ddyX

Yeah, that's true. Though I would argue that none of The Elder Scrolls games are masterpieces because their gameplay is so meh. The exploration is incredibly well done, and since that what they're focused on, that's good. Same with Bioshock. The story is great, but it's pretty much the definition of a one-and-done. As wonderful as the atmosphere and the storytelling is, there really is no motivation for another playthrough from a purely gameplay perspective. It just doesn't hold up. It wasn't all that great in 2007, and it's even worse now. I don't think that, by the definition of the word, you can declare those games masterpieces.

Battlefield 3 (Or Call of Duty, or most other mainstream FPS, practically, with a few exceptions) illustrate the problem in a much better fashion, but while they do the same things, the difference is they aren't praised to the heavens for them. Uncharted's gameplay is almost overlooked in favor of everything else, even by the IGN editors who worship the game, so it really illustrates the point. Again, Uncharted's gameplay isn't "bad," per se (hyperbole on my part in the title), but it's not the peak of the genre, either, and like I said, it gets overlooked in favor of everything else.

Gears has quite a few cinematic issues that I can think of off the top of my head, and I haven't even finished the campaign. I haven't played any of the others, but having seen a couple hours of Skyrim gameplay, I can agree with that, and having played Demon's Souls, Dark Souls is probably the same way. But if we look at many of the titles released in previous years, you can see that this design philosophy is becoming more and more apparent, and while I'll argue that God of War does it well, the gameplay in that game takes a hit for it, too, when compared to something like Ninja Gaiden or Devil May Cry. You can square, square, square, square, triangle your way through God of War 3 even on the harder difficulties. The gameplay is not the focus, and it sure as s*** isn;t deep. Uncharted has the same probem.

I would disagree and argue that the developer becomes the star, because they get to make the player largely passive, and say, "Look, look, isn't this cool? Look how we designed this! It will play the exact same every single time, and you have as little control as possible, but look at the spectacle!" I don't deny it can be fun (God of War 3's bosses, Uncharted 2's train, etc), but the player is doing as little as possible during that scene, and he has to be to make it work.

The enjoyment of anything is about a matter of taste. This is not about the "enjoyment" of it. You can enjoy Showgirls. Hell, I know I do. It's still an incredibly bad movie.

Yeah, I like Nintendo games. No cinematic games are not my favorite thing ever, though I do love God of War. But that's not the point. The point is that games are focusing less on being games and more on being movies, and that's not good.

Guess people don't care about gameplay anymore, no wonder why Skyrim, Assassins Creed and Batman AC scored so high, they all have bad gameplay

Zurrur

This is becoming increasingly common (though I cannot speak for Batman). People want "experiences" now, not games.

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

[QUOTE="WithoutGraceXII"]

There are tons of games that don't have flawless gameplay but some people would deem them masterpieces; they make up for it in other aspects. Morrowind has pretty awful gameplay, but the exploration and freedom compensate (this is my masterpiece). I didn't like Bioshock's shooting but it has an amazing atmosphere and story. A lot of old survival horror games had tank controls and combat was beyond awful but many of those are classics.

I think what some people are getting hung up on is that TC chose to showcase a game where cinematic game design improves the experience; it's what people expect and love about the Uncharted series (God of War also comes to mind when I think cinematic games that kick ***). Imo a better idea would be to show games that are hurt by cinematic game design. I've seen BF3 campaign mentioned several times, and I'm sure there are other games that try to hide a lackluster game behind a cinematic style.

A quick run down of the games I've played this year, Portal 2, TW2, Gear 3, MW3, Skyrim, Resistance FOM, Dark Souls. Those are all pretty big titles, and I'd say only one goes nuts with the cinematic stuff, mw3. Dark Souls and Portal 2 rely heavily on gameplay. Gears 3 and Resistance are 95% shooting things. TW2 has infrequent QTEs and Skyrim has occasional finisher animations (which my friend playing a pure mage has never seen). From my personal point of view, I'm not seeing the disease.

And lastly, I have to disagree with the thought that during scripted scenes "The player becomes a necessary inconvenience." If they're done well, the player becomes a bamf, the star of the scene. The idea is usually to let the player actually take part and have control in scenes that could never work in regular gameplay mode. That's clearly not an appealing idea to the TC and others, but for some it's a lot of fun.

DarkLink77

Your post punches too many holes into the TCs argument, prepare for him to ignore it. I already stated there was no disease of cinematic games, I already stated that the highest rated titles this year aren't cinematic games, and I already stated that he used Uncharted 3 simply to troll. You'd think it would be a no brainer to use BF3 as his example, but since he was trying to rile people up it was easier to use uncharted.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="GD1551"]

Your post punches too many holes into the TCs argument, prepare for him to ignore it. I already stated there was no disease of cinematic games, I already stated that the highest rated titles this year aren't cinematic games, and I already stated that he used Uncharted 3 simply to troll. You'd think it would be a no brainer to use BF3 as his example, but since he was trying to rile people up it was easier to use uncharted.

MuayThaiFTW

I like playing through games a second time or multiple times over, and cinematically driven games are pretty boring to me the second time through. Call of Duty 4 was awesome the first time though, and dismal the second time through. I tried playing through Uncharted 2 a second time, but didn't care enough to finish.

Excuse me while I go play some Skyrim and not have my hand held as I play. :3

[QUOTE="TrapJak"]

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

CoD doesn't rehash at all, actually MW3 would be the first in series I'd call a straight up rehash, COD4 started it all, WAW had zombie mode, MW2 had spec ops, BO had an improved zombie mode, gungame, wager matches, different online unlock setup and now MW3 was the rehash of MW2. Tell me how the combat and design of zelda games have changed please. SS just got multi-directional attacks.

g0ddyX

And until you play SS, you can't really say it includes nothing but controls.

The difference is people call COD a rehash more so than Zelda cos people may not care.

A lot of games are rehases and sequels. You would expect some form of similiarity.

I like playing through games a second time or multiple times over, and cinematically driven games are pretty boring to me the second time through. Call of Duty 4 was awesome the first time though, and dismal the second time through. I tried playing through Uncharted 2 a second time, but didn't care enough to finish.

Excuse me while I go play some Skyrim and not have my hand held as I play. :3

Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="g0ddyX"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

Yeah, that's true. Though I would argue that none of The Elder Scrolls games are masterpieces because their gameplay is so meh. The exploration is incredibly well done, and since that what they're focused on, that's good. Same with Bioshock. The story is great, but it's pretty much the definition of a one-and-done. As wonderful as the atmosphere and the storytelling is, there really is no motivation for another playthrough from a purely gameplay perspective. It just doesn't hold up. It wasn't all that great in 2007, and it's even worse now. I don't think that, by the definition of the word, you can declare those games masterpieces.

Battlefield 3 (Or Call of Duty, or most other mainstream FPS, practically, with a few exceptions) illustrate the problem in a much better fashion, but while they do the same things, the difference is they aren't praised to the heavens for them. Uncharted's gameplay is almost overlooked in favor of everything else, even by the IGN editors who worship the game, so it really illustrates the point. Again, Uncharted's gameplay isn't "bad," per se (hyperbole on my part in the title), but it's not the peak of the genre, either, and like I said, it gets overlooked in favor of everything else.

Gears has quite a few cinematic issues that I can think of off the top of my head, and I haven't even finished the campaign. I haven't played any of the others, but having seen a couple hours of Skyrim gameplay, I can agree with that, and having played Demon's Souls, Dark Souls is probably the same way. But if we look at many of the titles released in previous years, you can see that this design philosophy is becoming more and more apparent, and while I'll argue that God of War does it well, the gameplay in that game takes a hit for it, too, when compared to something like Ninja Gaiden or Devil May Cry. You can square, square, square, square, triangle your way through God of War 3 even on the harder difficulties. The gameplay is not the focus, and it sure as s*** isn;t deep. Uncharted has the same probem.

I would disagree and argue that the developer becomes the star, because they get to make the player largely passive, and say, "Look, look, isn't this cool? Look how we designed this! It will play the exact same every single time, and you have as little control as possible, but look at the spectacle!" I don't deny it can be fun (God of War 3's bosses, Uncharted 2's train, etc), but the player is doing as little as possible during that scene, and he has to be to make it work.

DarkLink77

The enjoyment of anything is about a matter of taste. This is not about the "enjoyment" of it. You can enjoy Showgirls. Hell, I know I do. It's still an incredibly bad movie.

Yeah, I like Nintendo games. No cinematic games are not my favorite thing ever, though I do love God of War. But that's not the point. The point is that games are focusing less on being games and more on being movies, and that's not good.

The fact is not every game is like this. I dont see the harm of games being a big cinamatic thing as long as the other side of the fence is still around which it is and its like not overwhelming the other. This isint a disease at all. Its just a different way to experiance games. If you dont like it fine but your trying to find a problem that isint there.

[QUOTE="g0ddyX"]

[QUOTE="TrapJak"]So every new CoD added a new mode. Yeah, that changes the whole arguement.

And until you play SS, you can't really say it includes nothing but controls.

Chutebox

The difference is people call COD a rehash more so than Zelda cos people may not care.

A lot of games are rehases and sequels. You would expect some form of similiarity.

[QUOTE="Chutebox"]

[QUOTE="g0ddyX"]

You can only change a military FPS game so much and to nazi-zombies is a pretty good attempt.

What does zelda get, a new sword and bow? Not much difference.

The difference is people call COD a rehash more so than Zelda cos people may not care.

A lot of games are rehases and sequels. You would expect some form of similiarity.

DarkLink77

It's literally been 5 years since Twilight Princess. 5 years without a console Zelda.

Twilight Princess sold 6 million copies...I bless Nintendo for having the restraint to wait until Miyamoto and company were able to polish the game to perfection.

Do you guys think EA has the patience to wait 5 years for a development studio to finish an entry in a flagship series? What about Activision?

Games that take a lot longer to develop have a much lesser chance of being rehashes.

Yearly / 18-month / Two-year installments are much, much more likely of falling victim to the rehash cycle.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

[QUOTE="g0ddyX"]

You spend more time gaming than watching a 10 second cutscene of an explosion or death of a boss. And its not like its a bad thing either.
All those games have good gameplay.

Its just down to a matter of taste... so it seems.

And I see a lot of Nintendo fans anti-cinematic.. wonder why? :roll:

finalfantasy94

The enjoyment of anything is about a matter of taste. This is not about the "enjoyment" of it. You can enjoy Showgirls. Hell, I know I do. It's still an incredibly bad movie.

Yeah, I like Nintendo games. No cinematic games are not my favorite thing ever, though I do love God of War. But that's not the point. The point is that games are focusing less on being games and more on being movies, and that's not good.

The fact is not every game is like this. I dont see the harm of games being a big cinamatic thing as long as the other side of the fence is still around which it is and its like not overwhelming the other. This isint a disease at all. Its just a different way to experiance games. If you dont like it fine but your trying to find a problem that isint there.

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] God of War 3 has pretty average gameplay as far as hack n' slashes go. Like I said, the same combo can get you through the whole game.

The enjoyment of anything is about a matter of taste. This is not about the "enjoyment" of it. You can enjoy Showgirls. Hell, I know I do. It's still an incredibly bad movie.

Yeah, I like Nintendo games. No cinematic games are not my favorite thing ever, though I do love God of War. But that's not the point. The point is that games are focusing less on being games and more on being movies, and that's not good.

DarkLink77

The fact is not every game is like this. I dont see the harm of games being a big cinamatic thing as long as the other side of the fence is still around which it is and its like not overwhelming the other. This isint a disease at all. Its just a different way to experiance games. If you dont like it fine but your trying to find a problem that isint there.

so there is no problem to be had. If you dont like it that fine but it sure as hell aint a disease.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

The fact is not every game is like this. I dont see the harm of games being a big cinamatic thing as long as the other side of the fence is still around which it is and its like not overwhelming the other. This isint a disease at all. Its just a different way to experiance games. If you dont like it fine but your trying to find a problem that isint there.

finalfantasy94

so there is no problem to be had. If you dont like it that fine but it sure as hell aint a disease.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Good man. Admittedly poor taste in games, but a good man nonetheless.Stevo_the_gamer

meh disagree with you on dark souls.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

[QUOTE="Chutebox"] I think people call CoD a rehash more because there is a new one every single year.

peterw007

It's literally been 5 years since Twilight Princess. 5 years without a console Zelda.

Twilight Princess sold 6 million copies...I bless Nintendo for having the restraint to wait until Miyamoto and company were able to polish the game to perfection.

Do you guys think EA has the patience to wait 5 years for a development studio to finish an entry in a flagship series? What about Activision?

Games that take a lot longer to develop have a much lesser chance of being rehashes.

Yearly / 18-month / Two-year installments are much, much more likely of falling victim to the rehash cycle.

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] No, not every game is like this, but it's definitely a trend.

DarkLink77

so there is no problem to be had. If you dont like it that fine but it sure as hell aint a disease.

no since if a devloper wants to go that route they should be able to do so plan and simple. You make it sound like a negative which it isint. Just cause you dont like it doesint make it a factual negative. Its just something you dont like.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

so there is no problem to be had. If you dont like it that fine but it sure as hell aint a disease.

finalfantasy94

no since if a devloper wants to go that route they should be able to do so plan and simple. You make it sound like a negative which it isint. Just cause you dont like it doesint make it a factual negative. Its just something you dont like.

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] No, the trend is definitely a problem, and it seems to infect other games. Hence, "disease."DarkLink77

no since if a devloper wants to go that route they should be able to do so plan and simple. You make it sound like a negative which it isint. Just cause you dont like it doesint make it a factual negative. Its just something you dont like.

so you have a problem with games with this design of cinamatics getting praises? I dont see why if the funfactor is still there. The cinamatic approuch is just one of the ways to suck gamers into the game. Iv beaten uncharted 2 3 times and if the gameplay was crap I wouldint have bothered. It does have a cinamtic approch but imo it has the great gameplay to back it up from just being a movie. A game should get some praise if its well made and fun. I found mario galaxy to be one of the most boring games iv played this gen but I dont see the problem with people praising it.

I played and beat Uncharted 2 three times. And I have played and beat Uncharted 3 twice and looking to start a third playthrough. To me Uncharted games have left me with such a strong and memorable first impression that I've wanted to go back and play it again. Its like how people re watch their favorite movies over and over. Nothing changes with a rewatch of that movie, but the movie was so damn good the first time and left such an amazing impression, like Uncharted does to others, that people want to experience it again, like how some people want to experience Uncharted again after the game left them with such an amazing impression And of course there are other people that arent going to feel that way. Personally I can watch Scarface again without getting tired of it just like how i can play Uncharted 3 again and still love every second of it. Because both forms of entertainment left me with such a strong and memorable frst impression that I've wanted to experience it again. And even on a second playthrough of Uncharted 3 I picked up on things I didn't pick up on the first time and I appreciated the game finer subtlies more on my second playthrough. Not to start a flame war or anything, and I'm talking just from my personal experience, but funny enough I've only ever played and beat 1 big open world game and aftet that I didn't want to go back and play it again. Uncharted 2 and 3 have been some of the few rare games that I've wanted tp go back and re playMuayThaiFTW

And there's nothing wrong with that type of design. However, the design itself succeeds by removing as much interactivity as possible so that the player can do something cool, and that's worth talking about.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

no since if a devloper wants to go that route they should be able to do so plan and simple. You make it sound like a negative which it isint. Just cause you dont like it doesint make it a factual negative. Its just something you dont like.

finalfantasy94

so you have a problem with games with this design of cinamatics getting praises? I dont see why if the funfactor is still there. The cinamatic approuch is just one of the ways to suck gamers into the game. Iv beaten uncharted 2 3 times and if the gameplay was crap I wouldint have bothered. It does have a cinamtic approch but imo it has the great gameplay to back it up from just being a movie. A game should get some praise if its well made and fun. I found mario galaxy to be one of the most boring games iv played this gen but I dont see the problem with people praising it.

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Good man. Admittedly poor taste in games, but a good man nonetheless.finalfantasy94

meh disagree with you on dark souls.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Maybe if that wasn't coming from you, that would mean something. :oStevo_the_gamer

I'm glad I haven't brought this game yet, I waited for Oblivion and Fallout 3 to get fixed, and I'm doing the same with Skyrim.

Modded would make it more fun though.

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Maybe if that wasn't coming from you, that would mean something. :omitu123

I'm glad I haven't brought this game yet, I waited for Oblivion and Fallout 3 to get fixed, and I'm doing the same with Skyrim.

Modded would make it more fun though.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Still the greatest. Skyrim is the bestest, imho.DarkLink77

I'm glad I haven't brought this game yet, I waited for Oblivion and Fallout 3 to get fixed, and I'm doing the same with Skyrim.

Modded would make it more fun though.

Can't get over the things I heard about it though until it's fixed.:P

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

[QUOTE="WithoutGraceXII"]

There are tons of games that don't have flawless gameplay but some people would deem them masterpieces; they make up for it in other aspects. Morrowind has pretty awful gameplay, but the exploration and freedom compensate (this is my masterpiece). I didn't like Bioshock's shooting but it has an amazing atmosphere and story. A lot of old survival horror games had tank controls and combat was beyond awful but many of those are classics.

I think what some people are getting hung up on is that TC chose to showcase a game where cinematic game design improves the experience; it's what people expect and love about the Uncharted series (God of War also comes to mind when I think cinematic games that kick ***). Imo a better idea would be to show games that are hurt by cinematic game design. I've seen BF3 campaign mentioned several times, and I'm sure there are other games that try to hide a lackluster game behind a cinematic style.

A quick run down of the games I've played this year, Portal 2, TW2, Gear 3, MW3, Skyrim, Resistance FOM, Dark Souls. Those are all pretty big titles, and I'd say only one goes nuts with the cinematic stuff, mw3. Dark Souls and Portal 2 rely heavily on gameplay. Gears 3 and Resistance are 95% shooting things. TW2 has infrequent QTEs and Skyrim has occasional finisher animations (which my friend playing a pure mage has never seen). From my personal point of view, I'm not seeing the disease.

And lastly, I have to disagree with the thought that during scripted scenes "The player becomes a necessary inconvenience." If they're done well, the player becomes a bamf, the star of the scene. The idea is usually to let the player actually take part and have control in scenes that could never work in regular gameplay mode. That's clearly not an appealing idea to the TC and others, but for some it's a lot of fun.

DarkLink77

Your post punches too many holes into the TCs argument, prepare for him to ignore it. I already stated there was no disease of cinematic games, I already stated that the highest rated titles this year aren't cinematic games, and I already stated that he used Uncharted 3 simply to troll. You'd think it would be a no brainer to use BF3 as his example, but since he was trying to rile people up it was easier to use uncharted.

I'm not mad about anything, it's actually quite easy to see what you are doing. Sorry bro too much trolling happens on the internet to think you are something special.

Are you trying to tell me that all those famous adventure games are now awful, because all the gameplay the had was typing or clicking something?

So Grim Fandango sucked balls, right? Because it was all about the cinematic design. :|...:cry:

glez13

its all about this false dichotomy that a game cant be cinematic/linear and have great gameplay

and also there is this alarmist nonsense about how open world games are under attack or are somehow becoming endangered. even though some of the most popular games to be released this year include skyrim, dark souls, infamous 2, saints row 3, assasin's creed revelations, skyward sword, witcher 2, mass effect 2, and LA noire.

honestly, i cant beleive this thread is still going

Gears has quite a few cinematic issues that I can think of off the top of my head, and I haven't even finished the campaign. I haven't played any of the others, but having seen a couple hours of Skyrim gameplay, I can agree with that, and having played Demon's Souls, Dark Souls is probably the same way. But if we look at many of the titles released in previous years, you can see that this design philosophy is becoming more and more apparent, and while I'll argue that God of War does it well, the gameplay in that game takes a hit for it, too, when compared to something like Ninja Gaiden or Devil May Cry. You can square, square, square, square, triangle your way through God of War 3 even on the harder difficulties. The gameplay is not the focus, and it sure as s*** isn;t deep. Uncharted has the same probem.

DarkLink77

Which titles are those? Also lol @ gears having a cinematic issues, are you serious?

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="GD1551"]

Your post punches too many holes into the TCs argument, prepare for him to ignore it. I already stated there was no disease of cinematic games, I already stated that the highest rated titles this year aren't cinematic games, and I already stated that he used Uncharted 3 simply to troll. You'd think it would be a no brainer to use BF3 as his example, but since he was trying to rile people up it was easier to use uncharted.

GD1551

I'm not mad about anything, it's actually quite easy to see what you are doing. Sorry bro too much trolling happens on the internet to think you are something special.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

Gears has quite a few cinematic issues that I can think of off the top of my head, and I haven't even finished the campaign. I haven't played any of the others, but having seen a couple hours of Skyrim gameplay, I can agree with that, and having played Demon's Souls, Dark Souls is probably the same way. But if we look at many of the titles released in previous years, you can see that this design philosophy is becoming more and more apparent, and while I'll argue that God of War does it well, the gameplay in that game takes a hit for it, too, when compared to something like Ninja Gaiden or Devil May Cry. You can square, square, square, square, triangle your way through God of War 3 even on the harder difficulties. The gameplay is not the focus, and it sure as s*** isn;t deep. Uncharted has the same probem.

GD1551

Which titles are those? Also lol @ gears having a cinematic issues, are you serious?

L.A. Noire, Mass Effect, Uncharted, Call of Duty, Battlefield, Homfront, Crysis 2 (a significant step down), Dragon Age 2, God of War as a series, Enslaved, Heavy Rain, etc.

And no, I'm not.

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Still mad about that, eh? :lol: And had the article been about Battlefield 3, I would have used that instead. Believe it or not, this is not all fueled by some vendetta. :oDarkLink77

I'm not mad about anything, it's actually quite easy to see what you are doing. Sorry bro too much trolling happens on the internet to think you are something special.

Because I'm responding to other people?

[QUOTE="glez13"]

Are you trying to tell me that all those famous adventure games are now awful, because all the gameplay the had was typing or clicking something?

So Grim Fandango sucked balls, right? Because it was all about the cinematic design. :|...:cry:

arbitor365

its all about this false dichotomy that a game cant be cinematic/linear and have great gameplay

and also there is this alarmist nonsense about how open world games are under attack or are somehow becoming endangered. even though some of the most popular games to be released this year include skyrim, dark souls, infamous 2, saints row 3, assasin's creed revelations, skyward sword, witcher 2, mass effect 2, and LA noire.

honestly, i cant beleive this thread is still going