TC wants moar generic shooters. That's what's "real" gaming is to him ;)
Games With Bad Gameplay Are Masterpieces Now? The Disease of Cinematic Design
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I don't define cinematic as games with cutscenes. Pretty much every game has cutscenes. I define cinematic as a game that limits the player so the developer can keep control of what's going on. These games railroad you from set piece to set piece, limiting player interaction to the bare minimum. Uncharted is a perfect example. Hence it's use. So, long story short, no, but I would not define that game as cinematic, so it's a moot point.So what you're saying is that you don't mind cinematic games, as long as they get the game part right?
hakanakumono
Oh, yes. Moar CoD, please.TC wants moar generic shooters. That's what's "real" gaming is to him ;)
Pray_to_me
Do you KNOW DarkLink?TC wants moar generic shooters. That's what's "real" gaming is to him ;)
Pray_to_me
I'm grateful to those people. I really am.Practically 200 posts in and still people harp on cinematics. :roll:
I think I can count the number of people who get DL's topic with the fingers on one hand.
mmmwksil
TC wants moar generic shooters. That's what's "real" gaming is to him ;)
Pray_to_me
Well he is all about The Duke. Meh.
[QUOTE="mmmwksil"]
Practically 200 posts in and still people harp on cinematics. :roll:
I think I can count the number of people who get DL's topic with the fingers on one hand.
GD1551
Ironically he seems to avoid answering said people. He "covered it" in some other posts unknown to us.
Post it again, and I'll respond. I am not going back through 11 pages to find it.I wouldn't say Uncharted 3 had bad gunplay, just merely average. It was definitely the worst part of the game, but I still enjoyed it.
I'm looking foward to when games can have a good balance of gameplay and cinematics.
Actually, now that I think about it, Assassin's Creed: Revelations did just that. It had a good balance.
I like story is games, don't get me wrong. But the telling of that story should not arbitrarily limit the player or the gameplay because the developer wants to make a movie. Examples? If you'd read the OP, it would have been obvious.[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]
As long as everything doesn't turn into Heavy Rain, I'm fine with games being "cinematic." I like it. I like a lot of games because of their gameplay and their storytelling combined. If you take away storytelling, for some games, it just makes the gameplay less compelling because there's no "meaning" behind what happens. A boss fight in a JRPG isn't just fun because the boss fight is challenging, it's enjoyable because you're playing out part of that story - you are living through the characters' struggle.
edo-tensei
I'm grateful to those people. I really am.[QUOTE="mmmwksil"]
Practically 200 posts in and still people harp on cinematics. :roll:
I think I can count the number of people who get DL's topic with the fingers on one hand.
DarkLink77
Pointing out the true topic of the thread now would only ruin the fun I'm having. :lol:
[QUOTE="Pray_to_me"]Do you KNOW DarkLink? I'm pretty sure he was joking. :PTC wants moar generic shooters. That's what's "real" gaming is to him ;)
charizard1605
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] If I think I've covered what they brought up, I'm not gonna respond. That takes too long.Zassimick
Oh! Then respond to my post! :P I'd love to see what you think on my view of cinematic design in the industry and see how your view differs from mine with what I've stated in the message.
Unless you think you've covered what I said then... I missed something. :?
Can you link me to it, please?[QUOTE="charizard1605"][QUOTE="Pray_to_me"]Do you KNOW DarkLink? I'm pretty sure he was joking. :P I hope he was :| Then again, even if he was, people will miss the point. Which seems to be happening an awful lot in this thread.TC wants moar generic shooters. That's what's "real" gaming is to him ;)
DarkLink77
[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]I don't define cinematic as games with cutscenes. Pretty much every game has cutscenes. I define cinematic as a game that limits the player so the developer can keep control of what's going on. These games railroad you from set piece to set piece, limiting player interaction to the bare minimum. Uncharted is a perfect example. Hence it's use. So, long story short, no, but I would not define that game as cinematic, so it's a moot point.So what you're saying is that you don't mind cinematic games, as long as they get the game part right?
DarkLink77
So what?
The TPS gameplay in Uncharted is plenty of interaction. Deciding where you go is only one form of interaction.
Most of those games are Ninty titles, or made by other developers that put gameplay first (Blizzard). As for NFS, it is very cinematic (QTEs, the whole nine). I cannot comment on the other three, and some of those games are not out yet, so we'll have to wait and see. As for the cinematic titles, we also have Killzone 3, Mass Effect (the series), Battlefield, etc. Focusing on one part of the year makes it less obvious, but only just.Regardless, lets stay on topic.
The complaint about gaming becoming too cinematic is valid but it seems like it's a bit overblown. Uncharted 3 is obviously a huge offender but that's what the series is about. The entire reason to play Uncharted is for the great set-pieces, and feel like you're the hero in the latest mindless action flick.
Here is a list IGN made compiling what they thought were the 20 biggest games of the fall.
Using that list, if I were to take out the games that are not cinematic or games that (I think) most people would agree that any cinematic element that exists complements the game, we would be left with.
- Gears of War 3
- Uncharted 3
- Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
And with the following games, I know next to nothing about them so if someone could kindly let me know the cinematic level I would appreciate it:
- Rage
- Spiderman: Edge of Time
- Asassisns Creed: Revelations
- Need for Speed: The Run
Everyone is familiar with the situation COD, but frankly the number of people who flock to the multi-player component of that game more or less negates whatever goes on in the single player. I would argue the same thing about Gears of War 3 and in the case of its single player I don't think I have heard any complaints about the core gameplay.
If it so happens that the 4 games I'm unfamiliar with or that people feel a lot of the games I didn't list are cinematic it would weaken my argument a lot....but when I see games like Mario 3D Land, Rayman Origins, Elder Scrolls, Return to Dreamland, Skyward Sword, Sonic Generations, Guild Wars 2, Luigi's Mansion 2, Heart of the Swarm and Last Guardian I can't help but feel like games that are overly cinematic are water off my back.
forgot_it
[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]
People have heard the same arguments over and over again so they make the same responses. I assumed I knew where he was coming from, because I've heard similar arguments before.
mmmwksil
Then even you've missed the point, haka! :o :P
I have no idea what he's getting at at this point.
I don't define cinematic as games with cutscenes. Pretty much every game has cutscenes. I define cinematic as a game that limits the player so the developer can keep control of what's going on. These games railroad you from set piece to set piece, limiting player interaction to the bare minimum. Uncharted is a perfect example. Hence it's use. So, long story short, no, but I would not define that game as cinematic, so it's a moot point.[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]
So what you're saying is that you don't mind cinematic games, as long as they get the game part right?
hakanakumono
So what?
The TPS gameplay in Uncharted is plenty of interaction. Deciding where you go is only one form of interaction.
Most encounters will play similarly every time. It's just the way Uncharted is.Practically 200 posts in and still people harp on cinematics. :roll:
I think I can count the number of people who get DL's topic with the fingers on one hand.
mmmwksil
Well, to be honest there isn't much to get. DL is just saying that it's sad that reviewers give poor gameplay a pass if the game has cinematic flair in it. He mainly used the Uncharted 3 review as his example. Some reviewers may function like this, but I'm saying that just because a game is cinematic, it doesn't mean that it can be comparable to a B-movie, and it doesn't mean that the editors can be satisfied about it overall.
Those editors enjoyed the game because of the satisfying and epic experience. People seem to have no trouble calling Morrowind a masterpiece, yet the core gameplay; you know, the fighting and the magic, wasn't all that great. The reason why people loved it was because of the atmosphere, the world, the quests, and basically the lore. There was also the sense of progression. If all of that's okay, then why can't people love a game because of the story, atmosphere, and overall experience?
The editors seem to like the game in general, and yes some might have found the gameplay lackluster (and the fact that many just brushed it off like it was nothing isn't good), but overall it's still an amazing game that they believe deserved praise.
[QUOTE="Zassimick"]Can you link me to it, please?Oh! Then respond to my post! :P I'd love to see what you think on my view of cinematic design in the industry and see how your view differs from mine with what I've stated in the message.
Unless you think you've covered what I said then... I missed something. :?
DarkLink77
I'll do you one better and quote it right here:;)
First things first, that is what is great about people's own opinions. Many people thought Nier was an average game but then there were a few who thought it was the best game of last year. So its no surprise that some would find the Uncharted games to be amazing especially with what the series has going for it: excellent cinematic design, gorgeous graphics, fun characters and solid shooting.
But I want to say that by calling cinematic design a disease of gaming and saying the industry should do away with it is absurd. To do so is limiting the industry, limiting the vision of certain developers and halting innovation. Why would we want do that?
The industry must take these steps to figure out what works and what doesn't. Gaming is still a new medium and will take time to perfect several concepts. Look at Uncharted compared to some games last gen. Last gen filled with quick-time events to do things that normally wouldn't have been feasible to do as gameplay. Over time now we have seen Uncharted grow in its cinematic design to do things that might have been overloaded with QTEs. Having a fist fight on a plane, then getting flung off onto some hanging cargo and then climbing back up could have easily been done with quick time button presses. In my eyes, I see that as the industry is beginning to move away from QTEs overall and I support that change.
And besides, there were always games that felt like you were being railroaded through the game. On-rail shooters are a genre like that.
There is room in this industry for different types of games and at the present many gamers support the cinematic design. No reason to want to stifle creativity. And if Skyrim or Dark Souls are any indication, the industry isn't going entirely towards cinematic design.
Zassimick
[QUOTE="mmmwksil"]
Practically 200 posts in and still people harp on cinematics. :roll:
I think I can count the number of people who get DL's topic with the fingers on one hand.
XVision84
Well, to be honest there isn't much to get. DL is just saying that it's sad that reviewers give poor gameplay a pass if the game has cinematic flair in it. He mainly used the Uncharted 3 review as his example. Some reviewers may function like this, but I'm saying that just because a game is cinematic, it doesn't mean that it can be comparable to a B-movie.
Those editors enjoyed the game because of the satisfying and epic experience. People seem to have no trouble calling Morrowind a masterpiece, yet the core gameplay; you know, the fighting and the magic, wasn't all that great. The reason why people loved it was because of the atmosphere, the world, the quests, and basically the lore. There was also the sense of progression. If all of that's okay, then why can't people love a game because of the story, atmosphere, and overall experience?
Because one is embracing being a game while the other is trying to get as far away from it as possible?I don't define cinematic as games with cutscenes. Pretty much every game has cutscenes. I define cinematic as a game that limits the player so the developer can keep control of what's going on. These games railroad you from set piece to set piece, limiting player interaction to the bare minimum. Uncharted is a perfect example. Hence it's use. So, long story short, no, but I would not define that game as cinematic, so it's a moot point.[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]
So what you're saying is that you don't mind cinematic games, as long as they get the game part right?
hakanakumono
So what?
The TPS gameplay in Uncharted is plenty of interaction. Deciding where you go is only one form of interaction.
When this is done in moderation, it works great. It gives us a more focused, guided experience and builds great atmosphere. However, there are two issues: a) Very few games achieve that perfect balance. Most games either go overboard with the handholding and guiding the player (like Uncharted 3), or they just fail to restrict the player at all. Some games that achieve the perfect balance would be like the original Halo. b) Games like Majora's Mask prove that this isn't needed at all. Majora's Mask is a tight, focused, cohesive game, and the single most atmospheric entry in the series. It has great character interaction and development, and it is probably the most story intensive Zelda game. It does all of this WITHOUT taking any control away from the player, it does this entirely by means of a gameplay mechanic. Why can't other games do this too?[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] I don't define cinematic as games with cutscenes. Pretty much every game has cutscenes. I define cinematic as a game that limits the player so the developer can keep control of what's going on. These games railroad you from set piece to set piece, limiting player interaction to the bare minimum. Uncharted is a perfect example. Hence it's use. So, long story short, no, but I would not define that game as cinematic, so it's a moot point.DarkLink77
So what?
The TPS gameplay in Uncharted is plenty of interaction. Deciding where you go is only one form of interaction.
Most encounters will play similarly every time. It's just the way Uncharted is.And?
Mario involves a lot of jumping. Repetition is what defines games.
Most encounters will play similarly every time. It's just the way Uncharted is.[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]
So what?
The TPS gameplay in Uncharted is plenty of interaction. Deciding where you go is only one form of interaction.
hakanakumono
And?
Mario involves a lot of jumping. Repetition is what defines games.
Except that, in spite of that, probably no two times that you ever play Mario will it play out the same. Unlike Uncharted 3, which is scripted to a fault. And THAT is what he is pointing out as an issue, the fact that games have become so scripted and so guided that they are now interactive movies, not games.Well, to be honest there isn't much to get. DL is just saying that it's sad that reviewers give poor gameplay a pass if the game has cinematic flair in it. He mainly used the Uncharted 3 review as his example. Some reviewers may function like this, but I'm saying that just because a game is cinematic, it doesn't mean that it can be comparable to a B-movie, and it doesn't mean that the editors can be satisfied about it overall.
Those editors enjoyed the game because of the satisfying and epic experience. People seem to have no trouble calling Morrowind a masterpiece, yet the core gameplay; you know, the fighting and the magic, wasn't all that great. The reason why people loved it was because of the atmosphere, the world, the quests, and basically the lore. There was also the sense of progression. If all of that's okay, then why can't people love a game because of the story, atmosphere, and overall experience?
The editors seem to like the game in general, and yes some might have found the gameplay lackluster (and the fact that many just brushed it off like it was nothing isn't good), but overall it's still an amazing game that they believe deserved praise.
XVision84
You get it! :o
The idea is how can you give a game a "perfect" or "masterpiece" score if you admit it has poor gameplay? DOES NOT COMPUTE. :|
This is going to be my final post. You ask "What the **** happened?"
Here's what happened. Your delusional thought of what a real "game" should be has clouded your mind. You fail to relaize that now more than ever we are giving the player directed expiriences, ones in which can only happen by helping direct the player(ala uncharted), and games that offer total freedom and choices. We offering both and the industry needs both. I want both and so do others. It is not a disease. Right now we have more games that offer you freedom and choice than ever before. Game play is as good as it has ever been. Even a game like uncharted has fantastic gameplay. It's not oput fault that you fail to relaize this.
[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] I don't define cinematic as games with cutscenes. Pretty much every game has cutscenes. I define cinematic as a game that limits the player so the developer can keep control of what's going on. These games railroad you from set piece to set piece, limiting player interaction to the bare minimum. Uncharted is a perfect example. Hence it's use. So, long story short, no, but I would not define that game as cinematic, so it's a moot point.charizard1605
So what?
The TPS gameplay in Uncharted is plenty of interaction. Deciding where you go is only one form of interaction.
When this is done in moderation, it works great. It gives us a more focused, guided experience and builds great atmosphere. However, there are two issues: a) Very few games achieve that perfect balance. Most games either go overboard with the handholding and guiding the player (like Uncharted 3), or they just fail to restrict the player at all. Some games that achieve the perfect balance would be like the original Halo. b) Games like Majora's Mask prove that this isn't needed at all. Majora's Mask is a tight, focused, cohesive game, and the single most atmospheric entry in the series. It has great character interaction and development, and it is probably the most story intensive Zelda game. It does all of this WITHOUT taking any control away from the player, it does this entirely by means of a gameplay mechanic. Why can't other games do this too?Because Majora's Mask isn't Uncharted. It's not a similar experience and it's not trying to be.
There's no such thing as a "perfect" balance. There are just different balances and those different balances lead themselves to different experiences.
Uncharted is specifically for those who want to feel like they're playing a movie. For those that want to play a movie, some would consider it near perfect. It's a masterpiece for those people.
um, TC. uncharted 3 does not have "bad shooting." what exactly is bad about the gunplay in U3? i dont expect that you have bought and/or played the game, but im curious what you have heard and decided to latch onto.
its exactly like the other uncharted games except that a few of the guns have slightly more kickback and there are more weapon mods in the online.
[QUOTE="XVision84"][QUOTE="mmmwksil"]
Practically 200 posts in and still people harp on cinematics. :roll:
I think I can count the number of people who get DL's topic with the fingers on one hand.
DarkLink77
Well, to be honest there isn't much to get. DL is just saying that it's sad that reviewers give poor gameplay a pass if the game has cinematic flair in it. He mainly used the Uncharted 3 review as his example. Some reviewers may function like this, but I'm saying that just because a game is cinematic, it doesn't mean that it can be comparable to a B-movie.
Those editors enjoyed the game because of the satisfying and epic experience. People seem to have no trouble calling Morrowind a masterpiece, yet the core gameplay; you know, the fighting and the magic, wasn't all that great. The reason why people loved it was because of the atmosphere, the world, the quests, and basically the lore. There was also the sense of progression. If all of that's okay, then why can't people love a game because of the story, atmosphere, and overall experience?
Because one is embracing being a game while the other is trying to get as far away from it as possible?One is admiring the art around you while you have control of where you go, the other is admiring the art presented to you while you play the game in sequences.
I'll do you one better and quote it right here:;)I don't think doing away with that sort of thing will stifle developers at all. I think the action of giving the player more freedom will force developers, if anything, will be more creative, as they'll have to deal with what the player is doing rather than just limiting it to a certain set of actions to derive an effect, or deliver an experience. Don't mistake me, I don't think set-pieces are bad in and of themselves, or anything, and I think in some cases, they are necessary. But when you build a game around set-pieces, and try to limit the player so that you, as a dev, can have control, you're limiting interactivity, which is the strength of the medium.[QUOTE="Zassimick"]
First things first, that is what is great about people's own opinions. Many people thought Nier was an average game but then there were a few who thought it was the best game of last year. So its no surprise that some would find the Uncharted games to be amazing especially with what the series has going for it: excellent cinematic design, gorgeous graphics, fun characters and solid shooting.
But I want to say that by calling cinematic design a disease of gaming and saying the industry should do away with it is absurd. To do so is limiting the industry, limiting the vision of certain developers and halting innovation. Why would we want do that?
The industry must take these steps to figure out what works and what doesn't. Gaming is still a new medium and will take time to perfect several concepts. Look at Uncharted compared to some games last gen. Last gen filled with quick-time events to do things that normally wouldn't have been feasible to do as gameplay. Over time now we have seen Uncharted grow in its cinematic design to do things that might have been overloaded with QTEs. Having a fist fight on a plane, then getting flung off onto some hanging cargo and then climbing back up could have easily been done with quick time button presses. In my eyes, I see that as the industry is beginning to move away from QTEs overall and I support that change.
And besides, there were always games that felt like you were being railroaded through the game. On-rail shooters are a genre like that.
There is room in this industry for different types of games and at the present many gamers support the cinematic design. No reason to want to stifle creativity. And if Skyrim or Dark Souls are any indication, the industry isn't going entirely towards cinematic design.
Zassimick
um, TC. uncharted 3 does not have "bad shooting." what exactly is bad about the gunplay in U3? i dont expect that you have bought and/or played the game, but im curious what you have heard and decided to latch onto.
its exactly like the other uncharted games except that a few of the guns have slightly more kickback and there are more weapon mods in the online.
arbitor365
Yes, because the reviewers themselves and the dedicated fans have both admitted the gunplay isn't as strong as the predecessor. Clearly they're all against the game. :roll:
[QUOTE="XVision84"]
Well, to be honest there isn't much to get. DL is just saying that it's sad that reviewers give poor gameplay a pass if the game has cinematic flair in it. He mainly used the Uncharted 3 review as his example. Some reviewers may function like this, but I'm saying that just because a game is cinematic, it doesn't mean that it can be comparable to a B-movie, and it doesn't mean that the editors can be satisfied about it overall.
Those editors enjoyed the game because of the satisfying and epic experience. People seem to have no trouble calling Morrowind a masterpiece, yet the core gameplay; you know, the fighting and the magic, wasn't all that great. The reason why people loved it was because of the atmosphere, the world, the quests, and basically the lore. There was also the sense of progression. If all of that's okay, then why can't people love a game because of the story, atmosphere, and overall experience?
The editors seem to like the game in general, and yes some might have found the gameplay lackluster (and the fact that many just brushed it off like it was nothing isn't good), but overall it's still an amazing game that they believe deserved praise.
mmmwksil
You get it! :o
The idea is how can you give a game a "perfect" or "masterpiece" score if you admit it has poor gameplay? DOES NOT COMPUTE. :|
Well, last time I checked Greg Miller praised the game to death and adored the gameplay in Uncharted 3 :P. I haven't seen any reviewers who gave the game a 9.5/10 or 10/10 and found that it has bad gameplay.
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="XVision84"] Most encounters will play similarly every time. It's just the way Uncharted is.XVision84
And?
Mario involves a lot of jumping. Repetition is what defines games.
Except that, in spite of that, probably no two times that you ever play Mario will it play out the same. Unlike Uncharted 3, which is scripted to a fault. And THAT is what he is pointing out as an issue, the fact that games have become so scripted and so guided that they are now interactive movies, not games. And that is the point, exactly.[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Most encounters will play similarly every time. It's just the way Uncharted is.charizard1605
And?
Mario involves a lot of jumping. Repetition is what defines games.
Except that, in spite of that, probably no two times that you ever play Mario will it play out the same. Unlike Uncharted 3, which is scripted to a fault. And THAT is what he is pointing out as an issue, the fact that games have become so scripted and so guided that they are now interactive movies, not games.So what if it's an interactive movie? That's what it wants to be. It's still a game.
As for replaying a game, pretty much every playthrough of RE2 is exactly the same for me at this point. Regardless of options. And yet, I'll go back and play it.
[QUOTE="arbitor365"]
um, TC. uncharted 3 does not have "bad shooting." what exactly is bad about the gunplay in U3? i dont expect that you have bought and/or played the game, but im curious what you have heard and decided to latch onto.
its exactly like the other uncharted games except that a few of the guns have slightly more kickback and there are more weapon mods in the online.
mmmwksil
Yes, because the reviewers themselves and the dedicated fans have both admitted the gunplay isn't as strong as the predecessor. Clearly they're all against the game. :roll:
^That's what I'm going off of.I think the point a lot of us are trying to make is that people like DL want the gaming industry to go into a direction that matches whatever his idea of an great game. Any praise given to games that don't fit his mold is going to bring up threads like this.
People like DL don't seem to realize that people have different ideas of what an enjoyable gaming experience is. One person may think the freedom of Skyrim is amazing while others may find it bland and boring. Others may think Dark Souls is a tough and enjoyable experience while others don't find the crushing difficulty fun.
In either case, the idea that quick time event/cinematic gameplay is ruining the industry is silly. What's popular is going to continue to change and envolve as it has in years past.
I'm not delusional. I seem to be one of the few that understand what makes gaming as a medium unique, and that removing that only takes away from the medium.This is going to be my final post. You ask "What the **** happened?"
Here's what happened. Your delusional thought of what a real "game" should be has clouded your mind. You fail to relaize that now more than ever we are giving the player directed expiriences, ones in which can only happen by helping direct the player(ala uncharted), and games that offer total freedom and choices. We offering both and the industry needs both. I want both and so do others. It is not a disease. Right now we have more games that offer you freedom and choice than ever before. Game play is as good as it has ever been. Even a game like uncharted has fantastic gameplay. It's not oput fault that you fail to relaize this.
15strong
[QUOTE="arbitor365"]
um, TC. uncharted 3 does not have "bad shooting." what exactly is bad about the gunplay in U3? i dont expect that you have bought and/or played the game, but im curious what you have heard and decided to latch onto.
its exactly like the other uncharted games except that a few of the guns have slightly more kickback and there are more weapon mods in the online.
mmmwksil
Yes, because the reviewers themselves and the dedicated fans have both admitted the gunplay isn't as strong as the predecessor. Clearly they're all against the game. :roll:
"the reviewers" and "fans" as if there is some kind of uniform opinion on this.
and that is still not answering my question. im a dedicated fan and I see zero problems with the gunplay in uncharted 3. none whatsoever.
When this is done in moderation, it works great. It gives us a more focused, guided experience and builds great atmosphere. However, there are two issues: a) Very few games achieve that perfect balance. Most games either go overboard with the handholding and guiding the player (like Uncharted 3), or they just fail to restrict the player at all. Some games that achieve the perfect balance would be like the original Halo. b) Games like Majora's Mask prove that this isn't needed at all. Majora's Mask is a tight, focused, cohesive game, and the single most atmospheric entry in the series. It has great character interaction and development, and it is probably the most story intensive Zelda game. It does all of this WITHOUT taking any control away from the player, it does this entirely by means of a gameplay mechanic. Why can't other games do this too?[QUOTE="charizard1605"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]
So what?
The TPS gameplay in Uncharted is plenty of interaction. Deciding where you go is only one form of interaction.
hakanakumono
Because Majora's Mask isn't Uncharted. It's not a similar experience and it's not trying to be.
There's no such thing as a "perfect" balance. There are just different balances and those different balances lead themselves to different experiences.
Uncharted is specifically for those who want to feel like they're playing a movie. For those that want to play a movie, some would consider it near perfect. It's a masterpiece for those people.
And there would be no problem with there being OPTIONS in the gaming market in general. That is, if people who want to feel like they're playing a movie have an option to play that kind of a game, what's wrong with it, right? The problem is that this kind of guided design mentality is bleeding into every single game possible, and it is slowly but surely limiting player control and interaction, leading us with an interactive movie that has no replay value beyond the obvious multiplayer mode reskin. Look at Call of Duty, for instance. Look at Gears of War. Look at Killzone 3. Look at Battlefield 3. Look at Metroid: Other M and Prime 3: Corruption. Look at God of War III. It's even bleeding into RPGs. Mass Effect 1, for all its faults, was an RPG that allowed freedom of movement. Look at Mass Effect 2 in contrast to Mass Effect 1. And perhaps the worst offender of them all, look at Dragon Age II. Even JRPGs are suffering from this. Look at Final Fantasy XIII. In this scenario, for us people who WANT control in our games, there are no options, because cinematic games are taking over. Wouldn't you say that is a problem. How long is it before we have a heavily guided cinematic platformer?This is not, and has never been, about what I find enjoyable.I think the point a lot of us are trying to make is that people like DL want the gaming industry to go into a direction that matches whatever his idea of an great game. Any praise given to games that don't fit his mold is going to bring up threads like this.
People like DL don't seem to realize that people have different ideas of what an enjoyable gaming experience is. One person may think the freedom of Skyrim is amazing while others may find it bland and boring. Others may think Dark Souls is a tough and enjoyable experience while others don't find the crushing difficulty fun.
In either case, the idea that quick time event/cinematic gameplay is ruining the industry is silly. What's popular is going to continue to change and envolve as it has in years past.
darktx2005
Except that, in spite of that, probably no two times that you ever play Mario will it play out the same. Unlike Uncharted 3, which is scripted to a fault. And THAT is what he is pointing out as an issue, the fact that games have become so scripted and so guided that they are now interactive movies, not games.[QUOTE="charizard1605"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]
And?
Mario involves a lot of jumping. Repetition is what defines games.
hakanakumono
So what if it's an interactive movie? That's what it wants to be. It's still a game.
As for replaying a game, pretty much every playthrough of RE2 is exactly the same for me at this point. Regardless of options. And yet, I'll go back and play it.
But that is most likely because of how many times you've played RE2 by now. And as for it being an interactive movie, there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself. The issue is with what it represents. I've addressed this point in my post immediately preceding this one.When this is done in moderation, it works great. It gives us a more focused, guided experience and builds great atmosphere. However, there are two issues: a) Very few games achieve that perfect balance. Most games either go overboard with the handholding and guiding the player (like Uncharted 3), or they just fail to restrict the player at all. Some games that achieve the perfect balance would be like the original Halo. b) Games like Majora's Mask prove that this isn't needed at all. Majora's Mask is a tight, focused, cohesive game, and the single most atmospheric entry in the series. It has great character interaction and development, and it is probably the most story intensive Zelda game. It does all of this WITHOUT taking any control away from the player, it does this entirely by means of a gameplay mechanic. Why can't other games do this too?[QUOTE="charizard1605"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]
So what?
The TPS gameplay in Uncharted is plenty of interaction. Deciding where you go is only one form of interaction.
hakanakumono
Because Majora's Mask isn't Uncharted. It's not a similar experience and it's not trying to be.
There's no such thing as a "perfect" balance. There are just different balances and those different balances lead themselves to different experiences.
Uncharted is specifically for those who want to feel like they're playing a movie. For those that want to play a movie, some would consider it near perfect. It's a masterpiece for those people.
EXACTLY!
[QUOTE="XVision84"]Except that, in spite of that, probably no two times that you ever play Mario will it play out the same. Unlike Uncharted 3, which is scripted to a fault. And THAT is what he is pointing out as an issue, the fact that games have become so scripted and so guided that they are now interactive movies, not games. And that is the point, exactly.[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]
And?
Mario involves a lot of jumping. Repetition is what defines games.
DarkLink77
We know what you're trying to say, DL :P I'm just saying that option is a good thing, and I don't see a single game that's an interactive movie being called a masterpiece. One thing is being scripted and linear, another is being an interactive movie. Uncharted 3 also provides a multiplayer experience with pure gameplay.
Most of those games are Ninty titles, or made by other developers that put gameplay first (Blizzard). As for NFS, it is very cinematic (QTEs, the whole nine). I cannot comment on the other three, and some of those games are not out yet, so we'll have to wait and see. As for the cinematic titles, we also have Killzone 3, Mass Effect (the series), Battlefield, etc. Focusing on one part of the year makes it less obvious, but only just.Most people play Battlefield for the multi-player component though don't they? The cinematic stuffs were added in to draw people away from COD. I listed a lot of Nintendo titles because you can usually count on them for quality but if you'd like to exclude Ninty and Blizzard we've still seen: Radiant Historia, Little Big Planet 2, Forza 4, Marvel VS Capcom 3, Okamiden, Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky, Dead Island, and Disgaea 4 and more.DarkLink77
[QUOTE="arbitor365"]
um, TC. uncharted 3 does not have "bad shooting." what exactly is bad about the gunplay in U3? i dont expect that you have bought and/or played the game, but im curious what you have heard and decided to latch onto.
its exactly like the other uncharted games except that a few of the guns have slightly more kickback and there are more weapon mods in the online.
mmmwksil
Yes, because the reviewers themselves and the dedicated fans have both admitted the gunplay isn't as strong as the predecessor. Clearly they're all against the game. :roll:
i disagree i personally find the shooting in U3 great i have no problems.[QUOTE="mmmwksil"]
[QUOTE="arbitor365"]
um, TC. uncharted 3 does not have "bad shooting." what exactly is bad about the gunplay in U3? i dont expect that you have bought and/or played the game, but im curious what you have heard and decided to latch onto.
its exactly like the other uncharted games except that a few of the guns have slightly more kickback and there are more weapon mods in the online.
arbitor365
Yes, because the reviewers themselves and the dedicated fans have both admitted the gunplay isn't as strong as the predecessor. Clearly they're all against the game. :roll:
"the reviewers" and "fans" as if there is some kind of uniform opinion on this.
and that is still not answering my question. im a dedicated fan and I see zero problems with the gunplay in uncharted 3. none whatsoever.
There seems to be a fair majority that thinks it's a step down, and most of the people I've talked to about it happen to be fans. You don't see any problems with a PS3 exclusive? Color me shocked. :roll:"the reviewers" and "fans" as if there is some kind of uniform opinion on this.
and that is still not answering my question. im a dedicated fan and I see zero problems with the gunplay in uncharted 3. none whatsoever.
arbitor365
Clearly your single opinion trumps everyone else.
But as with everything if you look hard enough, you'll find someone who shares your view. I just happened to find people who say otherwise. I don't honestly care.
Most of those games are Ninty titles, or made by other developers that put gameplay first (Blizzard). As for NFS, it is very cinematic (QTEs, the whole nine). I cannot comment on the other three, and some of those games are not out yet, so we'll have to wait and see. As for the cinematic titles, we also have Killzone 3, Mass Effect (the series), Battlefield, etc. Focusing on one part of the year makes it less obvious, but only just. Blizzard and gameplay xD? Did you not see the effort and polish that went in the presentation of SC2? Heck, SC2 was a SC rehash with improved graphics and cutscenes bro. Also, this might be off topic but you said KZ3 was not going to be AA because it took GG 6 years to make an AAA, what does that make Blizzard than? 10+ years to make an AAA in one franchise...[QUOTE="forgot_it"]
Regardless, lets stay on topic.
The complaint about gaming becoming too cinematic is valid but it seems like it's a bit overblown. Uncharted 3 is obviously a huge offender but that's what the series is about. The entire reason to play Uncharted is for the great set-pieces, and feel like you're the hero in the latest mindless action flick.
Here is a list IGN made compiling what they thought were the 20 biggest games of the fall.
Using that list, if I were to take out the games that are not cinematic or games that (I think) most people would agree that any cinematic element that exists complements the game, we would be left with.
- Gears of War 3
- Uncharted 3
- Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
And with the following games, I know next to nothing about them so if someone could kindly let me know the cinematic level I would appreciate it:
- Rage
- Spiderman: Edge of Time
- Asassisns Creed: Revelations
- Need for Speed: The Run
Everyone is familiar with the situation COD, but frankly the number of people who flock to the multi-player component of that game more or less negates whatever goes on in the single player. I would argue the same thing about Gears of War 3 and in the case of its single player I don't think I have heard any complaints about the core gameplay.
If it so happens that the 4 games I'm unfamiliar with or that people feel a lot of the games I didn't list are cinematic it would weaken my argument a lot....but when I see games like Mario 3D Land, Rayman Origins, Elder Scrolls, Return to Dreamland, Skyward Sword, Sonic Generations, Guild Wars 2, Luigi's Mansion 2, Heart of the Swarm and Last Guardian I can't help but feel like games that are overly cinematic are water off my back.
DarkLink77
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment