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

The problem is that in order for DL's assertion that gaming journalism is a joke is that you have tobelieve a game must live and die solely by it's gameplay, like DL does.

He could have talked about a ton of other things to rip gaming journalism, but he chose to attack their review of UC3.

Regardless of his intentions, he's just not a very good writer. Trolling and not being able to express yourself are two different things. Time will tell which of the two happened here.

NEStorianPriest

Not live and die by gameplay alone. But for a "masterpiece" title to stick, it should be as close to perfection as possible. Lacking in gameplay is the biggest blow a game can take.

And yes, I can agree he did indulge in some UC3 bashing to get the fire burning. Only it acted more like accelerant and turned into a forest fire. :P

so Naughty Dog and Uncharted wanted to do a cinematic game, succeeds in doing it, everyone follows suit and does cinematic experience that is worse than UC and Naughty Dog takes the blame? pathetic.

ND made Uncharted in 2007, when evveryone was gunning for the gritty, bloody, gory, swear-loving atmosphere of games. Uncharted was one of a kind with its cinematic approach. Blizzard has done it with its cutscenes, but Naughty Dog incorporated cutscenes into gameplay. while running, there will be these 3-5 seconds of momentary cutscenes, etc. now everyone is copying the 'cinematic feel'.

lol Darklink Uncharted has bad gameplay? a forum poster who don't even know how to make a simple ping-pong game throws harsh words to people who actually make games as a living, who went to universities, knows Maya and programming languages, who are most likely math nerds, yet somehow a forum poster knows what constitutes as bad and good gameplay? get out of here.

[QUOTE="Jolt_counter119"]

Consoles are getting more powerful but developers are using that power for the wrong reasons. I would have thought games bigger than at least Banjo Tooie would be standard by now.

theuncharted34

Banjo Tooie, man that game is incredible.

Shame Banjo Threeie never happened. :P

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

I can, and do, say that about every game I play, just exchance "gunplay" with whatever the main mechanic of the game is. The only people I've seen have issues with Uncharted are people who can't line up their shots, which is why I assume you need auto aim. A lot of people do, so I don't think it's particularly insulting.

You said, in your OP, that "games with bad gunplay are masterpieces?" That's twisting what they said, because you can't find any professional opinions that agree with your ridiculous assessment that leaving old game design behind is a bad thing. There's a reason it gets left behind, because it's bad.

Pug-Nasty

Can you give examples of what is bad about the gunplay other than it being "bad" or "clunky." Can you back up your claims when your linked source does not?

How has skill based gameplay been left behind? You mean gameplay that revolves are the skills you had learned playing older games was left behind, and you don't want to develop new skills to adapt to new gameplay.

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]. On the HD twins, and especially with western games, gaming is getting stuck in a rut.Giancar

Don't know where all the tears are coming from. I've enjoyed this gen moreso than any other.

Huzzah, bring on the diseases I say!

I'd like mmmwksil's sigs as my prize, and I wouldn't mind taking mitu's post count either ;)

XVision84

You can't have them. :|

[QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]

The problem is that in order for DL's assertion that gaming journalism is a joke is that you have tobelieve a game must live and die solely by it's gameplay, like DL does.

He could have talked about a ton of other things to rip gaming journalism, but he chose to attack their review of UC3.

Regardless of his intentions, he's just not a very good writer. Trolling and not being able to express yourself are two different things. Time will tell which of the two happened here.

mmmwksil

Not live and die by gameplay alone. But for a "masterpiece" title to stick, it should be as close to perfection as possible. Lacking in gameplay is the biggest blow a game can take.

And yes, I can agree he did indulge in some UC3 bashing to get the fire burning. Only it acted more like accelerant and turned into a forest fire. :P

The gameplay in Silent Hill 2 is "good," but not great. I'd still call the game a masterpiece.

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

[QUOTE="darktx2005"]

It's so funny how people keep saying we don't get the point. We do. DL and others hate cinematic games essentially because they limit gameplay and freedom. He uses the UC3 review because the reviewers loved it yet said the gameplay is average. This is proof that the industry is going down the wrong path and so on and so forth.

How is this NOT an example of taking your own idea of the perfect game and throwing a fit if something that doesn't fit that mold gets praise? Now if almost every major release fit this mold, then fine. You'd have a point. Yet, instead we see PLENTY of gaming experiences available for those who aren't interested in cinematic games.

LOXO7

It's not variety that's the problem, just the fact that reviewers are calling the game "perfect" despite it lacking any depth in gameplay. So if the gameplay (the whole point of playing the game) is bad, you'd think that the reviewers would give it a low score and bash it. Instead of that, they dismiss the gameplay problem and say that the characters, writing, and cinematic moments make the game amazing. DL is saying that these are all elements of a movie, not a game therefore they shouldn't be put on a higher pedestal than gameplay.

The last thing we need is video game reviewers converting to movie reviewers :P.

Can you give examples of what is bad about the gunplay other than it being "bad" or "clunky." Can you back up your claims when your linked source does not?

How has skill based gameplay been left behind? You mean gameplay that revolves are the skills you had learned playing older games was left behind, and you don't want to develop new skills to adapt to new gameplay.

Pug-Nasty

You don't need anything more than bad and clunky to prove it's terrible. IGN specifically said bad things about it. "6 shots with a shotgun just to take off armor." "Tolerable is the word." "The aiming reticle seemed off, pulling off headshots never felt completely rewarding and certain sequences felt like neverending trial and error suicide montages."

I didn't know relying on auto-aiming meant skill, and just because it's new that it's better. You seriously missed the entire point of the topic.

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

I'd like mmmwksil's sigs as my prize, and I wouldn't mind taking mitu's post count either ;)

mmmwksil

You can't have them. :|

I know :( :P

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]

BTW if this is a troll thread then kudos. Nothing like free time to waste time.

NEStorianPriest

Way not to own up to the fact that no one understands what you're trying to say because you apparently didn't take English 101.

Your original post was nothing but your own opinion, buried in an unfocused argument, which was really nothing more than whining.

That's the point- that you didn't clearly make one.

And please don't insult my intelligence, bro. That whole English thing is hilarious, especially because of how ignorant you are of my life in that respect. :lol:

[QUOTE="Giancar"][QUOTE="charizard1605"]. On the HD twins, and especially with western games, gaming is getting stuck in a rut.charizard1605

[QUOTE="nitekids2004"]

[QUOTE="charizard1605"] It's not. I'm not talking about the cutscenes, I am talking about the game design. FFXIII is linear. FFVII is not. Simple.hakanakumono

FFVII is as much linear as your average Zelda game.

Which isn't saying alot.

FFVII is more linear than your average Zelda game. o_O;

I would put them in the same boat really.

The most you can do on any Zelda game is to do some dungeons first and do some last. But it doesn't really matter since you're gonna have to complete all of the dungeonsanyway. Heck, there's really usually just one way to all dungeons (open some areas -> get the new equipment -> go to a previous unaccesible area -> get the dungeon boss key ->defeat the boss -> move on to the next dungeon -> rinse and repeat).

The gameplay in Silent Hill 2 is "good," but not great. I'd still call the game a masterpiece.

hakanakumono

Then I guess we shouldn't use the term at all. :P

[QUOTE="darktx2005"]

It's so funny how people keep saying we don't get the point. We do. DL and others hate cinematic games essentially because they limit gameplay and freedom. He uses the UC3 review because the reviewers loved it yet said the gameplay is average. This is proof that the industry is going down the wrong path and so on and so forth.

How is this NOT an example of taking your own idea of the perfect game and throwing a fit if something that doesn't fit that mold gets praise? Now if almost every major release fit this mold, then fine. You'd have a point. Yet, instead we see PLENTY of gaming experiences available for those who aren't interested in cinematic games.

XVision84

It's not variety that's the problem, just the fact that reviewers are calling the game "perfect" despite it lacking any depth in gameplay. So if the gameplay (the whole point of playing the game) is bad, you'd think that the reviewers would give it a low score and bash it. Instead of doing that, they dismiss the gameplay problem and say that the characters, writing, and cinematic moments make the game amazing. DL is saying that these are all elements of a movie, not a game therefore they shouldn't be put on a higher pedestal than gameplay.

A game is the sum of all parts, so you can't just look at one aspect. Obviously gameplay is important, and in a cinematic game like UC3 the gameplay is good. Adding in all the other aspects of the game that create the overall experience, the reviewers and many others find it very enjoyable and engaging to play. Sure the use of the word perfect is dumb, but otherwise, if they enjoyed the overall experience of playing UC3, what's the problem?

For those like DL who disagree with this approach at analyzing games, there are plenty of options out there that don't offer cinematic experiences that focus on gameplay like Dark Souls.

So what again is the point?

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

There isn't, in the multiplayer. Which is the sole reason Uncharted 2 and 3 are great games in the end.

For UC3's single player, your aiming is literally limited to a square box. Up, down, left and right. No 360 degree movement.

arbitor365

that is totally not true. at all.

I was perplexed by this criticism at first and thought

"really? how could I not notice something like that? im pretty sure I have turned around in a 360 before while aiming"

I just turned it on, loaded up a level (rough seas), aimed, and turned around in a full 360 multiple times. so yeah. that's BS

-_-

Of course you can turn around completely.

I'm talking about AIMING. You cannot rotate the right stick in a 360 degree motion, and *get* a 360 degree motion. You move in a square.

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

Can you give examples of what is bad about the gunplay other than it being "bad" or "clunky." Can you back up your claims when your linked source does not?

How has skill based gameplay been left behind? You mean gameplay that revolves are the skills you had learned playing older games was left behind, and you don't want to develop new skills to adapt to new gameplay.

ChubbyGuy40

You don't need anything more than bad and clunky to prove it's terrible. IGN specifically said bad things about it. "6 shots with a shotgun just to take off armor." "Tolerable is the word." "The aiming reticle seemed off, pulling off headshots never felt completely rewarding and certain sequences felt like neverending trial and error suicide montages."

I didn't know relying on auto-aiming meant skill, and just because it's new that it's better. You seriously missed the entire point of the topic.

[QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]

The problem is that in order for DL's assertion that gaming journalism is a joke is that you have tobelieve a game must live and die solely by it's gameplay, like DL does.

He could have talked about a ton of other things to rip gaming journalism, but he chose to attack their review of UC3.

Regardless of his intentions, he's just not a very good writer. Trolling and not being able to express yourself are two different things. Time will tell which of the two happened here.

mmmwksil

Not live and die by gameplay alone. But for a "masterpiece" title to stick, it should be as close to perfection as possible. Lacking in gameplay is the biggest blow a game can take.

And yes, I can agree he did indulge in some UC3 bashing to get the fire burning. Only it acted more like accelerant and turned into a forest fire. :P

Actually, the biggest blow for me is when a perfectly good game with solid gameplay is ruined by horrible voice acting and terrible writing/story. So many JP rpgs were unplayable in the 6th gen because of this. Which is part of the reason I play games like UC3 and KZ2 now, because I am not jarred back to reality by the fact that they hired a relative to read the lines of the main character. Anything can kill a game, it depends on the person. If they want to call UC3 a masterpiece then fine by me. I'll still go and play Etrian Odyssey and Demon's Souls when I'm in the mood to play something different.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="Jolt_counter119"]

Consoles are getting more powerful but developers are using that power for the wrong reasons. I would have thought games bigger than at least Banjo Tooie would be standard by now.

Eponique

Banjo Tooie, man that game is incredible.

Shame Banjo Threeie never happened. :P

Excellent game man! :D

That game is criminally underrated in every category.

[QUOTE="Giancar"][QUOTE="charizard1605"]. On the HD twins, and especially with western games, gaming is getting stuck in a rut.charizard1605

Are you still going on about this?

There are definitely more non-cinematic games coming out than cinematic ones, and the ratio keeps getting larger in favor of non-cinematic.

The "problem" is that the mainstream portion of the industry does focus on cinematic design, but those are easily avoidable.

[QUOTE="Eponique"][QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

Banjo Tooie, man that game is incredible.

Shame Banjo Threeie never happened. :P

theuncharted34

Excellent game man! :D

That game is criminally underrated in every category.

I hated Nuts and Bolts.

Well okay, hated is a strong word, but I hated the fact that after waiting for so long, that game is what I got instead of a true Banjo Threeie

[QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]

The problem is that in order for DL's assertion that gaming journalism is a joke is that you have tobelieve a game must live and die solely by it's gameplay, like DL does.

He could have talked about a ton of other things to rip gaming journalism, but he chose to attack their review of UC3.

Regardless of his intentions, he's just not a very good writer. Trolling and not being able to express yourself are two different things. Time will tell which of the two happened here.

mmmwksil

Not live and die by gameplay alone. But for a "masterpiece" title to stick, it should be as close to perfection as possible. Lacking in gameplay is the biggest blow a game can take.

And yes, I can agree he did indulge in some UC3 bashing to get the fire burning. Only it acted more like accelerant and turned into a forest fire. :P

And that is your opinion. Once again, a game is taken in as an overall experience by many. Just because the gameplay is not near perfect doesn't mean the game as a whole isn't a 10 in some people's opinion.

You guys are confusing "good games" with "mass appeal."

A lot of games that have mass appeal are cinematic in their nature but that doesn't mean there aren't dozens of good games for you to enjoy :s

The same people who love these cinematic games are the people who hate on Demon's/Dark Souls. Generally. exiledsnake

Ok, here's my spin on it, based on the OP, and it's a point that so many of you are missing (and shouldn't be).

The link was to an article, where several gaming journalists were giving their opinions on various aspects of a game, and their favorite parts, the aspects of the game that they liked the most, were cinematics, performances, essentially movie-type stuff. But this is supposed to be a game. How can it get so much praise from "professional" gaming journalists when its best aspects aren't even game aspects so much as movie aspects? I thought games were for playing, not for watching. Sure, I can dig the occasional cutscene-heavy game (I liked MGS4, but not as much as 3), but to call a game a masterpiece (of gaming) when all its strengths aren't even game strengths is an indicator that something is wrong. Yes, you can list all sorts of games that are praised, and are not like this, even from this gen. That's not the point. Cinematic games have their place, but Uncharted 3 is the current hot ps3 exclusive, and all its strong points aren't even real gaming attributes. This sort of thing is happening too often. Can you dig it?

[QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Blah, blah, blah, it's all your opinion, blah, blah, blah. Way to not address the actual point.DarkLink77

Way not to own up to the fact that no one understands what you're trying to say because you apparently didn't take English 101.

Your original post was nothing but your own opinion, buried in an unfocused argument, which was really nothing more than whining.

That's the point- that you didn't clearly make one.

You have no problem insulting everyone else's intelligence. Don't ask of me what you can't do yourself. Restating your point isn't difficult, especially when it seems apparent to you that everyone is missing it. But then that wouldn't be nearly as fun, would it?

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="Eponique"] I still loved Nuts & Bolts :(charizard1605

Excellent game man! :D

That game is criminally underrated in every category.

I hated Nuts and Bolts.

Well okay, hated is a strong word, but I hated the fact that after waiting for so long, that game is what I got instead of a true Banjo Threeie

I never said it was on Tooie's or even Kazooie's level.

The game is just excellent in its own right, for what it is.

I think if you played the game for what it is, you'd love it :) Not only is building things and testing them insanely fun, the game world is gigantic and rich with detail. It's still one of the best looking console games to date.

You guys are confusing "good games" with "mass appeal."

A lot of games that have mass appeal are cinematic in their nature but that doesn't mean there aren't dozens of good games for you to enjoy :s

commonfate

And that is your opinion. Once again, a game is taken in as an overall experience by many. Just because the gameplay is not near perfect doesn't mean the game as a whole isn't a 10 in some people's opinion.

darktx2005

And I'm not saying anything against people who think so. I'm only laughing at the contradiction of the reviewer in question.

People think I have some personal stake in this whole ordeal. I don't.

The same people who love these cinematic games are the people who hate on Demon's/Dark Souls. Generally. exiledsnake

I enjoy both and so what if someone likes a cinematic experience but doesn't enjoy Dark Souls? God forbid they have a different opinion!

Ok, here's my spin on it, based on the OP, and it's a point that so many of you are missing (and shouldn't be).

The link was to an article, where several gaming journalists were giving their opinions on various aspects of a game, and their favorite parts, the aspects of the game that they liked the most, were cinematics, performances, essentially movie-type stuff. But this is supposed to be a game. How can it get so much praise from "professional" gaming journalists when its best aspects aren't even game aspects so much as movie aspects? I thought games were for playing, not for watching. Sure, I can dig the occasional cutscene-heavy game (I liked MGS4, but not as much as 3), but to call a game a masterpiece (of gaming) when all its strengths aren't even game strengths is an indicator that something is wrong. Yes, you can list all sorts of games that are praised, and are not like this, even from this gen. That's not the point. Cinematic games have their place, but Uncharted 3 is the current hot ps3 exclusive, and all its strong points aren't even real gaming attributes. This sort of thing is happening too often. Can you dig it?

1oh1nine1

wait a minute. Didn't you actually said in a post that Tom didn't know "how to play SS" due the Wiimote not responding him more than a few times? If so well...Giancar

Which was player error. He kept throwing the Wiimote out of sync from the way it works apparently. That's what happens when you waggle the **** out of it.

Ok, here's my spin on it, based on the OP, and it's a point that so many of you are missing (and shouldn't be).

The link was to an article, where several gaming journalists were giving their opinions on various aspects of a game, and their favorite parts, the aspects of the game that they liked the most, were cinematics, performances, essentially movie-type stuff. But this is supposed to be a game. How can it get so much praise from "professional" gaming journalists when its best aspects aren't even game aspects so much as movie aspects? I thought games were for playing, not for watching. Sure, I can dig the occasional cutscene-heavy game (I liked MGS4, but not as much as 3), but to call a game a masterpiece (of gaming) when all its strengths aren't even game strengths is an indicator that something is wrong. Yes, you can list all sorts of games that are praised, and are not like this, even from this gen. That's not the point. Cinematic games have their place, but Uncharted 3 is the current hot ps3 exclusive, and all its strong points aren't even real gaming attributes. This sort of thing is happening too often. Can you dig it?

1oh1nine1

What's funny is that TC always clamors on and on about the integrity and quality of IGN in threads, yet now he all of a sudden values its opinion so much.

Dat hypocrisy... hmmmm

The same people who love these cinematic games are the people who hate on Demon's/Dark Souls. Generally. exiledsnake

yes, because there's only one acceptable type of gameplay, and that is Skyrim/Dark Souls gameplay all hardocre, reading 5-paragraph texts, mixing and amtching spells and magic and customization, complex maps and wide-open worlds.

stop kidding around. Super Mario did it with 2 buttons and 2 power-ups. complexity of a game =/= masterpiece. in fact, the greatest games are the ones that tend to be simple and straightforward. did i say Skyrim and Dark Souls are not great games? no. but just because Drake cannot wear an upgradeable, customizable helmet or something does not make Uncharted any worse.

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

[QUOTE="darktx2005"]

It's so funny how people keep saying we don't get the point. We do. DL and others hate cinematic games essentially because they limit gameplay and freedom. He uses the UC3 review because the reviewers loved it yet said the gameplay is average. This is proof that the industry is going down the wrong path and so on and so forth.

How is this NOT an example of taking your own idea of the perfect game and throwing a fit if something that doesn't fit that mold gets praise? Now if almost every major release fit this mold, then fine. You'd have a point. Yet, instead we see PLENTY of gaming experiences available for those who aren't interested in cinematic games.

darktx2005

It's not variety that's the problem, just the fact that reviewers are calling the game "perfect" despite it lacking any depth in gameplay. So if the gameplay (the whole point of playing the game) is bad, you'd think that the reviewers would give it a low score and bash it. Instead of doing that, they dismiss the gameplay problem and say that the characters, writing, and cinematic moments make the game amazing. DL is saying that these are all elements of a movie, not a game therefore they shouldn't be put on a higher pedestal than gameplay.

A game is the sum of all parts, so you can't just look at one aspect. Obviously gameplay is important, and in a cinematic game like UC3 the gameplay is good. Adding in all the other aspects of the game that create the overall experience, the reviewers and many others find it very enjoyable and engaging to play. Sure the use of the word perfect is dumb, but otherwise, if they enjoyed the overall experience of playing UC3, what's the problem?

For those like DL who disagree with this approach at analyzing games, there are plenty of options out there that don't offer cinematic experiences that focus on gameplay like Dark Souls.

So what again is the point?

If they enjoy the overall experience, there is no overall problem, the only problem is in calling it perfect. Also, a game does have many aspects, but again: gameplay is the most important. The one thing that differentiates games from other forms of art is that games are interactive. You control the experience, and you play the game. If the game is not fun to play, it's technically not a very good game, but it is a great movie.

Resident Evil 4 had cinematic and quick time sequences..

No one complained then. :roll:

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

Excellent game man! :D

That game is criminally underrated in every category.

theuncharted34

I hated Nuts and Bolts.

Well okay, hated is a strong word, but I hated the fact that after waiting for so long, that game is what I got instead of a true Banjo Threeie

I never said it was on Tooie's or even Kazooie's level.

The game is just excellent in its own right, for what it is.

I think if you played the game for what it is, you'd love it :) Not only is building things and testing them insanely fun, the game world is gigantic and rich with detail. It's still one of the best looking console games to date.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]

Way not to own up to the fact that no one understands what you're trying to say because you apparently didn't take English 101.

Your original post was nothing but your own opinion, buried in an unfocused argument, which was really nothing more than whining.

That's the point- that you didn't clearly make one.

NEStorianPriest

You have no problem insulting everyone else's intelligence. Don't ask of me what you can't do yourself. Restating your point isn't difficult, especially when it seems apparent to you that everyone is missing it. But then that wouldn't be nearly as fun, would it?

Resident Evil 4 had cinematic and quick time sequences..

No one complained then. :roll:

g0ddyX

Because it had excellent gameplay that worked.

[QUOTE="g0ddyX"]

Resident Evil 4 had cinematic and quick time sequences..

No one complained then. :roll:

ChubbyGuy40

Because it had excellent gameplay that worked.

[QUOTE="1oh1nine1"]

Ok, here's my spin on it, based on the OP, and it's a point that so many of you are missing (and shouldn't be).

The link was to an article, where several gaming journalists were giving their opinions on various aspects of a game, and their favorite parts, the aspects of the game that they liked the most, were cinematics, performances, essentially movie-type stuff. But this is supposed to be a game. How can it get so much praise from "professional" gaming journalists when its best aspects aren't even game aspects so much as movie aspects? I thought games were for playing, not for watching. Sure, I can dig the occasional cutscene-heavy game (I liked MGS4, but not as much as 3), but to call a game a masterpiece (of gaming) when all its strengths aren't even game strengths is an indicator that something is wrong. Yes, you can list all sorts of games that are praised, and are not like this, even from this gen. That's not the point. Cinematic games have their place, but Uncharted 3 is the current hot ps3 exclusive, and all its strong points aren't even real gaming attributes. This sort of thing is happening too often. Can you dig it?

commonfate

What's funny is that TC always clamors on and on about the integrity and quality of IGN in threads, yet now he all of a sudden values its opinion so much.

Dat hypocrisy... hmmmm

[QUOTE="Giancar"]wait a minute. Didn't you actually said in a post that Tom didn't know "how to play SS" due the Wiimote not responding him more than a few times? If so well...ChubbyGuy40

Which was player error. He kept throwing the Wiimote out of sync from the way it works apparently. That's what happens when you waggle the **** out of it.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="charizard1605"] No, just no :(

I hated Nuts and Bolts.

Well okay, hated is a strong word, but I hated the fact that after waiting for so long, that game is what I got instead of a true Banjo Threeie

charizard1605

I never said it was on Tooie's or even Kazooie's level.

The game is just excellent in its own right, for what it is.

I think if you played the game for what it is, you'd love it :) Not only is building things and testing them insanely fun, the game world is gigantic and rich with detail. It's still one of the best looking console games to date.

Banjo Tooie? Banjo Kazooie? Who makes these titles? >.>

[QUOTE="Giancar"]wait a minute. Didn't you actually said in a post that Tom didn't know "how to play SS" due the Wiimote not responding him more than a few times? If so well...ChubbyGuy40

Which was player error. He kept throwing the Wiimote out of sync from the way it works apparently. That's what happens when you waggle the **** out of it.

[QUOTE="exiledsnake"]The same people who love these cinematic games are the people who hate on Demon's/Dark Souls. Generally. darktx2005

I enjoy both and so what if someone likes a cinematic experience but doesn't enjoy Dark Souls? God forbid they have a different opinion!

Me too. I love both. I'm on your side this entire thread.

The main arguemnt of the enitre thread is based off of one article, in which a couple of people state their opinion on u3. I need more evidence to support the notion that cinematic gaming is bad and generally scores higher because reviewers want our games to be movies. If this is the case, why is Dark Souls getting a 9.5. The evidence and support is not strong enough for anyone to state that cinematic design is a disease.

Resident Evil 4 had cinematic and quick time sequences..

No one complained then. :roll:

g0ddyX

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="charizard1605"] No, just no :(

I hated Nuts and Bolts.

Well okay, hated is a strong word, but I hated the fact that after waiting for so long, that game is what I got instead of a true Banjo Threeie

charizard1605

I never said it was on Tooie's or even Kazooie's level.

The game is just excellent in its own right, for what it is.

I think if you played the game for what it is, you'd love it :) Not only is building things and testing them insanely fun, the game world is gigantic and rich with detail. It's still one of the best looking console games to date.

[QUOTE="1oh1nine1"]

Ok, here's my spin on it, based on the OP, and it's a point that so many of you are missing (and shouldn't be).

The link was to an article, where several gaming journalists were giving their opinions on various aspects of a game, and their favorite parts, the aspects of the game that they liked the most, were cinematics, performances, essentially movie-type stuff. But this is supposed to be a game. How can it get so much praise from "professional" gaming journalists when its best aspects aren't even game aspects so much as movie aspects? I thought games were for playing, not for watching. Sure, I can dig the occasional cutscene-heavy game (I liked MGS4, but not as much as 3), but to call a game a masterpiece (of gaming) when all its strengths aren't even game strengths is an indicator that something is wrong. Yes, you can list all sorts of games that are praised, and are not like this, even from this gen. That's not the point. Cinematic games have their place, but Uncharted 3 is the current hot ps3 exclusive, and all its strong points aren't even real gaming attributes. This sort of thing is happening too often. Can you dig it?

charizard1605