How come only Sony interested in cinematic experiences?

Meanwhile, God of War and Uncharted are, of course, masterpieces of narrative and storytelling.

@lostrib: Something wrong?

char pretty much has it covered

@charizard1605: Uncharted is, while God of War is not. Even then GOW is on a higher level than most MS and all Nintendo games.

Since you are a sheep, I dont expect you to understand.

@lostrib So you have no arguments yourself. Good, then I can ignore you and your one liners.

I don't hate linear games. I am talking about execution and no variety.

Man, you need to get out there and actually read books. Or watch movies. Or TV.

Or, you know, anything that raises your standards, really.

Everyone else is interested in substance.

you haven't presented any arguments yourself, just demeaned other gamers and their game series'

you've given no reason why you're holding up one (derivative) narrative while putting down another

i can do one worse

"cinematic walking"

I only discussed the cinematic quality of those series in the gaming landscape. You know we are on a gaming forum, right?

Even then cinematic means not only narrative and storytelling but how the content and actions of the games are presented.

In GOW you fight Gods, Titans and other mystic beings which no other game has presented in the same vein. No other game has outclassed GOW in that sense.

Edit: Show me some other games that can challenge this boss fight in terms of cinematic quality.

Edit 2: Or this one

You made no qualifiers or limiting statements. You implied some form of talent is needed to tell a story like Uncharted (which is derivative in the highest degree, taking cues from better stories told in other media), or God of War (which is a nonsensical story riddled with plot holes), which, in turn, implies that there is actually something about these stories that is hard to achieve. The onus here is on you, you could have worded your original statement better.

No, cinematic has one connotation only, and the hint is in the name: a story told like cinema i.e. a movie. The only actual talent involved in making a game 'cinematic' is to make it look and sound like one- technical prowess, nothing to do with storytelling. And while I am fully willing to concede Sony's developers have more technical prowess than Microsoft's or Nintendo's, Microsoft and Sony also have enough of it to create '10 hour+ cinematic games.' Of course, none of this talent has to do with storytelling, which is what your original post was driving towards in the first place.

Finally, without even getting into the lolworthiness of your last comment, let me just prove you wrong with an alternate example:

Age of Mythology. Ensemble and Microsoft. 2001.

I actually agree with this a bit. My problem with games made today is that you are supposed to beat them. I remember when "beating a game" meant something. There is no challenge in games anymore. People like to talk trash about Nintendo titles for being kiddy when Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze, Mario 3D World or even Captain Toad offer more challenge. The Uncharted series offers the least amount of challenge I have seen in some time. The platforming looks great but all the player is doing is holding the analog stick in a direction and hitting X. The "hidden" treasures glow for crying out loud.

I don't want the games I play to be more cinematic. I want them to be challenging and fun. I think that is the reason I have stuck with Destiny as long as I have flaws and all. The game doesn't just hand you all the great gear and weapons, the player has to work for them.

@thegreatgeneral I think Bayonetta games would be one example.

Anyway, I hate that Sony is doing all this cinematic crap. I just want some of the fun games they had before like Crash Bandicoot, the first Jak and Daxter, and the first Sly cooper games. I also feel that Sony is so far behind on the gameplay front as they have no major multiplayer game that gets people flocking to the console.

MS has Halo, and Nintendo has Smash, Mario kart and Pokemon. I like games that focus on good game play, multiplayer, and tons of content to keep me coming back for more. Sony in terms of first party have games that are like movies where you just beat it once and never touch again. Now I got to the point where I just wait a month for a Sony first party game and I will most likely find it for $40 somewhere because all the used copies on the market deflates the new game prices so fast. This is the very reason why I'm not buying Sony's first party games day one.

@Ghost120x Asuras wrath is a better example and the only one which comes close to GOW imo.

Given their emphasis on indie developers and funding games like No Man's Sky, I think that's a major exaggeration to say they only focus on cinematic experiences.

@thegreatgeneral: Incorrect. Your original post specifically calls out games for having either no narrative or poor narrative. Again, the implication was there, either you are trying to shift the argument now, or you worded it incorrectly in the first place, that is on you, not anybody else.

And while Sony's developers might be great at rendering game worlds, they sort of suck at actually coming up with compelling worlds in the first place, the only exception to this is The Last of Us (apparently). Presenting an at best mediocre story in a bombastic way does not require talent, and does not exactly deserve praise, otherwise Michael Bay would be the best filmmaker on the market.

Finally, don't act smart, I responded to your post before your edit. You just raised the premise of gods and titans, and I told you about an alternate game that did it. If you mean spectacle like that, in terms of storytelling spectacle, you are preaching to the choir, I already said Sony games do this the best. Unfortunately for you and for Sony, there is actually more to a game than just the story or storytelling- spectacle doesn't have to be just 'cinematic,' it could be interactive too. In which case, something like Bayonetta far outclasses God of War.

You also seem to be incapable of actually having a discussion without constantly insulting the other person, incidentally. That tells me you are either 12 or a zealot, in both cases, a discussion with you is absolutely meaningless. Incidentally, I have owned every single Sony machine, and my favorite console for the last two generations has been PlayStation, my favorite game of all time is a PlayStation exclusive, and God of War II and Uncharted 2 are both among my favorite games of all time. In other words, I have the ability to step back from my biases and assess things objectively, an ability you sorely seem to lack- again, it might be because you are 12 (in which case you can't help it), or a zealot (in which case, you choose to not help it). So again, unless you can actually respond to this post in a rational and level headed manner, don't bother responding at all.

I think you misread the topic

The PlayStation might have more story driven/cinematic experiences than Xbox, or at least it seems that way, but Sony is definitely not the only one. Mass Effect was heavily story driven and that was from EA/Bioware.

Rockstar, Ubisoft, etc, plenty of developers are cinematic.

Frankly that's too many developers trying to be cinematic. All jokes aside yes there are exceptions to the standard "video game stories suck", but for the most part they do suck. And it's a completely incorrect placement of values when it comes to designing these games. Way too often developers are cool with the simplistic and least satisfying gameplay ideas, just because they put all their hopes on creating a story. I also think that cinematic is the worst way to tell a story in an interactive medium. Why emulate a different medium, that's going to do that shit way better, because this just in film makers, better at cinematic language than game developers, when you could be reinventing what it means to tell a story in a game.

That doesn't mean I want every game like Gone Home/Journey for instance, but Journey is a piece of "art" if you will only this medium can provide. The things that Silent Hill 2 does, that Metroid Prime did, and the things Shadow of the Colossus and the two Souls games (demon's and dark, **** dark souls 2) are things only this medium can provide. Player driven stories like what XCom does (it's dumbness aside) is more of an argument for this medium's story telling chops than cutscenes. just saying.

That's not to say I am incapable of enjoying cinematic games. I quite like Uncharted 2 and The Last of Us, and it's not like Metal Gear or Bayonetta tone it down on the cutscenes, but I want a better balance between gamings equivalent of summer block busters and oscar bait (cinematic games) and games driven primarily by their interactivity (Shadow of the Colossus, Demon's Souls, Metroid Prime).

Man, I asked you to do one little thing, and you couldn't even do that. I suspect you may be constitutionally incapable of actually not insulting people. Sad.

@charizard1605: You are the one that got personal and still is. I was just questioning (proved right) your bias and views on the quality of cinematic games because you are a sheep.

@thegreatgeneral: you have yet to prove anything

I dont have to prove anything. Yet you do have to do an argument if you want to have a discussion.

@thegreatgeneral: why? You didn't bring an argument

Totally agree. Rockstar dropped the ball with Max Payne 3; Mediocre Story with no depth of first two games, boring characters, annoying cutscenes, terrible checkpoints, overuse of flashy/red/green/blue effect etc.

Just bc the stories in not only Sony games, but whatever, aren't going to win Any Oscars doesn't mean they still aren't entertaining.

Cinematic doesn't necessarily mean stellar Oscar winning stuff.

Then you are simply playing the wrong games. With the new generation, it is too early to tell, but in the last generation, there have been enough really challenging games. Only to mention a few:

Killzone 2 + 3, Dark Souls/Demon's Souls, Ninja Gaiden Sigma

All the cinematic games I've seen are worse than mediocre films I watch. Game as a medium is defined by interactivity; cinematic games stand out by being something that they are not. Moreover, cinematic quality does not equal art, in fact, a lot of art house cinema deviate from the "cinematic" tendencies of the games you describe.

But **** this, your intellectual capacity probably can't understand anyway.

because when you remove some scene to render by adding black bars and choosing 30 fps, you can have lots more detail than with full 1080p scene at 60 fps. the former's screenshots will look better than the latter. so its more easily marketable.

@funsohng: you and lostrib should have a baby

why is that?

It would be a bit problematic

@lostrib: My argument is in my first post, try reading it again if you have so many problems with your reading comprehension. Take your time...

Kinda noticed it too: GoW 3, KZ, UC 2-3 then TLoU. Not sure if GT is still popular.

Sony and their 1st party devs probably found their "niche".

Could it also be from Sony Pictures/Movie Publishing slightly influencing these game development? More involved in narrative and visual presentation? IDK.

I strictly had more "fun" playing Gears 1 (only Gear's I've tried) and Halo ODST (and with co-op!) but the Sony games I've mentioned were more on presentation. I still find those supposed movie-games a preferred experience over the more fun to play Gears/Halo but my preference could change later on.

Found Gears art weird (vs GoWar) and barely anything standing out on the Halo series (vs. Killzone 2 and up). Hmm.. Halo 4 does look like it has decent image quality for the 360 but it reminds me of ME with the art and shading of areas.

Really like how XB1 will now have QB w/c reminds me of UC but with heavier sci-fi. The warping effect is so awesome!

I'm gonna be so in with treats this gen.

Because Sony understands that what has traditionally defined gaming can, and should be, challenged in order for it to break free of this myopic insistence on it remaining "interactive" at all costs.

That is funny because Uncharted has deeper gameplay and more mechanics than Gears get is some how more cinematic,there is nothing wrong with making a cinematic experience is not like you are just watching a movie those are highly exaggerated claim mostly done by fanboys like your self.

The one game i can really pass is beyond 2 souls like game now those games are really like movies,but Uncharted,TLOU no those games had deep gameplay and more mechanics than many games on that same lining like Gears,which also has a sort of cinematic feel but not even close to be as good in story.

The Order is no more cinematic than Gears of War. Uncharted is no more cinematic than Tomb Raider. If a game is considered cinematic simply because there are a lot of cut scenes well that is just ignorant.

I love the cinematic games that come to Sony's system, cant really call them first party can I as Sony doesn't actually create games but has 2nd party studios do it for them. I only dislike the games when they bring nothing new to the series, like Uncharted 3. I loved the stories in Heavy Rain and also Beyond:Two Souls. As long as I get to make important choices, explore the world and the story is good, then I will enjoy the game.

I appreciate the art of video games, but that almost never includes cinematic focused games. A good story is better represented in non-interactive mediums such as books or film. Video games are the art of gameplay and level design more than anything else IMHO. The art of interactivity.