Why are cinematic games so hated yet everyone is begging for HL3?

Seriously, riddle me this...

Half-Life 2 was and is praised for the way it presented its story without cutscenes but through in game moments where the gameplay is put on hold for character interactions i.e. you walk while characters speak to you...

Nowadays everyone seems to hate these "cinematic moments" where the game breaks the action so that you have to walk while speaking with another character. HL2 is the biggest culprit of this! The only difference is that its in 1st person view... but no, HL2 is that bastion of pure awesomeness that gamers put on high ground above the other FPS out there... what even more funny is how hermits seem to be the ones pointing out how "in the good old days there was no this consolized cinematic cr4p" and yet get crazy over HL2 or when Valve as yet to anounce the long awaited sequel...

so why exactly is that? I think the hipocrisy is strong with this one... what do you think?

I don't think HL2 was that cinematic, in reality.

Compared to Uncharted, HL2 is far from that.

I loved both games, but I do understand the cinematic complaint. I only complain if it isn't done well.

Because unlike Uncharted at least the Half Life games had good gameplay. There are ways to make a good cinematic game, Uncharted 4 is not it.

I want to play the game instead of passively watching the game. When the game frequently interrupts the game to convey a story, takes away controls to emphasize an event, disable gameplay features to convey a story and prevent the player from playing the game at their pace it becomes a HUGE problem. UC4 and QB are the perfect examples of this.

@mems_1224: Yeah Half Life 1 was so ahead of its time. Hell, even today, its AI still trounces the AI in most games that come out.

They all secretly love Uncharted and dream of it coming to Xbox.

@mems_1224:

Half Life 2 was great for its time but the gameplay is hilariously outdated compared to Uncharted 4. To even compare the two is rediculous!

Because there's a difference between a good movie and a bad one.

For the most part, cinematic moments can kind of drag, but I think if it can engage the player and keep them immersed, they're not so bad

An example that I've played recently would be Spec Ops the Line....the game has these walking moments where you need to make a decision, but the game never outwardly says "OK HERE ARE YOUR CHOICES IN ORDER TO ADVANCE THE PLOT"...the player moves the story along themselves based on whatever options they see...

Its been a long time since I played Half-Life 2, but I would argue that if it doesn't feel like awkward info dumping busy-work, it could probably get away with it, in the same way that Spec Ops did for me (obviously there were no choices in Half-Life 2 or anything, but it could work if it was a way to engage the player)

My problem with cinematic visuals is that Gameplay should never take a backseat to "graphics". There are many games that blend cinematic quality visuals with excellent gameplay (CoD: Modern Warfare) but when the game ends, I expect to be able to enjoy playing that game over again.

I don't want a game that plays like a movie. I got sick and tired of that in Metal Gear games but I'll still put up with that shit for the first round.

I want a really good game with graphics so sharp it looks like something out of a movie. Dynamic dialogue during the gameplay also helps. Considering the install sizes of these games, you should be able to store thousands upon thousands of different phrases for the in-game characters. I'd also prefer it if we could ditch the "choose a response" system of some games by simply allowing your actions to move the story along.

Biggest problem with Half-Life is that the Singleplayer was original and revolutionary, but now it's simply archaic. Half-Life 2 was good but its pacing wasn't that great, the puzzles were annoying and the ending sucked. Episode II's cliffhanger ending left plenty to be desired but overall, I still enjoy the game.

It's the best FPS ever made. It was one of the first games to present a completely in game seamless experience that incorporated the story as well. The characters, atmosphere, story, and setting are all top notch. Some of the best the industry can offer.

HL2 is still a masterpiece... UC4 isn't.

Half Life 2 has enough boring sections to not need cinematic sequences although there were a few times when I thought, "Will you hurry up so I can get the hell away from here." To be fair, other games have done worse.

Both Far Cry 3 and Far Cry 4 have non-skippable cutscenes. I only put up with them so I can get to the end of the SP campaign and access the free-explore, Reset Outpost mode. Once I have that, I rarely go back to the SP campaign.

I mostly hate cinematics in FPS games. I don't mind them in other genres where the going is much slower and story is central to the game.

I don't regard the Uncharted games as shooters. Sure, they has shooting elements. But, overall, they're more like an adventure game. I can tolerate their cutscenes better than say, those in HL2.

The only really good example of an FPS game which melds story and action is Bioshock. Tell the story through audio while I'm mixing it up with some splicers.

Half life is opposite of bieng cinematic. in Half life you explore, solve puzzle, find a way. these games tend to have best pacing and level design in history. try playing half life 1 in 1998 and see how much ahead of its time it was.

btw Half life 3 is never coming out. full version of black mesa will release this year soon and thats what excited me most.

Halflife 1/2 use scripted sequences to benefit the gameplay. Both still afford an amount of freedom without begrudgingly giving the player control in fear they might impede upon the cinematic experience.

This is more so the case with Halflife 1, barring a 3 second sequence where Gordon Freedman is dragged, at practically no point is player control removed. Even the highly influential tram ride, which we see in many games today, still affords the player an amount of freedom to move around.

Less so with Halflife 2, certain sequences, such as teleporting, raising towards the top the citadel and Breen firing the gravity gun remove player control more often. This however, is still practically non existent, especially compared to something like Uncharted 4 or Call Of Duty.

This is very true, I really admire you for making this factually based statement against a stream of lies (most likely jealously)

Firstly, you don't "walk", you retain your full mobility at all times. You can run and jump at your leasure during these "cutscenes" and sometimes it leads to finding secrets.

Secondly, all of these scenes are designed like little sandboxes with things to do, specifically for players who might not give a shit about the story, and the characters often react to what you do.

Hope it helps you understand why HL2 is still better at presenting its narrative than the latest hottest Uncharted games.

As far as I know Half Life 1&2 and the expansions aren't cinematic games.

They ace the characters and setting by telling the story from the eyes of the player, not by trying to imitate a movie or TV show.

@uninspiredcup: @hrt_rulz01:

I appreciate your enthusiasm for the game but it's just a badly aged fossil that predates the Xbox original era. Plain and simple. I was always a huge fan of the series, still am but in a true comparison, it just can't compete with current gen games. Not that Half Life 2 is to blame but that's just how the concept of evolution works.

I respectfully disagree... I replayed HL2 on XB1 for what has to be atleast the 10th time a few weeks ago and still enjoy it more than most new games. Yes it has some aspects that are a little outdated, but it's still such a quality product in almost every way.

Well for starters they aren't comparable beyond being a bit overly scripted for their own good. Uncharted is built around cutscenes, Half Life 2's focus is more around being "immersed" and to that length it tries to be cinematic without ever breaking gameplay. And unlike most games, it never forces a slow mo walking shit on you, you can actually run around jump around like a clown. On their end they expect you to play along, but a lot of times you don't have to nor need to. Half Life 2 also happens to be a more varied action game, and its systems: a health bar, a proper weapon wheel, a more diverse set of enemies, an actual creative weapon or two happen to have more merit in the realm of a video game.

Cinematic games is an incorrect complaint imo, because Resident Evil 4 and MGS3 are cinematic as well, and they are fantastic games. Do I think they could tone down some of their stuff? Sure, but they are games. The problem with the cinematic games this gen, is that they are just shallow games. And Uncharted 4 is shallow as ****. The climbing might add some verticality to the combat, is a challengeless bore as far as the adventuring is concerned. And the stealth is pedestrian shit for anyone that has played proper stealth games.

People try to gas it up with "well name me another game in the genre that does all of it" like it's something to be proud about to be that mediocre at a bunch of things.

I lol'd.

Seriously though, the hate that single player adventure type games get from certain camps will always lead to some hypocrisy. When The Last of Us first released on PS3, I watched people go from criticizing it for being to cinematic, to comparing it to Half Life 2 after they actually got to play it.

Setting aside the player's individual tastes, there has to be a standard a so called, bad game is being compared to. It's only fair to know what that standard is so the critic wouldn't look like he's pulling stuff out of his ass.

@R10nu said:

@Vatusus said:

you walk while characters speak to you...

Firstly, you don't "walk", you retain your full mobility at all times. You can run and jump at your leasure during these "cutscenes" and sometimes it leads to finding secrets.

Oh, I can jump and run when nothing interesting is happening on screen besides talk! That changes everything!

Secondly, all of these scenes are designed like little sandboxes with things to do, specifically for players who might not give a shit about the story, and the characters often react to what you do.

Things to do? What? I played HL2, I dont remember having anything to do for the most part of its talking bits

Proof

Hope it helps you understand why HL2 is still better at presenting its narrative than the latest hottest Uncharted games.

I havent mentioned Uncharted once. This is relevant to ALL cinematic games and why everyone seems to hate them yet HL2 gets a pass for doing the exact same thing. As I proved above, I played HL2 and I didnt though for one bit it presented its narrative better than other cinematic games around.

Answers in bold

To a point sure, but the fallacy here is that the absence of a negative means that there exists evidence of a positive. You can be just straight average at everything, which is what Uncharted 4 is beyond the shooting when it comes to the gameplay. So it doing a bunch of things, and the nicest thing you can say about them is that they function, that's not anything to be proud about.

Doom example applies here. It's a one trick pony, shooting some mother fuckers, every design idea in that game is then in turn built around shooting some mother fuckers, the thing is its an exceptional one trick. It doesn't need some half baked stealth or some utterly pointless climbing stretches dedicated to a Naughty Dog character telling you how nice the view is.

Its because Sony does it better than anyone so fan boys hate it because they are jealous. Games like Chrono Trigger, Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy, Zelda, Metroid and MGS have all been praised for cinema. Most games have cinema (even Mario) so the criticism is invalid. 2D games had cut scenes including Pac-Man. People really don't know much about gaming history. Ocarina of Time was praised for cinematics, not gameplay.

@hrt_rulz01:

I never said Half Life 2 was unplayable, just outdated. I still play it once in a while too though I can't say that I enjoy it as much as I used to. It's good for retroing out though.

To me, it seems like your personal tastes are now coming into play which is fair. Everyone have their own tastes. I personally find Doom 2016 intoxicating, myself.

When I play the Uncharted games, my personal tastes are in full view. When I do a climbing sequence, I often pause midway and pan the camera around, admiring the scenery and then moving on. Like I said, they're adventure games in my book in the same vein as the pixel-hunting adventure games on the PC, albeit with more action elements. Many people find such games boring. Not me. Adventure games were a staple during my early days of PC gaming. The Uncharted games are simply the latest iteration.

best example for cinematic games bieng amazing would be Max payne 1/2 and Mafia 1. they were very cinematic story driven but also challanging and fun games. MGS series before 5 was just more and more of lengthy cutscenes that told convulated and confusing story try to be emotional.

He He. I couldn't get into the Max Payne games either (3rd-person), even though the critical reception was awesome. But, you know. That's just me.

Between the 3rd-person Max Payne and the 1st-person HL2, I rather play the latter, boring sections and all.

I hate third person games to death and hate the immersion breaking third person camera because it break all immersion but Max Payne 1 was one of the best action game ever. incredible dark story and atmosphere. shame rockstar ruined it.

I finally finished HL2 recently. I can't remember the early cutscenes because I resumed from the last save game. But, I've seen worse from games I liked better. At least, I retained control of Freeman. There's a few where I twiddled my thumbs, like being transferred by the crane. But, they were mercifully very short.

Hmmm. I never tried getting out of the car. ;)

The problem I have with a lot of "cinematic" games is they try to trick you into thinking you're playing a game. The reality is you're mindlessly hitting a couple buttons on your controller as the playable character does some much cooler shit.

It's possible to have a story heavy game without shallow gameplay. Uncharted doesn't unfortunately. Still a pretty fun franchise though.

Yea pretty much. Gears of War had a tone of cutcenes but no one criticized it. People say it's cause Uncharted 4 had shallow gameplat but TLOU had quality gameplay and people criticized it. Don't hate cause Sony does it better than everyone else..

I really enjoy cinematic games myself although I prefer having cutscenes that are gorgeously pre-rendered. As for Half-Life in particular I enjoyed it enough at the time although I was never really head over heels about it so while I would most likely enjoy a Half-Life 3 I'm not exactly clamouring over them making one.

Halflife 2 has a better story, better gameplay and it's 13 years old. The cinematic gameplay was used to a much lesser extent than uncharted 4. That is if we're talking about set pieces, not cutscenes.

Halflife 2 was a landmark for all different reasons, interactive cutscenes wasn't one of them. Physics was one of them. Groundbreaking for 2004, allthough I must admit far cry 1 did a pretty good job as well. You could argue that it was known for its set pieces as well, but halflife 2 didn't overdo this.

You're comparing apples and oranges. People want halflife 3 for the story and gameplay, not for cutscenes with or without some interactive gameplay. I don't even remember halflife 2 having cutscenes, you were always still in control of your character.

Uncharted 4 has a lot more in common with a telltale game, than with a halflife game.

@Vatusus: What cinematic moments do people hate though? I mean, if you're talking about games that have "in-game" cut scenes then there are a million ways this can be handled. I think what Half-Life 2 nailed was that the gameplay had an ebb-and-flow, which was perfectly balanced (intense action -> story moment -> exploration -> intense action -> story moment, etc...)

Some games do this really well, others don't. And everyone's appetites are different.

I mean, there are people who really love the cut-scenes in Metal Gear Solid 4 - but at times I found myself laughing out loud at the game because I was getting interrupted so frequently that I felt like I was watching more than playing many sequences. It wasn't just the interruptions though, it was the fact that you weren't actively doing anything during those moments (unlike other games where the characters might be talking, but you're still moving around in the world and controlling the action, for example).

People liked HL2 for the gameplay. It was the total package.

That is a horrible counter argument, by the very nature of us discussing this is going to bring in our personal tastes. Just because a bunch of people, who have routinely shown to have no back bone as critics, thought Uncharted is a 90, doesn't mean it's a fact that everything it does is of the top quality. A lot of what Uncharted does is passable. Now you want to argue it's a more than the sum of its parts thing? I'm willing to hear that argument, but I'd like some give n take here, where we recognize that some of us aren't fucking impressed that Uncharted does 5 things, but all 5 of them aren't good individually. And put em together, it's still unimpressive.

The platforming exists, it functions, it isn't broken. It doesn't add any tension, mechanical mastery, or satisfaction to the gameplay.

puzzles exist in this series. 3 games running, you solved them by opening your journal. No thought necessary of any kind. And they took up a decent amount of the time as some attempt at a climax.

Shooting has been a big part of these games. It took until the 4th game for this series to have a good shooting engine.

And those are the pillars of its gameplay, the me interacting with it part, that's a pretty damning short coming when the thing that is unique about this medium, happens to be thing you're only passable at. But people want to act like Uncharted's cutscenes, a passive element of a video game push "games forward"..which is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You want to push games forward, you push GAMES forward. Anyway sorry for the rant.

I get that people like how pretty everything is, and are cool with taking a backseat for a story and atmosphere if you will. That's fine. More power to you, my thing is that out right dismissing anyone criticizing the game, with "well you have to judge entirely in a vacuum and if it does the bare bones basic" isn't the only way I need to judge that game. Especially when the game isn't being celebrated as just good or even okay. It's being celebrated as special, great, one of the medium's best. And the medium's best hold up better under scrutiny is what I'm saying.

Max Payne, sure, it's great that gamers got to discover noir from a franchise that was basically baby's first noir movie. Mafia 1? nah you mother fuckers just like gassing up boring shit because you're ignorant of movies. It's actually pretty gross.

Maybe because they want a story to wrap up that we've had no updates on for over 9 years now since that cliffhanger at the end of episode 2 :/

This is your answer. It has ground breaking and fun 'gameplay', not an onrails experience like Sony's non-games.

Edit: Oh and when we criticize cinematic games we are not criticizing the inclusion of cutscenes. LEL at cows for turning this against cutscenes. Everyone love cutscenes if it serves as a reward after a good chunk of meaningful gameplay, here and there. The problem starts when your game has nothing but cinematics and onrails moments with no gameplay.

In HL2, like the first one, the player is not bound to these moments of NPC's talking. I can walk away and engage the game world and not take in what the NPC is saying at all. Is that possible in Gears 4, Uncharted 4, QB or The Order 1886? That's the difference.

I'm using my experience from the PS3 Uncharted games since I don't have 4 yet.

I didn't find much wrong with the shooting in any of the Uncharted games aside from my obvious disdain for controllers in general. I heard there was something wrong with UC3's shooting. But, it was patched early on.

I didn't find anything wrong with the climbing either. There were times when I messed up my timing and Nathan died. I had to resume the game from a predetermined point. Some said the climbing in all the games were repetitive. I didn't think so.

As for puzzles, I can refer to the journal which shows what symbols are what. But, they don't show what the pattern needs to be on the floor. You still have to think and analyze because it's not obvious from the manual. When I did the puzzles on all three games, it was rare to get a puzzle right the first time. I often had some trial and error parts until the solution clicked in my head. I'm not as good as many of those in YT who probably had several playthroughs before making a walkthrough video.

What else can I say about the above? I enjoyed them and that's me being honest.

The only thing I can agree with the games' detractors are the cutscenes. I hate twiddling my thumbs while waiting for a cutscene to finish. All three games have them in spades.

I think it's funny watching Lemmings hate UC4 so much, that it makes me wonder if they wished it was on the Xb1. I guess they can't get over that GEOW4 flopped so hard and that UC4 made a perfect 10 here at GS that they go into denial mode.

Half-Life 2 was cinematic through it's gameplay, in large part due to it's immersion. The whole time it was telling you the story, you were playing the damn game. There was so much going on while the story was unfolding around you.

Most games, especially the so-called "cinematic" games these days, generally stop the game specifically to take cinematic breaks. They're basically going "Wait, hold on a second buddy. Pause the game , I gotta tell you this cool story, bro."

This is why Half-Life 2 was so amazing, why people talk about it so fondly after all these years, and why we all so very much want Half-Life 3.

I'm not one of those begging for HL3. One suggestion I have if it does ever get developed is not have a long, overdrawn mud skipper (the boat) level again.

After my save games disappeared from my first playthrough, I was in the process of replaying the game. Then I came up on the mud skipper level. The thought of replaying that long stretch is what broke it for me. I set the game aside and moved on the BF2. It's only last year when I resumed and finished HL2.

The boat level was really a snore until it got a gun late in the level.

@Vatusus: People will put up with all sorts of design choices as long as its big-budget, AAA-status and visually advanced. Add in some gunplay and that's all that's required.

Not me, while I enjoyed them immensely in their time, I'm past waiting. Valve doesn't even need to make it anymore. They get like 30% of everything sold on Steam, why would they bother?

It seems like another case of thinking the internet is a group of people with one opinion. Some people like it others don't. There is no such things as everyone liking or disliking.

First, I don't care about Half-life 3. Second, you're ignorant. Half-life 1 & 2 told stories but not through cutscenes. They weren't the type of movie games that are widely derided by hardcore gamers. Learn what you're talking about.

Just seem like people look for reasons to dislike games these days as opposed to enjoying them for what they are.