Cinematic games

SuperFranky

Just saw this video by Jim Sterling
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZQDFO2KEPo[/ame]

It is high time we stopped using the word "cinematic" as a catch-all excuse for rubbish, and stopped letting PR mouthpieces spout it unchallenged. The "AAA" game industry's filmic parroting is not only misguided, it's misunderstood by the parrots themselves.

What do you think? I'd be happy to hear opinions of devs here who personally work on making Cinematic games.

Neox

maybe, just don't buy these games?

why change your view? you don't like these games, fine. Don't buy them.

Others enjoy these games, let them.

i don't buy sports games either or the sims. Not my type of game so i don't buy them.

Francois_K

I enjoy them , but for now I think it's just a trend that's happening, at least in my opinion.

Like the whole moba hype with dozen of variations of moba games and even a Warhammer moba game in the making.

If it works , it works. But like Neox said , if you don't enjoy it don't buy it. Nobody is forcing you to.

SuperFranky

One more interesting opinion

It means everything. It means nothing. I don't even think devs use it right anymore, if they ever did.

What does cinematic mean? THIS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34BiO5Brt7I

The sound design, the camera behavior (from the normal wide follow shot to the zoomed in view), the way the landscape is framed (and reframed, and reframed) dynamically, the use of music cues, the use of lighting + fog + silhouettes, the post processing. It's about using cinematic language in gameplay to emulate the feel of a movie, from aesthetics, to camera work, to effects, to sound, to intensity, to intimacy, to spectacle. The goal is to make gameplay movie-like in presentation. Has nothing to do with being story driven, has nothing to do with a lack of gameplay, and most importantly- has nothing to do with cutscenes (which ARE short films in and of themselves).

maybe, just don't buy these games?

why change your view? you don't like these games, fine. Don't buy them.

I just think that Cinematic concept is misguided attempt to make games into movies, instead of taking advantage of the medium and making games that are enhanced by the cinematic techniques. The thread isn't about me, btw, it's about the notion of Cinematic games. I may decide not to buy Adam Sandler's movies, but that doesn't make them good films.

Neox

SuperFranky wrote: »

misguided attempt to make games into movies

it's just games dude, i personally am also not a big fan of games being too cinematic heavy and with too little gameplay. but thats just my opinion.
I know a few people who really do enjoy these types of games.


you're reacting as if they are doing something incredibly wrong.

maybe we should gather and burn some degenerate games.

SuperFranky

Neox wrote: »

it's just games dude

So am I not allowed to criticize Transformers 4? They are just movies, after all. Nothing to discuss, silly art form that no one cares about What's the difference here? I still enjoy stupid Transformers movies, but I'm aware of its shortcomings and what it does wrong.

Clark Coots

"Cinematic" games to me are just kind of another sub-genre that adds to the mixing pool of types of games. I do not have a problem with them. "Cinematic" was never defined by Jim Sterling or yourself, so what is a "cinematic" game? Something that has 30 fps, letter boxing, and lens flares? A game that has minimal game play mechanics? A game that relies heavily on story?

I agree it should not be thrown around as a buzzword or to hide technical issues with games. I don't agree with them trying to be something they are not. You say they should embrace the medium we work in, but aren't they? There are no set rules for what a game is or should be. Like I said it adds to the types of games we can play. As long as you have fun and can interact and immerse yourself in the world, you've made some type of game.

Another thing about them is if you don't have the coordination, speed, or time to get over some learning curves to play a shooter like CS:GO or a MOBA like Dota2 then you can go on a 5+ hour immersive "cinematic" experience. If that makes you happy then great, if not well there are thousands and thousands of other games to choose from.

LRoy

I liked heavy rain and fahrenheit. He thinks studios should stop making games like that because.... he wants them to?

NegevPro

David Cage's games are a great example of a "cinematic" game, I can't think of any other way to describe his games better. Personally I love games in that style, Heavy Rain might be 90% QTEs, but it makes perfect usage of the medium. If you mess up a certain QTE at a certain point in the game, one of the main characters can die and the story will just continue without them which will lead to different outcomes, there are even a bunch of completely different endings ranging from completely happy to devastatingly sad. That wouldn't work at all if the story was presented as a movie or a book.

At the end of the day, there are so many games to choose to play. "Cinematic" games might not be for everybody but I wish there were more games like those made by QD since I have yet to find anything that provides a similar experience.

SuperFranky

coots7 wrote: »

"Cinematic" games to me are just kind of another sub-genre that adds to the mixing pool of types of games. I do not have a problem with them. "Cinematic" was never defined by Jim Sterling or yourself, so what is a "cinematic" game? Something that has 30 fps, letter boxing, and lens flares? A game that has minimal game play mechanics? A game that relies heavily on story?

I agree it should not be thrown around as a buzzword or to hide technical issues with games. I don't agree with them trying to be something they are not. You say they should embrace the medium we work in, but aren't they? There are no set rules for what a game is or should be. Like I said it adds to the types of games we can play. As long as you have fun and can interact and immerse yourself in the world, you've made some type of game.

Another thing about them is if you don't have the coordination, speed, or time to get over some learning curves to play a shooter like CS:GO or a MOBA like Dota2 then you can go on a 5+ hour immersive "cinematic" experience. If that makes you happy then great, if not well there are thousands and thousands of other games to choose from.

Thanks for a lengthy response. Dunno what I can answer to that. You made me rethink the issue. Maybe I am just overthinking it.

Jonathan_AV

I actually enjoy cinematic games. They're like a hybrid of a video game and a movie, like when you want to play a game but just want to sit back and relax without putting in all the work.

The Order should be seen as like a playable movie, kind of like Metal Gear Solid 4 or maybe the Uncharted series, just a different genre of games that caters to a different audience.

skankerzero

LRoy wrote: »

I liked heavy rain and fahrenheit. He thinks studios should stop making games like that because.... he wants them to?

no, he just said to stop using the term 'cinematic' as a catch all excuse.

juniez

cinematic games own but I also buy games just for the graphics so maybe I am not really the TRUE video gamer audience

SpaceRogue

Not my cup of tea all I can think of is 'guys, just make it a movie already, I know you really want too'.

I would personally enjoy that more to be honest. Just my 2 cents.