Gameplay elements, evolution, and enjoyment not for everyone? [2019+] *spawn*

[PSman1700]

I still have not understood what cinematic means in your book and why it is a problem.

30 to 40% of cutscenes, and then the moments that Iroboto described with the jeep-wrench thing, the boat conversations in GoW, the massive use of motion blurring, 30fps preference over 60, less choice of freedom etc. I understand that some like it, but also understand that some don't. It obviously does great for marketing and all though.

The current games simply advanced those technologies. They didn't take anything away (except of course Tomb Raider for me)

In no way where games containing up to 40% or more of non playable parts, lets forget MGS for a moment then. Yes we can do motion blur now, doesn't mean we have to saturate the whole screen with it when there's movement.
In my favorite PS4 game HZD, there's no way to turn off motion blur. There's quite many that are annoyed by it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/horizon/comments/9qib1r

I'm a little uncomfortable trend towards less time spent on meaningful gameplay with stakes attached.

It doesn't have to be the future either, we can't know what the future is going to bring. Money is important so yeah it does good for sales so we probably be stuck with this for a while.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

30 to 40% of cutscenes, and then the moments that Iroboto described with the jeep-wrench thing, the boat conversations in GoW, the massive use of motion blurring, 30fps preference over 60, less choice of freedom etc. I understand that some like it, but also understand that some don't. It obviously does great for marketing and all though.

Cinematic doesn't mean motion blur. Moblur was used in games plentifully going back to PS2. 30 fps also isn't a 'cinematic' choice but a graphics quality choice, with devs frequently preferring 30 fps for more eye-candy. Complaints about 30fps and moblur shouldn't be directed at 'cinematic games'. GoW was pretty cinematic (big set pieces, story arc) and was 60 fps, no moblur.

In my favorite PS4 game HZD, there's no way to turn off motion blur. There's quite many that are annoyed by it.

That reddit is up-voted four times. Four. If you're going to make an argument that large numbers of people are wanting things to be different, enough that devs should take note and do things differently, you're going to have to find better evidence than this.

 

[Karamazov]

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Also, puzzle games and adventures don't necessarily have choices. Games like FPSes are all about control and choices. Other games are about executing successfully. Others are about finding the correct set of inputs. It seems more like people here are complaining about a mix of game styles, changing from a choice-driven shooter to a follow-the-prompts. Or maybe just some elements that aren't specifically about any of these game types. "Walk here and press Square" doesn't seem like any game type, but it's actually 'executing successfully' on a really simple level. And as down-time between excitements, it's perfectly justifiable.

 

[JoeJ]

In my favorite PS4 game HZD, there's no way to turn off motion blur. There's quite many that are annoyed by it.

Ok, it's not much work adding options to disable effects individually (ok, more work if they all ar done in the same shader.)

DOF
Motion Blur
CA
SSAO (just for me, i hate it - so even if this exposes how crappy your lighting really is )

At least it's less work than adding a foto mode...

 

[PSman1700]

Next-generation we might see more variation, in Sony's output of AAA games though, so then maybe those complaints won't even exist then. Also, we might see more multiplayer as an addition to those SP games, giving more value to the games. As of now, replaying UC4 or even HZD isn't really in my book, it's a mostly play once experience.

Ok, it's not much work adding options to disable effects individually (ok, more work if they all ar done in the same shader.)

DOF
Motion Blur
CA
SSAO (just for me, i hate it - so even if this exposes how crappy your lighting really is )

At least it's less work than adding a foto mode...

Could it be there for performance reasons, or anything to do with the checkerboarding?

 

[JoeJ]

Next-generation we might see more variation, in Sony's output of AAA games though

Doubt it, as they stated something like continue to deliver cinematic experience. (first source i can find: https://www.gameshedge.com/ps5-cinematic-storytelling-sony/)
But let them do their thing. They are successful because their products are good. You often say cinematics are just good to sell, but the origin is initial success and acceptance - 'evil marketing' or exploiting the idea to death comes long after this.
You should play some other games that try to copy this but do not get it, then you would know what's really wrong with blunt storytelling: Watching lengthy cutscenes, playing never ending introductions and QTEs long before the story feels interesting at all.

For example: Uncharted builds up its characters wisely, maybe with a dispute between the hero and his wife. This makes the characters sympathic and identifiable, their fate is instantly interesting. And all this happens while shooting at enemies. Quite ok if the shooting feels a bit easy in this situation.

RE7 which starts with a sign of life from your long missed girlfriend, and now you are on your way to save her. No spectacular story, but personal and it works. And you can freely explore right after that, approach the situation under the illusion you do it your own way, in the tempo you prefer.

Gears 5 tells its stories with talking companions during regular gameplay like exploring the area. Stories are not very important, but personal and it only adds to the game. Very nice, close to the 'good' FPS i asked for - i should study this game more...


Tomb Raider introduces Lara as a suffering woman who does not enjoy their research. She only is doing it because she is so good and has to save the world, or something. The bad guy is bad only becasue he has men with guns, and he wants world domination, or something. How boring. To make it interesting, QTE cutscene with crossing a spectacular flood. But very frustrating to click the buttons with correct timing - tried 10 times, not to mention this flood comes basically from nowhere, purely constructed. At this point, at the very beginning, you already realize the game forces you to obey it's design without any freedom or personal contribution.

Exodus starts great with you on your own exploring it's typical scary tunnels. But then - cutscene. Suddenly you have a wife and from now on she tells you what to do. Lots of talking, annoyed by operating the gasmask before doing a shot... cutscene... undefined wife relationship without depth or drama. Order after order without being motivated or understanding why all this is so necessary. You are no longer on your own, and even the world is large, there is no free will, no point to explore, because... you have to obey the script, and you know it will keep this way for the rest of the game.

I think 90% of games get this wrong. But that's nothing new - in the early days 99 out of 100 games were total crap. Terrible controls and physics. It is much, much better now.

Either more and more studios learn to tell interesting stories that work, or some of them explore alternatives. Hopefully both will happen...

Could it be there for performance reasons, or anything to do with the checkerboarding?

No.
Motion blur helps to make 30 fps more smooth - movies with 24fps work because their motion blur is perfect. (Ofc also their camera paths are much smoother than in a game.)
But if you and many others want to disable it, the option should exist in any game. Easy to fix, this one problem

 

[Nesh]

30 to 40% of cutscenes, and then the moments that Iroboto described with the jeep-wrench thing, the boat conversations in GoW, the massive use of motion blurring, 30fps preference over 60, less choice of freedom etc. I understand that some like it, but also understand that some don't. It obviously does great for marketing and all though.

The Jeep thing isn't what makes a game cinematic. And as we described earlier games have their high times and their low times. The Jeep wrench sections in other games even those without cut scenes have it in different forms. Opening a door slowly, being forced to find a lever or a key card, destroying an obstacle etc. Also why were the boat conversations in GoW a problem? In other games you traverse areas in a boat or car or horse in absolute silence since areas are vast. The boat dialogue is just an icing on the cake that is non-itrusive and can be interrupted. 30fps saves resources for more detail. GoW has a 60fps mode on Pro.
Where is the freedom in a linear hack and slash game? Or in a fps game? Or in a riddle game? Or in a pure shoot em up game? The only games that have freedom are sandbox games. Maybe those are the games you like.
I think your prejudice for cinematic games make you see faults in these games that are not isolated to them. They exist in almost every game.
You seem to be annoyed with the cut scenes. What about all these games that failed to make us relate with the characters and the story? What about all these games we had in the past with huge amounts of texts to read? What about all the point and click games? All old school RPG games had you read tons of texts, and we had countless interruptions there too. Now instead you listen and those interruptions are executed much better.

In no way where games containing up to 40% or more of non playable parts, lets forget MGS for a moment then. Yes we can do motion blur now, doesn't mean we have to saturate the whole screen with it when there's movement.
In my favorite PS4 game HZD, there's no way to turn off motion blur. There's quite many that are annoyed by it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/horizon/comments/9qib1r

Motion Blur does not exist in all "cinematic games" and it exists in non-cinematic games as well. First time I hear about motion blur sickness. Motion sickness yes. But a motion is a motion. Maybe the user confuses the sickness he feels from the motion of the camera with MB because the former simulates subtle motions as if it is held by a hand. This adds extra motion on the camera. Some people get motion sick by first person games too. I guess they are bad?

 

[chris1515]

30 to 40% of cutscenes, and then the moments that Iroboto described with the jeep-wrench thing, the boat conversations in GoW, the massive use of motion blurring, 30fps preference over 60, less choice of freedom etc. I understand that some like it, but also understand that some don't. It obviously does great for marketing and all though.



In no way where games containing up to 40% or more of non playable parts, lets forget MGS for a moment then. Yes we can do motion blur now, doesn't mean we have to saturate the whole screen with it when there's movement.
In my favorite PS4 game HZD, there's no way to turn off motion blur. There's quite many that are annoyed by it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/horizon/comments/9qib1r

It doesn't have to be the future either, we can't know what the future is going to bring. Money is important so yeah it does good for sales so we probably be stuck with this for a while.

We did not play the same God of War or Uncharted 4, there is not 30 to 40% of cutscene. You don't spend 30 to 40% of the time djuring cutscene. All Sony games have less cutscene than Kojima games for exemple and the story is told using gameplay moment.

At least next gen they will not need to hide loading. It will change a lot of things.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

We did not play the same God of War or Uncharted 4, there is not 30 to 40% of cutscene. You don't spend 30 to 40% of the time djuring cutscene.

Those calculations come from here. Uncharted takes about 15 hours to beat. You video of all its cinematics is 6½ hours. Therefore, 40% of the single player campaign worst case.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Also, we might see more multiplayer as an addition to those SP games, giving more value to the games. As of now, replaying UC4 or even HZD isn't really in my book, it's a mostly play once experience.

Huh? Uncharted 4 has multiplayer, both competitive, using the traversal mechanics in a shooter, and cooperative.

I also agree with others that you're wrong here, because though you and a handful of other people aren't that keen on Sony's AAA cinematic experiences, millions are and it's a real platform differentiator. It'd be stupid for Sony to give up on works so well for them having established themselves in the mindset of 10s of millions of gamers as the best place for those big-budget, 'cinematic' experiences. That's like asking Nintendo to give up making cutesy Mario games because some people on the internet complain they keep recycling their IPs.

If you don't like these games, don't buy them. There's no logic here to suggest they're 1) actually a faulty design that needs fixing or 2) Sony would make more money by making different, less-'cinematic' games.

 

[Karamazov]

completion time is also a subjective number, some will rush it through, others will spend countless hours exploring and searching for anything the game has to offer.
hell there was even a guy spending 500 hours on a single level of bubsy 3D !

 

[Shifty Geezer]

completion time is also a subjective number, some will rush it through, others will spend countless hours exploring and searching for anything the game has to offer.

How Long To Beat provides breakdowns for different play styles. That 15 hours for Uncharted is both mean and median time for a general play-through, but people can use the stats to come up with their own preferred metrics. Obviously for PSman1700's argument, the worst case will be the metric of choice, although it seems fairly reasonable for the majority of players.

Also, I haven't watched the YT clip to see what they're counting as cinematics, so it could be less than 6½ hours if they're including things other than cutscenes.

Perhaps the takehome here is Uncharted has a lot more cinematics than players realised, but they were happy to watch them because it was enjoyable, like watching a movie is, so never even noticed?

 

[Nesh]

Those calculations come from here. Uncharted takes about 15 hours to beat. You video of all its cinematics is 6½ hours. Therefore, 40% of the single player campaign worst case.

Well skimming through the video of GoW and Uncharted they also include gameplay sections which help connect the story and cut scenes. So it should be less than the stated hours. It also shows one other thing. That the execution of the story is blended with the gameplay which is a plus in my book since they feel more natural and less intrusive compared to most games.

 

[chris1515]

Well skimming through the video of GoW and Uncharted they also include gameplay sections which help connect the story and cut scenes. So it should be less than the stated hours. It also shows one other thing. That the execution of the story is blended with the gameplay which is a plus in my book since they feel more natural and less intrusive compared to most games.

30 to 40 % of cutscene seems so crazy, it is sure if they count people talking during gameplay as cutscene...

 

[PSman1700]

30 to 40 % of cutscene seems so crazy

Yeah, i guess some don't realise it perhaps? That's a good thing then, if they blend in so well. Some do notice it and don't like it.
Another opinion

https://www.theverge.com/2016/5/5/11579498/uncharted-4-review-ps4

Another opinion, from DF no less.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...-a-walking-simulator-in-action-games-clothing

Snippits from eurogamer article.

''Not a lot, interactively. Sometimes you simply watch cutscenes and have zero input whatsoever. The rest of the time you're being funnelled through intentionally frictionless scripted puzzles or button-tapping your way through automated platforming sequences. Technically you're still "playing" the game, but your agency is left out of your hands.''

''Can you imagine if Halo or Doom spent approximately 40 per cent of their running time trying to tell a story or mixing up their core mechanics with lightweight platforming or puzzle elements? Chances are it wouldn't be good.''

''The genre has since come to be labelled somewhat derisively as "walking simulators" - a video game with precious little interactivity and no game-over state.''


It might work for UC4, and some like it, some don't, even though, the game is still worth a play-through, but for some, there could be less non-interactive moments, or very few of them.
Say whatever you want, you can't hide the fact modern games, and in special sony, have moved very much to the cinematic elements (scripted events, may cutscenes, motion blurring, jeep/boat moments) and not everyone wants it to be there, or could have done without it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Another opinion, from DF no less.

Not from Digital Foundry, but Eurogamer.

It might work for UC4, and some like it, some don't, even though, the game is still worth a play-through, but for some, there could be less non-interactive moments, or very few of them.
Say whatever you want, you can't hide the fact modern games, and in special sony, have moved very much to the cinematic elements (scripted events, may cutscenes, motion blurring, jeep/boat moments) and not everyone wants it to be there, or could have done without it.

You keep repeating this. If this argument is to be furthered, you need to start providing actual datapoints, otherwise it's just reiterating uncorroborated, unarguable opinions.

You mention 'some' and 'many people' without every quantifying. Your previous public opinion on Reddit had 4 likes. The highest rated comment on this EG opinion with 94% approval (81 likes and 5 dislikes), is calling out the opinion as rubbish...

How Uncharted is a walking simulator in action game's clothing.
It is?

The Uncharted games do have a failure state and you spend most of their running time engaged in third-person combat.
Oh, it isn't then.​

You also haven't provided any data in support of the view that modern games have moved towards scripted events and many cutscenes. What proportion of games have done this, and how has that changed over the years? In essence, your presenting a problem without proving it actually exists. You keep finding opinions on the internet that match your viewpoint, but upon inspection these opinions don't appear to have public support, undermining the argument that there is a problem.

 

[chris1515]

Yeah, i guess some don't realise it perhaps? That's a good thing then, if they blend in so well. Some do notice it and don't like it.
Another opinion

https://www.theverge.com/2016/5/5/11579498/uncharted-4-review-ps4

Another opinion, from DF no less.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...-a-walking-simulator-in-action-games-clothing

Snippits from eurogamer article.

''Not a lot, interactively. Sometimes you simply watch cutscenes and have zero input whatsoever. The rest of the time you're being funnelled through intentionally frictionless scripted puzzles or button-tapping your way through automated platforming sequences. Technically you're still "playing" the game, but your agency is left out of your hands.''

''Can you imagine if Halo or Doom spent approximately 40 per cent of their running time trying to tell a story or mixing up their core mechanics with lightweight platforming or puzzle elements? Chances are it wouldn't be good.''

''The genre has since come to be labelled somewhat derisively as "walking simulators" - a video game with precious little interactivity and no game-over state.''


It might work for UC4, and some like it, some don't, even though, the game is still worth a play-through, but for some, there could be less non-interactive moments, or very few of them.
Say whatever you want, you can't hide the fact modern games, and in special sony, have moved very much to the cinematic elements (scripted events, may cutscenes, motion blurring, jeep/boat moments) and not everyone wants it to be there, or could have done without it.

You don't like the puzzles or automated platforming sequences at all but they aren't cutscenes. First the platforming sequences were not automated but it was not very good and when Bruce Straley and Neil Druckmann needed to take the game they could not cut all this sequence without a huge delay. Josh Scherr(ND) told himself during a GDC conference, the game have pacing problem because of the change of directors with Amy Henning and Shaun Escayg quitting Naughty Dog.

From what they told the rythm of the game was not working well with non automated platforming.

 

[iroboto]

Does he dislike establishing shots in movies, too?

Attacking the poster and not the arguments is the lowest form of debate.

 

[iroboto]

After thinking a lot about it, i changed my mind from what you say here and draw the line differently.
If we say hand drawn animation (Disney) and movies (captured real life) is both cinema, then we have cinemetic games right from the start. Becasue animated sprites are no different than the former, and captured cutscenes are no different than the latter. Also we had story driven games very early, like text adventures.
So there is nothing new that's happening here. All that has changed is because nowadays there is more attention about games in general. This means more money, more mainstream (so more people that feel left behind if they disagree with that mainstream).

I don't agree with this.

There's a large difference between a game containing plot, story, characters, mood, and another that is a game designed around a cinematic experience.
You can look at the original Alone in the Dark; or System Shock 2; which manages to establish everything without ever taking away the controls or using cameras. But everything about the game can be established and understood without cut scenes or dialog, some fancy reading of journals is sufficient.

It is (generally) easier to describe cinematic experiences (gaming) as designing gameplay controls/experiences specifically out of the normal button mapping. If that makes sense. If that actions you are taking are not in settings -> controller -> button mapping; then it's a one off action that doesn't exist anywhere else in the game except specifically for that moment. Or put another way, that moment could have been a cutscene, but they chose to have the player to interact through it. That's a basic way to describe it.

Some aspects of cinematic experiences could also mean; leaving very little to the player's imagination as to what is happening. As in, the need to detail absolutely everything visually. ie; Looting bodies in RDR2 vs the Witcher 3. One see Arthur roll the body over pick up the body and go through the pockets; the other is a flat screen menu with quick collection. By seeing all these actions happening, it drives itself towards realism, and further away from a game. Something similar would apply to table top RPGs; where if you had a DM that was really keen on being dramatic in describing in every single detail what happened in the world vs a DM who responds to: "What loot do they have?" with "You find nothing".

IMO cinematic gaming is designed to be cinematic. We don't label any game as a cinematic game just because it has dialog, story, plot, characters.
Thus if you aren't happy with cinematic titles; there are other titles that do that without the cinematic perspective.
As of most recent; The Outer Worlds.