"Cinematic look" in games

[Shortbread]

I can't speak to the melodrama, but a lot of the other items here also have the effect of working around memory and performance limitations.
A lower frame rate target is one obvious one.
Linear paths, particularly Uncharted-esque progress limiters like little gates or ladders you have to stop to activate and one-way events/floor collapse/ladder falls apart/door gets blocked/ceiling collapse/car crashes/train crashes/car collapses/train colllapses/boat sinks, crashes, and probably collapses/the collapse collapses/collapse collapse collapse collapse--constrain the amount of data that needs to be maintained in memory and makes streaming easier to predict and reduced what may need to be brought over the limited disk IO channel at innoportune times.

Constrained traversal in with a pretty backdrop is another thing that I believe Naughty Dog actually brought up for Uncharted 2.

The bang for buck for the set-pieces is a greater spectacle with careful sleight of hand reducing the computational, bandwidth, and memory requirements. Just like in an illusionist's show, however, the mirrors don't work if the audience is allowed to poke around in the middle of the trick.

But couldn't this be said about any game?

Even fully wide open worlds are limited by hardware and resources - hence, needing its own tricks and smoke/mirrors. I still haven't played one open world game that would allow you to do everything... like go into every store front, climb up the mountain without falling off into null null land.

 

[3dilettante]

But couldn't this be said about any game?

Even fully wide open worlds are limited by hardware and resources - hence, needing its own tricks and smoke/mirrors. I still haven't played one open world game that would allow you to do everything... like go into every store front, climb up the mountain without falling off into null null land.

When games like that are at their most open, they rarely prevent you from turning around and going back to a spot you were in seconds before, or suddenly constrict player movement so that they have to wait for something like a gate or ladder to come down to them.

There are shortcuts everywhere. A large number of the specific combination of features originally listed is very helpful in creating a seamless spectacle with fewer explicit load screens or cuts to what is on-screen.

 

[L. Scofield]

It sounds like you have a personal issues with these games, especially "The Order". The Order actually eclipse anything I have seen recently... actually adding new elements of gameplay along the way. Looking at previous attempts like "Ryse" were very uneventful (poor gameplay, lacking animation, ect...), just in a nice skin (graphics). Hopefully, The Order corrects a lot of shortcomings presented in Ryse... IMHO, it's doing that in spades at a higher IQ.

We've barely seen anything of The Order but if the melee gameplay is a good indicator of how it will work for the rest of the game I'd say it's worse than Ryse. But of course, there seems to be a lot more to the game than melee combat so I'd like to see more before I cast judgment on it.

Certainly linearity has its benefits, helps tighten the pace and whatnot, but it becomes a problem when the developers drastically constrain the player in order to force them to experience a scene in only one way.

 

[DrJay24]

The melee combat in a third person shooter is probably not as important as the melee in a melee game. We have barely seen anything for the Order, so I'm not sure how it spawned so much discussion, but every console exclusive seems to I guess.

 

[JPT]

To me this is like discussing movie genres, somebody likes long winding dramas, others prefer Expendables 2. Its about taste

Personally I find GTA really shallow and boring, while Borderlands is fun, why? And Resogun is great and I loved Resistance 2 coop. I had fun, so what, if nobody else likes it?

As for QTE, I do not think its any better or worse than melee combat in Uncharted or Yakuza... And I thought Uncharted 1+2 was great fun, 3 less so.

 

[L. Scofield]

It's about the prioritization of presentation over gameplay. Games that play themselves. Might as well just watch a "Let's play" on youtube. It ends up being more satisfactory since you don't expect any meaningful control to begin with.

The melee combat in a third person shooter is probably not as important as the melee in a melee game.

Yet it's part of the game. If you're not going to put the effort might as well not include it.

 

[messyman]

It's about the prioritization of presentation over gameplay. Games that play themselves. Might as well just watch a "Let's play" on youtube. It ends up being more satisfactory since you don't expect any meaningful control to begin with.


Yet it's part of the game. If you're not going to put the effort might as well not include it.

Skyrim shouldn't have included any gameplay at all

 

[Bagel seed]

QTE and cutscenes make for great commercials and sell games to casuals, plain and simple. They want games to look cooler than they are to play, most of the time.

Wait for VR and body suits to breakout in 2025 and you'll be making your own QTE rolling around in your living room and stabbing dudes.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's about the prioritization of presentation over gameplay. Games that play themselves. Might as well just watch a "Let's play" on youtube. It ends up being more satisfactory since you don't expect any meaningful control to begin with.

That's a ridiculously exaggerated view. All these games involve the player in gameplay that the player likes. Uncharted's shooting mechanic was fun, and the story was interesting. Some people would be satisfied with watching the story in a Youtube video, but for those who liked the games (some millions of people), the gameplay mechanic was why they played it, played it again, possibly platinumed it, and then played it online. Uncharted without the cinematic elements would be just a pretty shooter, and lose some if its followers. Uncharted the YT movie would lose the fans who enjoy the gameplay with the story.

You may like more complex, involving gameplay than these games offer. That means the issue isn't the cinematic approach but the whole gameplay design and implementation process. That doesn't mean cinematic == no gameplay though, and every cinematic experience should be a rendered movie instead of a game. You need only read the threads of these games to learn some people have a blast with them to appreicate that different folks have different tastes, and just because a game seems bland and worthless to you, doesn't mean that game is bland and worthless and shouldn't have been made that way. The deciding factor there is whether the developer makes money or not. If in something like Beyond Two Souls the game isn't enough to pull in the pundits, they got the wrong mix. One failed game doesn't equate tothe whole cinematic experience being a failure and the idea should be dropped.

I think Angry Birds and Flappy bird suck ass. I'm not going to claim they shouldn't have been made, nor should be made as YT movies. Millions of people enjoy these games. Good luck to 'em.

 

[Sigfried1977]

^Even though I basically agree with you, I cannot help but wonder what AAA games could be like if the devs invested at least a fraction of the time and energy spent on presentation into non-superficial stuff. You know, the kind of stuff that actually differentiates the medium from other, more established entertainment outlets. I simply do not buy into the belief that big budget games have to be shallow, linear and dumb in order to turn a profit.

 

[Xbat]

People always talk about innovating the gameplay but after a a couple of decades of gaming there's only so much you can do using a gamepad. Lets take a tps for example, what and how would you innovate that gameplay? I'm not saying its impossible but its much easier to differentiate with art style and story.

 

[Sigfried1977]

^I'm not here to do their job. And blaming the controller for a lack of innovative gameplay is nothing but a lazy copout. As for innovatiing in the tps genre. Why even pick one of the most oversaturated genres to begin with?

Also, I'm not even asking for innovation here. Mostly I'm just missing actual player agency.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

^Even though I basically agree with you, I cannot help but wonder what AAA games could be like if the devs invested at least a fraction of the time and energy spent on presentation into non-superficial stuff. You know, the kind of stuff that actually differentiates the medium from other, more established entertainment outlets. I simply do not buy into the belief that big budget games have to be shallow, linear and dumb in order to turn a profit.

I have three disputes. 1) I don't believe cinematic == shallow, linear, dumb necessarily.

2) I don't think shallow, linear, dumb games aren't worth anything. Some of the best gaming experiences of my life were in the 80s and 90s when games were necessarily shallow due to technical limitations. 'Fly around and shoot crap' is as shallow and dumb as it gets! I've also found little appeal in some of the great open-world games. Heck, some of us with limited game time wouldn't benefit at all from an epic open-world quest. For such gamers, a more bijou, managed experience can be preferably.

3) I don't think the effort required to increase cinematic production value can directly be repurposed to make a game deeper and less linear. We've had devs experiment with new techs like deformable scenery and often it just fails (isn't even realised in released games) due to both software and hardware limits. Throwing more money at art and cut-scenes provides a linear return. You can't just hire more programmers or designers to advance the gameplay similarly.

I think for this discussion to have practical merit, we need to hear what some of the sacrifices being made are and the alternative experiences. Some examples of games that do it right to show what the cinematic games are missing out on.

 

[Sigfried1977]

I have three disputes. 1) I don't believe cinematic == shallow, linear, dumb necessarily.

2) I don't think shallow, linear, dumb games aren't worth anything. Some of the best gaming experiences of my life were in the 80s and 90s when games were necessarily shallow due to technical limitations. 'Fly around and shoot crap' is as shallow and dumb as it gets! I've also found little appeal in some of the great open-world games. Heck, some of us with limited game time wouldn't benefit at all from an epic open-world quest. For such gamers, a more bijou, managed experience can be preferably.

3) I don't think the effort required to increase cinematic production value can directly be repurposed to make a game deeper and less linear. We've had devs experiment with new techs like deformable scenery and often it just fails (isn't even realised in released games) due to both software and hardware limits. Throwing more money at art and cut-scenes provides a linear return. You can't just hire more programmers or designers to advance the gameplay similarly.

I think for this discussion to have practical merit, we need to hear what some of the sacrifices being made are and the alternative experiences. Some examples of games that do it right to show what the cinematic games are missing out on.

I wouldn't label these old games as shallow myself. Most of the old arcade style shmups - deceptively simple on the outside as they may have appeared - had tons of mechanical depth for example. Same with fightning games or racers. Gameplay used to be everything, because that's all you could really achieve on the old machines. Your rewards were some pixelated still images sibtitled in hilarious Engrish.
Now it's almost like a complete reverse of the situation. You're generally meant to suffer through the (barely) interactive parts in order to get to the meat of the experience. Take something like the new TR or the Uncharted games for example: in terms of gameplay they're arguably at their worst the more spectacular they get. When everything is exploding around you, your one and only task is usually to hold down the analog stick in one direction and push the jump button every now and then. There are of course cases where spectacle and gameplay meat each other halfway to form something really special and memorable, like the train sequence in Uncharted 2 for example. But damn it, those cases are incredibly rare.

 

[Xbat]

I got a feeling if some other game did a similar set piece to uncharted 2 train section. People would just say they ripping off Uncharted why cant they be original and not be so shallow. It is almost impossiible to be the first to do something these days but thats only if the player is as old as I am and been playing games forever.

 

[Sigfried1977]

I they did the exact same thing - sure. But what made the sequence so cool is that it didn't restrict the regular gameplay for the sake of spectacle at all. It just introduced a bunch of interesting variables in the form of a moving stage.

 

[milk]

There are of course cases where spectacle and gameplay meat each other halfway to form something really special and memorable, like the train sequence in Uncharted 2 for example. But damn it, those cases are incredibly rare.

And that is because they are hard as hell to develop. They are rare now, and were simply non existent 10 years ago. How is that not an improvement. It is not like devs don't want to perfectly merge cinematics with varied and deep gameplay, they just have a hard time pulling it off consistently. The failed epic sequences with over-restrictive gameplay are all attempts at U2's-train-like levels that just didn't get that well developed in time for release. With the years, better tech and know-how, we will get there.

 

[DrJay24]

It's about the prioritization of presentation over gameplay. Games that play themselves. Might as well just watch a "Let's play" on youtube. It ends up being more satisfactory since you don't expect any meaningful control to begin with.

Yet it's part of the game. If you're not going to put the effort might as well not include it.

How do you know how much effort went into it, have you played it? They talked about branching QTEs that change the scene. Ultimately it is just a cutscene, you can't have a full God of War combat system and it would not make sense to do so. Yes, you can remove all player interactions from the scene, with no branches and no ability to fail, but then you would bitch about that right? It is a TPS, what extra flourishes they add around the shooting is not going to make or break the game.

Do you nit pick this much about all games that release a 10 second game play video that are 8+ months out? You might want to direct your negativity at a released game that hits every sin in your list, Ryse. You would have much more material to work with since you can play it.

 

[Sigfried1977]

And that is because they are hard as hell to develop. They are rare now, and were simply non existent 10 years ago. How is that not an improvement. It is not like devs don't want to perfectly merge cinematics with varied and deep gameplay, they just have a hard time pulling it off consistently. The failed epic sequences with over-restrictive gameplay are all attempts at U2's-train-like levels that just didn't get that well developed in time for release. With the years, better tech and know-how, we will get there.

Well, they're doing a terrible job then. Considering how the train sequence is still pretty much a unicorn, even amongst ND's own creations, I'm not convinced we're actually getting anywhere. You cannot recreate lightning in a bottle.

 

[L. Scofield]

That's a ridiculously exaggerated view. All these games involve the player in gameplay that the player likes. Uncharted's shooting mechanic was fun, and the story was interesting. Some people would be satisfied with watching the story in a Youtube video, but for those who liked the games (some millions of people), the gameplay mechanic was why they played it, played it again, possibly platinumed it, and then played it online. Uncharted without the cinematic elements would be just a pretty shooter, and lose some if its followers. Uncharted the YT movie would lose the fans who enjoy the gameplay with the story.

You may like more complex, involving gameplay than these games offer. That means the issue isn't the cinematic approach but the whole gameplay design and implementation process. That doesn't mean cinematic == no gameplay though, and every cinematic experience should be a rendered movie instead of a game. You need only read the threads of these games to learn some people have a blast with them to appreicate that different folks have different tastes, and just because a game seems bland and worthless to you, doesn't mean that game is bland and worthless and shouldn't have been made that way. The deciding factor there is whether the developer makes money or not. If in something like Beyond Two Souls the game isn't enough to pull in the pundits, they got the wrong mix. One failed game doesn't equate tothe whole cinematic experience being a failure and the idea should be dropped.

I think Angry Birds and Flappy bird suck ass. I'm not going to claim they shouldn't have been made, nor should be made as YT movies. Millions of people enjoy these games. Good luck to 'em.

You just agreed with me. People play games because of the gameplay, not to watch QTEs.

All the best selling games have strong gameplay mechanics. I find the idea that QTEs is what sells them really hard to believe.

People always talk about innovating the gameplay but after a a couple of decades of gaming there's only so much you can do using a gamepad. Lets take a tps for example, what and how would you innovate that gameplay? I'm not saying its impossible but its much easier to differentiate with art style and story.

There are many things you can do that aren't done in most current shooter games. Just look at Golden eye and Perfect Dark, where you had enemies with different personalities, if you shoot their hands they would drop their weapons, they would surrender, or run away from you, or surrender and then draw a sidearm when you're not looking. You could also have permanent limb damage (I think only Metal Gear games do this). You don't have to be realistic with player movements either, you can allow them more agility or strength or any other capability. Same with weapons, they don't have to be realistic either.

How do you know how much effort went into it, have you played it? They talked about branching QTEs that change the scene.

That was simply a response to your cop-out argument ("it's not important").

Ultimately it is just a cutscene, you can't have a full God of War combat system and it would not make sense to do so. Yes, you can remove all player interactions from the scene, with no branches and no ability to fail, but then you would bitch about that right? It is a TPS, what extra flourishes they add around the shooting is not going to make or break the game.

Why would it have to be a "full God of War combat system"? Is that the only alternative to QTEs? No, it's not. Being a TPS doesn't preclude the existence of melee combat in any way, just take a look at the Uncharted franchise. Player control > watching the game play itself.

Do you nit pick this much about all games that release a 10 second game play video that are 8+ months out? You might want to direct your negativity at a released game that hits every sin in your list, Ryse. You would have much more material to work with since you can play it.

So this is what it's really about. You're angry because I didn't respond positively to the gameplay RAD decided to show. Tough.

I didn't made this thread specifically to discuss The Order but that's what others have chosen to focus on.