No. Just no
"Cinematic look" in games
- Thread starter L. Scofield
- Start date
No. Just no
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Yes definitely Naughty Dog and not Hideo Kojima, who with Guns of the Patriots included nine hours of cutscene footage, longer than the play through section of the game unless you're really, really bad at it.
I found all three Uncharted games (even U3) and The Last of Us to be better gaming experiences than MGS4. If you want to follow the story in MGS4 you are required to put down the controller a staggering 87 times once the game has started, watching many cutscene between 3 and 15 minutes and on some occasions 25 minutes (Act 3 mission briefing), 20 minutes (Act 4 mission briefing), 27 minutes (Act 5 debriefing).
Like Prophecy2K said, it's not about the number of game mechanics included, and I don't this MGS4 should get a pass because it has more game mechanics. It's whether those game mechanics are enjoyable to the player. I get you don't like ND games but there is a reason TLoU, a new IP, sold six million copies and why not a single review calls out lack of gameplay mechanics as a problem.
No one can seriously say that ND make games that are more 'movie' than 'game'.
Go play Asura's Wrath then we'll talk - still a very enjoyable ride, just not a very interactive one.
Go play Asura's Wrath then we'll talk - still a very enjoyable ride, just not a very interactive one.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
This.
One must have a very biased and warped perspective on reality to come to the conclusion that Sigfried1977 did with that last post. Either that or a rediculously narrow-minded view of the industry that disqualifies about 90% of modern AAA console games as "interactive movies" simply because they aren't made by a developer you like. *shrug*
Edit:
If we say we love games as a medium and would like them to evolve, both in terms of gameply and storytelling, then why do some try to disqualify the achievements of some developers, simply because they make games with great cutscenes and cinematics.
It's not always a cinematics vs gameplay situation in games. Doing one well does not preclude the ability of nailing the other. I think people like the OP and Sigfried1977 are confusing a lack of innovation in gameplay as "bad" or even hyperbolically "none" gameplay, when in actual fact there's absolutely nothing wrong with doing solid iterative gameplay with superb production values; and the popularity and sales of ND games for example proves that.
I agree Sigfried1977 that gameplay acorss the industry desperately NEEDS innovation, creativity and new ideas. I just don't agree with your hyperbole that games by devs like ND lack gameplay simply because the mechanics gameplay design of their games is only evolutionary and not revolutionary.
Last edited by a moderator:
I had fun playing all 3 Uncharted's. The gunplay was entertaining for me. If you watch the cutscenes in movie form on YouTube, it's definitely a different experience to playing through the levels. I find myself siding with the majority here and disagreeing with you.
I found Uncharted 1 a mediocre game at best, I never felt motivated to play it (I still need to try 2 and 3). Regarding MGS4, it was a completely different story, I have been addicted to the game until I could finish it, this time (I hated MGS2 cutscenes) I enjoyed the majority of the cutscenes (some of them was like watching a movie ).
).
Last edited by a moderator:
Prophecy2k
Veteran
I found Uncharted 1 a mediocre game at best, I never felt motivated to play it (I still need to try 2 and 3). Regarding MGS4, it was a completely different story, I have been addicted to the game until I could finish it, this time (I hated MGS2 cutscenes) I enjoyed the majority of the cutscenes (some of them was like watching a movie
If you've not already moved on to PS4/XBone then I recommend picking up U2 and U3. They're both on a whole other level to the first game. Particularly U2 ;-)
Billy Idol
Legend
I like cinematic games with cinematic effects. Variety is good, no need to make every game the same. There are still quite differences: HR is much better cinematic game for me compared to Beyond, although I would argue that Beyond has 'better' gameplay.
It is important that such games feature a good story, but also a good way of presenting the story. And that is imo what TLoU succeeds at for instance, independent if one thinks the gameplay is challenging or not.
Most games fail in presenting their story. The late KZ games for instance, nearly all the Halo games as well. The military shooters (except most of the CODs) fail brutally imo.
In conclusion: cinematic is great. Bring 'em on.
PS: I really hope that The Order is cinematic and delivers its story well.
It is important that such games feature a good story, but also a good way of presenting the story. And that is imo what TLoU succeeds at for instance, independent if one thinks the gameplay is challenging or not.
Most games fail in presenting their story. The late KZ games for instance, nearly all the Halo games as well. The military shooters (except most of the CODs) fail brutally imo.
In conclusion: cinematic is great. Bring 'em on.
PS: I really hope that The Order is cinematic and delivers its story well.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
As Prophecy2K says, you should try U2 and U3. I also had to push myself through U1, whereas I couldn't stop playing the sequels. Firstly, the gunplay and other mechanics are refined. Secondly, the balance of gameplay elements is better. And thirdly, there is Chloe and her amazing ass. There! I said it! It had to be said!
Uncharted 2 was one of the highlights of last gen but admittedly there was a lot of cinematic hand-holding in the gameplay. The platforming is basically on auto-pilot, and the climbing sequences are just there to show of the scenery with the illusion of game play. Cinematic gameplay would be a polite way to describe it. Tons of mini-cutscenes and scripted events as well. Overall the game was really fun, and engrossing, so there's not much to complain about. I was getting a little tired of it in Uncharted 3.
Those more constrained sections are not necessarely detractive to game. A well paced game needs downtime, you cannot have a full campaing of non-stop combat. Would it be cooler if they could find a more interesting way to cool your nerves down other than "for pretends" platforming? Sure. Is it terrible that they didn't? No.
I don't think they detracted from the game. I just meant they were part of a more cinematic experience that at times valued the presentation over the gameplay. I would argue that in their case it was a good idea (I do kind of wish it had had some challenging platforming though).
L. Scofield
Veteran
@Sigfried1977. There's a reason why I have Prophecy2K on my ignore list
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Globalisateur. Even if you use VR, if you want to emulate real life, bloom, lens flares, motion blur and so on are still needed. DOF as well but that one would be very tricky to pull off because not only do you need the position of the player's eyes but also detect the focusing of the eyes lenses.
Then again, as Valve has shown, you don't need realistic graphics AT ALL to have an immersive VR experience.
As for the post you quoted, I think it depends on the game. Fast paced games definitely suffer when using motion blur but for slow paced games I don't think it's much of a problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Globalisateur. Even if you use VR, if you want to emulate real life, bloom, lens flares, motion blur and so on are still needed. DOF as well but that one would be very tricky to pull off because not only do you need the position of the player's eyes but also detect the focusing of the eyes lenses.
Then again, as Valve has shown, you don't need realistic graphics AT ALL to have an immersive VR experience.
As for the post you quoted, I think it depends on the game. Fast paced games definitely suffer when using motion blur but for slow paced games I don't think it's much of a problem.
I read a lot of terms being thrown around, but let's take Gears of War and Uncharted as examples. Compare the best gameplay segments of both games. Which game has "deeper gameplay systems"? Objectively the game which has the highest production values and as a result "cinematic look". Gears is a much simpler game, and the absence of a "cinematic look" or high production values obviously don't translate to "deeper gameplay systems".
Vanquish has the deepest gameplay systems of any TPS released, and that game has a lot of QTE's.
QTE's can enhance the gameplay significantly; especially in Vanquish.
So in conclusion, as long as the game features 'best in class' gameplay, then best graphics, effects, tech, cutscenes, acting/voice acting are just extras in my opinion.
Vanquish has the deepest gameplay systems of any TPS released, and that game has a lot of QTE's.
QTE's can enhance the gameplay significantly; especially in Vanquish.
So in conclusion, as long as the game features 'best in class' gameplay, then best graphics, effects, tech, cutscenes, acting/voice acting are just extras in my opinion.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
@Sigfried1977. There's a reason why I have Prophecy2K on my ignore list
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol... Well dude, that's really mature
Do you perhaps ignore everyone that simply holds a different opinion to you?
These forums must appear pretty dead to you then.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
- Locked
