How you define the quality of gameplay maybe but surely everyone knows what I mean when I say gameplay.
Gameplay elements, evolution, and enjoyment not for everyone? [2019+] *spawn*
- Thread starter orangpelupa
- Start date
How you define the quality of gameplay maybe but surely everyone knows what I mean when I say gameplay.
Sony's AAA titles being talked about here aren't those games by any stretch. There's lots of interactivity in Uncharted, Spider-Man, GoW, etc. Yes, you can enjoy the story without playing by watch YT vids, but you can't enjoy the playing by watching YT vids.
I once tried to play a movie. Movies suck. Only one button press to play and then nothing to do.
I believe there is place for all kinds of experiences but one person doesn't need to like all of them. I'm definitely in the boat that has no interest in playing death stranding. But I'm happy death stranding got made. Perhaps there is group of people who will really love it. If not, well then that's the lesson game developers will learn and avoid making same mistake again.
I believe there is place for all kinds of experiences but one person doesn't need to like all of them. I'm definitely in the boat that has no interest in playing death stranding. But I'm happy death stranding got made. Perhaps there is group of people who will really love it. If not, well then that's the lesson game developers will learn and avoid making same mistake again.
You watched God of War ? And you think that's only what the game had to offer ? You are so so wrong. The combat in this game is sublime. And the sense of exploration is great too and is much, much better than the "exploration", or the lack of, in Horizon.
If I may ask, since how long do you play videogames ?
It isn't only the amount of cut-scenes though, we have nowadays gameplay that feels more 'scripted', example is an event where you get attacked and being asked what to do now, press X to defend, Square to run, the way you traverse through the game and a dialog starts very film like. Actual gameplay has elements of motion blur, that in combination with the fps.
It's a shift from the generation where we had half life 1/2, Halo, gow1/2 etc, apart from MGS which always had this kind of style. It's a fact Sony's high budget titles have become more movie-like then before, or have many movie like elements, and with no MP some might consider watching someone playing it. Those games sell well, also thanks to excellent marketing, and that's good. But on the other side, there's also people who don't like the new style. How will next gen games be, a step further again?
Well, that's just personal opinions, for me it's the other way around. Yes HZD has this cinematic style of play and a decent amount of cutscenes, but it also offers a vast world i can explore and admire, GoW seems much more like UC4, semi open world if that exists.
It's a shift from the generation where we had half life 1/2, Halo, gow1/2 etc, apart from MGS which always had this kind of style. It's a fact Sony's high budget titles have become more movie-like then before, or have many movie like elements, and with no MP some might consider watching someone playing it. Those games sell well, also thanks to excellent marketing, and that's good. But on the other side, there's also people who don't like the new style. How will next gen games be, a step further again?
Well, that's just personal opinions, for me it's the other way around. Yes HZD has this cinematic style of play and a decent amount of cutscenes, but it also offers a vast world i can explore and admire, GoW seems much more like UC4, semi open world if that exists.
GoW sense of exploration and discovery is in every way superior to Horizon. You can wander and admire the scenery in Horizon, yes, but there are basically no secrets to find (except one, only one, small quest with a few objects hidden to get some loot, the rest is just stuff marked on the map to collect).
You clearly didn't play GoW, no offense, but you don't know what you are talking about.
GoW is more semi-open world then HZD is. But i see where your opinion differs, i don't care so much about hidden objects, more the scenery, might be the reason why i like HZD more. Oh and i did play GoW, not on my PS4 (a family's Pro) and not the whole game, but about 3 to 4 hours in.
It's all very well to say these are changes to modern gaming, but suggesting they are significant in Sony's first-party line-up (and Death Stranding) where they aren't is completely misplaced. It's very wrong to generalise Sony's first-party, or any bunch of games including MS and Nintendo's, to some generic concepts of change. Sony's games should be critiqued for what they are which, AFAIK, are action games for most of them, with a couple of David Cage type games that are QTE driven.
Realistically, how much of the Sony AAA games you play spent in QTEs as you describe? Something like Uncharted will have a few moments of that sort of thing in amongst many hours of free gameplay. Watching 'The Last Of Us' on YT doesn't give you the experience of coming up with your own tactics and trying to execute them in an encounter, and that's the core experience. All these games are mostly games with some copious story telling, rather than stories with occasional interactivity.
I think this deserves it's own action game design thread
Some thoughts of mine:1. Half Life was not a story driven game, it only had realistic setting and environment, and atmosphere. But it was fully interactive, and the player did not get a helping hand from the game so he sees the cutscenes at the right time or knows what he should do. I think it's a common misconception HL has a strong narrative, or it would be story driven.
2. Sonys exclusives do a lot with cutscenes and story, but they do it right and are very successful.
Now, maybe as a consequence, it seems almost everybody else thinks SP games MUST build on story, so they try to do the same to compete. And the results are often unplayable to me. Recent examples:
Latest Tomb Raider: Lots of HQ cutscenes and QTE. But like many games (especially franchises) they fail to introduce characters so there could be emotional interest on them, and they fail to show why the bad boys are bad. Result: No motivation to play the game. (In contrast Sony always get's those things right.)
Metro Exodus: Additionally to the above the game gives helping hand in form of wives constant orders, which is annoying and does not feel interactive but forced. (Really liked previous Metro games)
Same for almost all AAA games i have tried in recent years. Better watch a movie which is more interesting and less work. I really saw the downfall of SP gaming coming...
But there is hope, very recent games are better.
Control: No helping hand! I think there are many minor things wrong with this game, but this alone makes me finishing it. Story is there, but it serves more as atmosphere than being a game play constraint. This is very right (although the story itself is a bit flat).
Gears 5: I really hate covershooters and also the artstyle, but the storytelling works. Seems a very good game to me.
So i'm optimistic again for AAA. (Although Amid Evil is by far the best game i have played recently and no AAA title can compete this.)
I think this deserves it's own action game design thread
1. Half Life was not a story driven game, it only had realistic setting and environment, and atmosphere. But it was fully interactive, and the player did not get a helping hand from the game so he sees the cutscenes at the right time or knows what he should do. I think it's a common misconception HL has a strong narrative, or it would be story driven.
2. Sonys exclusives do a lot with cutscenes and story, but they do it right and are very successful.
Now, maybe as a consequence, it seems almost everybody else thinks SP games MUST build on story, so they try to do the same to compete. And the results are often unplayable to me. Recent examples:
Latest Tomb Raider: Lots of HQ cutscenes and QTE. But like many games (especially franchises) they fail to introduce characters so there could be emotional interest on them, and they fail to show why the bad boys are bad. Result: No motivation to play the game. (In contrast Sony always get's those things right.)
Metro Exodus: Additionally to the above the game gives helping hand in form of wives constant orders, which is annoying and does not feel interactive but forced. (Really liked previous Metro games)
Same for almost all AAA games i have tried in recent years. Better watch a movie which is more interesting and less work. I really saw the downfall of SP gaming coming...
But there is hope, very recent games are better.
Control: No helping hand! I think there are many minor things wrong with this game, but this alone makes me finishing it. Story is there, but it serves more as atmosphere than being a game play constraint. This is very right (although the story itself is a bit flat).
Gears 5: I really hate covershooters and also the artstyle, but the storytelling works. Seems a very good game to me.
So i'm optimistic again for AAA. (Although Amid Evil is by far the best game i have played recently and no AAA title can compete this.)
Yes, didn't know it was a general trend, to all games/platforms, i play only sony aaa's and MP games, don't spend that much time gaming. Doesn't take away i don't like this approach, but i guess cinematic gaming sell well (many sold copies), we probably won't see it getting better next gen either. One advantage is that it works much better when advertising your game, selling points, marketing etc.
Ok, so you have some impressions about the game but clearly not enough to talk about it confidently, I think. Maybe you didn't like the game which is fair. I enjoyed Horizon for what it was, particularly the breathtaking scenery, even the story and the combat against the machines. But GoW is not a "cinematic game" (as only a). Its a very complete package with every bit of everything.
And in my book exploration means the thrill of discovery with secrets to find and such. The exploration aspect in Horizon was in the combat against the machines, for instance when you find a new class. The open world ? that's the graphics talking. But even there I would say God of War, at least on Pro, is more technically impressive using the framerate mode. But that's me, as my way of playing is usually being always in motion with the character or the camera (which is usually at max speed).
For the record I talk about those games in confidence because I platinumed both (and I only platinum games I really like).
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Quantic Dreams *cough*.
But these have their place, I throughly enjoyed Detroit Beyond Human and will replay it as a bunch of arsehole robots one day 
I've not dived into Heavy Rain (bundled with Detroit) because it's not my cup of tea, nor was Beyond Two Souls. I generally don't do horror games but Until Dawn was also fan-bloody-tastic (and story/QTE-heavy) and I also liked Telltale's The Walking Dead.This discussion feels a bit bizarre, like some folks are making a case for why other folks are not enjoying themselves the right way, which is a bit nuts and probably isn't what folks mean. On the one hand, I wholeheartedly agree with @Globalisateur about the experience of playing God of War. The combat is amazing, the weapons feel sublime and for me, I couldn't imagine experiencing this game purely as a spectator - ditto The Last of Us or Spider-Man. They are games where the experience itself, aside from the visuals and story, are genuinely thrilling as you only get that when you're in control, when what the on-screen characters do in any moment is on you as the player. But I've watched YouTube videos of people playing Resident Evil games, because I'm never going to play them and I can enjoyed the experience as a spectator.
If a particular genre (like horror for me) isn't your thing, you don't own the platform for which a game is exclusive on or money is a barrier to enjoyment, why not watch somebody else play? You're trading zero enjoyment for a game to some enjoyment for a game.
It's a discussion about whether one can enjoy a story-heavy game without having to buy and play it simply by watching YT videos. The case was made that (Sony's) games have not much meaningful gameplay. The counter argument is there's plenty of gameplay and though you can enjoy the story watching YT, you don't get to enjoy the game. Applied directly to the thread topic, you can enjoy (if that's possible
) the story of Death Stranding watching all the cutscenes on YouTube, but you won't enjoy the game (if it's something you can/would enjoy) without actually playing it yourself.I never understood the "hate" for Sony's cinematic games. Being able to enjoy the story and cinematics on Youtube is a testament of how well made they are. That does not represent any proof that there is no gameplay or that the game cannot be enjoyed enormously by playing it. It can also become a testament of how well made the gameplay sections are, to the point that they feel cinematic and natural enough to watch without getting bored. That means if the gameplay is great but it also looks and sounds great the developer has made a great job at making the gameplay experience even better. Games are audiovisual nut highly interactive mediums. So the audiovisual IS and SHOULD be part of the package in some genres. The art of cinematography can be applied even during gameplay. How humans perceive aesthetics are universal.
MGS1 althought not a Sony game, was also one of the most heavy cut scene and dialogue driven games when it was released. Yet I can certainly say the gameplay was also super packed with content and variety for such a "short" game that it was one of the most rich and memorable experiences I ever had. Simply looking at videos would have barely given me an idea of it's complete splendor.
It is nonsensical to complain about Uncharted or TLOU or GoW or Spiderman, when these games have put a lot of emphasis on the gameplay as well. The Order was not received well because of the gameplay, but visuals and cut scenes are still superb to this day. That says a lot. If there is no gameplay to enjoy games are not liked. The other Sony games didnt get a "pass" because they had nice graphics and cinematics. They were brilliant experiences. The Gears of War series (which I enjoyed on my 360, and was the reason I got one) had less variety in gameplay than any of these games but nobody complains that the gameplay is as basic as it can get. The majority of the gameplay at least on the 4 games I played on my 360, was move to area, shoot basic enemies and cover, rinse and repeat with some walking in between just to find a lever to open a door or something. It was as linear as it can get. The melee combat was very basic too. This was not the case of my experience with TLOU, God of War and Uncharted (still didnt play Spiderman). TLOU and Uncharted environments change the way you approach the enemies to defeat them. TLOU provides a lot of variability in stealth and combat, and you can form your own strategies. Uncharted is not limited to one level and same type of environments, spaces are open or close, the ability to jump and climb objects add variability, set pieces change and add something new to experience with the gameplay and change the pace constantly (a moving train, a ship, a ship that's sinking and turning upside down, a plane, a jungle, a burning building, roofs of buildings etc). God of War is certainly NOT a QTE based game and I cant stress enough how much gameplay and exploration that game had.
MGS1 althought not a Sony game, was also one of the most heavy cut scene and dialogue driven games when it was released. Yet I can certainly say the gameplay was also super packed with content and variety for such a "short" game that it was one of the most rich and memorable experiences I ever had. Simply looking at videos would have barely given me an idea of it's complete splendor.
It is nonsensical to complain about Uncharted or TLOU or GoW or Spiderman, when these games have put a lot of emphasis on the gameplay as well. The Order was not received well because of the gameplay, but visuals and cut scenes are still superb to this day. That says a lot. If there is no gameplay to enjoy games are not liked. The other Sony games didnt get a "pass" because they had nice graphics and cinematics. They were brilliant experiences. The Gears of War series (which I enjoyed on my 360, and was the reason I got one) had less variety in gameplay than any of these games but nobody complains that the gameplay is as basic as it can get. The majority of the gameplay at least on the 4 games I played on my 360, was move to area, shoot basic enemies and cover, rinse and repeat with some walking in between just to find a lever to open a door or something. It was as linear as it can get. The melee combat was very basic too. This was not the case of my experience with TLOU, God of War and Uncharted (still didnt play Spiderman). TLOU and Uncharted environments change the way you approach the enemies to defeat them. TLOU provides a lot of variability in stealth and combat, and you can form your own strategies. Uncharted is not limited to one level and same type of environments, spaces are open or close, the ability to jump and climb objects add variability, set pieces change and add something new to experience with the gameplay and change the pace constantly (a moving train, a ship, a ship that's sinking and turning upside down, a plane, a jungle, a burning building, roofs of buildings etc). God of War is certainly NOT a QTE based game and I cant stress enough how much gameplay and exploration that game had.
Last edited:
They are great games, as the reviews state. That doesn't mean everyone has to like way modern games are having cinematic elements and more/lengthier cutscenes. Besides that, all big games are moving to that direction, there's no hate or attack against anything Sony, if there's nothing against Sony there's no need to panic
But there is a difference between saying I am not liking because they are mostly movies and not liking because I am personally not into cinematic games.
In general all games with story and a sense or realism strive for cinematic elements because they tell the story better for their genre.
Even non-Sony games provide cinematic experience. At the end the cinematic experience seems to be subject of the genre and available budget.
If the developer doesnt have the budget he will find alternative ways to engage us with the characters and story the same way technical limitations force developers to find genius ways of game design to express the various elements, like Limbo or Shadow of the Colossus.
If the game does not need character development and the emphasis is on action and style we get Bayonetta or Vanguish or even Metal Gear Rising (even though to be honest they do have cinematic elements).
We also have games were the emphasis is on challenge, silence and atmosphere like Sekiro or Bloodborne. Story is being told differently and is secondary.
Then we have third person games that want to mimic the atmosphere of movies like Control or Resident Evil 2 or Uncharted. They dont need to be overcomplicated with themes so they dont need "over-explanations", they need to be cinematic though to convey the proper atmosphere. Character personas are important so we need to relate with them. Cut scenes provide character development and relationships. First person games can do this without "interruptions" because we see from the character and we identify/relate with him and hence his relationship with other characters easier. So in the case of Biochock, cut scenes are seamlessly implemented without camera change, characters talk to you directly or via recordings and voice calls and we barely notice. This is what made PT such a powerful experience, mimicking Hollywood horror movies without cut scenes. First person changes how things are done. God of War interestingly tried to blend both worlds with seamless story telling. It could have easily been a first person game and nobody would have noticed the "cinematic" interruptions.
But finally we have games with excessively deep themes that unconventional creators want to cram in a medium that is too complicated in nature, few people have the background to care or understand and we ve got games like Death Stranding or Metal Gear Solid.
In general all games with story and a sense or realism strive for cinematic elements because they tell the story better for their genre.
Even non-Sony games provide cinematic experience. At the end the cinematic experience seems to be subject of the genre and available budget.
If the developer doesnt have the budget he will find alternative ways to engage us with the characters and story the same way technical limitations force developers to find genius ways of game design to express the various elements, like Limbo or Shadow of the Colossus.
If the game does not need character development and the emphasis is on action and style we get Bayonetta or Vanguish or even Metal Gear Rising (even though to be honest they do have cinematic elements).
We also have games were the emphasis is on challenge, silence and atmosphere like Sekiro or Bloodborne. Story is being told differently and is secondary.
Then we have third person games that want to mimic the atmosphere of movies like Control or Resident Evil 2 or Uncharted. They dont need to be overcomplicated with themes so they dont need "over-explanations", they need to be cinematic though to convey the proper atmosphere. Character personas are important so we need to relate with them. Cut scenes provide character development and relationships. First person games can do this without "interruptions" because we see from the character and we identify/relate with him and hence his relationship with other characters easier. So in the case of Biochock, cut scenes are seamlessly implemented without camera change, characters talk to you directly or via recordings and voice calls and we barely notice. This is what made PT such a powerful experience, mimicking Hollywood horror movies without cut scenes. First person changes how things are done. God of War interestingly tried to blend both worlds with seamless story telling. It could have easily been a first person game and nobody would have noticed the "cinematic" interruptions.
But finally we have games with excessively deep themes that unconventional creators want to cram in a medium that is too complicated in nature, few people have the background to care or understand and we ve got games like Death Stranding or Metal Gear Solid.
Last edited:
awesome; glad this was split from the DS thread, I didn't want to add more noise on something off topic.
I get the arguments here for and against the idea of cinematic games. Most of us, just judging from past reading, are into our 30s or more. I think if you're feeling nostalgic about it; there is a demand for games that focus on gameplay. And if you're feeling modern about it; having some form of story/setting is definitely a selling point. Half Life and I guess Halo had silent protagonists, but what if these games we made for the first time today? Would they have stayed silent? I doubt it. That was an interesting cost cutting technique which may not bear fruit today.
There's definitely a need to recognize that cinematic games are an expansion of what we calling gaming now. The golden days of pure experimental gameplay titles are more or less over (PS2 ending/ PC time) and we're into these narrative titles. Some of which are entirely narratively focused with near 0 gameplay - 'Late Shift' being the ultimate example, or the Netflix choose your own adventure watch what happens next.
It's just acceptance of these new genres, or the acceptance that this is the mainstream of today's games. Games are just easier. A good example is watching Mass Effect series continually reduce in RPG complexity as it goes from 1 to 3.
Personally I like games that revolve around gameplay; its what keeps me coming back. That being said, I'm still mainly MP focused, and the more competitive it gets the more I can get into it etc. But that's not going to fit the bill for everyone. These new narrative titles expand to a larger audience because all humans appreciate a good story. And gameplay, honestly, could be pretty secondary for a lot of people today. But I don't think I could step through the same narrative title more than once anymore. Something about modern narrative games today that make that experience painful; which may not have been painful with older titles.
Perhaps with age, we just don't like repeating things as often. I say that, but then I look at the hours I've invested into something like Destiny 1-2 and realize that's probably false. Destiny is super replay-able - except for the initial story sequence for Destiny 2. The first time you do it, you're okay with it. Once you try to spool up your second or third toon, it's painstaking. Most people couldn't be bothered to start a second toon because of it.
Things like unskippable slow walking sequences in which a majority of the control is taken away from you; that shit sucks on play-through 2. Having to go through a ton of dialog before you can start again, also sucks. Having control taken away from you like loading animations etc (squeezing through a narrow area, crawling below some stuff); sometimes I think it's because they want to sell the mood or ambiance, but many times it's just developers just trying to hide loading screens.
And if it is the latter, hiding loading screens, that's the type of game that isn't packed wall to wall with gameplay. You're just sort of marauding through an a world working your way to the next quest giver. Fetch quests, or other things you don't really care about.
I get the need for simplicity. Quest giver is a setup I don't like to deal with unless the game is text based.
pros and cons. I think we should appreciate the new modern style, but I think we should also recognize that some players are just looking to master video gameplay mechanics; speed run etc. There is variety in modern narrative games, but it's a fraction of what it used to be as far as I can see. Anyone can boot up an older classic title and see the difference in game design. Something as simple as System Shock 2 or Diablo. Or comparing narrative titles; looking at Sierra titles or LucasArts Monkey Island ones; or the excellent space sims like X-Wing and Tie Fighter, Descent Freespace etc.
Older titles were designed to be lean. Everything felt like it had a purpose.
I get the arguments here for and against the idea of cinematic games. Most of us, just judging from past reading, are into our 30s or more. I think if you're feeling nostalgic about it; there is a demand for games that focus on gameplay. And if you're feeling modern about it; having some form of story/setting is definitely a selling point. Half Life and I guess Halo had silent protagonists, but what if these games we made for the first time today? Would they have stayed silent? I doubt it. That was an interesting cost cutting technique which may not bear fruit today.
There's definitely a need to recognize that cinematic games are an expansion of what we calling gaming now. The golden days of pure experimental gameplay titles are more or less over (PS2 ending/ PC time) and we're into these narrative titles. Some of which are entirely narratively focused with near 0 gameplay - 'Late Shift' being the ultimate example, or the Netflix choose your own adventure watch what happens next.
It's just acceptance of these new genres, or the acceptance that this is the mainstream of today's games. Games are just easier. A good example is watching Mass Effect series continually reduce in RPG complexity as it goes from 1 to 3.
Personally I like games that revolve around gameplay; its what keeps me coming back. That being said, I'm still mainly MP focused, and the more competitive it gets the more I can get into it etc. But that's not going to fit the bill for everyone. These new narrative titles expand to a larger audience because all humans appreciate a good story. And gameplay, honestly, could be pretty secondary for a lot of people today. But I don't think I could step through the same narrative title more than once anymore. Something about modern narrative games today that make that experience painful; which may not have been painful with older titles.
Perhaps with age, we just don't like repeating things as often. I say that, but then I look at the hours I've invested into something like Destiny 1-2 and realize that's probably false. Destiny is super replay-able - except for the initial story sequence for Destiny 2. The first time you do it, you're okay with it. Once you try to spool up your second or third toon, it's painstaking. Most people couldn't be bothered to start a second toon because of it.
Things like unskippable slow walking sequences in which a majority of the control is taken away from you; that shit sucks on play-through 2. Having to go through a ton of dialog before you can start again, also sucks. Having control taken away from you like loading animations etc (squeezing through a narrow area, crawling below some stuff); sometimes I think it's because they want to sell the mood or ambiance, but many times it's just developers just trying to hide loading screens.
And if it is the latter, hiding loading screens, that's the type of game that isn't packed wall to wall with gameplay. You're just sort of marauding through an a world working your way to the next quest giver. Fetch quests, or other things you don't really care about.
I get the need for simplicity. Quest giver is a setup I don't like to deal with unless the game is text based.
pros and cons. I think we should appreciate the new modern style, but I think we should also recognize that some players are just looking to master video gameplay mechanics; speed run etc. There is variety in modern narrative games, but it's a fraction of what it used to be as far as I can see. Anyone can boot up an older classic title and see the difference in game design. Something as simple as System Shock 2 or Diablo. Or comparing narrative titles; looking at Sierra titles or LucasArts Monkey Island ones; or the excellent space sims like X-Wing and Tie Fighter, Descent Freespace etc.
Older titles were designed to be lean. Everything felt like it had a purpose.
Last edited: