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

[Shifty Geezer]

Edit: as a comparison, the first Halo to Halo Infinite, i guess the latter will contain much more of this cinematic experiences, i'd be surpirsed if it didn't. On the other hand, if there's a solid multiplayer, it makes up for alot of it, games get more replay value then. Replayig a game with lots of cutscenes isn't my cup of tea, even if i could skip them what's the point then

Diablo 3 has huge replayability (even if you're not into rifts, there's loads of classes to play as) and very well rendered cutscenes as part of the story, which are skippable. That's how it should be if you want 1) a game with a story with 2) replayability where you already know the story and don't want watch it again.

Also, what exactly is the counter-point to this story-driven game concern? You want games to not have any stories or cutscenes? The only issue I have are the silly 'set pieces' like Uncharted's, where you have to press a button, or wiggle a controller as a one-off interaction to raise a door or squeeze through a gap. The button pressing here strikes me as pointless. It's not like you can fumble and lose the game, so it's just a thin veneer of interactivity on an event that otherwise takes the player out of the game. Proper cutscenes that are skippable and provide a story strike me as inevitable and necessary in many of these games, and I don't see how else they can be done, nor that there's anything wrong with them. And tens of millions of buyers of these games seem to agree.

 

[Karamazov]

https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/...-gameplay-or-narrative-focus-in-a-game.56592/

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What's wrong with that? It's all subjective. Opinions are opinions.

Opinions on what a game is like to play when one hasn't played that game isn't terribly useful though. It can even come across as disingenuous to the developers, belittling the gameplay they put in by calling their game a glorified movie and suggesting no-one needs to play it as it can be watched on YouTube instead.

If someone has played the game and found the gameplay lacking and felt it could just be watched, fine, but grouping a whole bunch of titles together and dismissing their gameplay as was done here doesn't sit right.

 

[iroboto]

Also, what exactly is the counter-point to this story-driven game concern? You want games to not have any stories or cutscenes? The only issue I have are the silly 'set pieces' like Uncharted's, where you have to press a button, or wiggle a controller as a one-off interaction to raise a door or squeeze through a gap. The button pressing here strikes me as pointless. It's not like you can fumble and lose the game, so it's just a thin veneer of interactivity on an event that otherwise takes the player out of the game. Proper cutscenes that are skippable and provide a story strike me as inevitable and necessary in many of these games, and I don't see how else they can be done, nor that there's anything wrong with them. And tens of millions of buyers of these games seem to agree.

I think he is referring to the silly set pieces where you wiggle the controller and basically 'play through' a cutscene. This is also my beef with games that do too much of this. I'm totally okay with cutscenes. But to be forced to play through them as if they are gameplay is just the worst.

Oddly, as much as everyone gives Ryse Son of Rome a hard time over QTE; their actual QTE was the game. There are choices to be made, timings to be hit, skills that actually impacted your QTE fighting. In essence, it was the game. I didn't have a problem with Ryse. Where I had problems with silly set pieces.

And if silly set pieces are 'interactive' movies. Then I'd agree with that sentiment. because I'm much rather be sneaking around and doing cover shooting; or having to figure out a puzzle. The silly set pieces are about as difficult and straight forward as a tutorial. And I can't call that type of thing gameplay.

 

[AzBat]

Opinions on what a game is like to play when one hasn't played that game isn't terribly useful though. It can even come across as disingenuous to the developers, belittling the gameplay they put in by calling their game a glorified movie and suggesting no-one needs to play it as it can be watched on YouTube instead.

If someone has played the game and found the gameplay lacking and felt it could just be watched, fine, but grouping a whole bunch of titles together and dismissing their gameplay as was done here doesn't sit right.

Again, so? He had an opinion, he voiced it. He followed up explaining the games he did play & how long, then stated why he didn't like it & how to him some of them could have been watched instead. Personally I think you can get opinions on a game just from watching it. They may not be as good as if you played it yourself, sure. However, if the developers want to get butthurt on those opinions then they need to get thicker skin or make better games.

But just for the record, I like the kind of games he doesn't. LOL I just started Rise of the Tomb Raider last night. Loved the previous game too. I know some don't like those kinds of games, but I would still recommend they watch it played it by someone else.

Tommy McClain

 

[JoeJ]

Someone explained it's a general trend, i agreed and said it's not only sony.

I would say it started with CD-ROMs on PC, which introduced the term 'multimedia', and probably Star Wars Rebel Assault was the first big successful game utilizing this tech. (Also 7th Guest, Wing Commander 3, IIRC.)
So the discussion about 'too much' cutscenes was there long before current gen, motion blur or DOF. It was there even before PSOne.
There was often bad critique from both journalists and gamers, just as it is now.
(btw, QTE comes from Apples Quicktime software for multimedia presentations, which walked hand in hand with CD-Roms, and back the days entire 'games' where made with Quicktime - mostly children / casual games or education).

It seems most critique comes from PC players and much less from console. This makes sense if we agree the best 'cinematic' games are mostly Sony exclusives. The difference in Unchatred cutscene vs. Tomb Raider cutscene is day and night, if you ask me. Sony understands how movies work.
Taking GoW as an example for bad cutscenes is likely a bad choice, because it is a best case, not a bad example to criticize. Likely that's why you get little backing here in this thread, although your opinion stands for many.
Personally i'm in the middle ground - i enjoy cutscenes if they catch my interest. In many games my primary motivation is to find out how the story continues.

But still, i think static cutscenes is something that collides with what games should be.
A remarkable approach to avoid it, but still telling stories very well is shown by Frictional Games (Penumbra, Amnesia, Soma), here some of their thoughts when designing Soma: https://www.gamedev.net/articles/ga...e-elements-of-interactive-storytelling-r3661/
Seems the right direction, but 1. they have no characters, and 2. the more they advance with storytelling, the less replayable are their games to me.
A very difficult subject. It's easy to say what's wrong, but hard to propose better alternatives.

How should a modern Half Life 3 look like without feeling dated? That's a good example question. I still think what we need the most is interactive characters.

 

[Nesh]

What's wrong with that? It's all subjective. Opinions are opinions.

Tommy McClain

Super Mario Bros is a movie with no gameplay.
You have no right to discuss or disagree. Respect my opinion.

 

[AzBat]

Super Mario Bros is a movie with no gameplay.
You have no right to discuss or disagree. Respect my opinion.

No biggie to me if that's your thing. Stay you!

Tommy McClain

 

[Karamazov]

Super Mario Bros is a movie with no gameplay.
You have no right to discuss or disagree. Respect my opinion.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

No biggie to me if that's your thing. Stay you!

That's not discussion. "The Red Sox are the worst sports team in the world!" I don't even know what sport they play. Is that really a valid opinion to be expressed? "Switch only has kiddie games." I don't have a Switch and haven't researched the library. Is that a fair opinion worthy of discussion, and legitimate advice I should be handing out to those who'd listen? "Video games cause gun violence and should all be banned." Just an opinion even if founded on nothing but a gut feeling. Should that be expressed without contention and without pointing out the lack of logical basis? "The world is flat and it's an international conspiracy that people are led to believe otherwise." Just an opinion and no-one should suggest I'm wrong or challenge that?

I would expect anyone sharing an opinion to be open to having that opinion challenged, and I would expect intelligent folk to point out where an opinion is illogical and/or unfounded. That's certainly the B3D way.

 

[AzBat]

That's not discussion.

He was being obtuse. I was responding in kind.

I would expect anyone sharing an opinion to be open to having that opinion challenged, and I would expect intelligent folk to point out where an opinion is illogical and/or unfounded. That's certainly the B3D way

Which everyone did & he responded with more details & still got chastised for his opinion.

Tommy McClain

 

[PSman1700]

If someone has played the game and found the gameplay lacking and felt it could just be watched, fine, but grouping a whole bunch of titles together and dismissing their gameplay as was done here doesn't sit right.

And tens of millions of buyers of these games seem to agree.

Just for the record, i have played the order/UC4 way back, about 4 hours into GoW on a family members pro, a fair bit of spider-man, HZD and bloodborne. From those it's bloodborne that doesn't take the same cinematic approach (great game btw). Had a detroit become human demo last year so can't really say there. Atleast i played most of them (not that many big AAA this gen) or if i did not ive seen others playing it (in person).
These games sell about 10 million each, that's about 10% of the total PS4 users. I'm one of those tens of millions of buyers, and i wouldn't say i really love cinematic experiences all that much. MGS series always did that though.

Like the UC4 jeep example:

There's people that don't like this kind of approach some games take, there's many on the net/forums that voice the same opinions.

. Personally I think you can get opinions on a game just from watching it.

You can, for the SP story atleast. For exploring and discovering etc one needs to play himself.

if the developers want to get butthurt on those opinions then they need to get thicker skin or make better games.

Developers have not much to say in this i think. They probably do what is told, the current approach is better for marketing and reviews, economics are the most important.

'cinematic' games are mostly Sony exclusives

Perhaps, don't know, i don't play much SP games anymore, and the ones i do are PS exclusives, and they are very cinematic indeed, not just the cut scenes, but also the over-use of motion blur, non-interactive moments, or the jeep/boat examples. Yes many like that but also many don't, even those who actually bought or played the games.

Which everyone did & he responded with more details & still got chastised for his opinion.

I really have no idea why it is so sensitive, i say i don't like the cinematic style, another says he like it, just two different opinions with arguments why.
Still don't have an answer to if that speedrunner website was straight out lying when he said GoW contains more cutscenes then gameplay, was he including the boat moments too? That youtube video has all the boat moments and they total 32 minutes. Total gameplay is about 17hours without exploring/finding hidden items, can't find anywhere how many hours that would be watching.

About 6 hours, boating included 6.5 hours. Well still below then total playtime then, but still, that's alot.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There's people that don't like this kind of approach some games take, there's many on the net/forums that voice the same opinions.

Indeed, and there's nothing wrong with them having different tastes.

I really have no idea why it is so sensitive, i say i don't like the cinematic style,

Because you didn't express it that way. You introduced the argument as all Sony's games don't need playing because they can be watched. Quote:

But true anyway, all the Sony aaa have mostly been movies​

That's untrue, as backed up by real evidence (see below) and is disingenuous to the devs who crafted the gameplay that people enjoy. You did not say cinematic, or heavy on the cut-scenes, or with too many QTEs for your liking, but that they have mostly been movies. Mostly meaning more than half of a Sony AAA game is movie.

Still don't have an answer to if that speedrunner website was straight out lying when he said GoW contains more cutscenes then gameplay,

It's a speed run. Speed runs can get 100 hour games down to 30 minutes. Hell, Morrowind was speed-run down to 3 minutes!! So yeah, if speed-running, and skipping as much gameplay and content as possible and rushing to the end, sure, GoW has more cinematics than speed-run gameplay. For people enjoying the game normally as it was designed and intended, no, cinematics are a part of the game.

If you want to investigate this properly and logically, use full gameplay timings. How Long To Beat is a website that lists these.

Main story is 20 hours average.
Main + extras is 30 hours
Completionist is 50 hours

Now, what proportion of that playtime is cinematics? Over to good old YouTube...

6 hours.

For a normal player just wanting the story, the cinematics are at most 30%. It's 20% of a more usual play-through. HZD is about 13% cinematics. UC4 is about 40%.

From real data, there's a perfectly acceptable opinion that Sony's AAA games tend to be heavy on the cinematics and one personally prefers less. That's very different to saying the games are just movies.

 

[PSman1700]

That's untrue, as backed up by real evidence (see below) and is disingenuous to the devs who crafted the gameplay that people enjoy. You did not say cinematic, or heavy on the cut-scenes, or with too many QTEs for your liking, but that they have mostly been movies. Mostly meaning more than half of a Sony AAA game is movie.

Yes, i worded it wrong, in my later posts, i said that those games where heavily cinematic gameplay style, with many lenghty cutscens. It's that what i ment.

For a normal player just wanting the story, the cinematics are at most 30%

That's way to much for me, we are not even including the moments (like the boat conversations) where you basically don't play. 20 hours, most play-throughs are about 15 to 17 hours (youtubers aren't low skilled gamers?). No idea what the percentage gets then, but anything near 40% seems much for an experienced gamer.

From real data, there's a perfectly acceptable opinion that Sony's AAA games tend to be heavy on the cinematics and one personally prefers less. That's very different to saying the games are just movies.

Yes i wrote that they are just movies, but anyone can understand they are not, as there is gameplay, i have not stated that either after that one comment, one needs to see the discussion as a whole, not just the first or one comment. I think you can get it any way you like that way, for the most.

Edit: Real movies, not even 60% gameplay

https://www.ladbible.com/technology...ARqTNtk7HE1f2rkSCC1Y5Bw80m6Ntzc0u9nZSEQC9ac4a

https://www.engadget.com/2019/05/20...TXcT5s_YgGHNRCdo_r9i1vNjyb9p6fbCBNCGIAtSW-HLp

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yes, i worded it wrong, in my later posts, i said that those games where heavily cinematic gameplay style, with many lenghty cutscens. It's that what i ment.

Sure, but you never retracted your initial statement.

Yes i wrote that they are just movies, but anyone can understand they are not, as there is gameplay, i have not stated that either after that one comment, one needs to see the discussion as a whole, not just the first or one comment

You stated that the games were just movies, and then when challenged, argued all the cinematic elements. Everything hinges off this communication and is tied to your original point that, until you say, "yeah, ignore that," all your subsequent posts are connected with it and interpreted as part of that argument.

 

[Nesh]

No biggie to me if that's your thing. Stay you!

Tommy McClain

I d like you to support me in case someone dares to express a disagreement such as that Mario has gameplay, therefore disrespects mine that Mario is pure movie

 

[PSman1700]

Sure, but you never retracted your initial statement.

That first comment was a response to a joke from Brit when he said all consoles can play youtube, it wasn't totally serious, just like my comment. From all my further posts it's clear what i ment, i even responded to Iroboto's post saying how much better he explained it then me.

You stated that the games were just movies, and then when challenged, argued all the cinematic elements. Everything hinges off this communication and is tied to your original point that, until you say, "yeah, ignore that," all your subsequent posts are connected with it and interpreted as part of that argument.

Oh well, ofc ignore that first post, i mean, they are not movies clearly. I get the confusion then.

 

[Karamazov]

we could talk about the case of street figher the movie the game, a game from a movie from a game

 

[PSman1700]

God knows with next generation we might move to another direction, with less 'cinematic experiences', as developers get new idea's with the SSD

 

[Karamazov]

VR games are cinematic free...for now !