Cinematic Video Games Degrading Gameplay

[CathyRina]

Cinematic is a word people started using while trying to describe what a game looks like.
Metal gear Solid is so cinematic, FF7 is so cinematic. However that's all what the term in conjunction with video games is, colloquial language.
Triple-A devs however started to misunderstand what makes cinematic games so great. When people were amazed by FF7 for being cinematic they were amazed because it was a fully fledged JRPG whose Story is presented in a, at the time, very cinematic way. And it didn't use PS1's full graphical potential as shown by FF8/9. MGS isn't liked because it's a playable movie it's liked because it's a enjoyable game, that presents its story like a movie.
What Triple-A's seem to forget is that if I want to see a movie I go and watch a movie. If I go play a video game I go and play a game. If you going to make a cinematic game, you at the very least gotta have good story, which cinematic games like, FF13, Heavy Rain and The Order 1886 lack. Sure these games are cinematic but they are not enjoyable to play. If a game is not enjoyable to play then a game failed.
But the problem is not that the Triple-A keeps doing that, the problem is that there are more than enough people who buy these games.
I think the Graphical fidelity issue has to be discussed in another topic as there are more factors as to why graphical fidelity also negatively influenced the gaming experience.

 

[Taleweaver]

Interesting article. And aside from it being way too generalizing, I agree with you.

The 'generalizing' is easy: there are plenty of games who don't go that route. Sure, these are often indie hits or smaller budget titles, but they're there. In fact, nintendo never seem to emphasize cinematics over gameplay*. This entire notion of "modern gaming" seems to indicate that everyone follows suit. And that's simply not true.

I would also argue that this trend started appearing much sooner than last console generation (FF VII also had some lengthy cutsènes, and I think quite some CD-i games attempted this as well). But that's nitpicking.

The problem is that this is a trend that is starting to take over, to the point where it has become 'normal'. I don't play modern military shooters (spunkgargleweewee), but I can't but scratch my head at why anyone would love this. I just happened to watch this totalbiscuit's video, and he sums up things nicely. Oh, and this what if doom was done today video also pokes fun at this.

I normally wouldn't care much about how much MMS are sucky games with great visuals, and I don't mind others liking them, either. However, it seems like plenty of video game makers tend to go for that 'me too!' attitude. I even quit playing tomb raider because it had to interrupt gameplay with cutscènes around every corner, usually with unnecessary QTE's (note: I wrote about this, as well as about the walking dead, in this blog post). And I feel sad for games like The order 1886. I watched some trailers, but now that independent reviews are coming out, it seems like the game is just great in the cinematic department.
It may be farfetched, but I think AAA-games nowadays take more notion to how a game looks when someone else is playing, and actually playing the game itself. When I see someone playing tomb raider, the game comes over as much more fun than I actually have while playing it. I also love TheSpoonyExperiment's reviews of the later final fantasy's, but I notice that despite it being a huge stackpile of its negatives, I find myself somewhat attracted to it because it looks nice (and while watching someone play, it doesn't show how corridor-like the entire game is).


Now...it has to be mentioned that cinematic experiences can be great too. I have one or two of David Cage's games on my 'to play' list; I know in advance the whole thing is mostly going to be a cutscène. But because I know this, I won't expect it to be anything else. The same for the telltale games. Having just played through The Walking Dead pretty much in one go**, I have to say this game uses cinematics and QTE's in a correct matter. When the only 'choice' given is to not die (or something stupid like 'pay respect or wait indefinitely'), it's not compelling in the least.


As for the questions:

Do you see cinematic gaming as the new shift in video gaming?

It's more than a hype. And for good reasons, because some games are worth playing 'despite' them relying mostly on cinematics (again: telltale games). But a shift? No. Gamers aren't a unified group. And while it's fun to bash at preferences of call of duty players, as long as they're happy with their purchase, who cares? As long as I can find games I like, I won't complain.


Where is the cutoff for a game that has just the right amount of cinema and good gameplay?

I think this depends on the genre, and what people come to expect of it. By now, I think hardly anyone is going to play modern warfare shooters for their explorative element. They just want to use fancy gadgets and be lead through the experience.

Does mobile have enough of a fingerprint as to why the games industry is moving in such a direction?

Huh? Sorry, but...is it possible you accidentally wrote a piece of your next article in this one? I read your paragraph on mobile games, but I honestly cannot see how that's in any way relevant to the overly use of cinematics (in fact, mobile games are anything but made for cinematics).
In an attempt to answer: I don't think mobile gaming has any influence over some AAA-titles using more cinematics than needed.



*out of curiosity: is there even a single nintendo game that uses the 'press X to not die' kind of QTE's?
**it has already earned a high spot on my 'best games of 2015' list.

 

[SLiV3R]

I agree as well. Nowadays it's mostly the indie development that are interesting. Vvvvvv, mutant Mudds, shovel knight, Steamworld Dig, gunman Clive etc. on the 3ds. Spelunky and Rogue Legacy are fantastic too <3 Otherwise it's most retro games that are fun to play!

 

[WiiCube_2013]

The last interactive/cinematic game I played was Uncharted 3 and had I knew what I was in for, I'd have avoided because it's barely anything like Uncharted 2; the game was too scripted and most of the time it felt as if I were watching a movie than playing a game.

I don't want this, I want an actual game that I can play 'cause if I wanted a movie then I'd fuckin' watch one!

Btw, David Cage yours games are games!

 

[NicEXE]

Tell me this isn't true... I haven't touched this franchise since the first MW, but WTF?

You get a fscking achievement/promotion for simply pressing X to continue a cutscene?

And since when cutscenes need user input?

Hehe. This is not really what happens. This was done as a joke for games forcing the player to interact expecting him/her/it to get the feels just by pushing a button.
This is what actually happened:

 

[Arras]

Eh, there's room for both more cinematic and more gameplay-y games. Some people prefer one, some people prefer the other. I don't really mind either way, as long as it's a good game. Just depends on the mood I'm in more than anything else. Also, gameplay time is lower because production costs are much higher and modern games usually have much less backtracking/grinding or other means of increasing game time by repeating content. Especially the need to create new graphical assets for each area is killer, unlike ye olden days where you just use a tileset to build a new level.

 

[VeniaSilente]

Interesting how the times have changed.

Ninja Gaiden III (the new one) has cutscenes. But the game is mostly something like a visual novel, or an interactive theather experience. You are watching a movie with a lot of gore but have to periodically press X to advance. That's about it. It's like watching a movie in a theater, except progressively - every forty five seconds or so you have to disengage from the watching the movie and have to go to the cashier and pay a fraction of the ticket.

Ninja Gaiden III (the NES one) had cutscenes too. Heck, Ninja Gaiden I had cutscenes. Damn good ones for the time. But the game was an action platformer... well, game. The cutscenes were there to inform you about the story unfolding, and to give you a fun and well deserved rest after fifteen minutes of timing your jumps and strikes and careful usage of the Fire Wheel Art to be able to avoid those damn friggin' eagles. Not to mention cutscenes happened in between levels / "arcs". Not right in the middle of you timing a jump to attack a friggin' eagle.

Needless to say, I rather prefer the version that doesn't break immersion in a stupid way.

 

[zeello]

Making linear games makes sense in a way because it helps ensure that everyone has the same experience. Nonlinear games sound really complicated to make because then you should be curating each possible outcome but this probably takes a lot more time. It doesn't really make sense either since then you end up making content that many players won't see. Logically speaking, if a game has more than one route, then all but one of those routes must be suboptimal, because one of those routes is the most fun while all the others are less fun, and arguably the effort should have went into making the best route better/longer.

But probably the real reason behind the degradation of gameplay in favor of cinematics is because gaming has become hype driven and preorder driven. Making flashy graphics and cinematics is a way of marketing the game so that people buy it in the first place. Once you buy the game all bets are off because the game had already accomplished its goal before you even start playing.

 

[kingofgamesgx]

i don't mind cutscenes in a game but they in my opinion should take a backseat in favor of gameplay


As an example of a new game that does cutscenes well i'll say Bayonetta 2. The cutscenes are short and sweet and lead into gameplay and can often times set the stage for different types of gameplay. These types of cutscenes are just fine they take nothing away from the game.


As an example of a game from the past few years who does cutscenes bad i'll say Naruto Shippuden Ultimate Ninja Storm 3. This game has some ridiculously long cutscenes for the sake of retelling a story that has already been told in the manga, but over the course of 40min for one big series of cutscenes with little to no gameplay! It totally kills the interest in even continuing on with the game after sitting through that. Worst of all is it detracted from the gameplay! As instead of taking all that time to put in those cutscenes which kill any replay value story mode may have had they could have fixed the various bugs in the soul of the storm series which is the 3D fighting gameplay, but instead of fixing it they decided to in several months time to release an "updated" version of the game which was either $40 retail or a $20 DLC for one character and some fixes. These types of cutscenes need to go they can rune a series for someone as Naruto Shippuden Ultimate Ninja Storm 3 was that last game of its series i bought and don't see myself buying any of the others anytime soon.

 

[Jiehfeng]

Oh man, I remember the intro from MGS Ground Heroes, the cutscene was TOO DAMN LONG.

 

[Arras]

Oh man, I remember the intro from MGS Ground Heroes, the cutscene was TOO DAMN LONG.

It's MGS, what were you expecting?

 

[Obveron]

Honestly I think I'm in the minority, I hate all video game cutscenes. I hate readin dialogue too. I play videogames ONLY for gameplay. I'm 36, I've been playing games about an average of 30hours a week for the past 31 years. I've never once watched an entire cutscene, I skip the cut scenes if possible, I play another game if not possible. I rapidly skip written dialogue.
I know developers put a lot of energy and thought into cutscenes, but I just can't be interested. Perhaps it's my rampant ADD.
Friends berate me for skipping cutscenes and dialogue, they apparently want to know the story. Ugggh..

 

[Edgarska]

I preface this comment by admitting that I have no idea if I'm actually talking out of my ass. With that out of the way:
I think cinematic games are a detriment to the medium as a whole when taken as far as new games are taking it, because gameplay is taking a backseat to everything else.
Sadly, one of the things I think cause this is the relative lack of power of new consoles, since making a game with nice graphics (which are usually just average graphics with a lot of post-processing) and low framerate where 50% of the play time is cutscenes is easier/faster than one that grants more freedom by being mostly gameplay (less things can go wrong when you're just watching something play out).
Another thing I'd factor in is the human element, which makes people more likely to finish a game, and buy potential sequels, if they're having fun, and sadly these days fun = I win all the time, for people who only got into gaming because of smartphone games, this means difficulty must be lowered. Of course, there's always exceptions, but compare sales figures of games deemed hard by most people who played them with sales from games where it's almost impossible to lose.
I'd also mention the old notion of colorful = childish rearing its head again, but that's a discussion for another day.

 

[Blebleman]

I think you've mistaken "cinematic games" for "garbage games"...

There are plenty of really good cinematic games -- just look at the Metal Gear series, or the recent Final Fantasy titles, Xenosaga, Heavy Rain...

The problem is that companies are making games with no soul. They are pumping out sequels for the money, and have no desire to tell an interesting story.

 

[Jiehfeng]

It's MGS, what were you expecting?

Never played a MGS game before.

 

[Arras]

Never played a MGS game before.

http://mgsforums.com/topic/7644188/1/
Metal Gear Solid 4 had literally over 8 hours worth of cutscenes.

 

[uyjulian]

FMV games evolved :-)

 

[dubbz82]

There's a point where it can actually add to the the game (for example, the cutscenes from the NES Ninja Gaiden games) however as of say the last decade or so, a lot of games are going overboard and taking it to an abusive level. If they were to scale it back some, and only do it where it actually added to the game, I think it'd be great. In some cases this very well might mean cutting it out entirely, which I'd be fine with, because sometimes even one or two of these things can detract from the game play experience. It really depends on the game.

 

[Gahars]

Listening to the devs of The Order: 1866 was beyond sad. In their desperate attempts to sell how much it was like a movie, they sounded utterly embarrassed to be making a game.

Personally, I think this "cinematic" direction is entirely the wrong move; you're rejecting the unique strengths and features of the medium (aka gameplay, interactivity, choice, etc.) in a poor attempt to mimic another, as if that will somehow give you legitimacy. Imagine a film that tried to mimic a play down to the letter; all action occurs on one flat stage, the camera doesn't move, no cuts, etc. It'd be rightfully panned by critics and audiences alike. So why do these developers think that it'd work any better here?

It feels like there's too many failed filmmakers in games today. Maybe that's the source of the problem.

 

[Taleweaver]

I'm actually curious to know how many resume's from game studio employees get send to studio's like pixar and dreamworks. It's in no way a strange step, and there have been crossovers on all sides.


Too bad they usually suck, because cinematic games more often than not revolve around simple power fantasies where the story isn't so much important as it is to have things exploding in an exotic environment.