Cinematic Presentation VS Focus on Gameplay

[Serebii]

As the technology has progressed in game consoles, there has been a running trend on making games feel epic, giving them a cinematic feel above all else.

 

Now, I'm not saying that these sort of games are bad, but I feel that they may be taking away part of gaming, and attempting to turn it into movies. I've seen many complaints around the net of things such as this, with games having mediocre gameplay between awesome story parts. We then get games like Metal Gear Solid 4 which have cutscenes of longer than 30 minutes. Then there are situations like QTEs which are just simple button presses to do cool stuff automatically.

 

Now, I get the love for Uncharted and The Last of Us, but to me these games are fantastic on presentation and narrative, but to me the gameplay on them was rather middling. They're rather linear, and the gameplay is somewhat repetitive.

 

As many of you know, I am a rather strong supporter of Nintendo, and part of the reason why is because they put the gameplay first with the narrative as a secondary option. Nintendo games are , to me, for the most part a joy to play. They are just pure fun and bring a smile to my face when I play, which doesn't really happen much with these more epic games. They also let me play the game rather than watch a good portion of it.

 

 

So what do you think? Do you like the focus on cinematic presentation in games at moment?

 

Disclaimer: This is not a thread to start a fight, I'm just trying to start a balanced discussion like I did with my past topics in this specific forum regarding Mario, Platform Exclusive DLC and Dilution of Shooters

Edited July 7, 2013 by Serebii

[Cube]

I don't like it in games like Metal Gear Solid where they play extremely long cut-scenes, but games that create a cinematic experience via gameplay is a brilliant thing.

 

The Last of Us is a brilliant example of this. You have the brilliant story of Joel and Ellie, but beyond that, the game puts a ton of effort into how each section will make you feel using a combination of sound, visuals, level design and gameplay.

 

The game knows when it needs intense action, it knows when to freak you out, it knows when the game needs to slow down for the story and it knows when it needs to let you just look around. It also knows that it can't just keep pulling the same tricks over and over again. The exploration is handled extremely well, too. There are extra short paths to explore - some with collectibles, some with supplies and some which are simply pointless - which makes the world feel much bigger and stops it feeling like a "corridor shooter", and the sections where you can just look around, read how things happened and just look at what the world have become are just sublime.

 

The gameplay is also brilliantly done. Elements are introduced over time, the way the gameplay works with enemies keep things feeling tense, and the ability to find a way through sections without using up any supplies is also great.

 

The Last of Us is an amazing example on how a game can have a brilliant, cinematic story and atmosphere while still having top-notch gameplay, variety and exploration.

 

But, yes, Uncharted was pretty much non-stop mindless linear action with some puzzle/platform elements. Which is what made it so much fun. It's like Excite Truck - it doesn't have a story (as it is a racing game), the gameplay isn't exactly sublime, the graphics weren't good, the sound was horrendous. Yet...there was just something about it that made it so unbelievably fun and joyful.

[Zell]

Serebii, you seem to be mixing two arguments? You start talking about presentation and then move on to narrative.

 

I think this "graphics vs gameplay" debate is rather old hat and quite frankly obsolete because good graphics and good gameplay aren't mutually exclusive. It's a myth that developers have to choose one or the other when making a game. Nintendo back in the Gamecube era produced some of the best graphics of the time, yet it's hard to argue that they sacrificed the gameplay (another question, how do you define "gameplay"?). Most of the best games this generation had stunning graphics and this has been true since the NES days.

 

Now in regards to "narrative/story vs gameplay", there are games where the main focus is on the story and that's okay. For instance, I'm a big fan of the Zero Escape games, the Phoenix Wright series and the PS1 era Final Fantasy games, where the main driver for me playing the game was to progress through the story.

 

I don't think it's a case of choosing sides, I enjoy both kinds of experiences. 999 had almost no gameplay in it, but it is probably my favourite DS game.

 

But again, a good story and good gameplay aren't mutually exclusive. A lot of it how you choose to go about telling it, but I can think of many examples of games with cinematic presentation with a focus on narrative that also have excellent gameplay.

 

A recent example is Tomb Raider. Stunning graphics, story told through cinematic cutscenes and OTT set pieces with QTEs, but the gameplay isn't sidelined at all, in fact it's the primary focus in my eyes.

 

An example on Nintendo consoles is Resident Evil 4. Very cinematic approach, but I don't think anyone here could tell me with a straight face that the gameplay was middling.

 

My point is that it's not a case of one or the other. You can have both.

[Jonnas]

I can't speak for too many specific examples, as I didn't play games like Uncharted and the Last of Us, but it does bother me when a game doesn't know when to be a game.

Namely, stuff like a character wiping the floor with a few enemies in a cutscene (why not let the player do it himself?), or being cutscene-heavy with the gameplay existing just because.

 

With Fahrenheit, it works because everything is interactive at all times, so you always feel immersed and in control. Stuff in the Mother series always happen through gameplay. Stories with branching paths such as Mass Effect and Valkyrie Profile: CoP can only be properly done in videogames (bonus points if the choices are done through gameplay, like in Spec Ops)

 

Another thing that videogames can do well is world building. Metroid Prime gives us logs and scans, Fire Emblem gives us optional character development for their tons of minor characters, and the Tales series gives us amusing banter between the people in your group. All of this is optional, and really hard to convey through other mediums.

 

So, when I see a game trying to act like it's a movie with the occasional gameplay in between (yes, QTEs are included in this), I can never help but think of the wasted potential. Videogames can do such unique things with their narrative.

[Serebii]

Serebii, you seem to be mixing two arguments? You start talking about presentation and then move on to narrative.

 

I think this "graphics vs gameplay" debate is rather old hat and quite frankly obsolete because good graphics and good gameplay aren't mutually exclusive. It's a myth that developers have to choose one or the other when making a game. Nintendo back in the Gamecube era produced some of the best graphics of the time, yet it's hard to argue that they sacrificed the gameplay (another question, how do you define "gameplay"?). Most of the best games this generation had stunning graphics and this has been true since the NES days.

 

Now in regards to "narrative/story vs gameplay", there are games where the main focus is on the story and that's okay. For instance, I'm a big fan of the Zero Escape games, the Phoenix Wright series and the PS1 era Final Fantasy games, where the main driver for me playing the game was to progress through the story.

 

I don't think it's a case of choosing sides, I enjoy both kinds of experiences. 999 had almost no gameplay in it, but it is probably my favourite DS game.

 

But again, a good story and good gameplay aren't mutually exclusive. A lot of it how you choose to go about telling it, but I can think of many examples of games with cinematic presentation with a focus on narrative that also have excellent gameplay.

 

A recent example is Tomb Raider. Stunning graphics, story told through cinematic cutscenes and OTT set pieces with QTEs, but the gameplay isn't sidelined at all, in fact it's the primary focus in my eyes.

 

An example on Nintendo consoles is Resident Evil 4. Very cinematic approach, but I don't think anyone here could tell me with a straight face that the gameplay was middling.

 

My point is that it's not a case of one or the other. You can have both.

Not entirely. I can see why you think that but a cinematic presentation is largely predicated on having a substantial story, as well as the amazing graphics. This is the point I was making. I'm not saying it's an either/or thing, but I'm talking about the predominance of them in the view of developers. Now, they're all talking about creating cinematic experiences and this is what I question.

[Dcubed]

If you're gonna make a movie, don't call it a game.

 

I have no problem with stuff like Heavy Rain, because it doesn't pretend to be something it is not. David Cage doesn't try to frame it as a movie disguised as an action game but stuff like Tomb Raider or Asura's Wrath, which are basically movies disguised as games that play themselves, are utterly cancerous to the entire concept of a video game.

 

Likewise I have no problem with visual novel style games like Ace Attorney or Ghost Trick (hell I love those games!). It's when the developer/publisher lies to you and makes "games" with such a pathetically small amount of player agency that I can't stand the sight of it.

[Cube]

but stuff like Tomb Raider or Asura's Wrath, which are basically movies disguised as games that play themselves, are utterly cancerous to the entire concept of a video game.

 

The most memorable thing about the recent Tomb Raider was how unbelievably good the exploration, movement and combat was.

 

If I had to compare it to another game, it wouldn't be Uncharted. It would be Metroid Prime.

[Zell]

Not entirely. I can see why you think that but a cinematic presentation is largely predicated on having a substantial story, as well as the amazing graphics. This is the point I was making. I'm not saying it's an either/or thing, but I'm talking about the predominance of them in the view of developers. Now, they're all talking about creating cinematic experiences and this is what I question.

 

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with creating a cinematic experience if that's what they're going for. I do realise there's a lot of crap on the market (especially the FPS space) that tries to disguise it's unoriginal, linear, repetitive gameplay by having lots of cinematic cutscenes, to which I say get lost. We can vote with our wallets and not buy those games.

 

If you're gonna make a movie, don't call it a game.

 

I have no problem with stuff like Heavy Rain, because it doesn't pretend to be something it is not. David Cage doesn't try to frame it as a movie disguised as an action game but stuff like Tomb Raider or Asura's Wrath, which are basically movies disguised as games that play themselves, are utterly cancerous to the entire concept of a video game.

 

Likewise I have no problem with visual novel style games like Ace Attorney or Ghost Trick (hell I love those games!). It's when the developer/publisher lies to you and makes "games" with such a pathetically small amount of player agency that I can't stand the sight of it.

 

I'm going to assume that you haven't played Tomb Raider, otherwise you wouldn't be describing it as a games that plays itself. It's one of the best games of the year. Cube's comparison to Metroid Prime is a good one, but I personally would liken Tomb Raider more to Resident Evil 4.

[Jonnas]

Ah yes, Ace Attorney and Ghost Trick are other games that fit the videogame medium properly. You can explore at your own pace, and the plot doesn't advance until the player figures out what's going on. Even if the plot is linear, those games remain aware of how to involve the player in it, instead of just showing it.

 

The mystery genre in general fits videogames well. It's just that Ace Attorney is one of the few that takes it to the heights it deserves.

 

 

Since we're on this subject, I've been replaying Final Fantasy 6, and I love how they seamlessly incorporate fights into cutscenes and vice-versa without missing a beat.

[Grazza]

Whenever a friend brings round a Westernised, multiformat game to show me, it usually goes like this:

 

1) Cutscene with graphics far better than the machine can do real-time

2) Short tutorial

3) Another cutscene

4) Tutorial

5) Cutscene (always with emphasis on voice acting)

6) Another tutorial

7) More cutscenes

 

...And so on.

 

I'm not against high standards of presentation, and I definitely don't want everything to be really simple, but too many games seem like they're trying to impress you. "Look at this amazing scene. It's like a film!" Again, I don't want to be a hypocrite because cinematics have been an important part of great games, like the way Miyamoto framed things in Ocarina of Time, or the truly enjoyable cutscenes/voice acting in Fire Emblem: Awakening, but the best games just seem to do it well without worrying whether the wider audience will find it impressive.

 

The modern trend seems to favour presentation over everything else. This year I played Ni no Kuni - a game I had high hopes for - but whilst there is a high emphasis on presentation and story scenes, the game isn't built as carefully as Level-5's PS2 RPG, Dragon Quest VIII, and is nowhere near as good. Worryingly, many reviews seem to miss details like this.

 

There is a danger (well it's not really a danger - it's happened) that games have become more graphically detailed but less interactive. Just give me more games like Wind Waker or Metroid Prime, with immersive worlds to explore and full control over them, because I'm not watching a film, I'm playing a game. I don't really want to be impressed, I want to be enthralled.

[Jonnas]

Grazza reminded me of a discussion I once had with a friend over Skies of Arcadia's graphics. This friend was arguing that Final Fantasy FMVs and beautiful backgrounds were more impressive than anything in SoA, while I was arguing that SoA actually allows you to change camera angles and explore every nook and cranny more carefully, plus it allowed every cutscene, even major ones, to be played with actual in-game graphics.

This was before either of us touched Final Fantasy X which embraced a bit of both.

 

Just saying, this "be impressed" mentality with style over substance isn't as recent as we might think.