Press X to watch Chapter 2

[Cerrax]

Is anyone else noticing a rise in video games that are just movies with interactive scenes? It's really starting to bother me. I have read so many good reviews on Uncharted 2: Among Theives and I finally got to play it at my friends house.

Well actually, I mostly just watched cutscenes and responded to a few scripted events. The times when I did get to play, the game was so linear and unexciting that I ended up turning it off. The game is drop dead gorgeous and intense, epic, and spectacular are all words I would use to describe the look of the game. But the FEEL was not there. This is a trend that has been going for a while.

I first noticed it with Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. I read how good it was supposed to be and I loved the original PoP games, so I wanted to see the glorious return. But the game, with all it's interesting puzzles and intense battles scenes and lush playgrounds, ended up being more of a "turn the camera and hit this button" adventure. Like a long drawn out quick time event. I understand their idea was to make a simple control scheme with complex results, but I didn't ever feel in control of the character. The fights aren't button mashers, but there's little skill involved either. With only two buttons and extravagant motion capture taking up a lot of time in between, it felt slow, bland, and unwieldy. It looked amazing, but it didn't feel that way.

Now we have Assassin's Creed. Same guys that did Prince of Persia, but they promise a new control scheme that gives us control over every body part. Maybe a little over compensation for PoP's lack of options, but it interested me nonetheless. Unfortunately we lost even more control. While PoP still had solid platforming and climbing, AC gives no feeling of scaling a tower, or leaping across a rooftop. Just hold down the button as you move forward and Altair automatically compromises any obstacle he comes across. Where's the challenge? Where's the fun? Is scaling a roof while escaping armed guards supposed to be this boring? Again, it was a spectacular scene, but I never felt like it was me doing those things. It was the game making Altair leap those buildings. I didn't have to time my jumps correctly. I didn't have to accurately leap from one beam to the next. All I had to do was steer him, and make sure I had the button held down.

Now we comes to Uncharted 2. The game's beginning is as stunning as any Hollywood blockbuster. But it's loaded to the brim with quick time events, in-game cutscenes and heavily scripted events. I even died once because I thought it was a cutscene but I was still in control of the character! The game tells you nothing, gives you nothing and expects you to know exactly what's going on. Watching someone play this game is awe inspiring. But to actually play is little more than a yawn.

tl;dr I like games with HUDs and complex controls.

Any thoughts?

[The Damned]

Yes.

(I figured a short answer would be approriate for such a long post.)

[EdgeCrusher]

I'm sorry, but if you didn't like uncharted 2, you're an idiot.

[Schwaltzvald]

I'm sorry, but if you didn't like uncharted 2, you're an idiot.

???

I didn't care for the halo franchise from the very beginning to now and I don't get called an idiot...

If he felt that he was on rails the whole time then that's how he felt about the game.

[Rozovian]

PoP:SoT was an obstacle course. Fun to play, but usually only one solution to each problem. Portal was an obstacle course with a few different ways to solve a problem (or to avoid it alltogether). In that sense, Portal is better. Options are good.

[lazygecko]

I've bitched about this for years. The Japanese used to be the biggest culprits (probably still are) with their Xenosagas and Metal Gear Solids. But now that western developers are setting their sights on more or less competing directly Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich it's becoming more of a universal problem.

Single player games/campaigns in the vein of Modern Warfare are becoming so strictly linear and guided it feels more like you're playing a rail shooter. I absolutely loathe the new standard FPS narrative where you always have some NPC/dude on the radio hand-walking you through every objective, telling you exactly what to do and where to go, with invisible walls galore along the way to give you the illusion of the game world being larger than it really is. Compare this to levels of old school FPS'es like Quake or Duke Nukem 3D, they seem to be built up with the same philosophy as a platformer like Super Mario World, and I think that is inherently more fun.

I don't want a cinematic experience. I want a great game experience and if you can't deliver on one without compromising the other, then stop kidding yourself and make a fucking movie.

[Meteo Xavier]

This is nothing new. People were saying this back in 1997 with FFVII.

I don't how it could not evolve this way, personally. It seems only natural to me that with the evolution of games into much deeper territories of story and emotional appeal comes the inevitable stylistic synchronizing with movie standards. I think it'd be worse if games didn't take this approach, since it would present the much bigger problem that games are not evolving or going anywhere, not to mention less incentive to score a better budget for building or the incentive to try and make sure the gameplay matches up with the movies (clearly this isn't always the case, but I'd argue it at least produces the incentive).

Its just like everything else - Some people like it, some people don't. If you don't like it, there's a wealth of entertainment from the shareware communities, older generations of games and much smaller projects. Show some love over there. But a lot of other people seem to like it and spend money on it, so it can't be that bad.

[Archaon]

A lot of people seem to like it and spend money on it, so it can't be that bad.

I don't care how much anyone tells me this is just a matter of opinion; Kelis' "Milkshake" is OBJECTIVE PROOF that this statement is false.

[Brandon Strader]

This is one of the reasons I've shifted more towards FPS lately, especially cinematic ones are great. Simply because you have so much control, and you're constantly firing and hiding and strategising, it's awesome. A lot of the games involve just a butt-ton of walking, from here to there, and then from there back to here and back. And then when you finally meet the criteria, you see a cutscene and then more walking. It's like every game has become Lord of the Rings.

[Meteo Xavier]

I don't care how much anyone tells me this is just a matter of opinion; Kelis' "Milkshake" is OBJECTIVE PROOF that this statement is false.

I don't see what Kelis has to do with video games being more cinematic, but if a lot of people enjoyed it and still enjoy it to this day (and sadly, I think that is still the case), then no, it really wasn't that bad.

I don't understand objectives in something as subjective as art anyway.

[Schwaltzvald]

Here's my DOOM Showcase thread I made a good while back if any one's interested.

[zircon]

I've bitched about this for years. The Japanese used to be the biggest culprits (probably still are) with their Xenosagas and Metal Gear Solids. But now that western developers are setting their sights on more or less competing directly Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich it's becoming more of a universal problem.

Single player games/campaigns in the vein of Modern Warfare are becoming so strictly linear and guided it feels more like you're playing a rail shooter. I absolutely loathe the new standard FPS narrative where you always have some NPC/dude on the radio hand-walking you through every objective, telling you exactly what to do and where to go, with invisible walls galore along the way to give you the illusion of the game world being larger than it really is. Compare this to levels of old school FPS'es like Quake or Duke Nukem 3D, they seem to be built up with the same philosophy as a platformer like Super Mario World, and I think that is inherently more fun.

I don't want a cinematic experience. I want a great game experience and if you can't deliver on one without compromising the other, then stop kidding yourself and make a fucking movie.

There's nothing really wrong with games like that though. So they're very much movie-like. So what? I remember when I first saw the Matrix I thought the fight scenes were just unbelievable, and had at least a few fantasies where *I* was Neo and beating up agents (keep in mind I was maybe 12-13 at the time.) Movies play out the same way every single time. There's no input from the user. While "Press A to Jump" is lame, there's still a happy middle-ground where many games exist and you get to really FEEL like you're controlling a character in an epic movie. TFU I'd say is one of those games.

[Strike911]

It depends entirely on the game and what you want to play. Some games lend themselves to being a showcase of set pieces that you are guided to. Others allow more freedom. Does either make a game good or bad? Of course not.

Sure Modern Warfare 2 & Uncharted 2 more or less tell you where to go and tells you specifically which corridor to go through to accomplish your mission. But is this really all that much more different from games like Super Mario World? Are we just more tolerant of games of different genres with levels that don't change or offer an open experience? You could argue that Super Mario World is exactly the same over and over again ... but you'll almost never hear people lump Super Mario World into that same category as Call of Duty or Uncharted.

The entire argument in this thread about linearity leaves out open world games, and sandbox games in general, all of which the industry had been trending towards in the last few years.

I don't think saying "games nowadays are more linear than they used to be" is a fair criticism of the gaming scene as a whole, because it isn't necessarily accurate. Sure a lot of high profile games are, but maybe its just because they're more accessible to fringe console owners that wouldn't label themselves hardcore gamers.

There are plenty of games where a guided experience is enjoyable to me though. Is there a little too much guidance at times in some newer games? Sure, I can see that, but I think it's just a correction being made from games of old that quite literally told you nothing about where to go and how to proceed (outside of reading an instruction manual). Just like reading a good book, watching your favorite TV show, or movie, you can go back and enjoy it regardless...

There is plenty of room for both styles of play in the marketplace, and they will both continue to exist regardless.

[EdgeCrusher]

???

I didn't care for the halo franchise from the very beginning to now and I don't get called an idiot...

If he felt that he was on rails the whole time then that's how he felt about the game.

That's cause FPS on a console is for retards as well, or jocks, which are just as retarded.

Point is, my viewpoint is valid.

[Schwaltzvald]

That's cause FPS on a console is for retards as well, or jocks, which are just as retarded.

Point is, my viewpoint is valid.

It's also available on the PC but nonetheless there's really no reason to attack a person's taste; even if they essentially represent the cancer that's killing gaming to begin with.

[Cerrax]

I'm not talking about linearity. Some of my favorite games (see Mirror's Edge) are very very linear. I'm talking more about control schemes that really don't give you any option beyond what the game wants you to do. Stuff like Assassin's Creed and Uncharted, where almost every button press is extremely context sensitive and there's nothing left for the player to do but press the button at the right time. It's not fun at all, I feel like a lot of creativity is stifled by a developer wanting smoother animations or more visually powerful scenes.

If you watch a match of an FPS, it doesn't look very compelling to a passerby. There's a big ugly HUD along the corners, the camera is almost never steady. You can't see yourself and usually the camera doesn't focus on anyone long enough to see what they are doing either. The whole scene seems like Cloverfield on cocaine. But to the player, its a very intense experience.

The games I am referencing seem to give up some parts (if not all) of this formula to make the result LOOK more impressive, but it's just not as satisfying to me.

[Native Jovian]

TFU I'd say is one of those games.

I feel like I have to quote this for emphasis.

I'm not opposed to "epic" or "cinematic" games on principle, but I definitely know what Cerrax is talking about when he says that it detracts from the "gameyness", for lack of a better term. Games like Xenosaga and Metal Gear Solid (which have already been mentioned) have such a separation between the gaming aspect and the storytelling aspect that there's no connect between them. What I always love to see is when story takes place in context of the game, rather than the other way around.

Valve is a good example. The Half Life series is famous for never taking control of the PC, never pulling you out of the experience and making you watch "yourself" do something in a cutscene. There are cutscenes, certainly, where you do little besides sit and watch the action or listen to dialogue... but you can still move around, explore the area you're in, do whatever. That's an extreme example, but it's certainly one way to help you keep that sense of being in the game world and having an effect on what's happening in the game world. Dead Space is another good example of a game where you almost never go "out of character" during the game.

However, it is limiting (from a storytelling perspective) to have a "heroic mime" main character that adds to the story only indirectly. And that's not the only way to get that sense of staying in control, either. Zircon mentioned The Force Unleashed, which I think handled it particularly well. There are, basically, only four buttons in the game -- jump, lightsaber, force lightning, and force push/pull. Fighting certain enemies (including all the bosses, but also stronger non-boss enemies like ATATs, rancors, and special anti-Jedi secret agent guys) would occasionally put you into a little minigame where you had to pick the right action in order to continue; if you completed the whole thing, you'd kill the enemy instantly (or at least damage them, in the case of bosses), and if you failed at some point you'd take damage and/or have to start over. It sounds like a quicktime event, but instead of just "push A to not die" it actually made it more immersive, because the action you pick has a direct effect on what happens to you. If an ATAT is about to stomp on you, the jump button will light up, and if you hit jump you'll leap to safety. But if you hit, say, lightsaber instead, you'll get stepped on. And so on through the entire minigame, until you manage to leap away from the attack, Force lightning the crap out of it, and then cut it in half with your lightsaber. It's very cinematic (and it looks awesome), but it's all as a direct result of player input, which keeps it from running into that disconnect that Cerrax mentions.

That cinematic feel without being passive on the player's part is brilliant when it's done right. Hell, even Metal Gear Solid 4, which had absolutely unbearably long non-interactive cutscenes otherwise, actually managed to pull that feel off a few times, particularly during the final boss. With proper timing and positioning, it'll turn your basic "attack" into brutal combos, which look great and don't feel like they're out of your control.

That sort of gameplay is what I'd like to see more of. "Cinematic" and "interactive" don't have to be mutually exclusive!

[JackKieser]

I don't think your The Force Unleashed comparison is really applicable. If we have an AT-AT battle, and your only choices are "Push X to jump" or "Push anything else to take damage", you don't really have a choice. Now, if you had the choice of "Push X to jump", "Push O to shock", or "Push Square to Saber"... that'd be some gameplay.

I think the general argument Cerrax is trying to make (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that in a game, less gameplay is bad. Xenosaga/MGS isn't bad, per se, but they are less game than movie, and in the context of video games, that's bad. Sure, a SMW level will never change, but you always have a choice of how to play it; more "cinematic" games force-feed you Shenmue-style QTEs to the point where the game isn't an RPG or a Tactical Stealth game, it's a... QTE game.

...we should officially start calling certain games "Quick Time Event" games. That'll stop this nonsense.

[The Coop]

Never been a fan of quick-time events. They've always felt like a poor man's way of creating action. They eliminate choice, and make the game that much shorter because rather than creating an area you have to fight your way through, you just... hit a button and the game moves you to the next point where you hit another button.

If I wanted to do that, I'd play a game centered on such "gameplay", like Dragon's Lair or any number of Sega CD FMV games. If I'm in the middle of a fire fight with demons, don't tell me to push "X". Let me dodge, shoot and cuss my way out.