/v/ - Video Games

No they aren't. Are movies just an evolution of books? You might have brain damage.

because they don't own the system and wish they were available on PC. It's why they talk about them so much despite claiming to despise them. I personally don't talk about games I don't care about.

Because unlike Text Adventure games of yore, these games are ridiculously linear and also cost millions of dollars to make what is basically sub-par content even for made-for-TV, bottom of the barrel nonsense. If they were limited to strictly low budget indie titles, nobody would give a shit.

>heavy rain

>game

Good one.

>but aren't they just a subgenre/evolution of ye olde text adventure games anyway?

Most of the ones Sony was showing are third-person shooters with some light stealth elements, so no

>but aren't they just a subgenre/evolution of ye olde text adventure games anyway?

Fucking what? Text adventure games are pretty much the antithesis of linearity and illusion of choice. Text adventure uses its purity of form to go nuts with content. Cinematic sony games are so bogged down with GRAFIX watching them on youtube is literally 100% of the experience. They're not worth paying for, let alone full price.

>>15019248

>Are movies just an evolution of books?

Yes? Moving picture is an evolution of media, which originated from transcripts and drawn art. Cinematography is the art of simulating experiences to communicate ideas, stories, perceptions, feelings, beauty or atmosphere by the means of recorded or programmed moving images.

>>15019236

>I don't get why people get so mad at "cinematic" games like the stuff Sony releases every now and then.

Because everyone on /v/ needs to be cool and hate fun to fit in. That apparently means hating everything new nowadays.

>aren't they just a subgenre/evolution of ye olde text adventure games anyway?

Sort of? Many that try the format feel more like playing a linear movie than a game, but the ones that do it well and have a ton of branching paths can definitely feel similar in narrative. Though you likely still won't have the freedom to make your character comically eat his own shit, among other things.

>>15019258

I don't think he's talking about E3, anon.

>text adventures

>in any way similar to being led through an adventure with minimal interaction in the way that "cinematic" games do

You've never even played a meaty text adventure have you?

>>15019262

Which ones would you consider have done it well?

>>15019262

>Because everyone on /v/ needs to be cool and hate fun to fit in.

Oh boy, everyone look! He's anti-contrarian, showing how everyone else is clearly just being contrary to popular views! That must mean they're really hip and cool! They sure showed us!

nevermind the fact that any anon with a brain would have good reason to hate the garbage that are cinematic "games"

kys

>>15019260

>Yes? Moving picture is an evolution of media, which originated from transcripts and drawn art.

Imagine being this absolutely fucking dense. Movies have incredibly strict limitations and streamline and cut out massive chunks of the works they're usually fucking based upon to begin with

Its a different fucking medium entirely, not an "Evolution" of any old one you fucking retard

>>15019251

Wouldn't you notice a similarity between a text game with multiple endings where you can go in X, Y, Z direction or do X, Y, Z action in the given environment and a game with multiple endings where you can go in X, Y, Z direction or do X, Y, Z action in the given environment?

For the record I'm not defending cinematic games. They're fucking boring.

>all these anons replying to a retarded template OP

"Cinematic" "games" are just trash that is used by kikes to grab shekels and promote degenerate behavior as normal. Never buy it, never play it, stay away from people who do otherwise. That's fucking it.

/thread

>>15019277

>Movies have incredibly strict limitations

Cinema is literally the most versatile media format made by man so far. You can tell an entire short story's worth in like 5 minutes of video.

Ever heard of the phrase "A picture is worth a thousand words?" A moving picture is worth a million.

>>15019260

>evolution of (((media)))

>evolved from transcripts and drawn art

>cinematography is simulating experiences

<he doesn't know the difference between cinematography and mise-en-scene

I can't believe I almost replied seriously to a teenager like you. Fuck off and die.

>>15019260

>evolution of media

Holy shit you're dumb. We're talking about specific mediums and not the progress of depiction as a concept. Even if we were, the implication of your post is that movies have deprecated books as a medium. Is that what you believe? And what is your half-assed definition of "movie" supposed to prove?

>>15019285

You should stop posting until you're old enough

>>15019271

The genre still has a long way to go, but Until Dawn was fine and I can respect the 90-something endings that Detroit become human has, though I haven't played it.

>>15019276

>No true Scotsman fallacy

Ok

>>15019292

Not all cinematography is hollywood kiked shit you fucking retard. The very concept wasn't even invented by a kike.

>>15019293

>>15019299

>We're talking about specific mediums and not the progress of depiction as a concept.

The thread is about the latter, you idiot. It's obvious that writing and motion picture are two different artforms but they're both art, and as such both can depict the same thing. Hell, even silent movies back then combined both artforms. One didn't make the other obsolete, I said that they were comparable in that they do the same thing, except one is newer. You goddamn troglodytes without reading comprehension.

Can't keep discussion going for more than 5 minutes around here, holy fuck.

>>15019322

>both can depict the same thing

I'd like to see you try to prove that. You can't keep a conversation going because you're borderline retarded.

>>15019344

>I'd like to see you try to prove that.

>What is a fucking SCRIPT

>>15019322

<he couldn't be bothered to take five minutes and look up the definitions for the terms I mentioned

<he STILL doesn't know what cinematography actually is and uses it as a synonym for filmmaking

>"movies are an evolution of books because they impart more information to the viewer"

>"movies don't make books obsolete, they're two completely distinct art forms"

>they can both depict the same thing

The final point is ultimately what outs you as an underageb& faggot who thinks Marvel movies and Christopher Nolan are the definition of cinema. A film cannot adequately tell the shortest story in the world ("For sale: baby shoes. Never worn."), and a novel trying to tell an extremely long story will crumple under its own weight if the author tries to impart as much detail as a similarly long movie would.

These mediums are fundamentally different from one another, and your initial dedication to the opposite proves you are desperately trying to save face because you couldn't be fucked to write a good OP or learn what the fuck you're talking about.

>muh /v/ can't talk about anything meme

Maybe Twitter would be more your speed.

>>15019350

Not a book. Are you a nigger? Scripts don't even have standards the same way plays or novels do. Can you even read?

>>15019350

If you're trying not to appear retarded, it isn't working

>>15019236

>ye olde text adventure games anyway

no you're thinking of "choose your own adventure" books

>>15019358

Evolution doesn't mean replacement, autismo. Evolution is adaptation.

As if adaptations like LOTR, Heart of Darkness, 1956 Moby Dick and No Country for Old Men weren't faithful to the original works, because they weren't "adequate".

Again, my point is that both CAN convey the same stories despite being different. If that wasn't the case, people wouldn't even be making books out of movies, the opposite.

>Not a book.

And still calls upon the theme of the book in order to be faithful, which it can very fucking well be.

You stupid fucking nigger.

>>15019236

Two main reasons.

1) They aren't games.

2) They're almost always bad. Hell, films themselves aren't interactive at all, all they need to do is tell a story, and you know how many of them fail to do this well? More often than not. Cinematic games are even worse than this, usually pumped out by a game/design lead who desperately wishes he were an actual director in hollywood.

In regards to number 1, people hate them because they undermine the essence of what a game is meant to be. It should have a modicum of challenge, of actual choice, a failure state, you know, things that constitute being a game. Shit like "The Order 1886" or whatever it was are generally hated by the gaming community except for the hipsters or no-standards normalfags, because it's an on-rails story with extremely lackluster "gameplay" to give it the excuse of being a game. The story is bad to underwhelming, the game is marketed with cutscenes and animated rendered bits rather than actual gameplay even if there IS any, and these kinds of things are usually full price shit for a game that's a fraction the length of other real, actual games.

A lot of it is artsy fucking postmodern retards trying to ride on the games train by making shit that is NOT considered a game. If I made a film that consisted entirely of text on a screen you had to read and gave it a special interactivity where you needed to hit a button on a remote to read the next screen until the entire story was read, would you enjoy that shit? No, because you paid to watch a film, that's not a film, that's me making a slideshow of a fucking book.

>>15019236

Heavy Rain is super underrated, it's a hidden gem.

>>15019414

Evolution does mean replacement. When an animal evolves, does it still exist in its old form? You're retarded.

I'd say the reason comes from the ephemeral standards of what makes a game review. Cinematic games are lauded almost entirely by virtue of the player getting swept up in the narrative while mechanically beautiful games are dismissed for bombastic, simplistic or silly narratives. It also offers a cheap out for agenda driven drivil, make the main character a lesbian for an instant score increase, while features like AI performance are ignired elsewhere.

I'm not against cinematic game Like movies on principal, though I've yet to be really wowed by one.

They're pretty much stretched out interactable extras from DVDs, and they weren't games either.

>>15019414

>Evolution doesn't mean replacement

Do you see a lot of Homo Erectus walking around? Any Homo Florensiensis?

>LOTR

>good

How old are you? Even someone as bored by the books as I was can examine the movies and find them to be forgettable PG-13 trash made for teenagers like you. Tolkien's books were powerful enough to carve a genre's worth of conventions and tropes from thin air - what techniques did the movies introduce?

You are human livestock if you think those movies were anything but cultural vandalism.

>they can convey the same stories even though the stories are different

I'll repeat myself: the six-word story I posted earlier cannot be retold as a film because it would lose not only its simplicity, but its lack of specificity. A book can easily hide information from the reader in a way a movie cannot. You could not recreate that story as a film, period. Stop dancing around the issue.

>themes of the book

<he's STILL doubling down on movies and books being the same, yet different

Themes are not story. A script is not a book. Even now, you still admit the story of one medium translates poorly into another.

Cinematic games appeal to the lowest common denominator of gamers. They're popular with people who just want to casually sit through a story and press some buttons and feel like they're doing something cool. People hate those games, because they sell well, and it means developers will focus on games like that more and more because they sell better. We've already been through developers moving toward another market with mobile games, and a lot of us really hate mobile games for the same reason. They take away from more difficult games and are more lucrative to publishers because they usually sell better.

They are not comparable to adventure games at all and you would know this if you actually played video games.

>>15019527

There's a ton of bacteria and jellyfish around despite us being "higher organisms", you dumb fag.

>>15019299

But he's right you dumb fuck

>>15019236

>every now and then

You're right OP, you really don't get it.

>>15019572

>actually playing that shit

faggots sure are attracted to faggotry

>all these posts, maybe 3 of them are close, not a one hits the mark

The reason is MARKETING. They are hamfistedly marketed as the New Hot Video Games when they barely qualify as games and suck the air out if the room when it comes to showing actual vidya at something like E3. The journalists then amplify everything about this to make the situation ten times worse so they themselves look like leaders of video game culture, since they can't actually into vidya. This is a question that could only come from a newfag who doesn't know why this board exists, but plenty of the replies are just as banal.

TL;DR Without the extreme marketing these 'games' wouldn't sell and the journos would have less to hide behind, and then no one would care to say negative things about them

Even more TL;DR Its the fucking kikes you idiot

>>15019550

You're not saying anything that runs counter to his argument.

Unless, of course, you really, really do not understand what evolution is and how it works.

>>15019598

>things wouldn't sell without marketing

congratulations, you figured it out you retard.

>>15019598

to defend my honor, I did mention that in my post. I just didn't make it a central point.

And to argue against you, no it is not JUST marketing. The question was why people hate it. People hate it for the marketing, but they hate it for the much greater reason that they are not fucking games. Icing on the cake is that they're usually pretentiously done and/or delivered.

>>15019613

No, there was never a counterculture that hated nonvidya story games before. Its purely because they're being developed and marketed to the detriment of normal vidya. Not only would no one give a shit about them otherwise, we'd probably have a civil thread or two about them when they came out. No one gave a shit about Sierra games during the PC Golden Age for example, they weren't displacing anything else.

>>15019607

solid post

>>15019650

Apogee and Sierra made games. King's Quest was not simply some story you just walked through, it gave you a world to explore and things to figure out, items to find and people to talk to. You could die if you made the wrong choices or did the wrong things. Monkey's Island was the same way. These were standard adventure games where the choices you made actually mattered.

Not only are these modern day graphics-only non-games hated for not being games, they are hated for failing at the one thing they are meant to do, which is tell a story. Most of them claim your choices matter when they don't, and they essentially all have the same outcome regardless of what you do. They also last a fraction of the time compared to old adventure games.

So, once again, no. It is not ONLY about marketing.

>>15019257

>not calling David Cage's "interactive dramas" games to piss him off

Also 'hate' shouldn't be conflated with not preferring something. I almost never play VNs but I don't hate them for existing. If Sony didn't market them so hard and for so long and then have nothing else to show, no one would have reason to hate them.

Another thing is that, with Rabbi Druck's Naughty Dog especially, they actually dilute and destroy what little gameplay they had, in sequels. Early Uncharted multiplayer was fair and had some decent modes and unlocks, later UC was 'buy powerups', no, literally. All of this is accompanied by more teasing and marketing and budgets about cinematic shit. TLOU 1's gameplay was the marketing focus, they've already done a 180 with 2.

>>15019236

>"cinematic" games

<not cinematic "games"

I don't have that Gintama image right now at work.

>>15019671

I've been playing vidya for longer than most of you faggots have been alive, if adding a death animation if you walk somewhere bad and making you quickload makes it vidya for you, that's fine. But it ain't. Quest for Glory had the closest thing to gameplay out of those. Either way it doesn't matter, you could add gameplay to Heavy Rain and it'd be hated for the same reasons The Order and TLOU2 are hated. B-movies being shoved down your throat at a vidya show for announcing vidya.

>>15019236

There is nothing wrong with cinematic games

There is something wrong with cinematic games that pretend they are more than that. These "cinematic games" most of the time masquerade as if they have top tier gameplay and mechanics ai and all the works when in reality it's dogshit(The Last of Us)

That's the problem. The games are not marketing themselves on just their story alone they are also pretending to be something they are not.

>>15019737

This also not only are these cinematic games anemic to actual gameplay the stories just aren't good. If you actually say for example made a screenplay for games like God of War or The Last of Us it would be like 20 pages. Crucify me here but I will say that at least bethesda knows how to make a universe and story even if it's terrible. Bethesda can create a backstory, characters, motivations, missions, etc. etc. etc. and tell a story and keep it moving even if it is a lower quality. These 'Cinematic Experience' games like David Cage shit can't even do the basics of storytelling by introducing you to a compelling universe. Cage can't even get the hook because his hook is just social commentary same thing with most "Cinematic games" they aren't even stories just socio political commentary with this thin veneer that there is some kind of story buried underneath the blatant propaganda.

These are not good stories on top of not being good games.

>>15019773

I hate this picture. Hits too close to home.

>>15019773

It's like I thought we already told zog to fuck off I guess we just have to do it again these fucking people just don't stop until everything is destroyed.

>>15019236

because they take games that weren't "cinematic games" and give them sequel that are "cinematic games", such as god of war 4

>>15019755

Sometimes even bad storytelling games have some value, though. I can't remember how many times I've laughed from some meme video of Heavy Rain. Mocking something shit can be great fun, however I still hate how it was marketed and I make the distinction.

>>15019236

Adventure games are replayable because they had multiple endings. Cinematic games aren't.

>>15019800

yea I do the same shit I will consume pozzed entertainment to make fun of it my friend who has a ps4 is probably gonna rent TLOU2 if it's in red box or some shit and we are definitely going to play through it especially to see what the hell that jewess with the gigantic beak is doing making out and lesbian slowdancing(seriously wtf is going on here it's laughably bad)

But still it's shit and like anon here>>15019799

said they are now deliberately making non cinematic games "cinematic movie experiences guise"(except I actually like to rewatch movies and after just seeing 10 minutes of GOW I don't even want to play or watch it tbh)

>>15019817

This is bullshit. I can't tell you how many times I played through RE123 Max Payne Riddick etc. even though it's always the same shit they are just good games and I will say that games like those are what I would define as "Cinematic games"(games where there is alot of story related content or other related things that aren't really gameplay per se)

Max Payne 1 just has really good atmosphere and an interesting universe with cool characters and all this bonus stuff with the radios/tvs etc. going off and you get more insight into the story and max's monologues are written really well. It's good.

Modern "Cinematic Experiences" games are just cutscene QTE gameplay with lots of "Follow this NPC and listen to dialogue" and filled with so much "non game" filler to the point of "I don't want to replay this because it's terrible"

I blame assassins creed for this. It really started the model of "Npc convos following people around at the speed of a turtle and getting nothing out of the game whilst seamlessly transitioning said fake cutscene into gameplay making the whole experience a replayers nightmare" These games have no replay value because there is so much dick holding going on that it drives you insane.

>>15019257

>has failure states

it's a game. Regardless of how good it is, it is a game

>>15019682

We should just call them bad games because really they are not interactive dramas because his writing is retarded. We should just call them terrible games with terrible stories because if we began to create "Cinematic Experience" as a genre we are just giving these retards more leeway to explain away their ineptitude. Essentially all games should be "Cinematic Experiences" We are playing an interative story in a VR universe. It's the definition of a cinematic experience. These people are just creating buzzwords and genres so they can make their shitty games and justify their own shit with "Well the game is supposed to be a cinematic experience"(aka the game is supposed to be terrible LULZ)

can the walking dead from telltale be considered as a cinematic game?

>>15019846

>muh fail states

If you play a game in which pressing a button, or booting up the program greeted you with a "you lose" screen, would it be the gamiest game ever?

Fail states do not make a game. A game arises from state alteration mechanics, and Heavy Rain doesn't really let you alter the "board state".

>>15019846

>it has failure states

simply ebin

>>15019878

The first season had actual interactivity and puzzle-solving to do, so yes. The other seasons are pure, unadulterated shit. Clementine's a cute mutt.

>>15019878

I've always called it an interactive comic book. A few steps above a visual novel. Weebs tend to hate that comparison. It makes me laugh.

>>15019236

During the 7th gen of consoles there was this misguided idea of making games more cinematic/movielike because many devs thought cinematic=good, it even became a marketing buzzword at the time and while there's merit in using cinematic techniques to present a game, that shouldn't be the point.

The issue is that by making a game more "cinematic", devs tend to limit player agency because they're more worried about showing you something "cool" than letting you play it, that itself is downgrade in a medium which is all about interactivity.

The gaming industry has gotten over that somewhat, these days it doesn't happen often, games that go that route (The Order 1886, Detroit Become Human) are critically panned, even by the normalfags.

Also, nowadays /v gets mad about anything really, especially if it happens to be new and popular and regardless of objective quality.

>>15019236

Old text adventures had depth to them. These are just glorified movies rendered in real time.

>>15019737

>I've been playing vidya for longer than most of you faggots have been alive

So because I mention King's Quest and Monkey Island your kneejerk reaction is to try to claim oldfag status over me, therefore your perspective is better and your opinion is right. Get fucked. You don't get any credit from trying to argue from authority, that's goddamn retarded.

> if adding a death animation if you walk somewhere bad and making you quickload makes it vidya for you, that's fine. But it ain't

There are tons of puzzle games that do not have a death sequence or a fail state. The "fail state" is "I can't figure out this puzzle and so I can't progress to the next one." Those are, however, most certainly games. King's Quest is not a game simply because you accidentally walk somewhere to explore and wind up getting killed (something the devs took a lot of flak for in its heyday throughout many of their games), it's because you had to figure things out. It was a game. Is Heavy Rain a game? Is Life is Strange a game? In the latter you don't do anything other than walk around and talk to people, make the occasional choice which matters little or not at all, and rewind time if the game thinks you didn't do something "right" and demands you put the train back on the tracks. That isn't a game. It's essentially a very horrible hipster garbage VN with 3D graphics. People dislike that because it isn't a game. Not because of only its marketing.

And specifically because of these sorts of criticisms, you had following wannabe directors make "cinematic games" with at least some semblance of an excuse of gameplay so that they could use that as a shield against people decrying their not-games. Order 1886 is like this, 80% of it is on-rails watching cutscene after cutscene with virtually no interaction, and 20% of it is a horrible excuse of a cover shooter that's extremely bland and boring. Should that be called a game? Something that's 6 hours long with 5 hours of it watching cutscenes?

>>15019846

>>15019900

>>15019903

So does this make games like Space Ace not real?

>>15019969

Just because they are old and really well made doesn't make them games, anon. However, I will expand: I think games are about manipulating the "board state" (think of it as a very very abstract representation of what's in RAM at any given time, from the point of view of the game's rules) via conscious decisions, or even failure to manipulate it appropriately as well. /v/ properly noticed back in the days where we were making up excuses not to allow discussion of not-vidya like Gone Home not like Gone Home is a game at all, so we were right in that regard or Depression Quest, that most examples so called games with fail states were fairly gamey, so "we" concluded as a rule that real games had fail states, and not-games did not. While a decent rule of thumb, this tends to fail when examined more closely, or when trying to apply it to more experimental games, so you either realize we need a better definition for what makes a game, or you start training for the mental olympics with exotic excuses.

Say, would a Bejeweled time attack mode, in which you are supposed to optimize your score, not be a game? When do you win? When do you lose? All you have is a number, and you don't know whether it is a "winning number" or not unless you compare it with other numbers. Is not making a WR losing? That's not in the rules, so it is what you make it out to be. I would argue this same logic could be applied to deathless Minecraft, but whatever.

The problem with Heavy Rain is that state alterations are meaningless. If you do happen to alter the course of the game at any given time, you are railroaded into the same state you would have happened to end up in if you did anything else. You are given the illusion of agency, but the game doesn't acknowledge there is a person playing the game. Good games are a dialogue, while Heavy Rain is a monologue written by a pretentious hack Frenchie director who believes he is hot shit because David Bowie worked for one of his games. Good games ask the player how has their day been and they listen, while Heavy Rain asks you whether you like doughnuts, and still offers you some if you just said you don't, and if you say you don't, it shoves the doughnuts down your throat. Game state slice A can be transformed into game state B or C, but both B or C will eventually become D no matter what. Take Telltale games as an example, where dialogue trees can be pretty branchy sometimes, but no matter which option you choose, the dialogue will end with the same sentence from the NPC you are talking to, even if it does not fit that much with the script. They do this because writing decent, very branching stories can be pretty hard and resource consuming, but they truly go overboard with how lazy they can be.

So, to answer your question, is Space Ace, or Dragon's Lair, or Heavy Rain, or any QTEfest game a real game? The answer is they are barely games and probably an insult to games, and should probably be considered something else considering non-kinetic VN have more gameplay than them, but sure, they may be games under some definitions, mine included.

>>15020184

>While a decent rule of thumb, this tends to fail when examined more closely, or when trying to apply it to more experimental games, so you either realize we need a better definition for what makes a game

The people that claim something is a game because it has a fail state have not properly understood the origin of that point. It's very akin to roguelikes. I know what roguelikes are, and many hardcore RL fans can look at a game for thirty seconds and determine whether it actually fits into that category. However, that category is not determined by any one single requisite. Something is not a RL simply because it has proc generation, permadeath, or tile based movement and time passage. It requires ALL of those things (in general). The same applies to whether something is a game. A fail state or lack thereof on its own is not enough to determine whether something is a game, it's just one bullet point on a list, not the sole arbiter of the assessment.

>You know, I don't get why people get so mad at "cinematic" games like the stuff Sony releases every now and then.

>every now and then

right there is the issue. It's not an occasional thing anymore or anyone trying to flex nuts with set pieces, every other game on the market is a third person over the shoulder game with heavy amounts of player-dragging so they witness all the stuff the developer throws in. Sometimes these set pieces can be fun but once you start to realize that a lot of the time they're made in a manner where it's hard or almost impossible for the player to fail the value of them drops significantly.

>>15019957

>argue from authority

Okay fine, watch this: Is Doom a video game? Yes. No one would dispute that, no debate is needed. Is the shit you're talking about a video game? Bla bla bla qualifications yadda yadda semantics 200 reply threads that go nowhere every time. The fact is that it isn't the first thing you think of when you hear 'video game'. E3 is for hyping the newest best VIDEO GAMES not meeting the bare requirements for a Websters definition, that's why people hate this shit being shoved at them front and center. It's not a video game in the way Doom is, and indeed their goal is to normalize that they're the same thing, and guess what, you are helping.

>>15020298

I would argue fail states are not actually required for something to be a game. You can have very gamiest games without rules about fail states and still have a very decent game. Any time attack mode where it is impossible to prematurely end the game would come to mind, but pretty much any puzzle game where you either solve the puzzle or work towards solving it would apply. Factorio is no less of a game without the fucking aliens, for example; at worst, it just loses a little bit of depth.

I'm not opposed to cinematic games or even walking simulators. I'm opposed to poorly written crap that no one would praise if it were an actual movie.

Soma was a decent little game. It just felt like a solidly good sci-fi movie that I could play. I'm down for that kind of thing.

>>15019236

Because they're a waste of resources, for every Heavy Rain or Uncharted we COULD be getting 5 lower budget but more enjoyable games.

>why

They take the game part away so they can have more movie. I can't make this explanation any simpler. There isn't any point to making a game if you are going to half-ass the game part. It's like making a movie with shitty cinematography, or making an album with really shit music but everyone remembers your album for the cool art on the inside cover. Why watch a movie that's boring just to hear the cool soundtrack? Why play Uncharted if the game is shit instead of just watching the cutscenes sequentially? Hell, Rockstar actually embraced this philosophy and released a movie of all the cutscenes in Red Dead Redemption officially. Movies are a derivative art form because they build on other artistic disciplines. Games are similar except they're even more derivative because they can also contain movies. If you want to keep games as a medium that is worth putting money into, you have to keep the discipline of making good gameplay.

>aren't they just a subgenre/evolution of ye olde text adventure games anyway?

No, they don't even play remotely similar. While you could argue that "shitty gameplay" is what the two have in common, text adventures tend to have branching narratives more frequently and even fail states that don't involve a game over (i.e. not having a certain item at a certain time and being unable to proceed). If the likes of Uncharted had branching narratives and characters who you might not be sure of their survival, then yes it might be a genre worth playing, as sort of a glorified "Choose your Own Adventure" genre. Which is basically what old text and point and click games were. But they don't even have that.

>>15020364

>and indeed their goal is to normalize that they're the same thing, and guess what, you are helping

I'm helping them normalize non-vidya as vidya…by calling them "not games." Brilliant. Just flawless logic.

The original point you made was that people get angry at "cinematic games" for one and only one reason: marketing. My counterargument is that there are more reasons than simply having AAA corps throw this shit in your face. The rest of the thread is a testament to this and I stand by my statement. Not only do you have the stupidity to assert your opinion is superior because you're older than most people on the board, you also have the arrogance to claim in your very first post that anyone who doesn't agree with your one and simple explanation is a newfag who knows nothing of games. You clearly don't see the problem with the reasoning of "anyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot because I'm so obviously right."

You're either playing a game or watching a movie. It can't be both.

>>15020728

Alright, Neil "Henry" Druckmann.

>>15020671

Fug I got the second part of your post mixed up with someone else's, sorry.

But no, its still marketing. Them being presented at all next to actual vidya, much less displacing it as they currently do, is marketing. If someone shat out the same thing and it was presented somewhere else and even discussed elsewhere, like a lot of VNs are, there wouldn't be a backlash at all. You say there are other reasons but it all goes back to non or barely vidya being presented and developed as if its equal to or better than vidya which is 100% marketing top to bottom. They couple this with trying to bash or ignore Japanese games until they conform with a standards lobby headed up by a tranny. All of this falls under the external factor of marketing and not the 'games' which would simply be ignored or mocked if discussed at all, ever. The fact that the PS4 is known as the Bloodborne machine and they aren't funding any actual vidya is where the hatred comes from. The displacement due to marketing's agenda. There would be hate towards any genre if they suddenly started to displace everything else, hell there was hate for 3D itself during the PSX days because suddenly everything had to be some ugly polygonal mess coming from glorious sprites. Which Sony had mandated at one point even when it made no sense to do, so again - marketing.

Lots of folks like to couch it in black and white terms and say that all "cinematic games" are bad, but the reality is slightly more complicated. Cinematic games are usually bad, but it's not inherently because of the movie-like elements: it's because lazy developers use them as a crutch/replacement for good game design. The worst offenders are games which have essentially no gameplay at all, typically produced by pretentious soy-infested hipsters who didn't have the talent to make a successful movie and figured they could cash in on the gamer audience. This (understandably) leads reasonable people to instinctively hate any game with movie elements, but there is something of a spectrum. Just some examples:

Movies only half-assedly pretending to be games:

>Life is Strange

>anything by Telltale Games

>Heavy Rain

Movies with under-developed/secondary game elements:

>The Order: 1886

>Mass Effect

>The Last of Us

Mostly movies, but at least put some effort into gameplay:

>Asura's Wrath

>Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag

>Grand Theft Auto V

Mixed media genuinely trying (with mixed levels of success) to incorporate both games and movies:

>Metal Gear Solid

>Yakuza

>The Witcher

Games that are mostly games, but also include significant movie elements:

>Nier: Automata

>Devil May Cry

>Kingdom Come: Deliverance

>Shadow of the Colossus

TL;DR: there is a strong correlation between movieness and shitty games due to lazy/pozzed devs, but it's not inherent and really depends on the level of effort put into both aspects.

>>15021160

>Mixed media genuinely trying (with mixed levels of success)

this reminds me of something i saw pointed out one time. Games like Yakuza and MGS have a lot of cutscenes but the thing about cutscenes is you can actually practice actually cinematography techniques in a cutscene. You could argue this has more cinematic value than just hard shifting the players camera mid gameplay to witness something. The techniques are only as good as the guys handling the cutscenes of course but a half decent cutscene will likely have a lot more impact on the player then very suddenly wrestling their movement and camera away from them, or worse doing it in a manner where it becomes difficult to tell if you're supposed to be actively playing or not (popular in games like TLOU now)

>Heavy Rain was released 10 years ago

>>15021160

This was my point. I would put Riddick and Max Payne 1 on the list of games that are mostly games but have significant movie elements(Ie alot of backstory optional dialogue/content and an emphasis on cutscenes and story)

>>15021246

what's most important is how clear cut the two are, with max payne (iirc) you can just skip all the story stuff if you wanna do a run and slo-mo shoot some goons for fun. Max Payne 3 of course failed in this aspect granted I did have some fun with it you were wrestled away from the controls a lot and worse the cutscenes hid loading times so you'd have to watch half of them before skipping. Ninja Gaiden 3 gets a lot of flak but it did have a feature I wish more games had which was it's level select mode completely removed story elements including any in-game exposition so you could do a run of the game for just the game

>>15021190

the real problem is you can have long drawn out cutscenes but if the story is written by a retard like david cage games and life is strange and shit it's just terrible. However if you actually have someone who is a decent writer and can actually write good characters and someone who can actually direct the action so it doesn't look like piss these long drawn out cutscenes don't even seem that long or shitty(unless of course you are playing Metal Gear Solid 4 that shit just goes on for eternity)

>>15021190

Putting a hard break between gameplay and cutscenes is definitely the classic and easiest way to do it, but I don't think it's the only legitimate way. If you know what you're doing you can blend cinematography techniques into gameplay. MGS, DMC, and Resident Evil did this with deliberate camera angles, Shadow of the Colossus did it with camera focusing, etc.

>>15021160

Expand Heavy Rain to all David Cage movies games

There is absolutely nothing wrong with those games. The issue is that they aren't made very well. David Cage is the frontman for this genre but his games are trash. Bad writing, bad characters, poor implementation of mechanics. Another issue is that big budget games are moving more and more toward cinematic which is basically newspeak for "cutscene ridden and very easy". In a sea of proper games, something like Heavy Rain (done right though) would be nice to mix things up. In a sea of cinematic games, proper ones are the ones we are drawn to.

>>15021286

>Cage's could be a natural evolution of the point and click adventure genre

Then it would be considered a devolution

>>15021309

more in the sense the game isn't about combat but exploring your surroundings and character interactions. There's nothing stopping these games formulas from doing things like adventure games did save for the developers not wanting to be "too gamey"

>>15021286

>devs don't want us to fuck up so a lot of set pieces and cinematic moments are controlled

I think this is a good point, and I agree that the best "cinematic moments" in games involve some level of player interaction. I find the problem isn't so much with fixed angles/focus as it is with the backseat driving mechanics (forced slow-walking, etc.) where you're obviously in a cutscene and the developers are just patronizing you with some token controls. Going back to the MGS/DMC examples, sure there were lots of fixed shots from the angle Kojimbo/Kamiya wanted you to see, but you were still in full control, so it felt more authentic.

>>15019236

Because people like >>15020459 think that it's robbing them of good games. Movie "games" are shit, and if the industry would be shitting out any other genre that would still be shit. People just can't accept that no matter what an asshole is gonna be producing shit - maybe solid shit, maybe liquid shit, but you're not getting a good game out of it.

>>15019236

Text adventures were more interactive and required at least some level of conscious thought beyond press X to continue the movie.

>>15021359

These retards could of easily of just not made these games and actually made a movie of the game they made but the sad fact is that nobody would watch their movies so they do this in games because they know they are hack writers who wouldn't make it in any other medium and now they are getting figured out and cornered here too.

>>15021359

^

Speaking of that, the japs had some good shit with text rpgs. Too bad th platform systems they used don't exist anymore.

>>15021806

Any good ones emulatable?

Uncharted 1 and 2 are the only movie games worth playing. Neil Druckmann is the shittiest person alive for putting poz in Uncharted.

>>15021854

uncharted 3 is passable, uncharted 4 is an absolute abortion. I fucking knew after TLOU succeeded that UC4 was going to try way to hard to be "mature".

>>15019236

Because they are shit made for impressionable soyboys.

>>15019236

>You know, I don't get why people get so mad at "cinematic" games

>aren't they just a subgenre/evolution of ye olde text adventure games anyway?

Dubs thread?

>>15019236

There's nothing wrong with new IPs going cinematic it's the old ones getting ruined by genre shifts that's bad.

>>15036104

Why did you feel the need to revive this?

>>15036107

It's an interesting topic that goes against /v/'s consensus with a constructive point. Cinematic games are not inherently a bad thing look at Uncharted 1. What's bad is when an existing IP has a stupid change in its genre like what happened to Tomb Raider. Anons group both types together and shit on both for no good reason.

>>15036115

Compelling reasoning and argumentation

>>15036121

Movies are more of an evolution of radio or theater in my opinion.