This game and Silent Hill 2 prove that games aspiring to be cinematic was really an excellent idea, …

This game and Silent Hill 2 prove that games aspiring to be cinematic was really an excellent idea, and it’s only due to poor execution that people nowadays resent the cinematic trend in games. Do you agree?

47 thoughts on “This game and Silent Hill 2 prove that games aspiring to be cinematic was really an excellent idea, …”

  1. Why does Kojima hate Solid Snake?
    >raiden takes his protagonist privileges
    >he’s gay
    >he’s not a clone
    >he didn’t kill big boss
    >he’s old
    >he has a pornstache
    >cucked by meryll
    >he dies on an island with his lover,Otacon and his adopted child

    As someone who found mgs2 and 3 kind of lame it sucks.

  2. >cinematic
    Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is Cinematic Games Real Hahahaha bro Just Watch a Movie Like bro Turn on Netflix Haha

  3. No. Video games are their own art form. Trying to bury them in older art forms is the teething pain that plaguaed all emerging art forms. Cinematics in video games are like scrolling text in movies. Noninteractivity is going to be a huge taboo in games in the next few decades, used only as an artistic statement or a retro throwback.

    • The only part you’re right about is Silent Hill 2 not having good gameplay. Sorry to tell you anon but you really didn’t get it.

      • i could write a 10 page essay on cue about why silent hill 2 is the most overrated shit game by a country mile but you already summed up the first 8 pages.
        >Silent Hill 2 not having good gameplay
        you want a story than read a book homosexual

  4. games aspiring to be cinematic i regard as a problem because i don’t think that’s the strength of the medium, therefore you shouldn’t do it. comic books convey stories with pictures and words, but they’re not movies. you can have pictures along with a great deal of text to the side. even complicated text. but you can’t have a movie with narration/dialog that goes on and on and on because in "making gud mobies" theory most people have trouble absorbing story that way. i do.

    the strength of the videogame medium is interactivity, if i’m watching a given MGS cutscene, i’m not interacting. let’s not talk about how you could potentially make interacting with a cutscene fun because i think that’s cheesy and could turn into QTEs before you know it.

    i’d say in a perfect world a game’s story bends to whatever you’re doing. so you become more like an actor, and the game adjusts to what you’re doing. i think you could also take this pretty far. imagine you’re playing a game where you’re a noble in a medieval court. there are certain things you do and don’t do. this makes perfect sense to me as a videogame because what do you do in most games? you have to move with precision.

    so, in medieval court: the game, you would have the option to run or sprint, but if you did that, you’d look weird and the npcs would react accordingly. so don’t do that. unless you need to run to the king before your competitor gets a chance to tell him about your conspiracy to murder him. now, should you have a minigame where you pick up the wine, sniff it, swirl it around, then drink it? probably not. i can’t imagine that being fun. but you should need to do things in a certain order as a test on your recognizance.

    • >you can have pictures along with a great deal of text to the side. even complicated text. but you can’t have a movie with narration/dialog that goes on and on and on
      So you can ‘imitate’ comics but not movies? That’s retarded. Games with huge walls of text are even worse than cinematic games.
      I think the key is to have a balance. MGS3 doesn’t have a good balance with it cinematics, but has a decent gameplay with interesting level design. That said, the game would be even better if Kojima knew how to tell the story in less cinematic time or codec. There’s a bunch of stuff that could be ignored and the story would be the same.
      SH2 is a better example of knowing how to tell a story through cinematics. It uses cinematics but they go straight to the point and it compliments them with text you find around the game. Sadly it has mediocre gameplay, but that’s not the point.

      • >So you can ‘imitate’ comics but not movies?
        he wasn’t talking about games there dude
        it’s a point of strengths and weaknesses of a medium. songs often have a chorus and rhyme, but if you wrote a movie that repeated a certain scene every few minutes and was all in rhyme scheme people would call you insane.
        same idea with games and movies. games have moving images and sound, like movies, but you shouldn’t tell people to just sit and watch things happen.
        the thread is about MGS so i’ll use 2 as a good example. this game has an absurd amount of cinematics and even just talking heads expositing dialogue. that’s bad enough, but what really kills it is that the cutscenes contradict the game. raiden can blast the shit out of vamp and no damage clear the big MG RAY fight. but as soon as the cutscene starts, he’s incompetent and can’t fight any more. what is that shit? why does he suddenly become so incompetent the second i lose control? it’s frustrating.
        now MGS2 is arguably doing it on purpose but you see the same thing happen in other games by accident

  5. I love MGS3 but it’s not without problems. Like the opening scene where you’re thrown into the jungle and then immediately put into a codec call that lasts like half an hour. Yeah immerse the player and all that but it’s still a game. Don’t read my an audiobook or show me a movie, let me fucking play.

  6. Execution is always the deciding factor in anything that relies on stylistic flare for its storytelling. The main issue is that modern devs are so absorbed in a stilted sense of storytelling that they completely lose sight of the gameplay, when they’re supposed to be in sync.

  7. Required watching.

    But in short, cinematic games are good when the game parts are very "game". That what’s missing in many modern releases.

    • He makes a good point about SotC’s camera. It is really remarkable how that game derives more value from its scenery than nearly any other game, and makes 10-20 minute horseback rides compelling every time, like you’re a director framing his own movie. That’s another element cinematic games often get wrong – they take away player control to do something cinematic like a scripted action, when you should instead aspire to leave the player his full freedom of movement, and then arrange the world around him so that it tends toward that cinematic element instead. SotC is a great example of this because Wander’s controls are extremely simple, and his small range of kinematic movement becomes the main way the game provides a sense of scale.

      • It’s because moving somewhere in SotC really is a journey, where you have one goal you’re moving towards and no really need to stop for random stuff (a checklist of objectives) the game throws at you. Yeah, there are the lizards, but you can ignore those.

        And there are various interesting spots in the world, but arguably stopping for those is a part of your journey and again, you’re completely free to ignore them. Or just ride around them and check them out using the free camera countrols.

        A game that gave me a similar "journey experience" was BotW, but I had to limit myself a lot. No fast travel, limited inventory etc. Basically roleplay it.

  8. There’s a place for it. It’s when people get the idea that this is "the future of the medium", and a game that just focuses on being a game is doing something wrong, that I have to shut them down.

  9. From the moment MGS was new on the scene everyone remarked "It’s just like a movie!" but that was very much meant to be a high compliment.

  10. >Do you agree?
    Yes, as long as you’re not implying that well-executed cinematic games are intrinsically superior to non-cinematic games

  11. Yeah, I do. I think the first three Metal Gear Solid games are especially great examples. Like another anon said, the story and gameplay should reflect each other. I think cinematic cutscenes and scripted events can be used to great effect, they just shouldn’t take up the majority of a playthrough compared to the actual gameplay.

  12. I don’t think cinematic games are a good idea. Narrative games (or however you want to call it) are a good idea, when you take advantage of the fact that is a game and use the gameplay to compliment the narrative. If you’re going to do a cinematic game, why bother? Just make a movie or a show.

  13. >games aspiring to be cinematic was really an excellent idea
    absolutely not
    >This game and Silent Hill 2
    they work because the gameplay is also good and compliments the narrative. if you play as a spy infiltrating enemy territory, the game should be about sneaking around and using gadgets. in a horror story, the game should be oppressive and confusing and you shouldn’t feel powerful
    there are other games where the gameplay and story compliment each other, even if the story itself isn’t much to write home about. DMC3 is my favorite for this

    • this and /thread

      "cinematic" turned into "10 hours of cutscenes with a few small moments of button-mash combat and fidget-spinner RPG non-choices.

      Vidya has become Hollywood for kids so throttled by ADHD that they can’t spend 5 minutes sitting still for a brainwash session without having plastic buttons to play with.

      It’s kind of like those My Fisher Price Steering Wheel dashboard thingies you buy for toddlers to keep them occupied during car rides. The plastic dashboard isn’t connected to anything of course, but the zoomer gamer thinks it is "participating".


Add to the conversation