291 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

Video games are aren't movies, novels, or music, but they're a hybrid media and benefit from looking at how more established artforms work. Game developers are looking at films because films are excellent at visual storytelling and that can add a great deal to the experience of playing a game.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

JohnEpler wrote...

I think bringing games towards a more cinematic style visually while still maintaining the interactivity and agency that's a key (some might say -the- key) aspect of games is going to be one of the big challenges of the next five or six years. It's not easy.

Yes!   Seriously, you guys keep swinging for the fences we'll keep coming to the ballpark. 

It's like how moving pictures turned recorded sound into something new and awesome... Adding video game choices into movie storytelling and we'll get something new and awesome.  Nevermind watching Trinity duke it out with noobs and go running across the roof tops... we can control the chase and how the scene plays out.

Can't wait.  :O:O

[erynnar]

JohnEpler wrote...

He's right - games aren't movies. Games allow for agency and interaction that's simply not possible in a film medium.

However, that's not to say that games can't take some cues from film. Games are a primarily visual medium - 'show, don't tell' is one of the first lessons that any writer learns. Applied to games, if you can convey a particular message visually rather than textually, you can allow for a tighter experience.

Of course, it's a balancing act and, sometimes, it goes too far. Interactivity is always important to bear in mind, and it does occasionally happen that choice is taken away from the player because it's mistakenly determined that it's an acceptable trade off - a choice might be viewed as meaningless, when in reality some players really would like agency at that particular moment.

I think bringing games towards a more cinematic style visually while still maintaining the interactivity and agency that's a key (some might say -the- key) aspect of games is going to be one of the big challenges of the next five or six years. It's not easy.

Well said! May I applaud you?  "Show don't tell" along with the "show"  of cinematics is a very fine balancing act, and no it won't be (and isn't) easy. Too much cinematics and for people who want more interactivity and game play feel like their hands are being held and they are being led. Too much of the "show don't tell" and people might get bored.

However, there are plenty of games that appeal to the more cinematic crowd. Their choices abound, I am looking for that sweet spot again...ahhh book, movie, and game, wherefore art thou? DA3 I hope?

[Bostur]

JohnEpler wrote...

He's right - games aren't movies. Games allow for agency and interaction that's simply not possible in a film medium.

However, that's not to say that games can't take some cues from film. Games are a primarily visual medium - 'show, don't tell' is one of the first lessons that any writer learns. Applied to games, if you can convey a particular message visually rather than textually, you can allow for a tighter experience.

Of course, it's a balancing act and, sometimes, it goes too far. Interactivity is always important to bear in mind, and it does occasionally happen that choice is taken away from the player because it's mistakenly determined that it's an acceptable trade off - a choice might be viewed as meaningless, when in reality some players really would like agency at that particular moment.

I think bringing games towards a more cinematic style visually while still maintaining the interactivity and agency that's a key (some might say -the- key) aspect of games is going to be one of the big challenges of the next five or six years. It's not easy.

Now I'd like to be a party pooper and say that the lesson "Show, don't tell", is so last century and was made due to the limitations of movies. Instead of showing the action why not play it? I think Half-Life 1 was revolutionary in this respect because it was one of the first games I played that tried to really meld the story into the gameplay. Later many games got a bit more lazy and mostly tried to show it.
You guys do tell a lot of the story by allowing us to play it, no doubt about it. But I fear the cinematic capabilities may sometimes be used as a bit of crutch instead of as a needed tool.

[John Epler]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Video games are aren't movies, novels, or music, but they're a hybrid media and benefit from looking at how more established artforms work. Game developers are looking at films because films are excellent at visual storytelling and that can add a great deal to the experience of playing a game.

Which is really what I was getting at. Films have been around for over a century, now. Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel when it comes to the parts of a game that are similar to what a film does, why not take a look at what they're doing through the lens of 'this is still a game and not a movie'?

Films do much of what they do because the people making them have discovered that certain visual techniques create and reinforce particular emotions/mindsets among the audience. Stuff like the rule of thirds, crossing the line, pushes and pulls, hitchcock zooms - those came about as a result of an understanding of the visual medium and how people process information presented to them in a particular way.

Again, games are not movies, and there are things that games can do that movies cannot, which is something that I strongly believe needs to be kept in mind. However, there is certainly crossover, and where that crossover occurs, why shouldn't we try and learn from the medium with the most experience?

[John Epler]

Bostur wrote...

Now I'd like to be a party pooper and say that the lesson "Show, don't tell", is so last century and was made due to the limitations of movies. Instead of showing the action why not play it? I think Half-Life 1 was revolutionary in this respect because it was one of the first games I played that tried to really meld the story into the gameplay. Later many games got a bit more lazy and mostly tried to show it.
You guys do tell a lot of the story by allowing us to play it, no doubt about it. But I fear the cinematic capabilities may sometimes be used as a bit of crutch instead of as a needed tool.

And that's a fair criticism. I'm of the mind that you should always try to maintain player agency. Certainly, there are moments where the compromise is going to be between 'give the player control and let them do something moderately interesting' or 'take some control away and let them do something really, really neat'.

I believe those instances should be used sparingly, though - I'm generally opposed to taking control away from the player for too long. Cinematics should support the gameplay, not replace it.

[Merced652]

Gotta fight the urge... oh man.. arghhhhhhhhhh

I'll just say i agree with him. My major point of contention is that a game cannot be cinematic without a VO'd protag, and since no studio as of yet has bothered to provide more than one voice over per gender, its a foregone conclusion that some people will simply never become immersed because of some douchebags voice. While this too is true, though to a lesser extent, even if you offer multiple VO's per gender; i feel choice at least offers the player incentive to try.

[TEWR]

JohnEpler wrote...

He's right - games aren't movies. Games allow for agency and interaction that's simply not possible in a film medium.

However, that's not to say that games can't take some cues from film. Games are a primarily visual medium - 'show, don't tell' is one of the first lessons that any writer learns. Applied to games, if you can convey a particular message visually rather than textually, you can allow for a tighter experience.

Of course, it's a balancing act and, sometimes, it goes too far. Interactivity is always important to bear in mind, and it does occasionally happen that choice is taken away from the player because it's mistakenly determined that it's an acceptable trade off - a choice might be viewed as meaningless, when in reality some players really would like agency at that particular moment.

I think bringing games towards a more cinematic style visually while still maintaining the interactivity and agency that's a key (some might say -the- key) aspect of games is going to be one of the big challenges of the next five or six years. It's not easy.

I.... I think you're one of my new heroes.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

JohnEpler wrote...

Bostur wrote...

Now I'd like to be a party pooper and say that the lesson "Show, don't tell", is so last century and was made due to the limitations of movies. Instead of showing the action why not play it? I think Half-Life 1 was revolutionary in this respect because it was one of the first games I played that tried to really meld the story into the gameplay. Later many games got a bit more lazy and mostly tried to show it.
You guys do tell a lot of the story by allowing us to play it, no doubt about it. But I fear the cinematic capabilities may sometimes be used as a bit of crutch instead of as a needed tool.

And that's a fair criticism. I'm of the mind that you should always try to maintain player agency. Certainly, there are moments where the compromise is going to be between 'give the player control and let them do something moderately interesting' or 'take some control away and let them do something really, really neat'.

I believe those instances should be used sparingly, though - I'm generally opposed to taking control away from the player for too long. Cinematics should support the gameplay, not replace it.

I think really, that just sums it up. Well said.

[Merced652]

JohnEpler wrote...

Bostur wrote...

Now I'd like to be a party pooper and say that the lesson "Show, don't tell", is so last century and was made due to the limitations of movies. Instead of showing the action why not play it? I think Half-Life 1 was revolutionary in this respect because it was one of the first games I played that tried to really meld the story into the gameplay. Later many games got a bit more lazy and mostly tried to show it.
You guys do tell a lot of the story by allowing us to play it, no doubt about it. But I fear the cinematic capabilities may sometimes be used as a bit of crutch instead of as a needed tool.

 Certainly, there are moments where the compromise is going to be between 'give the player control and let them do something moderately interesting' or 'take some control away and let them do something really, really neat'.

Come on John, thats probably the most arbitrary thing i've ever seen on these boards. Its novelty wears off after the first time. Choice, when expansive, never really loses its novelty. Even if it were too, it wouldn't be anywhere near so quickly. 

[upsettingshorts]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I.... I think you're one of my new heroes.

John Epler isn't a hero.  He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... a dark knight.

Merced652 wrote...

Come on John, thats probably the most arbitrary thing i've ever seen on these boards.

That is the most hyperbolic statement ever used by carbon-based life in the history of the universe.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 19 avril 2011 - 12:19 .

[solstickan]

Aren't games just evolved story telling mediums? First there were books, then technology allowed us to tell tales visually (films), and from that we made these visual stories interactive -- games. Naturally, games are inspired by movies, just like the writing in them stems from "pure" literature, and as technology gets more and more advanced they can implement more of these cinematic elements to better tell their stories. As long as they don't lose their interactiveness I'm all for it.


Oh, crap. I think I'm rambling.

[Bostur]

JohnEpler wrote...

Bostur wrote...

Now I'd like to be a party pooper and say that the lesson "Show, don't tell", is so last century and was made due to the limitations of movies. Instead of showing the action why not play it? I think Half-Life 1 was revolutionary in this respect because it was one of the first games I played that tried to really meld the story into the gameplay. Later many games got a bit more lazy and mostly tried to show it.
You guys do tell a lot of the story by allowing us to play it, no doubt about it. But I fear the cinematic capabilities may sometimes be used as a bit of crutch instead of as a needed tool.

And that's a fair criticism. I'm of the mind that you should always try to maintain player agency. Certainly, there are moments where the compromise is going to be between 'give the player control and let them do something moderately interesting' or 'take some control away and let them do something really, really neat'.

I believe those instances should be used sparingly, though - I'm generally opposed to taking control away from the player for too long. Cinematics should support the gameplay, not replace it.

I very much agree. There is nothing I hate more than when a game wants me to play out something extremely tedious just because they can. Sometimes a moment of cutscenes can fast forward to part of the story that is more interesting from a gameplay perspective. And sometimes its the only option.

That last post of yours sums it up nicely, and can almost be used as a general vision

Modifié par Bostur, 19 avril 2011 - 12:18 .

[Shirosaki17]

Bostur wrote...
To put this into a more specific context, Bioware do specialize in a genre with a lot of movie qualities. Do some BW games try too hard to look like Hollywood movies? Or do games in general?

Yes a lot of games try too hard to be like movies with too many cinematics.

[TEWR]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I.... I think you're one of my new heroes.

John Epler isn't a hero.  He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... a dark knight.

I agree. That's John.

Speaking of Batman...

Anyone hear any news on The Dark Knight Rises? Who the villain is or maybe some new cast members?

Imagine if Adam West was a villain. or an ally.

*POW!* hits self for imagining a Nolan Batman film with Adam West in it.

[Romantiq]

I don't mind them if game is presented well outside out cinematics. In case of Resident Evil 5, which had awesome cinematics imo, the rest of the game wasn't as great.

[TEWR]

solstickan wrote...

Aren't games just evolved story telling mediums? First there were books, then technology allowed us to tell tales visually (films), and from that we made these visual stories interactive -- games. Naturally, games are inspired by movies, just like the writing in them stems from "pure" literature, and as technology gets more and more advanced they can implement more of these cinematic elements to better tell their stories. As long as they don't lose their interactiveness I'm all for it.


Oh, crap. I think I'm rambling.

The way to tell a story seems to be evolving. Whether people like it or not, it is happening. We can only pray it evolves in a way that everyone can enjoy.


And believe me, when storytelling goes to virtual reality, the human race will cease to exist.

[Bostur]

solstickan wrote...

Aren't games just evolved story telling mediums? First there were books, then technology allowed us to tell tales visually (films), and from that we made these visual stories interactive -- games. Naturally, games are inspired by movies, just like the writing in them stems from "pure" literature, and as technology gets more and more advanced they can implement more of these cinematic elements to better tell their stories. As long as they don't lose their interactiveness I'm all for it.


Oh, crap. I think I'm rambling.

I would say some games are evolved story telling mediums. As the video I linked mentions somewhere, video games evolved from toys.

One early type of game somewhat similar to computer games were pinball machines. I'm not sure how old the history of pinball machines is, but they started as purely mechanical gizmos, then evolved into more electronic forms.
Inspiration has also been taken from board games and of course roleplaying games. The most common early video games in 1970s-1980s were arcade games, some of which had a little bit of story and some had nothing at all.

The RPG inspiration probably caused most of the impact to make games have more story. Although adventure games starting as purely text games most likely had an impact as well.

Sorry for the geekish ramblings, I like tech history ;-)

[Merced652]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I.... I think you're one of my new heroes.

John Epler isn't a hero.  He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... a dark knight.

Merced652 wrote...

Come on John, thats probably the most arbitrary thing i've ever seen on these boards.

That is the most hyperbolic statement ever used by carbon-based life in the history of the universe.

That hyphen was key, and while it was hyperbole, its merely a device. Combat the point, oh haha silly me.

Its like the ***DEAR GOD A SPOILER*** retarded 50 foot leap through the ancient rock wraith. You do this whether you are a warrior or rogue. A even more vile example of this is in Origins fittingly enough. My rogue wouldn't pick up some random ass 2handed sword and do some crazy stuff to a dying archdemon. He'd do some crazy stuff with his 2 daggers or sword/dagger combo, or or.. Oh yea, i forgot da2 restricted all my choices because it was more cinematic. Anway, i think thats the real nitty-gritty of why cinematic game vs traditional rpg is bad. I lose choice for arbitrary and fading novelty. 

[fchopin]

JohnEpler wrote...

Of course, it's a balancing act and, sometimes, it goes too far. Interactivity is always important to bear in mind, and it does occasionally happen that choice is taken away from the player because it's mistakenly determined that it's an acceptable trade off - a choice might be viewed as meaningless, when in reality some players really would like agency at that particular moment.

I agree with most of what you said but i prefer the use of cinema tics only used to enhance the experience but never take over the players control.
 
One example is throwing a bomb, i don't want to see my character throw the bomb and see the explosion in cinema tics, i would prefer the player to have control in throwing the bomb and then see the explosion in cinema tics.
 
Every time the cinema tics takes over and does what the player should be doing takes away immersion for me and makes me think i am not the character that i am playing.

[TEWR]

Merced652 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I.... I think you're one of my new heroes.

John Epler isn't a hero.  He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... a dark knight.

Merced652 wrote...

Come on John, thats probably the most arbitrary thing i've ever seen on these boards.

That is the most hyperbolic statement ever used by carbon-based life in the history of the universe.

That hyphen was key, and while it was hyperbole, its merely a device. Combat the point, oh haha silly me.

Its like the ***DEAR GOD A SPOILER*** retarded 50 foot leap through the ancient rock wraith. You do this whether you are a warrior or rogue. A even more vile example of this is in Origins fittingly enough. My rogue wouldn't pick up some random ass 2handed sword and do some crazy stuff to a dying archdemon. He'd do some crazy stuff with his 2 daggers or sword/dagger combo, or or.. Oh yea, i forgot da2 restricted all my choices because it was more cinematic. Anway, i think thats the real nitty-gritty of why cinematic game vs traditional rpg is bad. I lose choice for arbitrary and fading novelty. 

In DA:O my mage picked up a greatsword to kill the Archdemon. I really don't know why.

[Merced652]

fchopin wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Of course, it's a balancing act and, sometimes, it goes too far. Interactivity is always important to bear in mind, and it does occasionally happen that choice is taken away from the player because it's mistakenly determined that it's an acceptable trade off - a choice might be viewed as meaningless, when in reality some players really would like agency at that particular moment.

I agree with most of what you said but i prefer the use of cinema tics only used to enhance the experience but never take over the players control.
 
One example is throwing a bomb, i don't want to see my character throw the bomb and see the explosion in cinema tics, i would prefer the player to have control in throwing the bomb and then see the explosion in cinema tics.
 
Every time the cinema tics takes over and does what the player should be doing takes away immersion for me and makes me think i am not the character that i am playing.

But once that cinematic takes over your character says something completely.. out of character! Well, thats the theory as its currently practiced. 

[Harmless Crunch]

I actually thought he made some really good points and I feel that the game industry is just trying to be the movie industry. Of course it is pointles as games are already bigger than films.
I do love Heavy rain though but I feel that it is a incredablly unique hybrid of films and games. Whislt I found COD:Black Op's campaign trying to be a movie you could play and failing at both.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

JohnEpler wrote...
I think bringing games towards a more cinematic style visually while still maintaining the interactivity and agency that's a key (some might say -the- key) aspect of games is going to be one of the big challenges of the next five or six years. It's not easy.

I understand. Just make sure that player "don't watch more and play less" that some people felt about Final Fantasy and most of JRPG titles.

[fchopin]

Merced652 wrote...

But once that cinematic takes over your character says something completely.. out of character! Well, thats the theory as its currently practiced. 

The reason for this is because they did not want us to know what our character will say, they used meaningless text with icons for intent so we would not know what was to be said.
 
They can easily change this by removing the icons and giving meaningful text.