Fisto The Sexbot wrote...
Really? The PnP industry was always niche, and they're doing OK despite video games. Books are doing OK despite movies, despite televison or video games. In fact, many popular books receive movie adaptations. I find the notion that X new media will kill off Y older media rather far-fetched. Personally, I don't think I'll see books disappear anytime soon.
This is another straw man.
New media doesn't need to kill older media to be successful. It just has to take the lion's share of the old media's market, like movies, TV, and video games have done to books, radio, and tabletop games. If you personally prefer games produced with that set of features, then it's fine. You're free to like the sort of games you like. But it is foolish to say that all video games should all be this way, or discounting additional tools in the toolbox that technology has allowed because they didn't need them before. It's an option, and affording content creators more options than less is always better.
You think the people who have a hard time using imagination as a tool have 'developed' their imagination to a point where imagination is no longer required?
No. I think that people who prefer narration to actual visuals have a much more developed imagination than the average person.
If narration doesn't work for everybody, then that's most likely because they haven't put much effort into it. Reading requires a little more time investment than what is show to you -- maybe that's makes it a bit less qualified for mass consumption, but you seem to consider that a flaw of the medium and its inability to keep up with the times, whereas I see a lack of desire for the consumer to put effort into something to be entertained.
I disagree. I'm not the one who is saying that the cinematics don't belong. There's clearly a market for cinematic-driven gaming. A lot of people like it. Some people don't. Discounting cinematics completely as you have ("I find the notion that video games need cinematics to evolve ridiculous", "I merely do not think that they are a superior form of storytelling") means that you have the wrong idea about them entirely.
At the end of the day, the consumer has the right to take his or her money and buy whatever entertainment he or she feels best suits his or her taste. By putting in a barrier to entry that you know exists (as you say, requiring the audience to "put in the effort"), it will only serve the consumers to stay with your product until something that better fits their desires comes along. Some of them may enjoy putting in that effort, but if most of them don't, they'll move on to the product that meets their desire when it becomes available.
Basically, you're still saying "It works for me, so it should work for everyone". You're just adding "They just need to put in more effort."
I don't discount the value of ze cinematics. I merely do not think that they are a superior form of storytelling, or 'needed' to make a better story. If that were true, then games like Planescape: Torment, not to mention all those book classics nobody reads would be long-abandoned in favour of newer media, or new narrative techniques, yet games, particularly RPGs, in many people's opinions seem to have gotten worse 'despite' the rise of cinematics in video games.
Another straw man. I never said that cinematics are a superior form of storytelling. I said that they are another tool that can be used for immersion and storytelling that help craft an experience. You don't always want to use a cinematic, because it is not always superior. The "No Russian" level in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare was entirely done in gameplay, and doing that mission as a cinematic would have severely cheapened the effect the designers were looking for. But by the same token, the cinematic scene in Bioshock was a huge turning point in the game, and doing it as a cinematic reinforced what was going on and made it that much more real to the player. There are scenes where cinematics are the best choice, some where cinematics are a personal choice, and some where cinematics are the wrong choice. Just like any tool.
Cinematics are a tool in the toolbox, like a hammer or a wrench. When you're building something, you don't always need to use a hammer. You might not use it at all. But sometimes you have row after row of nails to put down, and then you'll wish you had a hammer. You can get by without, perhaps by using the handle of a wrench or something, but it won't be as quick, as well-crafted, or as easy. Some people can get by with never using a hammer, but not everyone can or wants to. Without one, your toolbox will be less versatile overall.
What you're doing is pointing at an old house and saying "They built that without hammers, therefore hammers aren't the best tool ever". I never said that hammers are the best tool ever, I just said that they are useful.
Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 29 août 2012 - 12:59 .
Retour en haut
