These Games Were Ruined By Trying to Be Movies
Don't ever let cinematics get in the way of good gameplay.
Read Full Article
Don't ever let cinematics get in the way of good gameplay.
Read Full Article
Really thought you were gonna end this "I didn't ask for this, Jensen."Frostbyte666 said:Ahh yes that lovely scene from Deus Ex where I screamed shoot her before she gets to a bolthole. <snap-bullet proof glass in place> ...I hate you so much right now Jensen.
On the one hand, BioShock (1) did that perfectly. On the other hand, Dead Space.WildFire15 said:Games are the perfect medium for 'show, don't tell', yet the opportunity is routinely squandered. We need games to go back to something akin to Half-Life, where you never lose control over the playable character.
I quite liked DE:HR (apart from, y'know), but Absolution is the weird one out here. Its stealth gameplay and mechanics were top notch. Bonus points for it still being miles ahead of pretty much anything else in how it handles crowds.Fhqwhgod said:Deus Ex HR, Thi4f and Hitman Absolution. Three of my favourite games in recent years on this list. But at least for Thi4f I can see the point.
Good point, though was Hitman: Absolution made by Eidos? I see it listed as being by IO Interactive.ArkhamJester said:Eidos, Eidos made the list three times, not Square Enix I know thaty when eidos does good people praise them but curse their owner (Square Enix) when they do wrong. Also there hasn't been much if any evidence that Squeenix twisted Eidos's arm to make there games into forced movies. So can we please stop blaming Enix for Eidos's deficiencies?
You're right, though IO is also owned by Square Enix and just like with Eidos, they tend to be hands off. Again, all public evidence points to this Absolutions faults being primarily IO's fault and not Square's.Retsam19 said:Good point, though was Hitman: Absolution made by Eidos? I see it listed as being by IO Interactive.ArkhamJester said:Eidos, Eidos made the list three times, not Square Enix I know thaty when eidos does good people praise them but curse their owner (Square Enix) when they do wrong. Also there hasn't been much if any evidence that Squeenix twisted Eidos's arm to make there games into forced movies. So can we please stop blaming Enix for Eidos's deficiencies?
Hmm, though it stretches my belief in "coincidence" a bit to say that we have two companies known for mechanics-heavy games, they get acquired by a company known for cinematics-heavy games, and then both acquired companies suddenly put out games that are bogged down by unnecessary cinematics that undercut the mechanics of those games, and then say that's just a coincidence.ArkhamJester said:You're right, though IO is also owned by Square Enix and just like with Eidos, they tend to be hands off. Again, all public evidence points to this Absolutions faults being primarily IO's fault and not Square's.Retsam19 said:Good point, though was Hitman: Absolution made by Eidos? I see it listed as being by IO Interactive.ArkhamJester said:Eidos, Eidos made the list three times, not Square Enix I know thaty when eidos does good people praise them but curse their owner (Square Enix) when they do wrong. Also there hasn't been much if any evidence that Squeenix twisted Eidos's arm to make there games into forced movies. So can we please stop blaming Enix for Eidos's deficiencies?
Honestly, I kinda agree with you, but both studios have been asked about what its like to work with Square Enix and both companies sing a similar tune. That said Squeenix isn't blameless, they set the budget and the time frame but in terms of public proof nothing really indicates Square twisted arms to put in more cinematics.Retsam19 said:Hmm, though it stretches my belief in "coincidence" a bit to say that we have two companies known for mechanics-heavy games, they get acquired by a company known for cinematics-heavy games, and then both acquired companies suddenly put out games that are bogged down by unnecessary cinematics that undercut the mechanics of those games, and then say that's just a coincidence.ArkhamJester said:You're right, though IO is also owned by Square Enix and just like with Eidos, they tend to be hands off. Again, all public evidence points to this Absolutions faults being primarily IO's fault and not Square's.Retsam19 said:Good point, though was Hitman: Absolution made by Eidos? I see it listed as being by IO Interactive.ArkhamJester said:Eidos, Eidos made the list three times, not Square Enix I know thaty when eidos does good people praise them but curse their owner (Square Enix) when they do wrong. Also there hasn't been much if any evidence that Squeenix twisted Eidos's arm to make there games into forced movies. So can we please stop blaming Enix for Eidos's deficiencies?
This sums up very well the problem with too many games, indeed.loa said:Inclusion instead of integration. [https://learningneverstops.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/20130423-2240421.jpg]
Most times games trying to be "cinematic" fail because they try to integrate a movie into a game as its own closed system instead of including it, building upon it, applying actual game logic to it.