Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Great article from an unlikely place.

DalekFlay

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
14,118
Location
New Vegas
No, I perfectly got the point of the article the first time around. That doesn't change the fact that the point of the article is wrong. Bethesda is as much part of the "hollywodization" of games as any other developer. In fact, if you ask Todd or Pete, they can hardly stop blubbering how great they think their particular Hollywood is, once you trigger them. The only thing that can be said in their defence I guess is that it takes Bethesda several iterations to completely decline their franchise, probably because it started out strong and it is resisting the hollywood all the way down into the gutter. In which it will land eventually (and has already for many).

I honestly don't know what the fuck you're talking about here. Skyrim has a lot of flaws, and yes a lot of simplification, but it's a video game through and through. There is no part of it what-so-ever that is cinematic outside of the intro and ending, and even during those you have full character control 90% of the time. The game flat-out rushes to get you to a point in 5-10 minutes where the whole world is laid out before you and the tutorial dude says "you should probably meet me someday in X city, but for now we should split up, peace out." The gameplay is the focus, running around, fightin' shit, looting shit, exploring shit. The story is all told in dialog trees and optional books, not cutscenes. It's a fucking video game first and foremost, and a player sandbox through and through.

Like I said before, video games sell more, they're what people really want. That's the point. You don't have to like Skyrim to agree with that, you can use endless other examples like Minecraft, Day Z or even fucking Candy Crush... games that you might not like, I don't like, but which made bajillions of dollars because of gameplay, a focus on gameplay. That gameplay is what attracts consumers, not cinematic storytelling, which they get all day every day done much better in movies and television.

Too many developers want to be movie directors. That's bad. If you agree with that you agree with what we're saying. Skyrim being your favorite or least-favorite game has nothing to do with it, really.
 

Kane

I have many names
Patron
Vatnik
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
22,250
Location
Drug addicted, mentally ill gays HQ
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015
I honestly don't know what the fuck you're talking about here. Skyrim has a lot of flaws, and yes a lot of simplification, but it's a video game through and through.

Yes, and that is where I disagree. Yes, Skyrim is more of a game than say, mass effect. However, the decline from Dagerfall to Skyrim has the exact same motivations and the same symptoms of holliwoodisation as mass effect f.e.. Each iteration of TES moves the franchise closer to being one of those movie-games.
 

Lemming42

Arcane
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
6,043
Location
The Satellite Of Love
I honestly don't know what the fuck you're talking about here. Skyrim has a lot of flaws, and yes a lot of simplification, but it's a video game through and through.

Yes, and that is where I disagree. Yes, Skyrim is more of a game than say, mass effect. However, the decline from Dagerfall to Skyrim has the exact same motivations and the same symptoms of holliwoodisation as mass effect f.e.. Each iteration of TES moves the franchise closer to being one of those movie-games.

What's your definition of movie-game? Bethesda's games are about as far away from my definition of movie-game as possible.
 

tuluse

Arcane
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,400
Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong
Yes, and that is where I disagree. Yes, Skyrim is more of a game than say, mass effect. However, the decline from Dagerfall to Skyrim has the exact same motivations and the same symptoms of holliwoodisation as mass effect f.e.. Each iteration of TES moves the franchise closer to being one of those movie-games.
I think you have a different definition of movie-game from most people. Structurally, Bethesda games not like movies at all. Both Bethesda Studios and Arkane are focused on mechanics and using them on the environment, not cinematic experiences.
 

chestburster

Savant
Illiterate
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
711
Yes, and that is where I disagree. Yes, Skyrim is more of a game than say, mass effect. However, the decline from Dagerfall to Skyrim has the exact same motivations and the same symptoms of holliwoodisation as mass effect f.e.. Each iteration of TES moves the franchise closer to being one of those movie-games.
I think you have a different definition of movie-game from most people. Structurally, Bethesda games not like movies at all. Both Bethesda Studios and Arkane are focused on mechanics and using them on the environment, not cinematic experiences.

He probably meant that by the rate of Bethesda dumbing down their games and reducing game mechanics, in the end Elder Scroll games would become "cinematic" games. The only thing distinguishing the Beth "cinematic" game from the Bioware "cinematic" game is the size of their corridors.

See, e.g. Far Cry 3. A so-called "sandbox" game, where all that is "sandboxy" is: you have the choice of (1) killing shit at point A of the big map, or, (2) killing shit at point B of the big map (in exactly the same way as previously), or (3) walking to point C of the big map and trigger an AWESHUME (TM) "cinematic" cutscene, or (4) press a button to initiate a long animation to punch a shark.

Incidentally Far Cry 3 is lauded by dumbass reviewers and consoletards as "Elder Scroll with guns."

I predict the next Elder Scroll would be "Far Cry 3 with magic."
 

DalekFlay

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
14,118
Location
New Vegas
cin·e·mat·ic
adjective \ˌsi-nə-ˈma-tik\
: of or relating to movies
: of, relating to, suggestive of, or suitable for motion pictures or the filming of motion pictures <cinematic principles and techniques>

Simplistic gameplay does not equal cinematic.
 

tuluse

Arcane
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,400
Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong
He probably meant that by the rate of Bethesda dumbing down their games and reducing game mechanics, in the end Elder Scroll games would become "cinematic" games. The only thing distinguishing the Beth "cinematic" game from the Bioware "cinematic" game is the size of their corridors.

See, e.g. Far Cry 3. A so-called "sandbox" game, where all that is "sandboxy" is: you have the choice of (1) killing shit at point A of the big map, or, (2) killing shit at point B of the big map (in exactly the same way as previously), or (3) walking to point C of the big map and trigger an AWESHUME (TM) "cinematic" cutscene, or (4) press a button to initiate a long animation to punch a shark.

Incidentally Far Cry 3 is lauded by dumbass reviewers and consoletards as "Elder Scroll with guns."

I predict the next Elder Scroll would be "Far Cry 3 with magic."
The key here is that Bethesda avoids #3. Always has and all indications point to will continue to avoid it.

(they also mostly avoid #4)
 

chestburster

Savant
Illiterate
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
711
(3) walking to point C of the big map and trigger an AWESHUME (TM) "cinematic" cutscene, or (4) press a button to initiate a long animation to punch a shark.
The key here is that Bethesda avoids #3. Always has and all indications point to will continue to avoid it.

(they also mostly avoid #4)[/quote]

I don't think Beth is "avoiding" cinematic sequences on purpose. They just suck at making them.

For example, in Fallout 3, this:
 

Lemming42

Arcane
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
6,043
Location
The Satellite Of Love
That scene wasn't really cinematic. You have control taken away from you for about 20 seconds (and this is the only example in the whole game I can think of) for the cutscene where you get captured by the Enclave, then there's a brief interrogation scene and then it's straight back to the actual gameplay with you in control. If Bioware were doing the same scene, being captured by the Enclave would probably last about 10 minutes with all kinds of crappy directing gimmicks, then the interrogation scene would last an additional 10 minutes because the dialogue would drone on forever, then you'd finally get control back only to exit your cell and get hit with another huge cutscene lasting all the way to the encounter with Eden, maybe broken up by one or two awful cover shooting segments.

Come to think of it, how many times do you actually lose control of your character in Bethesda games (not counting the intros)? There was the Enclave capture in Fallout 3 and an equally brief scene at the end of Dawnguard where you fall to the floor and then hilariously slither forwards, but other than those two I can't think of any point in Fo3 or Skyrim where you lose control of the character.
 

DragoFireheart

all caps, rainbow colors, SOMETHING.
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
23,731
For fucks sake raw, have you never played a Metal Gear Solid game?

THOSE are movie games, not Todd Howard's retarded children.
 

Kane

I have many names
Patron
Vatnik
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
22,250
Location
Drug addicted, mentally ill gays HQ
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015
For fucks sake raw, have you never played a Metal Gear Solid game?
Nope. I don't have a console and never owned one.

It's called emulators you ass.

And if you don't want to sail the seas then youtube the thing. It's like watching a movie.

I don't waste my time on unterspiele, I only watch videos of pure PC-coded games. Neither will dirty my blood with emulators, to play shitty console turds no less.
 

Abelian

Somebody's Alt
Joined
Nov 17, 2013
Messages
2,289
It's not about how Bethesda is the best developer ever (they aren't) or how they make perfect games (they don't).
It's about how at least they don't try to follow the "games need to be Hollywood movies" route that has become so common these days.
Then why did they hire Captain Picard and Boromir for voice-acting?
:troll:
 

RK47

collides like two planets pulled by gravity
Patron
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Messages
28,396
Location
Not Here
Dead State Divinity: Original Sin
Yes, and that is where I disagree. Yes, Skyrim is more of a game than say, mass effect. However, the decline from Dagerfall to Skyrim has the exact same motivations and the same symptoms of holliwoodisation as mass effect f.e.. Each iteration of TES moves the franchise closer to being one of those movie-games.
I think you have a different definition of movie-game from most people. Structurally, Bethesda games not like movies at all. Both Bethesda Studios and Arkane are focused on mechanics and using them on the environment, not cinematic experiences.

raw-movie-games
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom