Games "must be like Hollywood" is the worst decline in gaming

[Vic]

I mean it's a JRPG for kids what do you expect

 

[Halfling Rodeo]

I mean it's a JRPG for kids what do you expect

It's rated Teen

Alcohol Reference, Blood, Mild Language, Suggestive Themes, Use of Tobacco, Violence

 

[Vic]

I mean it's a JRPG for kids what do you expect

It's rated Teen

Alcohol Reference, Blood, Mild Language, Suggestive Themes, Use of Tobacco, Violence

ESRB Teen means 13 and older, that's "kids" to me.

 

[Spike]

Wizardry is much more worth experiencing than most JRPGs. Maybe even all JRPGs. Try the PSX ones if the grafficks are too much of a barrier (I prefer "more" as well).

 

[Vic]

I played them, but I'm not pretentious enough to say a game with wireframe graphics from the 80s is my favorite RPG lol

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

No wonder you got that tag.

He worked hard for it.
Maybe someone grants him Super Mario 3 avatar next.

 

[Vic]

what does my tag have to do with the fact that wiz 4's graphics were shit even for 1987 lol

 

[Modron]

I think it has more to do with Starfield's graphics being shit for 2004.

 

[Vic]

I think it has more to do with Starfield's graphics being shit for 2004.

 

[NecroLord]

I think it has more to do with Starfield's graphics being shit for 2004.

Doesn't look that spectacular.
It's that Fallout 3 filter all over again!

 

[Vic]

but you can fast travel to that planet

 

[Nathaniel3W]

Earlier in my gamedev days I used to read blogs and stuff about making games look good. Maybe if you've played any of my games you would say that I should keep studying. At least I remember from those days coming across this blog: https://ventspace.wordpress.com/2017/10/20/games-look-bad-part-1-hdr-and-tone-mapping/

In short, a guy who knows a lot about cameras and film says that game devs today don't put any thought into the color and contrast of the scenes in their games. Most AAA games look like garbage, and here's a detailed multi-post explanation for why.

 

[Vic]

Earlier in my gamedev days I used to read blogs and stuff about making games look good. Maybe if you've played any of my games you would say that I should keep studying. At least I remember from those days coming across this blog: https://ventspace.wordpress.com/2017/10/20/games-look-bad-part-1-hdr-and-tone-mapping/

why are people so in love with zelda games?

 

[BosanskiSeljak]

I think it has more to do with Starfield's graphics being shit for 2004.

Mass Effect 1 planets look better than this

 

[Spike]

Earlier in my gamedev days I used to read blogs and stuff about making games look good. Maybe if you've played any of my games you would say that I should keep studying. At least I remember from those days coming across this blog: https://ventspace.wordpress.com/2017/10/20/games-look-bad-part-1-hdr-and-tone-mapping/

In short, a guy who knows a lot about cameras and film says that game devs today don't put any thought into the color and contrast of the scenes in their games. Most AAA games look like garbage, and here's a detailed multi-post explanation for why.

Fascinating. I have always wondered why they look so, so awful. It is like an innate instinct. "This looks like garbage." - main subconscious thought while playing and probably why we are all drawn to older stuff for the most part. Also why Japanese games still look good - they never lost their sense of aesthetic. Whereas western devs only have an assthetic.

 

[Vic]

I don't think that the cel shaded graphics of breath of the wild are looking good at all

but fromsoft games do indeed look really good

 

[Spike]

I don't think that the cel shaded graphics of breath of the wild are looking good at all

but fromsoft games do indeed look really good

Man, Sekiro is a masterpiece. What an epic confrontation. Truly a game I was waiting for as a child, that I dreamed of. And there it was. Yup. Been 'bout oh, over 4 years now. *takes a long drag* Yep...Was true kino.

 

[Old Hans]

I literally cannot enjoy modern (post-modern) CRPGs anymore

If I wanna watch a fucking movie, I'll go to the cinema. If I wanna read a book, I'll read a book. If I want GAMEPLAY I'll play a GAME.

When I play old school games like Wizardry or Dark Sun, I really feel great

No one is holding your hand. No voice acting. No cutscenes. Just this abstracted gameplay which invokes this dreamlike feeling. Games nowadays are oversimulated.

the mid 90's went through a dark period when all the game companies filled the cd-roms full of poorly digitized Z-list Hollywood actors

 

[abija]

In short, a guy who knows a lot about cameras and film says that game devs today don't put any thought into the color and contrast of the scenes in their games. Most AAA games look like garbage, and here's a detailed multi-post explanation for why.

But all of them feel videogamey and none of them would pass for a film or a photograph. Or even a reasonably good offline render. Or a painting.

I think he is missing the point by a mile. Disregarding all the common sense reasons (like games being targeted at minds that still respond better to some vibrant colors than a well thought out scene), even from an artistic pov, it's better to register as a beautiful videogame than a shitty photo/film/offline render/paiting. You still can't get close to those unless your game is stylized/fixed camera or some other way you can cut rendering requirements a lot, which none of the examples are.

 

[Gilius Thunderhead]

They're just incredibly dumbed down, not even like real cinema, more like a thrill ride at the park, mixed with an educational show for toddlers. "Look, it's a dog! And this this is some dog food. Dogs really love dog food!"

I was watching this playthrough for the Tomb Raider reboot, because I didn't pay any attention to it when it came out, and it's really hard to describe the gameplay as movie-like. You just go through some corridor and watch things happen around you, occasionally pushing some button at a prompt. I don't remember that in Indiana Jones.



See says "A torch!" when she comes upon a torch, to remind you that you can pick it up. Then you get a prompt to "Press E to use torch". You would never see such things in a movie. A real cinematic game would highlight the torch with a certain camera angle, which would make you curious about it. Then you'd pick it up naturally. Old games did this all the time.

Classical games were actually more like movies (often made a conscious effort to imitate them) than these "cinematic games", as they conveyed meaning through images, using certain camera angles, sound effects and such to approximate a movie like feeling, while these new games just tell you about things with intrusive prompts and markers, make everything happen in a tunnel and put clutter everywhere so nothing really resembles a movie shot.

 

[Iucounu]

I think he is missing the point by a mile. Disregarding all the common sense reasons (like games being targeted at minds that still respond better to some vibrant colors than a well thought out scene), even from an artistic pov, it's better to register as a beautiful videogame than a shitty photo/film/offline render/paiting.

But are the games beautiful? Maybe the average consumer thinks so.

You still can't get close to those unless your game is stylized/fixed camera or some other way you can cut rendering requirements a lot, which none of the examples are.

A statue then? But I agree, one of the challenges in still photography is to capture great light angles. The object you photograph may well look terrible when the light comes from any other angle. In fact you can often see that the same scene in a videogame with day/night cycle looks terrible in the harsh midday "sunlight" (just like reality), and much more pleasing in late afternoon.

 

[Iucounu]

I was watching this playthrough for the Tomb Raider reboot, because I didn't pay any attention to it when it came out, and it's really hard to describe the gameplay as movie-like. You just go through some corridor and watch things happen around you, occasionally pushing some button at a prompt. I don't remember that in Indiana Jones.

I think when people say "movielike" they mean lack of player agency, such as during cutscenes or the corridor in that Tomb Raider video (though it looks like a tutorial level).

A real cinematic game would highlight the torch with a certain camera angle

You mean in a cutscene? Otherwise camera angles normally result from the player's movements, that the developer has only limited control over.

 

[Gilius Thunderhead]

I was watching this playthrough for the Tomb Raider reboot, because I didn't pay any attention to it when it came out, and it's really hard to describe the gameplay as movie-like. You just go through some corridor and watch things happen around you, occasionally pushing some button at a prompt. I don't remember that in Indiana Jones.

I think when people say "movielike" they mean lack of player agency, such as during cutscenes or the corridor in that Tomb Raider video (though it looks like a tutorial level).

Yes, I understand that. But it obscures the fact that videogame cutscenes and "cinematic gameplay"(a confusing term that gets thrown around a lot) are often not at all like movies, or at least not "cinema" in the way we normally talk about it--a collection of techniques and a distinct way depicting people or objects. I suppose they approach the kind of stuff you see in Marvel movies which, conversely, people often degrade as "videogame cutscenes".

I don't disagree with the premise of this thread, but I believe this is something that needs to be pointed out. Classic games were already "cinematic" and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

You are right that clip was from a tutorial part, but try skipping ahead to the real game and you'll see it's exactly the same kind of gameplay(btw, the early games had tutorials that were nothing like this).

A real cinematic game would highlight the torch with a certain camera angle

You mean in a cutscene? Otherwise camera angles normally result from the player's movements, that the developer has only limited control over.

No, think of a game where an important object is put in a prominent place through a camera angle so it stimulates your curiosity. Resident Evil had lots of those, adventure games too. I'm drawing a blank here, but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

The original Tomb Raider was very cinematic at times. See one of the early levels, for example, it was the first thing that sprung to my mind. Looking at it closely reveals more cinematic details than I remembered. Look at the sequence that starts at around 6:00, for example:



You have a large hall with statues and a trap gauntlet where darts fly at Lara as she runs past them(if you don't stop for the secret); a part where the floor crumbles to reveal deadly spikes and you see them directly as she grabs on to a ledge(notice how the secret is revealed by a sound effect, instead of an intrusive marker); then an ancient room with a precious object in the middle; when she picks up the object the ceiling starts to crumble and she must escape through a corridor(which had a giant boulder beforehand). How much more Hollywood can you get?

 

[Iucounu]

Yes, I understand that. But it obscures the fact that videogame cutscenes and "cinematic gameplay"(a confusing term that gets thrown around a lot) are often not at all like movies, or at least not "cinema" in the way we normally talk about it--a collection of techniques and a distinct way depicting people or objects. I suppose they approach the kind of stuff you see in Marvel movies which, conversely, people often degrade as "videogame cutscenes".

I don't disagree with the premise of this thread, but I believe this is something that needs to be pointed out. Classic games were already "cinematic" and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

I'm not a cineast (almost never watch movies), in what way do Marvel movies differ from "cinema" in this context?

No, think of a game where an important object is put in a prominent place through a camera angle so it stimulates your curiosity. Resident Evil had lots of those, adventure games too. I'm drawing a blank here, but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

Placing an object like that seems easy when the player character walks into a room or corridor. Outdoors (or if a room has multiple doorways) it becomes much harder, since the player can approach the object from multiple directions. Some games will then resort (decline) to cutscenes, or will force the player's camera in a certain direction in-game (imagine someone trying to do that to you in real life), or display a "Look" prompt that will optionally turn your camera to where the developers want you to look.

Sound effects may also work better in a room, where you will be close to the sound and discern a clear source/direction. Outdoors you might be too far away to hear the sound, and in a maze perhaps you can't make out the direction (depending on how well the game engine handles audio reflections on walls etc).

How much more Hollywood can you get?

You can always "improve" those action sequences by turning them into pure cutscenes, instead of relying on fragile gameplay. And of course add shallow Hollywood-style relationship drama in even more cutscenes. But as long as the action things are actual gameplay (like in that Tomb Raider 1 video?) I don't think people mind.

 

[Gilius Thunderhead]

Yes, I understand that. But it obscures the fact that videogame cutscenes and "cinematic gameplay"(a confusing term that gets thrown around a lot) are often not at all like movies, or at least not "cinema" in the way we normally talk about it--a collection of techniques and a distinct way depicting people or objects. I suppose they approach the kind of stuff you see in Marvel movies which, conversely, people often degrade as "videogame cutscenes".

I don't disagree with the premise of this thread, but I believe this is something that needs to be pointed out. Classic games were already "cinematic" and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

I'm not a cineast (almost never watch movies), in what way do Marvel movies differ from "cinema" in this context?

Hard to explain what "cinema" is in a couple of sentences, nor do I feel qualified to give definitions. Just watch any popular movie that's at least 20 years old and look at how it makes use of certains shots, color, contrast, lighting, etc., how it shows the human face, movement and any other thing of interest. Marvel movies (using them as a shorthand for what they represent, they're not the sole responsible) do away with lots of things that are part of cinema heritage and just fill the screen with noise. It provides stimulation in a way similar to pornography, I guess(although I think porn, even Brazzers kind of stuff is more artful), but it communicates nothing.

No, think of a game where an important object is put in a prominent place through a camera angle so it stimulates your curiosity. Resident Evil had lots of those, adventure games too. I'm drawing a blank here, but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

Placing an object like that seems easy when the player character walks into a room or corridor. Outdoors (or if a room has multiple doorways) it becomes much harder, since the player can approach the object from multiple directions. Some games will then resort (decline) to cutscenes, or will force the player's camera in a certain direction in-game (imagine someone trying to do that to you in real life), or display a "Look" prompt that will optionally turn your camera to where the developers want you to look.

Sound effects may also work better in a room, where you will be close to the sound and discern a clear source/direction. Outdoors you might be too far away to hear the sound, and in a maze perhaps you can't make out the direction (depending on how well the game engine handles audio reflections on walls etc).

Forcing the player camera in a certain way to highlight an object or a landmark is perfectly fine, if it doesn't obstruct gameplay. That's a very cinematic technique, used to great effect in a lot of old 3d games. Sound effects likewise. That's the point, the old games were often more cinematic without being recognized as such. What we're seeing is a dumbing down first of all.