Spring-Loaded
Member
I knew I could count on you to give the right answer.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
What does Cinematic mean?
- Thread starter Game4life
- Start date
If you truly think that them I think you need to re-explore that concept.
You've got a couple of outliers but regardless there seems to be several of us coming to the same conclusion.
Or at the very least using the same examples.
gollumsluvslave
Member
Interesting thread!
The games I tend to find 'cinematic' are ones that are presented in a way that is similar to how a movie would be presented in the cinema.
Here are some things that emphasise, contribute to this feeling to me:-
1. Directed By / Director and intro credits - especially in the introduction to a game, there can be a lot of parallels, and any game can evoke a movie-like feel by doing the same thing.
A 'Director', at least to me, gives an increased feeling that scenes, framing, sound and OST choices, whether in cut-scenes or in gameplay, are part of a creative 'vision' that the director has.
2. Editing/ Pacing / Soundtrack - these are fundamental aspects of a movie experience, and the best movies generally have the superior editing and pacing, along with a complementary soundtrack - these are irrevocably interwined; games that feel 'cinematic' to me have similarly good pacing and editing.
I actually think that the games that have that have uneven pacing (due to long unskippable cutscenes, QTEs etc) feel LESS cinematic to me, because the experience becomes 'choppy' and doesn't flow as well.
Games I find 'cinematic' and also excellent are as follows:-
1. Bioshock - up until after the twist, the pacing is excellent, the direction, sound design and framing are all amazing, and when it does 'cut-scenes', they are short, and meld with the gameplay almost seemlessly - 'Descent into Rapture' - is effectivley a cutscene, but it doesn't feel like one; but to me that first time felt akin to the Yellow
Brick road in Wizard of Oz - just a great moment.
2. Halo CE - a few small cutscenes that deal with exposition, but for me one of the most cinematic games I know - fantastic pacing, tremendous soundtrack, and a large amount of the story is told in game. So many great 'cinematic' moments in game- Silent Cartographer obviously took inspiration from Saving Private Ryan, Final Run reminded me a lot of the Death Star run in Star Wars. The Flood cutscene was just brilliant, and perfectly integrated into gameplay.
3. Mass Effect 1 - a shame 2 and 3 were no where near as good. The ending was just so epic, and cutscenes and gameplay were really well integrated. The 'film grain' graphic
option was nice too. I think the conversation system flowed very nicely and felt like an 'interactive movie'. Even the Mako sequences for me felt a great part of the 'space opera', and I missed it in later games.
4. Dead Space / Dead Space 2
I can't make up my mind which was more 'cinematic' to me, but both were very good examples of great 'cinematic' games to me. Special mention should go to the HUD system in this series which keeps you in gameplay at nearly all times - whether it is audio logs, video logs - they are all beautifully executed. Now there are a few QTEs in Dead Space 2 - but even the button presses are integrated into the suit HUD, which I think is brilliant and made a HUGE difference. The Tormentor scene in Dead Space 2 is one of the best examples of a 'cinematic interactive cutscene' IMO
5. Fatal Frame / Project Zero
Evokes all the feelings of some of my favourite ghost movies - Tale of Two Sisters. Great framing, small but very creepy cutscenes.
As always YMMV, but this is what I take from 'cinematic'
The games I tend to find 'cinematic' are ones that are presented in a way that is similar to how a movie would be presented in the cinema.
Here are some things that emphasise, contribute to this feeling to me:-
1. Directed By / Director and intro credits - especially in the introduction to a game, there can be a lot of parallels, and any game can evoke a movie-like feel by doing the same thing.
A 'Director', at least to me, gives an increased feeling that scenes, framing, sound and OST choices, whether in cut-scenes or in gameplay, are part of a creative 'vision' that the director has.
2. Editing/ Pacing / Soundtrack - these are fundamental aspects of a movie experience, and the best movies generally have the superior editing and pacing, along with a complementary soundtrack - these are irrevocably interwined; games that feel 'cinematic' to me have similarly good pacing and editing.
I actually think that the games that have that have uneven pacing (due to long unskippable cutscenes, QTEs etc) feel LESS cinematic to me, because the experience becomes 'choppy' and doesn't flow as well.
Games I find 'cinematic' and also excellent are as follows:-
1. Bioshock - up until after the twist, the pacing is excellent, the direction, sound design and framing are all amazing, and when it does 'cut-scenes', they are short, and meld with the gameplay almost seemlessly - 'Descent into Rapture' - is effectivley a cutscene, but it doesn't feel like one; but to me that first time felt akin to the Yellow
Brick road in Wizard of Oz - just a great moment.
2. Halo CE - a few small cutscenes that deal with exposition, but for me one of the most cinematic games I know - fantastic pacing, tremendous soundtrack, and a large amount of the story is told in game. So many great 'cinematic' moments in game- Silent Cartographer obviously took inspiration from Saving Private Ryan, Final Run reminded me a lot of the Death Star run in Star Wars. The Flood cutscene was just brilliant, and perfectly integrated into gameplay.
3. Mass Effect 1 - a shame 2 and 3 were no where near as good. The ending was just so epic, and cutscenes and gameplay were really well integrated. The 'film grain' graphic
option was nice too. I think the conversation system flowed very nicely and felt like an 'interactive movie'. Even the Mako sequences for me felt a great part of the 'space opera', and I missed it in later games.
4. Dead Space / Dead Space 2
I can't make up my mind which was more 'cinematic' to me, but both were very good examples of great 'cinematic' games to me. Special mention should go to the HUD system in this series which keeps you in gameplay at nearly all times - whether it is audio logs, video logs - they are all beautifully executed. Now there are a few QTEs in Dead Space 2 - but even the button presses are integrated into the suit HUD, which I think is brilliant and made a HUGE difference. The Tormentor scene in Dead Space 2 is one of the best examples of a 'cinematic interactive cutscene' IMO
5. Fatal Frame / Project Zero
Evokes all the feelings of some of my favourite ghost movies - Tale of Two Sisters. Great framing, small but very creepy cutscenes.
As always YMMV, but this is what I take from 'cinematic'
I honestly think SotC did fantastic in that(cinematic) aspect. Really hope TLG follows its predecessor in that regard.
You could have easily just described an RPG
More_Badass
Member
This. I'm currently playing Shadow of the Colossus and Ico so I'd agree wholeheartedly
God of War games would also be good example of cinematic games that doesn't sacrifice gameplay.
There's also this wonderful Cinematic Platformer Compendium thread, painstakingly put together by ichtyander
So Gears of War is a cinematic game? Which pretty much negates the whole argument that cinematic=bad gameplay.
I don't know about Gears, but God of War certainly is.
machemachete
Banned
What does Cinematic mean?
A misserable pile of camera angles.
A misserable pile of camera angles.
SittingBass
Neo Member
anything that presents itself or appears to be movie-like. pretty much any modern day game have "cinematic" moments.
Beelzebufo
Banned
Lens flare, unskippable cutscenes, and slower gameplay. Usually more "realistic" and serious as a rule.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
Yes, so it refers to the characteristics that cinema / film has.
Those characteristics are not good storyline / well acted / high production values / carefully framed camera shots / well paced editing / anything else that can be attributed as a thing that good films do well, because not all films are good films or require any of those elements to still be a film.
lotsofotherstuff
Member
I wanted to share this when I first saw the thread during work but couldn't log in.
If you are interested then this series (which is one of my favorite) on youtube about cinematic games are really worth watching.
The gist of your question is about games that simulate filmic qualities in its camera work, lighting and editing (see end of part 3 for great examples on editing)
Cinematic Games Part 1: Movie Games
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL7u8uFwa8I
Cinematic Games Part 2: Scripted Shooters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOHxJ4gGnIc
Cinematic Games Part 3: Cinematic Games
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dNPxhvCAWg
If you are interested then this series (which is one of my favorite) on youtube about cinematic games are really worth watching.
The gist of your question is about games that simulate filmic qualities in its camera work, lighting and editing (see end of part 3 for great examples on editing)
Cinematic Games Part 1: Movie Games
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL7u8uFwa8I
Cinematic Games Part 2: Scripted Shooters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOHxJ4gGnIc
Cinematic Games Part 3: Cinematic Games
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dNPxhvCAWg
(Copied from a previous post I made in a thread about QTEs.)
I remember in the early 90s the 'cinematic' label was used for games like point and click adventures to market the quality of their storytelling. In the late 90s action, FPS, or RPG games might have been called cinematic for similar reasons - engaging storytelling (like Half-Life or Deus Ex), often assisted by great cutscenes that didn't detract from the gameplay itself.
At some point calling a game cinematic switched from meaning it had great storytelling like you'd expect in a movie to meaning the game itself was "like a movie", e.g. the player watching rather than playing.
Basically, cinematic has evolved to refer to presentation style rather than just quality of storytelling.
I remember in the early 90s the 'cinematic' label was used for games like point and click adventures to market the quality of their storytelling. In the late 90s action, FPS, or RPG games might have been called cinematic for similar reasons - engaging storytelling (like Half-Life or Deus Ex), often assisted by great cutscenes that didn't detract from the gameplay itself.
At some point calling a game cinematic switched from meaning it had great storytelling like you'd expect in a movie to meaning the game itself was "like a movie", e.g. the player watching rather than playing.
Basically, cinematic has evolved to refer to presentation style rather than just quality of storytelling.
Astral Dog
Member
Cutscenes, QTE, story, etc. sometimes linearity as well.
Dictator Damocles
Neo Member
Mario's stages are very aware of its framing; its cinematography. It creates a vibrant and unique level.
The Sims is entirely based on a Hollywood idea of living.
Battlefield's multiplayer is filled with unit chatter, pretty explosions and satisfying danger. Its all there to create a tense atmosphere; as if we were in the Saving Private Ryan opening scene.
There's a distinguishable difference between movie games and cinematic games. The philosophy of cinematics can only enhance video games and help us experience extraordinary moments. You see this idea in animation as well where certain shows and film attempt to emulate the camera lens, providing us with a certain comfort with the medium. It's a lot more interesting to consider the qualities of cinematic influence in games than brush it off with a boring dictionary definition.
Silent Hill 2 wouldn't be half the game it is without its stellar cinematography and motifs
xenorevlis
Member
Came in here expecting ignorant comments about bad gameplay and bad framerates.
Happy to find proper responses that kick those out the window and speak some truth. Some games may be more filmic than others, but cinematic is largely tied to audio-visual presentation and even games heavy on "gameplay" like Vanquish feature cinematic aspects in how they reveal enemies, bosses, and situations the player must then deal with. Emulating the experience you can have in a theater does not mean the game suddenly sucks. It simply means that it is communicated in a fashion meant to immerse you in that game's world, both during and while not in control.
Happy to find proper responses that kick those out the window and speak some truth. Some games may be more filmic than others, but cinematic is largely tied to audio-visual presentation and even games heavy on "gameplay" like Vanquish feature cinematic aspects in how they reveal enemies, bosses, and situations the player must then deal with. Emulating the experience you can have in a theater does not mean the game suddenly sucks. It simply means that it is communicated in a fashion meant to immerse you in that game's world, both during and while not in control.
I really don't like it when games do this.
xenorevlis
Member
That statement is false, however. Games that are completely not cinematic do this too, usually during expository segments to setup the game world. I also am not a fan, unless it is done in a manner that does not impede me, such as the beginning of The Last of Us, before the game jumps forward.
Coffee Dog
Banned
It's a descriptor that means something is remniscient of a movie.
Velurian
Member
I think everbody who talks about cinematic experience should consider that even movies are evolving towards HFR.
These days however it feels like a justification for sub 30 fps and thats just bullshit.
Some education on the matter: http://www.hfrmovies.com/high-frame-rate-example-videos/
4 minute movie explainin HFR: https://vimeo.com/40316231
More here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWLZy7gbLg
But in conclusion if movies are going towards HFR then lets make more games cinematic.
These days however it feels like a justification for sub 30 fps and thats just bullshit.
Some education on the matter: http://www.hfrmovies.com/high-frame-rate-example-videos/
4 minute movie explainin HFR: https://vimeo.com/40316231
More here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWLZy7gbLg
But in conclusion if movies are going towards HFR then lets make more games cinematic.
xenorevlis
Member
Again, cinematic is not tied to frame rate. That would be filmic, as 24 fps was a result of actual cost of film versus minimum frames to achieve the illusion of motion.
Sidestepping a bit, but it seems game developers of AAA titles often seem like they wanted to do movies but instead had to "settle" for games. Even down to engine level as most game engine devs spend an awful lot of time implementing camera lens defects like lens flares, chromatic aberration and that dreaded "crap on the camera" effect. Yet most player characters are not supposed to be the view from a camera attached to forehead or wearing goggles/helmet but what the character's eyes see.
Max Payne 3 was closer to an interactive movie more than anything, there is barely 10 minutes of gameplay before an unskippable cutscene. Completely tanked that game's replay value. CoD AW uses loading screens for cinematics which is fine but they force the player to watch the cutscene to the end even though the game has fully loaded halfway in.
It's a disturbing trend that many titles aim for more movielike qualities over gameplay. Don't take me wrong, there can be a good dose of cutscenes and ingame cutscenes without making the player feel like he's just along for the ride. The Uncharted games and (despite all its flaws) MGR:Revengeance manage a really good balance between those and gameplay.
Max Payne 3 was closer to an interactive movie more than anything, there is barely 10 minutes of gameplay before an unskippable cutscene. Completely tanked that game's replay value. CoD AW uses loading screens for cinematics which is fine but they force the player to watch the cutscene to the end even though the game has fully loaded halfway in.
It's a disturbing trend that many titles aim for more movielike qualities over gameplay. Don't take me wrong, there can be a good dose of cutscenes and ingame cutscenes without making the player feel like he's just along for the ride. The Uncharted games and (despite all its flaws) MGR:Revengeance manage a really good balance between those and gameplay.
Velurian
Member
I am just talking about how I feel it is misused these days.
That crap: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/10/10/30-fps-more-cinematic-than-60/
I mean - f*** you. really.
xenorevlis
Member
Oh yeah, thanks for pointing that out. They don't even know what they are saying half the time. Being in the film AND game industry, this topic is of interest to me. In the case of 30 being more "cinematic" I believe the intent is to say, the visual fatigue and processing factor is closer to traditional film / TV which is 24-30 fps (or 23.976 - 29.98 fps, in many cases).
This is actually an accurate observation, in that the 24-30 is the ongoing "standard" and 3D and HFR content has differing fatigue factor for our eyes (especially 3D), and HFR also results in more detail being easily digested, which hurt films such as The Hobbit in their first outing, as it reveal some of the less complete makeup and costume work since you were given twice as much motion data / clarity and could thus spot those things.
For games, though? I'd rather play Battlefield at 60+ fps, and that game is cinematic in it's presentation regardless of frame rate.
This. Thank you, you saved me time. I agree 100%.. and nice tag lol
xenorevlis
Member
This is one of the posts I was referring to in my initial post in this topic
Very well said.
protomouse
Member
It has little to do with story-orientation and everything to do with presentation and player interaction (or lack thereof). A cinematic game often behaves as if it was a big-screen film. A litmus test would check for emulation of popular camera techniques (shaky-cam, DOF effects, lens flare etc.), letterboxing, visual filters, intense use of setpieces, and so on and so forth. Production often also adopts techniques traditionally used in animated movies, such as facial capture. Scripted sequences and/or instances where the player is removed from the game are frequent; c.f. Uncharted and Beyond: Two Souls.
I think it's unfortunate that AAA gaming has veered in this direction, because cinematics have a tendendy of inducing slow and clunky games and, when drawn out (as in the case of Beyond), lead to pretty shallow experiences. My two cents.
I think it's unfortunate that AAA gaming has veered in this direction, because cinematics have a tendendy of inducing slow and clunky games and, when drawn out (as in the case of Beyond), lead to pretty shallow experiences. My two cents.
Personally I feel there is space for both, or a mix of the styles. You wouldn't have some of the greatest games of all time without the influence of cinema. The visual flair, framing, and ability to add emotion and depth to games through techniques developed in cinema would make for a less varied and more dull outlook for the gaming industry. You'd be stuck with text boxes and blandly shot games still, and I honestly don't think gaming would have thrived without appropriating said techniques.
There will always be games, like Beyond, that I agree take it too far and lack the energy of player input. But we're still early in the development of the medium.
DarthWalden
Banned
Bend over and I'll show you.
Fbh
Gold Member
Well I guess everyone has his own definition.
I generally consider a game to be cinamtic when it makes you feel like you are playing a movie, that's it.
Of course there are elements that most of them use to achieve this, like big setpieces with a higer focus on visual spectacle than gameplay, a more linear level design and the use of scripted events
I generally consider a game to be cinamtic when it makes you feel like you are playing a movie, that's it.
Of course there are elements that most of them use to achieve this, like big setpieces with a higer focus on visual spectacle than gameplay, a more linear level design and the use of scripted events
John Harker
Definitely doesn't make things up as he goes along.
If you want a creatives perspective and how developers borrow the terms , it's the aspect ratio, frame rate, and lighting. Typically it depends on context of what you're framing in the shot but 24fps, 16:9 frame rate and extra special attention to lightening. Think like shooting a movie for film vs like, a YouTube video. Very different.
It's just a catch all term for when something feels movie-like. It's neither good nor bad. It simply has good and bad applications. The term should rarely be applied to entire games, but instead should be used when discussing specific parts or aspects of games.
An example of a good cinematic feature is Z-targetting in Ocarina of Time. It puts the camera exactly where it needs to be, framing the enemy and the player in a way that emphasizes the fight, similar to what you would see in a movie. It even adds black bars on the top and bottom, removing extra unnecessary visual information and putting the focus purely on what the player is doing, while also adding a movie-like quality to everything (similar to that Order game everyone keeps complaining about).
An example of a bad cinematic feature is something I just recently ran into in Far Cry 4. There's a mission where some guy in an airplane needs to land in an enemy base to make a deal and he wants you to take out the snipers without alerting the commander. That way, just in case the deal goes south, the snipers won't be a threat and you both can handle anything bad that happens. The first part of this mission is great. "take out the snipers without the commander noticing". That's all he tells you. You're free to do it however you want. Not very cinematic. The sequence doesn't really do anything to feel movie-like. The next part of the mission is a horrible setpiece of cinematic garbage. Some bad guy (who should've been dead since we killed everyone) is escaping on a plane (that I don't think was even there before) with important documents. You have to get on an atv (which, again, I don't think was there before) and follow him, ramp off the runway, wingsuit to the plane, which activates a cutscene, and then when the cutscene is over your character is falling and you have to activate your parachute so you don't die. You have to do it exactly like that. There is no variation. None of these objects or characters should even be there in the first place, and to top it all off, the game makes it possible for you to die in this situation. And everything happens so fast that it's not always easy to understand what you're supposed to do. But the interactivity isn't engaging enough for it to be fun to replay. So you can easily die and do it again and just be bored. And it switches between gameplay and cutscene enough that you're never sure when your job as the player is actually done (I remember I died the first time because I didn't notice I was supposed to be playing again after the airplane cutscene, and I didn't open my parachute right away).
So yeah, there's good and there's bad. But now that I think of it, I do think that if you want one thing that links all cinematic aspects together, you could really define cinematic as "the lack of player control in favor of developer/director control".
Consider the two examples above. Z-targeting takes away the player's control of the camera, focusing it in a specific way that the developer thought would be favorable for framing the action. But this is good. When we're fighting in 3D space we need to be able to see what we're fighting, and giving the player direct control over the camera the entire time rarely works out well since controlling a 3D camera while fighting is cumbersome. It's best for us to be able to focus on our enemy while the game (director/developer) works the camera for us.
In Far Cry 4, the game doesn't take control away from us to improve anything. It simply wants us to see a cool setpiece, but is afraid of showing it to us in a cutscene, therefore forcing us to play through a boring, meaninglessly interactive sequence, rather than simply ending the mission after the earlier, more engaging, non-cinematic sequence.
An example of a good cinematic feature is Z-targetting in Ocarina of Time. It puts the camera exactly where it needs to be, framing the enemy and the player in a way that emphasizes the fight, similar to what you would see in a movie. It even adds black bars on the top and bottom, removing extra unnecessary visual information and putting the focus purely on what the player is doing, while also adding a movie-like quality to everything (similar to that Order game everyone keeps complaining about).
An example of a bad cinematic feature is something I just recently ran into in Far Cry 4. There's a mission where some guy in an airplane needs to land in an enemy base to make a deal and he wants you to take out the snipers without alerting the commander. That way, just in case the deal goes south, the snipers won't be a threat and you both can handle anything bad that happens. The first part of this mission is great. "take out the snipers without the commander noticing". That's all he tells you. You're free to do it however you want. Not very cinematic. The sequence doesn't really do anything to feel movie-like. The next part of the mission is a horrible setpiece of cinematic garbage. Some bad guy (who should've been dead since we killed everyone) is escaping on a plane (that I don't think was even there before) with important documents. You have to get on an atv (which, again, I don't think was there before) and follow him, ramp off the runway, wingsuit to the plane, which activates a cutscene, and then when the cutscene is over your character is falling and you have to activate your parachute so you don't die. You have to do it exactly like that. There is no variation. None of these objects or characters should even be there in the first place, and to top it all off, the game makes it possible for you to die in this situation. And everything happens so fast that it's not always easy to understand what you're supposed to do. But the interactivity isn't engaging enough for it to be fun to replay. So you can easily die and do it again and just be bored. And it switches between gameplay and cutscene enough that you're never sure when your job as the player is actually done (I remember I died the first time because I didn't notice I was supposed to be playing again after the airplane cutscene, and I didn't open my parachute right away).
So yeah, there's good and there's bad. But now that I think of it, I do think that if you want one thing that links all cinematic aspects together, you could really define cinematic as "the lack of player control in favor of developer/director control".
Consider the two examples above. Z-targeting takes away the player's control of the camera, focusing it in a specific way that the developer thought would be favorable for framing the action. But this is good. When we're fighting in 3D space we need to be able to see what we're fighting, and giving the player direct control over the camera the entire time rarely works out well since controlling a 3D camera while fighting is cumbersome. It's best for us to be able to focus on our enemy while the game (director/developer) works the camera for us.
In Far Cry 4, the game doesn't take control away from us to improve anything. It simply wants us to see a cool setpiece, but is afraid of showing it to us in a cutscene, therefore forcing us to play through a boring, meaninglessly interactive sequence, rather than simply ending the mission after the earlier, more engaging, non-cinematic sequence.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Beyond gets crapped on pretty often but I like a lot of the ideas behind it myself. It's far from perfect or even being "great," but I think that things like Beyond have a lot of potential and I'd like to see more devs try their hand at them.
Everything from visual quality, gameplay design, animation etc. is all meant to emphasize a movie-like quality.
It's a subjective term and can mean different things to different people. Some games this simply means they use certain camera angles which can look really cool, but other examples can mean the game frequently takes control away from you to show you a prolonged kill animation or action sequence in which you have little involvement.
It's a subjective term and can mean different things to different people. Some games this simply means they use certain camera angles which can look really cool, but other examples can mean the game frequently takes control away from you to show you a prolonged kill animation or action sequence in which you have little involvement.
In short, Cinematic means "similar to Cinema". Cutscenes are not cinematic due to the fact that they ARE movies. QTEs are the weakest form or 'Cinematic'. Games built around QTEs being considered Cinematic is almost a misnomer. As much as I love Heavy Rain for its story quality, it barely stands as cinematic.
What truly makes a game Cinematic is how they handle minor details and camera positioning during game play. Uncharted 3 has some fantastic examples of this - the Desert sequence, the camera pulling in close to Drake and Cutter as they navingate a tight passage, any given fistfight in that game. Uncharted 3 looks like a movie, but plays like a game. You aren't holding down a complicated series of button inputs in order to act out a pre-set action. Instead you are interacting with it like any other game and the game is handling the camera and the direct actions of Drake to make it look more natural and appealing as opposed to rigid and "game-like".
In many ways, The Last of Us pushed that forward, giving little details such as Joel sheltering Ellie when they are in cover in the same spot. These little touches not only are appealing astheticly, but also help do develop characters without boring exposition dumps. Cinematic games use the visual aspect of the medium and marries it to the gameplay to make a more in-depth and personal experience.
To me, that second example misuses the term. Like someone else said, if the moments when control is taken away from you defines cinematic, then games like MGS4 and FFXIII are some of the most cinematic games ever.
What truly makes a game Cinematic is how they handle minor details and camera positioning during game play. Uncharted 3 has some fantastic examples of this - the Desert sequence, the camera pulling in close to Drake and Cutter as they navingate a tight passage, any given fistfight in that game. Uncharted 3 looks like a movie, but plays like a game. You aren't holding down a complicated series of button inputs in order to act out a pre-set action. Instead you are interacting with it like any other game and the game is handling the camera and the direct actions of Drake to make it look more natural and appealing as opposed to rigid and "game-like".
In many ways, The Last of Us pushed that forward, giving little details such as Joel sheltering Ellie when they are in cover in the same spot. These little touches not only are appealing astheticly, but also help do develop characters without boring exposition dumps. Cinematic games use the visual aspect of the medium and marries it to the gameplay to make a more in-depth and personal experience.
To me, that second example misuses the term. Like someone else said, if the moments when control is taken away from you defines cinematic, then games like MGS4 and FFXIII are some of the most cinematic games ever.
Hawaii Jeff
Member
Some people feel if it's letterboxed it suddenly becomes cinematic.
(shudder)
(shudder)
Interesting way of putting it. Though from that perspective you could say Dragon's Dogma is a cinematic game, when it's not evocative of that to its audience in the least.
xenorevlis
Member
In the case of The Order 1886, this is actually true - especially when coupled with the simulation of shooting from a camera and the fact that the aspect ratio is dead-on.
In the case of late-gen titles like Dragon's Dogma, it was in order to maintain a playable framerate with the MT Framework engine on PS3. Letterboxing alone doesn't mean cinematic, but if the game is framed and presented in a style appropriate for the aspect ratio, then it makes sense.
If we're being silly, I'd say that if the game is getting in the way of my repeated playthroughs, it's probably cinematic. If we're not carrying our bias when defining it, I'd just say it's a story driven game that tries to evoke the same feeling of watching a film through cinematography, they try to make "a playable movie" instead of just making you watch movies between gameplay sections.
If it's good or bad, it's highly subjective (even from game to game, I love plenty of cinematic games, even if I dislike the concept), but I guess that's pretty much it.
If it's good or bad, it's highly subjective (even from game to game, I love plenty of cinematic games, even if I dislike the concept), but I guess that's pretty much it.
JinjoUnchained
Member
I think of "cinematic" as the title is trying to be more of an experience than a game. Watching a great movie/cinema is an experience, you get wrapped up in the mood, visual spectacle, audio cues, characters, and storyline. A "cinematic" game tries to accomplish the same thing, but adds in an interactive element to make it more immersive.
I've stated before that "games" like this should actually be called "interactive media" instead of "video games". It's a more accurate description that better captures their purpose and intent. If we did that, then we could stop having pointless semantic debates over what is or isn't a video game.
I've stated before that "games" like this should actually be called "interactive media" instead of "video games". It's a more accurate description that better captures their purpose and intent. If we did that, then we could stop having pointless semantic debates over what is or isn't a video game.
Out of interest what are examples of "games" like this?
To Far Away Times
Member
A game that tries to have a "film-like" presentation. And while not exclusively restricted to this, it is typically games that are meant to be experienced rather than mastered.
JinjoUnchained
Member
Full disclosure, I've only played a few hours of both, but I'd consider Beyond Two Souls and Uncharted 2 in that category. YMMV, some would say Uncharted 2 is more "gamey", but to me the effect was more like being immersed in an action movie.
In general, though, it's probably more of a sliding scale between "video game" and "interactive media". Some games would be closer to "interactive media", but "gamey" in some ways.