• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

What does Cinematic mean?

Shaky cam, zooms in for emphasis during epic moments like when you melee/sprint, placement of it is almost exactly behind the character and just slightly tilted over the shoulder for cinematic angles.

I throw up a little when I see trailers of games that does these things nowadays.
 
For me cinematic means it in some ways replicates what you see in movies and puts an emphasis on it or also focuses heavily on story.

People seem to like using this as a negative but honestly it's not because we still get our enjoyment out of it, also it's wrongfully believed that cinematic = shit or basiavlly no gameplay but anyone who has played The Last of Us and Uncharted (Games which are often described as cinematic and are probably the first ones to pop into peoples minds) will tell you how that is simply not true.
 
Well my daughter loved playing TloU (her favourite game she said) she said it was like playing a movie so I guess that's cinematic

This forum is so toxic when it comes to this subject, absolutely tiresome.
I find it toxic on this subject plus the 60/30 debate
 
cinematic
sɪnɪˈmatɪk


adjective
  • relating to the cinema.
    "cinematic output"​
  • having qualities characteristic of films.
    the cinematic feel of their video"​

Sounds like a sound definition of cinematic to me..
 
This forum is so toxic when it comes to this subject, absolutely tiresome.

I'm not sure some of them are 100% sure what cinematic means when it comes to games.

I mean I would argue that Half Life 2 can be categorized as cinematic, certainly most of the triple A games of today do their best to have at least some cinematic quality to the game and I have no clue people seem to make it out to be a bad thing.
 
I don't think gamers ever amongst themselves describe software products as cinematic, gaming PR does.

It's basically a conceit used within promotional circles to describe games with a focus on linear progression, set pieces and short playtimes with little replay value.

It sounds impressive, but the reality is that the closer an interactive videogame becomes to cinema - the worse it gets.
 
It's just not a focus on story over gameplay. No one calls TellTale games or visual novels cinematic.

That's because its not "story" versus "gameplay"; its "interactivity" versus "non-interactivity".
Telltale games and Visual novels are both hugely interactive, because branching decision trees is interactivity.
Watching a cutscene is non-interactive.
A QTE with a binary fail (stop watching cutscene) and succeed (cutscene continues) is so barely interactive that it is not even worth describing as interactive, any more than if DVDs required you to press play at the end of each chapter would be.

It doesn't help that people conflate "story" (the immutable non-interactive thing that exists in a game) with "story" (the record of player actions). If we use a different word for the second thing (like journal for example) then its much more clear that we are discussing interactivity versus non-interactivity, and games where story and journal are vastly different are where we see ludo-narrative dissonance occur.

for example, GTA4 is the story of an immigrant desperate to escape his criminal past, but the journal of someone who is a straight up criminal and gives no fucks about it.
 
It's about presentation and atmosphere.
Making you feel like more engaged, as oppose to the arcade feel that doesn't hide you're playing a game.
It is not black and white, some games need one over the other.

A game that shows me a cutscene every 10 minutes is the opposite of engaging for me.
 
Cinematic is an adjective, not a noun.

It has nothing to do with story or cutscenes and the second people realize this we can all be on the same page. Hell, I would argue Shadow of the Colussus is more cinematic than The Walking Dead.

Furthermore, I'm perplexed people consider story a "cinematic" feature, because frankly story is not an element solely exclusive with cinema. There is story in every media.

Somewhere along the line people have also confused cinema with its own qualities. A cutscene is not something being "cinematic, instead it's purely cinema, existing as a mini movie that is meant to be watched. People make the mistake believing cutscenes themselves are cinematic, if that were the case then FF13 would be the most cinematic game ever released.


Something is ever only a cutscene if it is 100% passive and void of the ability to interact. There is no "interactive/playable cutscene" just like there is no "passive gameplay." The term itself is an oxymoron. The term itself has also changed, no longer are "cinematics" used to refer to various cutscenes, the 90's are over in that aspect.



"Cinematic" is, as we know it, about cinematic qualities. Camera angles and techniques, the presence of film grain, overall presentation that helps design a scene to appear a certain way. I consider the desert chapter from UC3a cinematic sequence as it gave the effect of cinematic presentation while playing it. There were sweeping camera pans and other techniques that gave the visual appearance of film. Shadow of the Colossus preceded to frame several boss fights in cinematic ways, one even visually a throw back to South by Southwest. The God of War franchise is by definition more cinematic than something like Heavy Rain or Beyond as it deliberately dictates and determines its visual shot precisely.

Honestly, the cutscenes are the least cinematic thing about The Order 1886. Considering RaD focused on the presence of framing, film grain, and chromatic aberration to name a few elements that are dedicated to produce the aesthetic of cinematic.


The simple answer? It's about how something looks, not how passive I it is. That's cinematic.
 
In my eyes cinematic means impressive set pieces with good production values. Regardless if it were open worl or linear.

God of war I think is a good example
 
Journey is something else that is also more cinematic than any thing TellTale has put out. It's very particular at times with its visuals and how they are framed.

We've all seen that Journey gif.
 
A buzzword more often than not. Don't listen to the cynics equating it to bad gameplay :)

Mr Giggles got it kinda right in my view - when it comes to video games. I would narrow it down to spectacle of action-narrative, with high production values (including graphics, set-pieces and cutscenes, real-time or otherwise). The comparisons with film come up and so much inspiration is drawn from film because that industry has pretty much perfected that. Games however, while tech limited can be so much more - the potential is endless.
 
I would say it's purely about how much the camera cares about what's being presented looking like a movie.

That means emulating certain lens effects, framing scenes in a certain way and often minimizing abstract information. It doesn't really have anything to do with interactivity.
 
Means a game wants to be a movie rather than being a damn game. What most AAA tittles try and do these days. Also it's gotta be lot easier for developers to craft a scripted cutscene than creating something for you to control and experience uniquely on your own. Not only that , but i guess these companies think cinematic style makes their games feel more mature , and serious , more accepted all around. Games are only for little children anyways :P

A game where you walk and watch more than you actually play. 0 problem solving and 0 skill. More than likely also a shooting game.

For example , I see The Order as pure cinematic game , heavily custcene driven with simple,generic cover shooter mechanics in-between so it can still be passed on as a game.Then letterboxes and shit ton of post-process. A piece that just wants to be seen rather than played and interacted with in a meaningful way.
 
Even after your considered and thought out post, posters are still equating cinematic to the wrong things. I think those confusing the terms with cutscenes and "bad gameplay" don't actually understand cinema itself.

I disagree that "cinematic" means "a game has an art style"
 
Even after your considered and thought out post, posters are still equating cinematic to the wrong things. I think those confusing the terms with cutscenes and "bad gameplay" don't actually understand cinema itself.
Because it still doesnt make sense. For a "game" to be cinematic and consist of meaningful gameplay is a contradiction that starburst should probably consider using in their commercials.
 
I disagree that "cinematic" means "a game has an art style"
Who said anything about "art style.?"

Games like GOW use dynamic camera angles and other actual film techniques. You "definition" doesn't seem like one at all and largely seems to consist of overall negative hyperbole.
 
It's just not a focus on story over gameplay. No one calls TellTale games or visual novels cinematic.

Yes it's important to note this. It's just a vn might require a bit more imagination for the person playing through it. While a game which is cinematic will actually try to show the scenes instead of leaving them to the imagination.
It mainly has to do with investment and budgets. I've rarely heard indie titles for example being cinematic.
 
A word that clearly has no set definition as everyone has their own meaning for it and can't come to an agreement about what it means. Unfortunately this is the case with a lot of words that are used in the marketing for gaming.
 
People do realize that cinematic was a term that was used before games like Uncharted or Heavy Rain even happened right? It does not mean "focus on cutscenes, push forward to progress" and it does not go hand in hand with bad gameplay. Cinematic has always been used to describe games with a movie like presentation and/or a focus on spectacle. It does not mean the gameplay literally plays like a movie and you don't interact much. Games like MGS, God of War, RE4, Shenmue are all cinematic games. Stop this crap that cinematic = bad gameplay and cutscenes everywhere.

It has mostly nothing to do with gameplay and is used to describe aspects of the story, camera, and presentation. Even games like Devil May Cry can be considered cinematic because of its presentation and camera angles.
 
Who said anything about "art style.?"

Games like GOW use dynamic camera angles and other actual film techniques. You "definition" doesn't seem like one at all and largely seems to consist of overall negative hyperbole.

Film is inherently non-interactive as a medium.
It is recorded and therefore static.

Theatre is not film, because theatre is performed live; it changes with every performance.
It can even be dynamic, such as with improvisation, or interactive such as pantomime.

A film is the same experience each time it is perceived, because it is recorded; it never changes. That is the defining factor. Not 'film grain', or 'aspect ratio' or 'human looking actors' or any of the other things you propose, because there are hundreds if not thousands of films that do not conform to those qualities but are still inherently films.

How do you frame a shot in a videogame? By removing a players ability to control the camera.
How do you ensure that events happen in order? By removing the players ability to change those events.
How do you ensure that things occur when they should occur? By scripting those events so that they occur when they should occur.

"Cinematic" literally defines itself as being non-interactive.

EDIT:
People do realize that cinematic was a term that was used before games like Uncharted or Heavy Rain even happened right?
Games can have cinematic elements (such as acting, or fixed camera angles, or using setpieces to frame events), but if the defining description of a game is "cinematic" it is defining itself as primarily non-interactive.
 
Does the game ever force you to walk slowly?

If so then it's a cinematic game.
so-much-win-starcraft-reaction.gif
 
Games can have cinematic elements (such as acting, or fixed camera angles, or using setpieces to frame events), but if the defining description of a game is "cinematic" it is defining itself as primarily non-interactive.

So then why is Uncharted considered at the forefront of the cinematic games department when it prides itself on having minimum time where you are not in control and watching a cutscene and focuses on making things that would ordinarily just be a cutscene gameplay.
 
So then why is Uncharted considered at the forefront of the cinematic games department when it prides itself on having minimum time where you are not in control and watching a cutscene and focuses on making things that would ordinarily just be a cutscene gameplay.

Dragons Lair is considered at the forefront of the cinematic games department; as you point out, the term has existed for substantially longer than the PS3.
 
Cinematic games are filled with scenes that duplicate the look and sound of film. Hating on cinematic games is pretty silly since the majority of games coming out are cinematic to some extent today.

Non Cinematic
Captain Toad
Mario
Splunky
Sims
Battlefield Multiplayer

Cinematic
Uncharted series
Last of Us
Halo series
Battlefield Campaign
Resident Evil
 
Dragons Lair is considered at the forefront of the cinematic games department; as you point out, the term has existed for substantially longer than the PS3.

I'd add FMV games too in consoles, arcades and computers, from Lupin III to Phantasmagoria.
It is just that a lot of those games, animation excluded, were recorded in video instead of film. So i'd consider them 'made for Video/TV' instead of cinematic. But I am sure a lot of higher quality FMV games were recorded in film format.

Whereas CGI games like TLOU can be converted to cinema format with ease. Cinemas now are digital and use HDD instead of film
 
It's not necessarily about story focus, it doesn't have to mean uninteractive. It's just about using movie techniques and that style of story telling.

Mass Effect as a series is I think very cinematic, but also pretty interactive. Though there is a tension there - the final installment has more occasions when the protagonist talks without player input, in part because this allows for more more flowing and dramatic scenes.
 
Film is inherently non-interactive as a medium.
It is recorded and therefore static.

Theatre is not film, because theatre is performed live; it changes with every performance.
It can even be dynamic, such as with improvisation, or interactive such as pantomime.

A film is the same experience each time it is perceived, because it is recorded; it never changes. That is the defining factor. Not 'film grain', or 'aspect ratio' or 'human looking actors' or any of the other things you propose, because there are hundreds if not thousands of films that do not conform to those qualities but are still inherently films.

How do you frame a shot in a videogame? By removing a players ability to control the camera.
How do you ensure that events happen in order? By removing the players ability to change those events.
How do you ensure that things occur when they should occur? By scripting those events so that they occur when they should occur.

"Cinematic" literally defines itself as being non-interactive.

EDIT:

Games can have cinematic elements (such as acting, or fixed camera angles, or using setpieces to frame events), but if the defining description of a game is "cinematic" it is defining itself as primarily non-interactive.
Yes, and that's why we are using the word "cinematic" as opposed to the word cinema. It's not a 1-1 translation nor should it be once again, it's an adjective. There is no difference between that and saying a tv show is more cinematic or movie like because of how it is lit or shot. Believe it or not but things can certainly draw from something without being the actual thing itself.

For example, Snl is a television show that attempts to be scripted. It draws inspiration and utilizes elements of stage but that doesn't make it a play.

I reiterate, cinematic is very much an adjective in this use.

"Film" is the word used because the better half of a century we recorded on actual film, we are just too use to the word to change it despite the change in practice.

As for your other points you completely ignore the fact that our control on camera can often be limited regardless. We either swing left or right. Despite this fact more "cinematic" camera angles can pull out or in and we can still maintain control over the camera, UC3 opening pan in the desert has a moment that allows this.

Furthermore, scripting can occur in a game with NPC's. that doesn't effect what your doing, just simply what your seeing.

I'm sorry, but you've "Frankensteined" this definition that seems to be constructed on the literal and completely ignores aspects of presentation. Cinematic if anything makes story more playable as opposed to passive. There are characters moments in TLoU were the player maintains control that if anything makes the scene more powerful.
 
Top Bottom