When games and cinema collide (notes on interactivity)

johnny_ultimate

So I'm sitting here waiting as the Heavy Rain demo downloads (19% - slowness), a game whose creator has proclaimed it as the piece of interactive entertainment that will bridge the gap between cinema and gaming. A lofty dream, but is it a misguided one?

A buzzword used to describe games in recent times is 'cinematic'. Stuff like Uncharted 2 has been acclaimed for exciting setpieces, ones that the player is often somewhat passive in. I love Uncharted, but I don't deny that many of the highlights of the games are artificial - those signal crossings are timed a little too well. The path is a->b - your input is limited to taking part in the story through combat and movement. You have no chance to change the course of events. In essence, you are watching a film (when you aren't shooting or climbing, moments which lend Uncharted the title of a 'game').

Then take Mass Effect 2, which I finished today, and thought was a fascinating experience that embraces its gameness. You actually can choose how the story plays out, within Bioware's tightly written limits of course (I for one have no problem with someone sitting down and writing a story that you get to play through, by the way - someone has vision and needs to direct the player, which in most games is very important indeed). Again, you are working with tightly scripted setpieces a lot of the time, but your choices impact the end game in some surprising ways. This is a game that embraces both cinematic conventions (pre-scripted events, for example) and player choice (choose your own adventure books on a new level, effectively).

Then we get to Heavy Rain (aka 31%) which lies somewhere in between. I am genuinely fascinated to discover how the branching storylines work - hopefully in an even more complex, surprising way than Mass Effect 2 (in fairness, most of the earlier choices in Mass Effect 2 are obviously 'bad' or 'good'). And yet, early word has suggested that interactivity is limited. At least in Mass Effect 2, character customisation / combat / choice are in the player's hand. In Heavy Rain, it is sometimes relegated to a QTE. This is why I'm curious to see how Heavy Rain plays out, or significantly does not play out. If the gameplay is merely relegated to pressing a button that advances the story, why not just play a film on a DVD player that requires the viewer to press the play button every 30 seconds to allow the film to continue? Heavy Rain is a brave experiment, and perhaps it isn't fair to have this conversation prior to its release, but it raises an important question - should games be seeking to be more like movies, perhaps removing some element of interactivity in the process (need to point out here that previews have suggested the game isn't entirely limited to button presses - one particular sequence involving following a balloon sounds extremely interesting)? I have played a few (not many, mind) games where the gameplay is actually an inconvenience to plot advancement - Dreamfall, for example. Should they stick to being movies rather than trying to shoehorn in gameplay?

In essence, my (I'm guessing unclear, giving the rambling nature of my 3AM brain) question is should game developers be continuing to proudly use cinematic as an adjective to describe their games, or are they simply missing the point? Should they simply give players tools and an engine, let them create their own story? Should they be guiding us forward through tightly scripted corridors? Both in moderation? Or should they be like Mass Effect 2 - a fully formed RPG (the last letter is the important one there) with a scripted story, but a script that deviates based on our decisions? Heavy Rain interests me more than any other game scheduled for release in the near future - for having an ambitious, lofty yet flawed goal. Whether it succeeds or not is a question that won't be answered tonight, because at 49%, I think bed is more appealing.

AlmightyCushion

This whole interactive film thing that gets thrown about just reminds me of mgs4. 4 minutes of gameplay and several decades of cut scenes. I don't mind games that are tightly scripted and restrict the openess of the game. It can actually work very well if done right. A good example was mgs3, which was promised to be a big open forest and turned out to be corridors with leaves glued to the walls. It was very closed down especially when you compare it to the levels of openess in gta, fallout, oblivion, mass effect etc but it was still a great game and I had a lot of fun playing.

I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't really matter if the game is very open, very closed or somewhere in between as long as it's done well and isn't a film with a few minutes of game time thrown in just so it can be called a game. Seriously, I've had dvds that were more interactive than mgs4.

SeantheMan

Less rambling at 3am pls, it makes for too long of a read to address every point made.

My answer to your question posed would be "possibly"

Overheal

Psychonauts is stupid for all the cutscenes in it. but then it was only a buck.

Its less of a problem in an RPG but when you are expecting an action game and not a story it gets really aggrivating.

Sisko

It might work if the 'movie' part of the game was good. & I mean real good.

I have little hope of heavy rain being anything decent. As I played his other game, which was an average game/B-movie. Some serious :rolleyes: moments.

Actually felt like he underestimated gamers intelligence, the same way movie makers who try to make movies out of game titles do the same.

Quicktime events do not empress me. But if it was an interactive Apocalypse Now, or Godfather etc, it might just work and work well.

I have my doubts

Kiith

It can work, when done right. I loved Fahrenheit, until it went bat-**** crazy with AI, aliens, and dead people. And i can't wait to try Hevy Rain. Saying that, i think that putting too much emphasis on cutscenes and QTE's is a bad thing. We play games, to play games. As mentioned above, MGS4 and its stupidly long cutscenes were a bloody chore, which took away from what was a great game.

johnny_ultimate

Sisko wrote: »

It might work if the 'movie' part of the game was good. & I mean real good.

It probably boils down to this, alas. Game storytelling in general is far weaker than its cinematic counterparts, so it probably shows up badly written cutscenes (the nonsense of MGS4 definitely would be mercilessly mocked by film fans). Uncharted 2 is a rare game that I'd possibly watch in film form - it may be B-Movie material, but the characters are sufficiently interesting to make the cutscenes fun and engaging (and, thankfully, brief). Mass Effect 2 also benefits from character development, but I don't know if the story itself is interesting enough to draw you in without interactivity.

Totally agree on MGS3, by the way - a fine example of tightly scripted gaming working well. Freeform gameplay is to be welcomed, but plenty of my favourite games are entirely linear in structure - if there is an intelligent person at the helms, there is nothing wrong with making the experience for the player. There isn't anything like The End boss battle in any sandbox game I've played - a boss that is obviously artificial, but one which lets the player approach it however they want.

Mindkiller

Games have a lot of growing up to do in terms of story-telling. I feel that it is a problem that games are constantly trying to emulate other mediums of entertainment rather than carve out their own creative niche.

Games like Metal Gear and Uncharted are fantastic, but the sheer linearity and scripted nature of those games kind of undermines the whole mantra of video-games in the first place.
There is only one way to play U2, and that is the way the developers want you to play it. You're completely subservient to the narrative.
Its 'cinematic', but thats really a term that shouldn't be applied to games so flippantly.Games have an extra dimension to their narrative that movies don't. You can interact with the story.

I tried the Heavy Rain demo last night. I think its great to see a dev attempt to find new ways to tell stories in games.
The first scene was really impressive. A perfect blend of compelling narrative with involving gameplay.
There is a lot of mundane QTEs that feel completely unnecessary in the demo, but other than that, they are implemented well and don't feel like such a gimmick

On the other hand, the CSI sequence was like something out of Condemned.
The game/demo has an annoying habit of assuming you know exactly what to do, leading to situations with you just wandering around until you 'trigger' something.

johnny_ultimate

Having just finished the demo, would agree with you Mindkiller. First sequence is fascinating. Things start off bad (do we honestly need a button prompt to open a door?) but it gets far more interesting. Worth playing through twice to see how the storyline can branch (I got an interrogation scene I didn't first time around when I decided to be more forceful, plus decided to lose the fight as well).

Second part, not so good as you say. It looks amazing, and the plot seems interesting, but going around pressing R1 until you find what you're looking for seems like lazy, pointless interactivity. I did like the hill climbing bit though - still a QTE, but the awkward button pressing works well in context.

Overall, it is a demo which has increased my curiosity somewhat - if the writing is up to scratch, it should be worth a playthrough.

BopNiblets

From the developers of Fahrenheit, looks like they've upped the ante a bit.

I couln't finish that one, there was one section where you had to creep past some guys as a kid that kept me from finishing, I seem to remember it was a not great console port too, but very interesting style of gameplay.

Vegeta

Personally I like my games with more game than film.

Uncharted 2's gameplay was meh, it was bland enough to prevent me from finishing it.

Thought the same of Mass Effect but the story was good enough to make me finish that.

I worry about this trend for more cinema and less game. Big name voice actors, full scores n all that jazz.

Sisko

I always loved the 'cut scenes' in the Half life series. In that you were in them too and the characters looked and talked to you (even though you were a mute) but you felt part of it even though you were sitting back watching something, which is the point of games.

Agricola

Some of the most memorable moments in gaming come from tightly scripted linearity. Alot of games where your just following a path and watching set-piece events (the guy in Half Life who gets pulled into the air vent!) are moments that you never forget. Sandbox games can be very empty experiences compared to this, unless of course they're done well, like the GTA series.

I think the holy grail for gaming is combining the two approaches. When a game is made to be as cinematic as possible, you get the benefit of good voice acting, a decent, followable and maybe interesting plot that you actually pay some attention to. You get well written set-pieces that ramp up the tension. But all this needs to come with the ability to deviate in some way. There should plenty of possible outcomes and each branch in the storyline should be as given as much attention to detail as if there was only one.
Alot of times "choice" in games is an afterthought and is of no real consequence. It might just be the difference between finding a flamethrower or a bazooka. But if the choice you make determines whether or not you explore large sections of the game world, or meet certain crucial characters then it really is meaningful and makes you want to go back for a replay.
Fallout 3 ticked alot of these boxes. But could you imagine that game with tension filled set-piece events and alot more atmosphere. Instead of exploring a dark cave or an old vault where enemies just unceremoniously rushed you as soon as they became aware of your presence, what if there was some cinematic sequences, a sneak peak of a new monster that was just up ahead, or maybe afew cheap parlour tricks like sudden movements in dark corners or shadows messing with your mind, ala Dead Space. Anything to dampen the notion that this is a great big gameworld where all the inhabitants are only there for one purpose, to kill you!

CiDeRmAn

All too often movie experiences in games mean watching cutscenes, or QTE's, and no matter how well these are implemented they will always eventually grate, as the player wonders why they can't do all the cool stuff while playing that the character seems to do in the cut-scene.

A cinematic experience in a game really depends on what you define as such.
I mean if you are after Bruckheimer style thrills, I think games have that stuff covered, with Modern Warfare 2 and Black easily filling the action quotient.
If you are interested in human stories, emotional development, well, that's a little harder to come by, but then, is that the sort of game you really want to play?
If they could take a Ken Loach movie and turn it into a game, would you really want a socialist diatribe or a bitter family tragedy playing out on your PS3?
Horror works well on consoles, Silent Hill 2, Eternal Darkness, Dead Space all show that there are even areas where games can innovate over cinema, or at least provide different avenues of expression.

I guess it boils down to the fact that, so far anyways, games seek to entertain the player while movies don't have to entertain, whilst both mediums can take a person on a journey they are different in that this "trip" in a movie does not always have to have an ending, or a beginning, it can play around with the narrative, it can be layered, it can be very very serious, it has over 100 years of artistic history in every frame, each year adding to what the medium is capable of.

On the contrary the "trip" a game takes you on is, perhaps due to the mediums age, far more simplistic, aside from certain examples Silent Hill 2 being one, that game at least hopes to take the player on a not always pleasant excursion, confusing and thrilling it's ending is often shocking and makes the player question all the descisions made through out the game, not something that occurs very often in othe titles it has to be said.
But then, as before, games are young, they are narrow in the audience available, but, perhaps, as this audience ages, as more and more of the population find games an acceptable way to spend time, then certainly we'll see more interesting developments.

Perhaps Heavy Rain is one of the vanguards of this, maybe we'll be treated to more "adult" themes, more real life, instead of the cop/space marine/race driver archetypes that we are used to.

I have to say though, I'll take Gears Of War 2 over a study of a family in crisis any day, unless it's actually a family in Crysis!