Will Heath takes us on a study of words today, and the topic for this article is "cinematic". What does it mean for a game to be "cinematic"?
I know the article writer isn't speaking against cinematic games by reading what he's saying. But the article is so long winded and drawn out, it makes me want to have an article to define, "waste of time." The word cinematic is fine to describe certain games or parts of games. If a person doesn't know by now what it means today for games, then that person obviously is not a gamer. Don't even waste time trying to explain it to them. Unless, it's a casual that might be wanting to immerse themselves into deeper, story driven games or situations, then it might be worth explaining what "cinematic" is. Core gamers need no explanation. Maybe the article is targeting casuals to read. Who knows. But it meant nothing to me. Since I'm already aware.
It can still be a discussion, though, even for "hardcore" gamers. There are a lot of gamer terms thrown around that lose their substance the more they are used. Cinematic just happens to be one of them. I would say "charming", "cute", "punishing", "hardcore", and even the word "gamer" itself can be a bit confusing at times, especially how some people use them. That doesn't mean we can't talk about it to help clarify, because it is possible for the same word to mean something totally different for two people. That doesn't necessarily make either of them right or wrong, just different perspective. A lot of these words are quite flexible, hence why I think discussion is important.
Core gamers know what cinematic situations or games are. They don't need to be schooled on the obvious. Is the next articles going to be, "What do we mean when we say platformer?" Or, "What do we mean when we say console?" Or do you think we already know what that is on a site full of gamers who play consistently? Everyone here knows. Don't think for a minute they don't.
Then why did you click on an article that is titled: "What Do We Mean When We Say “Cinematic”? I do this sometimes too, just to be salty and let off a bit of steam.
You must not have read the article. And are the type of person that just reads the title. Or comment on other comments without reading. Which makes it a waste of time to comment back to you. If it might be interesting, I'll give it a shot. Doesn't mean that I won't critique it later as being a waste of time because gamers should already know. Example: "What's a puzzle game?" See? You already know without thinking if you already game. Who's the article for? Gamers already know what cinematic is without needing the article. The ones who don't know, obviously don't game. Or have comprehension problems. Keep up.
@ Apoc I read the article before you posted and I knew it was going to be a dead horse event. That's why I wasn't shocked when I chose to read it. and that is why I don't understand why you are surprised. It doesn't make sense to me.
Ok yeah after reading your comment I took the time to read the article and I totally agree with you. It's overwritten to a point that seems comical. Yikes.
Cinematic in gaming to me: set pieces and around 30 fps gameplay. 24 would be better for set pieces and 30 fps for gameplay. Cinematic set pieces can go 60 and higher but to me it starts to look more like a digital movement where the set pieces have a strange effect, it is as though the scene lacks air. Of course, this is my opinion.
ND developers claimed that Tlou running at 30 fps (on PS3) felt broken compared with TloU running at 60 fps (on PS4).
I'll have to upload the Remastered game again and check it out since the update. Too my knowledge it did not feel like I was playing a broken game before. So they are saying the game was broken or they felt 60 fps was an huge cinematic improvement?
https://www.gamespot.com/ar... ""It was a toss-up before; people were saying that you lose quality and graphics and what not," Gregory said when asked why Naughty Dog feels that it's such an important component for the game. "But being able to compare apples to apples like we have now with The Last of Us, going back and playing the 30 Hz version feels, to quote some people in the office, 'broken.'"
Thanks. I will play the 60 version and see. My opinion can change of course.
When I hear cinematic I think of a cutscene where you hold up and walk at a snails pace through some forced story point. Like when you get hurt in destiny 2 and have to cripple walk for 10 minutes to the next cutscene. I find those highly annoying and I don’t think they portray what the designers think they are. Pure f****ing boredom!
More importantly, "cinematic" isn't a genre, it's a goal. If players feel like they have impression like watching a movie while playing video game, then the goal is achieved.
Honestly ND are the only ones i trust to throw that term around. Unlike everyone elses approach, they never really take control away from the player to accomplish it. Whereas other games annoyingly use QTEs, on rail segments, or just straight up take away or restrict player control for extended periods of time to try and make something cinematic.
This is how you overthink a topic lol
I’m sure it has nothing to to with cinema. Right? Come on, we know what it means. Are gamers getting denser or do we really need to spell it out as if you are some kind of genius that just had an epiphany and figured this all out on your own? Do you specialize in articles for non-gamers and/or people living under the technology rock?. Audience dude. :/ I like the “what do we mean” bit too, kinda like as if you defined the genre working from experience. ...Gamers...
Cutscene heavy and usually story driven
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.