Top
70°

Ninja Theory: Levine Wrong About Film Industry

NowGamer: Following Ken Levine's criticism of movie directors' involvement with videogames, Ninja Theory's Tameem Antoniades tells NowGamer about the benefits of working with film industry talent...

Read Full Story >>
nowgamer.com
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
InTheKnow3291d ago (Edited 3291d ago )

Sorry, Ninja Theory, Ken Levine is right on the money with his comments. Games have become interactive movies...Heavy Rain the worst of the bunch, followed closely by Uncharted 2.

There is alot the gaming industry can learn from the making of movies but as usual, it's taking it too far. The whole " green-screen " backgrounds are fine as long as the game play is there...which it's not.

Uncharted 2 was like a movie with added game play elements. It's suppose to be the other way around. You open a door in Uncharted and you trigger a cut scene. Jump across a ledge, yep, trigger a cut scene. Run into some character, trigger a cut scene...and on and on. Naughty Dog brags about how they canned many of the scenes. UC 1 had 80 " simulations " ( what ND calls them ) while UC 2 had 564...O_o...Through RTE's that were triggered by the player or by forcing the player to trigger the scene through linear game play, the game was more movie than game.

Anyone who played Bioshock 1 knows how interactive and smooth the game play was. The story was told through creative use of the environments and crafty cut scenes...all in real time with out a 2-5 minute interlude. Many games have since adopted similar ideas and by doing so keep the player connected to the experience.

What Ninja theory and Naughty Dog as well as others are doing is basically making a movie first and then throwing in some game play elements and calling it a video game. Having a decent story is important BUT not more important than great game play. MW 2 sold 20++ million copies on that principle...How many copies has UC 2 and Enslaved moved again???

RememberThe3573290d ago (Edited 3290d ago )

You reluctance to embrace cinematic elements into videogame does not reflect that fact that most people like them. What you think to be "interactive movies" are actually games with good performances. Cinema is based on capturing performances and a lot of video game work is done by theatre actors. When developers talk about being more cinematic they are talking about increasing the quality of not only the performance of actors but of how those performances are captured. There are somethings that you cannot highlight while still in gameplay and to further the story with out compromising it some developers choose to use cut screens or QTE.

Adding cinematic quality to a game doesn't hurt it in any way. Bioshock did certain things very well, but to say that the way Bioshock did things is the only way to do it is narrow-minded. There are many ways to write a book, many ways to shoot a film, many ways to play a song, and many ways to make a game.

Your generalization of Modern Warfare sales further implies that you really haven't thought this topic through. You may think that your making a point but you fail to understand what really going into selling 20 million copies of a game and how quality is only part of that equation. The general opinion of people who have played both Uncharted 2 and Modern Warfare is that U2 is the better game. MW2 had a 200million dollar ad campaign was riding the coat tails of one of the best shooters in history. If would have been more surprising if it didn't sell 20+ million.

Sales also do not determine quality. Anyone who has bought a product that was awesome but didn't sell can attest to this. Okami and Ico are great example of great games that didn't sell.

Your points, when analyzed, don't hold water. Sales don't equal quality and there are many ways to tell a story through games.