Movie games.

Right, so recently I saw IGN's totally not paid for review of The Last of Us, another piece of half-game (multiplayer) half-movie (singleplayer) by Naughty Dog that was marketed as a game in order to make a big profit by focusing only on two aspects: story and presentation.

For those who haven't seen it:



It's just a compilation of subjective bull , for those who want me to cut to the chase: It got a 10/10.

Now, this practice isn't new. And while movie games have been a reality ever since the early 16-bit game era, times are changing, and games these days consist of more than just selecting the next cut-scene while under the illusion of "choice".

A game, video or otherwise, consists (by it's definition) of an objective defined by rules, a challenge that varies in difficulty and interaction. While the interaction aspect is clear, I do not see how "games" like Heavy Rain, The Last of Us or Fahrenheit provide any kind of challenge or objective.

So here's my question for you, should these type of "games" continue to be marketed as video games? Or should they be reclassified as interactive movies? Now perhaps you're asking "Well why should I give a damn?". Here's why:

-Movies are much cheaper than games, and for good reason. A movie lasts several hours, you may chose to watch it more than once but I doubt you'd find enough entertainment value in it to spend more than 10 hours a year on it. Whereas games provide entertainment that lasts days, weeks, months or even years, The Sims is a good example.
-Although critics are a bunch of corrupt, full of who just express their own opinions (although they are apparently qualified to do it, by the International Institute of Having Opinions), there are people out there who take them seriously enough for them to influence the industry. So if an interactive movie, with a kick-ass story (I guess) but not much else, marketed as a game receives GOTY award over real video games, that don't have such great stories but do feature all the elements of a game and execute them pretty well, then those games will be less popular. If they are less popular, they sell less. If they sell less, the developers will be less motivated. If the developers are less motivated, the quality of the games will be lower.
-Because of the success of interactive movies, many developers are encouraged to focus more on story and less on gameplay, a good example is GTA IV and it's shift from blowing up cop cars with a military chopper to buying pants to impress your never-asked-for girlfriend.

EDIT: Would be nice if you commented on your decision instead of throwing random votes around just to tilt the balance, those are more important than the actual votes.

I do not see how "games" like Heavy Rain, The Last of Us or Fahrenheit provide any kind of challenge or objective.

The same can be said for a lot of the "Party" games and "kiddy" games..

I don't see any challenge in a game that is designed for 3 year olds. Like the new Pac man adventure games (not the classic ones). and Mario party is just plain boring and repetitive.

I also don't like a game that is overly repetitive and has no storyline like Tetris or Sudoku.

Kingdom Hearts 4TW

Sir Auron wrote:

I do not see how "games" like Heavy Rain, The Last of Us or Fahrenheit provide any kind of challenge or objective.

The same can be said for a lot of the "Party" games and "kiddy" games..

I don't see any challenge in a game that is designed for 3 year olds. Like the new Pac man adventure games (not the classic ones). and Mario party is just plain boring and repetitive.

I also don't like a game that is overly repetitive and has no storyline like Tetris or Sudoku.

Kingdom Hearts 4TW

I don't play kiddie games (well, my mom used to call half the games I played "kiddie games').

Anyway that's the problem, whenever I bring up this subject people seem to think I'm telling them to stop liking these "games". I don't see the logic behind that, just cause they would be reclassified as movies and not games, means you have to stop liking them? weird. I just think that it's not fair that a "game" like The Last of Us should steal awards from real games, games with actual gameplay, actual challenge, and actual replay value just because it has a storyline that makes your mother cry. Movies and books are about telling a story, that should never be the focus of a video game. Unless it's The Sims, but that's different, cause you don't watch a story you create, and not just one, many.

Well at least someone bothered commenting.

invalidusername wrote:I personally would love for this reclassification. Not even to be sold as plain "movies", but somewhere between a movie and a game, and in a more cross-platform-friendly format, if possible. However, for the reviews, there'd have to be a new setup. Movie reviewers would go for the story, and game reviewers for the rest.

Personally, I don't play many games where they're closed off without any customization to the story or gameplay. So these movie games, they aren't really something I even look at, and I hate seeing them getting so many awards and throwing the curve way off. (However that does occasionally work for the better, making the games I want drop in price sooner, sometimes).

Interactive movies. I mean I don't expect 'em to be sold for the same $5 or whatever they charge in your countries for films on DVD, but $60 is way too much. I mean, in my opinion, there are very few actual video games that are worth $60

TUN3R wrote:
-Movies are much cheaper than games, and for good reason. A movie lasts several hours, you may chose to watch it more than once but I doubt you'd find enough entertainment value in it to spend more than 10 hours a year on it. Whereas games provide entertainment that lasts days, weeks, months or even years, The Sims is a good example.

I seriously doubt if The Sims 3 has any objectives or challenges in it. In fact, most of the challenges are customised (created by players). It is not built in the game. If a game is defined as a game with objectives and challenges provided, then The Sims 3 shouldn't be classified as a video game.

TUN3R wrote:
-Because of the success of interactive movies, many developers are encouraged to focus more on story and less on gameplay, a good example is GTA IV and it's shift from blowing up cop cars with a military chopper to buying pants to impress your never-asked-for girlfriend.

EDIT: Would be nice if you commented on your decision instead of throwing random votes around just to tilt the balance, those are more important than the actual votes.

GTA IV is not just a story. You know, if you don't follow the minor "objectives" in GTA IV, you can play it like The Sims 3 with no objectives and challenges.

Let me cut to the chase by stating my opinion: I think they should classified as both movies and games. I mean, if you know The Walking Dead, it's a game that combines the game elements (choices that affect gameplay) and movie elements since what you, as players, interact as the main character can cause dramatic change in the gameplay. But it is also a story and if you have a look at the walkthrough, it does look like watching a movie.

cat2006house wrote:
I seriously doubt if The Sims 3 has any objectives or challenges in it. In fact, most of the challenges are customised (created by players). It is not built in the game. If a game is defined as a game with objectives and challenges provided, then The Sims 3 shouldn't be classified as a video game.

I don't even know how to comment on that... I don't. The Sims 3 doesn't have objectives? Wow.

And I said CHALLENGE, look it up in the dictionary, it has nothing to do with challenges a.k.a. game modes or achievements or anything like that.

cat2006house wrote:
GTA IV is not just a story. You know, if you don't follow the minor "objectives" in GTA IV, you can play it like The Sims 3 with no objectives and challenges.

"Objective" and "challenge" don't refer to something coded in the game, they refer to the general concept of games, not just video games, games in general.

cat2006house wrote:
Let me cut to the chase by stating my opinion: I think they should classified as both movies and games. I mean, if you know The Walking Dead, it's a game that combines the game elements (choices that affect gameplay) and movie elements since what you, as players, interact as the main character can cause dramatic change in the gameplay. But it is also a story and if you have a look at the walkthrough, it does look like watching a movie.

Because it is a movie. That's exactly the type of "games" I'm talking about. The Walking Dead, Heavy Rain, etc. They are just one long CG movie that occasionally has you pressing a button to chose the next scene. Maybe they sometimes feature quicktime events, but that doesn't make them anything more than 10% game and 90% movie, at best.

Anyway how exactly would you classify them as both movies and games? Would you stick both the price of a movie and the one of a game on it when it's in the shop? Would you write "BOTH MOVIE AND GAME" as the genre in the description? Would you give it both the Oscar and GOTY? Think for a second -.-'

Lady ElDi wrote:I tend to lean towards invalidusernames' opinion.
From this video, I'd probably play it once for the sake of having played it and I would probably find it mildly entertaining but it doesn't look like it would have any replay value -to me- at all since it doesn't appear to provide options for a "personal touch" at all.

"Playing" is an interesting term...