The true difference between AAA and AA

[windbane]

The_vagabond7 said:

windbane said:

The_vagabond7 said:

windbane said:

The_vagabond7 said:

That is very interesting. I find is especially interesting that cutscenes were actually harmful, and disengaged the players (suck on that one for a while, Kojima). But I can completely relate to that, because games like Half life or COD4 that keep you in the action at all times I feel are far more intense, immersive and engaging than games that have frequent cut scenes.

Also fascinating is how important pacing is. I've felt for a long time that pacing in a game is a far overlooked aspect to a game's quality. It takes alot of level design and fore thought to create an effective experience. Slower down times followed by big battles or intense fights. Lure you into security, give you a minute to come down off your high and then throw you right back up there into something crazy. Or gradually build up the pace into a climactic crescendo, and have the expected reward system of it coming down into something of a breather after the high is hit. Pacing is incredibly important to a satisfying experience.

 

Every Kojima game is AAA. CoD4 has cutscenes and is also a great game.

 

Did you even read the article or understand what I was talking about, or was Kojima's bush obstructing your vision?

 

It's a shame that such a great and insightful article is going to be completely passed up by people who just saw a keyphrase like "AAA" and decided to throw in their two cents.

 

Indeed, I did read the article. Did you? It's interesting that you take a jab at Kojima even though nothing in the article indicates that his method is bad. In fact, you have a blantant untruth in the 2nd sentence of your post: " I find it especially interesting that cutscenes were actually harmful, and disengaged the players" That's not what the article said at all.

"

What Went Right

1. Cutscenes with overarching emotional themes.

Uncovering the "perfect" cutscene, in terms of power of physiological emotional response, proved to have no formula. Just like their cinematic movie counterparts, game cutscenes have no single creative blueprint. As you can imagine, a horror film evokes a different set of emotions than a comedy, but both may be powerful and effective pieces of art.

What we did find is that games like Gears of War, F.E.A.R., and Call of Duty 3 consistently engage players by specializing in a particular thematic emotion."

They then give 3 examples of games they studied and how the cutscenes were beneficial. About Gears of War they said of the cutscenes: "Together, over 80 percent of players reacted with one of the 10 most intense engagement responses of the game, no small feat for a title with bloody chainsaws and huge courtyard battles." Sounds like a ringing endorsement to me.

Their examples of bad cutscenes are briefings in GRAW2 and the info on battles in Resistance. Well, duh. Those aren't very exciting cutscenes.

Where they should have given more credit to Resistance is under the section about novelty weapons, because I felt Resistance had great weapons.

Their conclusion also contradicts your claim:

"Clients (and family members) always ask us if there's a single formula to compelling, engaging media, whether it's a video game, advertisement, or a movie. The truth is, there isn't.

But there are definite trends in what makes engaging and successful gameplay. At the end of the day, each of these successful games relies on superior execution and creativity to craft a uniquely engaging experience. Our big surprise is just how important the little things, like throwing a grenade, can be -- even more engaging than that epic and highly-scripted plot events.

Little things add up to more enjoyable experiences, higher Metacritic scores, and higher sales. In short, more fun. As we've seen, there are definitely some "rules of fun" that hold across these titles, and in some cases, across games in general. More interestingly, though, we're looking forward to seeing how future titles innovate and break these rules. As players expect more and more from their game experience, smart risk-taking in game design may be the only way to truly stand out in the crowd."

Your example of CoD4 is false because it does have cutscenes. That's why I mentioned that in my response.

Also, most reviews mention the pacing of games if they are good. That's not a new concept. I happen to love all the little things, great combat, great cutscenes, and great pacing of MGS games, so pardon me if I defend a guy that you had no justification to attack based on this article that really presents no new information other than telling us that some Xbox games did a good job.

Did you read past the first page?

 

"However, other titles in this study struggled with maintaining engagement during cutscenes more than any other element. Players say they want them, but cutscenes in general are not as engaging as combat or other interactive gameplay. All too often, cutscenes simply served as the cursory bridge between two levels.

Underperforming cutscenes showed a distinct pattern. Most were highly informational and involved "talking heads" or narration."

The first part compares what cutscenes work best, but cutscenes as a whole don't engage as much as actually playing, and ones that are just informational, talking heads, or narration did worst of all. All you quote is a feel good "everybody does a good job in their own way" blanket statement that can justify anything.

 

COD4 is hairsplitting. It has next to no cutscenes that you aren't in control during. You are almost always in your characters head, and that is a great thing. It increases immersion.

There is a difference between defending a guy and saying everything he shits is gold, and the point of the article had nothing to do with Xbox, so get off your fanboy horse.

I feel sad for this topic, it had so much potential.

 

 

Other titles, such as the 2 I mentioned:  resistance and GRAW2.  Those don't have cutscenes on the level of MGS4, which did have interactivity in them as if they even needed it. 

I posted a lot of quotes disputing your blanket statement that cutscenes are bad, which is what you said, not what the article said at all.  notice that the first 2 words in the quote you claim I missed is "other titles" because there were 3 titles (perhaps the ones I mentioned) where they say the cutscenes worked well.  MGS cutscenes are fantastic, but even if you don't like it, that's no reason to throw Kojima under the bus because of a made up conclusion not supported by the article.

I don't find anything particularly groundbreaking in the article.  I'm sorry if that upsets you.