Which tells the better story for a game?

[Non Sequor]

The Ghost of RubangB said:

el_rika said:
From a pure storytelling perspective, cinematics are light years ahead.

You don't spend years at the film school just because it is fun or cool, you spend years because cinematography is one of the most complex forms of expression, as it incorporates most of all others.
Cinematics in games allow you to have complex narratives with multiple points of view, cinematic framing and lens effects, sometimes fully interactive (Shenmue) sometimes both interactive and non-interactive at the same time (MGS4 microwave scene), which can even be considered an evolution over standard film storytelling as it allows to both keep the cinematic storytelling tehniques intact 'and' create an unprecedented level of connection between the player and the character.

Sure, if you want to keep moving the character while the other characters talk to you, it may be a better approach from a pure gameplay continuity perspective (which some will rightfully argue that it is what gaming is all about), but as a pure storytelling method it is rudimentary and limited to a single perspective, though it also has the advantage of beeing incredibly cheap to produce.

In the end it all comes down to what one wants. Good storytelling "for a game", or good storytelling [period].

Cinematography is just moving photography!  The most complex form of expression is editing, because that's where you control time and space and montage all at once to create a narrative!

Sorry... film student here.

 

I think the most important lesson in filmmaking is to show somebody the story rather than tell them the story.  If your film relies on narration and/or text, they are listening to the story and/or reading the story.  That should be avoided when possible, and the story should be shown through action, camera movement, and editing, the things that only cinema can do.

I think the most important lesson in game narrative is to let somebody play the story rather than show or tell them the story.  If your game relies on narration and/or text and/or cutscenes, they are listening to the story and/or reading the story and/or watching the story.  That should be avoided when possible, and the story should be experienced through gameplay, the thing that only gaming can do.

But there are exceptions to both those rules.

You can get away with reading signs and symbols in film but a wall of text an hour into a film can ruin the mood, like a 45 minute cutscene would ruin the mood for a game.  We'll definitely keep getting both kinds of films and hopefully we'll get both kinds of games.  Figuring out how to tell a story without controlling the perspective is a struggle for most developers.  It's really counter-intuitive, but when done correctly it's awesome.  You really get to feel like you are the story, which in my opinion is the main goal of game narrative.

I guess you can put me in the "good story for a game" category, although I don't feel that either game narrative or cinema narrative are inherently better than the other.

I agree with everything you said (although I'm not going to venture an opinion on the editing versus cinematography debate).

I think there's a bit of film envy among gamers. Film is the most respected medium to develop in the 20th century and gamers want games, an even newer medium, to have that sort of respect. So I think that people have this idea that in order for games to be respected, it must emulate film.

While it's good to borrow elements from one's predecessors, I think that games have to do things that film can't in order to gain wider respect. If games don't do things that film can't, people will only focus on the things that film can do that games can't.