I wouldnt bother with gaming if it were not for cinematics & storytelling

& as for his comment about it being like a high class chef working at McDonalds, well I'm a perception researcher at a university & for my latest job I'm reading a book by Jean Claude Carriere (one of the leading luminaries of French film) who in the book says that till the 1970's film was rubbished as a storytelling or artistic medium in America & you couldnt convince anyone (intellectual) to take it seriously. It was exactly as Jaffe describes storytelling in games now.

(Personally I still dislike 'movies' as a storytelling medium but my personal opinions aside) These days it wouldnt be fathomable in modern society (or you would be in the minority like me) to dismiss film as a storytelling/artistic medium, and that perception only changed (in the sense of the masses viewpoint) because people tried to tell stories in a "medium that couldnt do it/was the worst at it" at the time. If all developers thought like Jaffe, gaming would lose an important part of its innovative drive. Though there may be some annoying cinematic games, to lose people attempting that side of gaming altogether would stunt the medium and lose a lot of gamers, not to mention that it would stop the medium ever having a chance of becoming a 'legitimate' storytelling device.

The irony was as soon as movies became a 'legitimate' storytelling medium the old classics that attempted to tell full stories previous to this skyrocketed in value, so hang on to your old Jrpgs & Cinematic Puzzlers/ action games (like Origins old pc games & Cinematic puzzlers like bad mojo) kids.

ROFL.

The law of averages dictates that if you bitch about the industry as much as Jaffe does, you're bound to say something sensible every now and then.

I still don't like the guy.

indeed, just like the pretentiousness of parts of the gamer community is becomming tiresome and a little embarrassing - I mean, come on, gamers talking about video game/hardware sales ? don't make me laugh

That part set the mood for the game and showed how badass and clever Batman was, even without the costume. Jaffe needs to realize that people may actually like a little cinematics and variety mixed in with their gameplay. It makes a game more absorbing. I can appreciate a game like Super Mario that's 99% gameplay. I can enjoy a game like Heavy Rain that's 95% story. I can enjoy a game like Metal Gear that's about 50/50. Is it a wasted resource if I really enjoy it?

Just because some people are pretentious, doesn't mean that having storytelling in games is a bad thing. (also, pretentiousness is much more rife in music and film)

The fact is that games have a much greater potential for storytelling than films. By putting you in control, you care about the character a lot more, so the stakes are much higher. But there are 2 ways of doing it, either by giving the player choice, or not

With choice, it is very clear how games are FAR superior. Just look at Mass Effect, my I care about my Shepherd much more than Captain Kirk, because I am the one who has saved the galaxy, and just think about Heavy Rain. The way that your character can die really draws you in, and makes you care about what you are doing so much more. But of course, this has to be done right. There need to actually be effects of your chocies, which is one of minor gripes with Skyrim. You can make decisions, but generally they only seem to effect whether or not you get a nice mace or something, not much more in most cases

On the other hand, a lack of choice can still be a better experience than films. If you actually look at the story of Uncharted it is mostly rubbish, but the way that the game is made, with great graphics, great sounds and the generally fun gameplay make you care about Drake and ignore all the little stupid points. As for the Arkham City handkuffing (is that how you spell it?), I haven't actually played that game, so a better thing to talk about is Gears 3. Gears had been criticised for lack of story, and I do think that they went too far with too many sections where you had to walk really slowly, which weren't actually that interesting.

But just think about CoD 4, and the very first section. That immediately drew you in, and that game showed how you deliever an immersive experience, shame its sequels didn't do such a good job of that...

But anyway, I feel most games haven't really got it right yet, so with more time, we can get better stories in games. I feel there is a place for more gameplay driven games, but a cinematic experience can still be good, and will only get better. Why can't we have both, going back to just gameplay would definitely be step in the wrong direction, just think how far we have come

http://kotaku.com/5883736/depressing+ass-heavy-rain-makes-for-some-good-stand+up-comedy

what a pretentious way of telling me that I'm dumb

hard numbers can be analysed - by people who are insiders of this industry and not by some boys on the interwebz

gamers should stick to gaming, like games should stick to gameplay

Sounds like he's against people experimenting with gaming so that it can reach its full potential.

I agree that gameplay is paramount, but his conclusion is too extreme (and laughably aggressive if you ask me). While I do see his point about focusing on narrative instead of gameplay, he also makes it sound as if someone with a story to tell is in the wrong business and should be limited to books or movies, which is absurd and very closed-minded.

Like many people have said, there's room for Mario and Uncharted in this industry. Variety leads to more good ideas for everyone.

And I agree, in some form at least. Cinematic narrative is bad when it disconnects the gameplay from the story, as many cinematics do. Something like Heavy Rain weaves the story into the gameplay though, and the choices you make directly impact the story, effectively making the story a part of the gameplay. Whether Heavy Rain qualifies as a cinematic narrative according to Jaffe is something else of course, though I'd imagine that it does.

His example with Batman: Arkham City is one I don't understand. The particular sequence is still playable, letting the player experience what Bruce Wayne experiences. The player is meant to feel limited in the way that Bruce Wayne is, and the game succeeds quite well at that. Rather than just putting the sequence into a cinematic, the game engages the player by enforcing limitations. Limitations are only as good or bad as the developer makes them.