Disable GC entirely

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:38:26 -0400
Jeff Nowakowski <jeff at dilacero.org> wrote:

> On 04/09/2013 04:43 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >
> > - Starcraft?: Starcraft is 15 years old, so it isn't an example of a
> >    modern AAA title in the first place.
> 
> StarCraft II came out a few years ago and sold very well. They also
> just released the second installment of it within the past month or
> so, and considering it is essentially an over-priced expansion pack,
> it also sold very well.
> 
> > In the ones I identified as "interactive movie", cinematic
> > presentation deeply permeates the entire experience, gameplay and
> > all.
> 
> Translation: Wearing your gumpy-old-man goggles, you dismiss games
> that feature lots of cinematics as "interactive movies", even though
> there is plenty of core gameplay to be had.
> 

"Dismissing" isn't the right word for it (Although I have gone
straight from "teenage angst" to what can be interpreted as "old dude
crotchetyness"). Like I said, I do like CoD: Modern Warfare (at least
what I've played). I'd also confidently toss the Splinter Cell series in
the "interactive movie" boat, and yet that's actually one of my all-time
favorite series (at least 1-3, and to a slightly lesser extent 4,
wouldn't know about 5). Same goes for the Portal games (although I
would have *very much* preferred they had actually included a
"fast-forward / skip-ahead" feature for all the scripted sequences.
Every movie in existence can handle that no problem, it's a *basic*
*expected* feature, why can't a videogame with a whole team of
programmers actually manage it? A true FF/Rewind obviously has
technical hurdles for real-time cinematics, but a "skip" sure as fuck
doesn't).

I guess I haven't been entirely clear, but the complaints I do have
about what I've been calling "interactive movies" are that:

A. I think the non-indie industry has been focusing way too much on
them, to the detriment of the medium itself, and possibly the
health of the industry (and yes, to the determent of my own opinion on
modern videogaming as well).

It's strongly analogous to the irrationally high obsession with "3D" in
the mid 90's: 3D isn't bad, but it was WAAAAAY over-obsessed, and it
certainly isn't the *only* good way to go. A *good* 2D game would
have sold well: Rayman and Castlevania: SoTN proved that. The
problem was, publishers and developers pulled this notion that "Gamers
will only buy 3D" *completely* out of their asses, with absolutely zero
meaningful data to back it up, and instead shoveled out load after load
of mostly-bad, and mostly-ugly 3D games. I still consider that easily
the worst console generation. "Cinematic" is very much the new "3D".
Everything still applies, and history is repeating itself.

B. Most of them (from what I've seen) are very poorly done. Just to
rehash some examples:

- Skyward Sword is easily one of the worst Zeldas ever made. Same with
  the last Metroid (the one from the Ninja Gaiden reboot developers).
  Personally I thought Metroid Prime 3 had taken the series straight
  downhill too, but I guess I'm alone in that.

- Assassin's Creed (at least if AC2 is any indication) is one of the
  absolute worst multimedia productions ever created, period. It's just
  inane BS after inane BS after more inane BS. You may as well watch a
  soap.

- And the first 45 minutes of Bulletstorm is wretched as well. The
  "walking on the skyscraper's wall" *could* have been
  absolutely fantastic - *if* there had actually been anything to *do*
  besides listen to horrible dialog while walking to the next cutscene.

Portal and Splinter Cell did their story/dialog/presentation very well
(despite Portal's asinine *forcing* of it, which is a royal PITA when
you just want to play the puzzles), but quality in "interactive movie"
storytelling is extremely rare in general. And the thing is, if you
can't do a feature *well*, then it doesn't belong in the finished game,
period.

I guess I've rambled again clouding my main points but basically:

Cinematic/Story/etc is the new 3D: It's not inherently bad, but it's
usually done bad, and even if it weren't done badly it's way too heavily
focused/obsessed on and over-used, to the detriment of the medium and
possibly the industry.


> There *are* games that are essentially interactive movies, like Heavy 
> Rain for example, or LA Noire, but putting shooters like BioShock 
> Infinite or GTA (when doing the missions) in this category is
> ridiculous.

Well yea, Quantic Dream goes WAAAAAY off into the "interactive movie"
realm. (Ex: Indigo Prophesy started out looking promising but quickly
devolved into one long quicktime event). Quantic Dream is basically the
new Digital Pictures or...whoever made Dragon's Lair.

Keep in mind, I'm using "interactive movie" largely for lack of a
better term. "Videogame" definitely isn't the right word for them. But
at the same time, these "interactive movie" things tend to swing back
and forth (within the very same game) between "more of a game than a
*true* interactive movie" and "literally *less* interactive than
a Hollywood movie, because you can't interact with a cuscene *and* you
can rarely fast-forward past it". (And then there's...dumb...shits like
Nintendo that *do* put in a skip feature, for *some* cutscenes, and
then deliberately *disable* it on any save-game that hasn't gotten at
least that far. Seriously, they could write a book on how to be an
asshole developer.) And for the record, in case anyone at Valve,
Irrational, or Human Head ever reads this: A cutscene that you can walk
around in while you wait is still a f&*@#*$ cutscene.