Your top 10 of 2018?

[syz]

Red Dead might be the most important video game of all time when it comes to storytelling. IMO, it is the first game to break down the wall that separates games from movies. This is currently the most cinematic experience you can get from a game. Not just the amazing graphics, but the writing, storyline, and cinematic camera that is surprisingly versatile when playing the game make it feel like an interactive movie.

People say this every time a new Rockstar game comes out and it's never actually true.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

People say this every time a new Rockstar game comes out and it's never actually true.

This is the first time I’ve felt this way and I was impressed by GTA 5. RDR2 is the most cinematic experience I’ve encountered in terms of feeling like a blockbuster movie. The writing alone is worthy of that praise, but the camera options are what puts it over the top.

 

[Nalens Oga]

Judging by this thread, the PS4 doesn't seem to have the quantity of original games that the PS3 did. They seem to be mooching a lot off of remakes and remasters and just a new version in the same series like Uncharted 4 or RDR 2.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Red Dead might be the most important video game of all time when it comes to storytelling. IMO, it is the first game to break down the wall that separates games from movies. This is currently the most cinematic experience you can get from a game. Not just the amazing graphics, but the writing, storyline, and cinematic camera that is surprisingly versatile when playing the game make it feel like an interactive movie.

Why is this a good thing? I play games for the playing aspect of them.

And if Red Dead were to be judged as a movie, it would be seen as terrible.

 

[SniperHF]

Is the only major release left this year Smash Bros ?

 

[Osprey]

Why is this a good thing? I play games for the playing aspect of them.

And if Red Dead were to be judged as a movie, it would be seen as terrible.

I agree. I don't understand why many gamers seem to value the parts of games that they watch as much as the parts that they play. The last thing that I want to do when I load a game up is to watch 10 minutes of cutscenes, then be led by the nose until another 5-minute cutscene starts. When I want to be told a story, I'll watch an actual movie or TV show, of which even the bad ones have better storytelling than the best games. I load up a game when I want to actually game and make my own experiences. I wish that developers would stop trying to make "interactive movies" and put all of those resources, instead, into improving gameplay. Being able to create your own stories (by experiencing things that were not scripted) is a lot more immersive than having a story forced on you. That's why movies and TV shows aren't as immersive as games can be. Making games into "interactive movies" makes them less immersive, not more, IMO.

 

[Pilky01]

RDR2 is exfellent but it is still very much a Rockstar game.

 

[Commander Clueless]

RDR2 has a movie feel, but it's still very much a video game.

It also draaaaaaags in the later game.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Why is this a good thing? I play games for the playing aspect of them.

And if Red Dead were to be judged as a movie, it would be seen as terrible.

It's a bit of an exaggeration. The cutscenes only account for the transition scenes and are never longer than a couple of minutes. It's still very gameplay heavy, unlike a game like MGS. I just meant that even the gameplay feels cinematic. It's less about being passive and watching cutscenes and more about how your actions are framed like they are part of a cohesive movie. It's the first game I've played where gameplay doesn't take you out of the storyline (outside of maybe the Half-Life series).

 

[God King Fudge]

I played RDR2 for about 3-4 days and I just couldn't anymore. The game has absolutely zero respect for my time. If I want to loot something, there's a loot animation. If there's a whole dresser full of drawers with loot in each one, I have to watch the loot animation several times. I can't fast travel. The best thing I can do is hold a button and stare at something else for 5 minutes going from place to place.

I understand that Rockstar is kind of out on its own when it comes to design, and they're unique in how they do things, but to me RDR2 feels like it's a completely modern coat of paint on an old ass car. An open world game like this without fast travel is a crime, IMO.

I picked up FC5 shortly before RDR and started playing it for a break and haven't put RDR back in sense. I started playing AC: Odyssey after that and it made me appreciate the quality of life stuff in those two games that is just not present in RDR.

 

[tacogeoff]

Have not played a ton of games as this year seemed pretty weak and there has really been no point in upgrading Madden and NHL since 17 imo .

1. easily RDR2 for myself 10/10. Probably the best game I have played in the past five years.

2. God of War 8/10 enjoyed it

3. Spiderman 5/10 fun but uninspiring

It's a bit of an exaggeration. The cut scenes only account for the transition scenes and are never longer than a couple of minutes. It's still very gameplay heavy, unlike a game like MGS. I just meant that even the gameplay feels cinematic. It's less about being passive and watching cut scenes and more about how your actions are framed like they are part of a cohesive movie. It's the first game I've played where gameplay doesn't take you out of the storyline (outside of maybe the Half-Life series).

You are bang on.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

I played RDR2 for about 3-4 days and I just couldn't anymore. The game has absolutely zero respect for my time. If I want to loot something, there's a loot animation. If there's a whole dresser full of drawers with loot in each one, I have to watch the loot animation several times. I can't fast travel. The best thing I can do is hold a button and stare at something else for 5 minutes going from place to place.

I understand that Rockstar is kind of out on its own when it comes to design, and they're unique in how they do things, but to me RDR2 feels like it's a completely modern coat of paint on an old ass car. An open world game like this without fast travel is a crime, IMO.

I picked up FC5 shortly before RDR and started playing it for a break and haven't put RDR back in sense. I started playing AC: Odyssey after that and it made me appreciate the quality of life stuff in those two games that is just not present in RDR.

I can appreciate this, the game is overly realistic to the point of wasting time and being extremely annoying. It is worth noting that you can fast travel, you just need to unlock it and it only works one way (from the camp, not back). You can put a destination on the map, ride your horse, put on cinematic mode, and it will automatically take you there - so that's usually when I go to the bathroom, grab a snack, etc.

 

[tacogeoff]

I can appreciate this, the game is overly realistic to the point of wasting time and being extremely annoying. It is worth noting that you can fast travel, you just need to unlock it and it only works one way (from the camp, not back). You can put a destination on the map, ride your horse, put on cinematic mode, and it will automatically take you there - so that's usually when I go to the bathroom, grab a snack, etc.

I don't mind the treks back to the nearest stations to jump on a train or take a stage coach as I always seem to discover something that I have not come across before.

 

[Shareefruck]

To want videogames to be more credible as an artistic medium in terms of sensibilities, tastefulness, and maturity of creative decisions is one thing that I can get behind, but I'll never understand why people want videogames to try so hard to measure up to the cinematic conventions of "blockbuster" movies, which, presentation/writing-wise are typically inferior to games we've had for decades anyways.

 

[Fantomas]

The Spider-Man has some gorgeous visuals (finding the Guggenheim Museum was a true joy), but it's a really problematic game. Some will rightfully cringe at the sight of orange-clad convicts acting like animalistic thugs. As if the incarcerated aren't people and have nothing better to do than to stir up trouble. Not to mention the odious valorization of cops. Bleh.

 

[tacogeoff]

To want videogames to be more credible as an artistic medium in terms of sensibilities, tastefulness, and maturity of creative decisions is one thing that I can get behind, but I'll never understand why people want videogames to try so hard to measure up to the cinematic conventions of "blockbuster" movies, which, presentation/writing-wise are typically inferior to games we've had for decades anyways.

because it is personal preference to want more of an experience/story out of a game? I too enjoyed the older games from decades past such as the Mario series, FF series, Zelda/Link etc. It just comes down to personal taste and expectations imo there is something out there in the gaming world for everyone to play.

 

[syz]

Wanting a story/cinematic experience in games is fine, but RDR2 just does a bad job of it. Hollywood storytelling is incompatible with an interactive medium if the result is going to be the player failing out of a mission because they went too far off the path at the wrong time, or because their horse accidentally ran over a stray NPC, or whatever.

Your game shouldn't even be interactive at that point if you're just going to impose a bunch of annoying fail states on players who would deign to "interact" with your video game.

 

[Commander Clueless]

To want videogames to be more credible as an artistic medium in terms of sensibilities, tastefulness, and maturity of creative decisions is one thing that I can get behind, but I'll never understand why people want videogames to try so hard to measure up to the cinematic conventions of "blockbuster" movies, which, presentation/writing-wise are typically inferior to games we've had for decades anyways.

I much prefer video games to movies or TV in general, myself.

 

[ViktorBaeArvidsson]

Spyro and that’s it. Not many video games seemed interesting this year to me.

 

[RobBrown4PM]

Kingdom Come deliverance is my GOTY. It's the studios first game and it almost never got made due to financial limitations. It's unique and innovative combat mechanics shine. The save system is ok, I know some people have problems with it but it doesen't bother me much.

 

[Shareefruck]

because it is personal preference to want more of an experience/story out of a game? I too enjoyed the older games from decades past such as the Mario series, FF series, Zelda/Link etc. It just comes down to personal taste and expectations imo there is something out there in the gaming world for everyone to play.

Keep in mind that when I say "I'll never understand _____", that doesn't suggest that I think there's anything revolting, intolerable or unacceptable about people having different preferences, just that I don't agree with the logic of them or empathize with those views myself.

What I'm saying is that I don't think that blockbusters (not film in general, just blockbusters) provide a more compelling experience or stronger storytelling than video games anyways. In fact, it's generally pretty bad at those things, IMO-- they're usually just formulaic novelty-filled roller-coaster rides with some trivial technical polish but little charm, creativity or substance. That's a really low bar to clear, and video games (the good ones, anyways) have already surpassed them pretty handily for a couple of decades now, in my view.

I can't say anything about Red Dead because I haven't played it (maybe it's some transcendent experience and I'm just not aware of that), but something like Spiderman for example pretty successfully emulates the typical experience/storytelling of most acclaimed movie blockbusters, and that's really not very impressive to me, because the movies that it's emulating are pretty mediocre at those things to begin with. Neither the game nor the movies it's emulating, in terms of experience/storytelling are anything close to what's already been repeatedly accomplished within the medium, IMO.

I think that the only aspects that emulating blockbuster movies would really improve are things like novelty, flash, fidelity, production values and technical realism, which barely moves the needle in any meaningful way.

I much prefer video games to movies or TV in general, myself.

I think that both videogames and television have a long way to go before matching the peaks of movies, personally (I don't think that there are any videogame creators who have reached comparable heights to certain genius filmmakers for example-- Like if somebody told me that they think Sakaguchi, Kojima, or whoever's big right now were greater geniuses than Kubrick or Kurosawa, I'd find that pretty absurd, personally-- but greater geniuses than blockbuster guys like James Cameron or George Lucas?-- Yeah, I'd totally agree with that). They're both really young mediums that could probably stand to grow up a little bit and have barely scratched the surface of what's possible yet.

But everyone has their own take on that, obviously.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

To want videogames to be more credible as an artistic medium in terms of sensibilities, tastefulness, and maturity of creative decisions is one thing that I can get behind, but I'll never understand why people want videogames to try so hard to measure up to the cinematic conventions of "blockbuster" movies, which, presentation/writing-wise are typically inferior to games we've had for decades anyways.

I guess it depends on your definition of "blockbuster" movies. I just meant high quality, high budget drama movies that end up being nominated for Best Picture. Not necessarily Michael Bay trash.

The benefit of games being more cinematic and closer to movies is that video games will appeal to a larger audience. My gf actually enjoys watching me play RDR 2 (she liked the Witcher 3 as well, which is similar to RDR2 in storytelling but a step down in terms of production/polish), but doesn't care about any of the other games I play.

 

[Commander Clueless]

I think that both videogames and television have a long way to go before matching the peaks of movies, personally (I don't think that there are any videogame creators who have reached comparable heights to certain genius filmmakers for example-- Like if somebody told me that they think Sakaguchi, Kojima, or whoever's big right now were greater geniuses than Kubrick or Kurosawa, I'd find that pretty absurd, personally-- but greater geniuses than blockbuster guys like James Cameron or George Lucas?-- Yeah, I'd totally agree with that). They're both really young mediums that could probably stand to grow up a little bit and have barely scratched the surface of what's possible yet.

But everyone has their own take on that, obviously.

Well, I wasn't really analyzing the talent or artistic aspects of the two, so you are probably right. Games are especially young when compared to movies. I just meant I much prefer it as an entertainment medium in general.

I get way more entertainment value out of a good video game than even some of the more critically acclaimed movies, but to be fair I suppose I haven't watched all that many throughout my life time. Also, I'm probably weird.

 

[Shareefruck]

Well, I wasn't really analyzing the talent or artistic aspects of the two, so you are probably right. Games are especially young when compared to movies. I just meant I much prefer it as an entertainment medium in general.

I get way more entertainment value out of a good video game than even some of the more critically acclaimed movies, but to be fair I suppose I haven't watched all that many throughout my life time. Also, I'm probably weird.

Entertainment, artistic merit, it all kind of blurs together for me. Videogames are more addictive/accessible for sure, but personally, I'm in it more for that inspired/infectious/blown away/"everything feels perfectly considered" feeling. While I love certain videogames and find some to be brilliant, I don't feel nearly as strongly about them as my favorite films.

I guess it depends on your definition of "blockbuster" movies. I just meant high quality, high budget drama movies that end up being nominated for Best Picture. Not necessarily Michael Bay trash.

The benefit of games being more cinematic and closer to movies is that video games will appeal to a larger audience. My gf actually enjoys watching me play RDR 2 (she liked the Witcher 3 as well, which is similar to RDR2 in storytelling but a step down in terms of production/polish), but doesn't care about any of the other games I play.

Oh, yeah, that's a little different. When I think blockbuster, I think of massive big budget popcorn films that gross billions, the best of which only being stuff like Star Wars, The Matrix, and Aliens or whatever.

 

[Commander Clueless]

I'm a little bit surprised at the lack of Pillars of Eternity II mentions from my fellow PC nerds.

Did that game disappoint? I was thinking of picking it up in the last sale.