The submitter appears to think that this is for real (as do several commenters at Spill), but you can tell that it's obviously a joke. Michael Bay doesn't even write scripts.
No, it's like saying good games are few and far between, which is something that I do say. My reason for saying it about films isn't because I haven't seen many, it's the opposite. I have seen so many that I am not easily impressed. Perhaps your tastes are simply more shallow than mine.
You're full of shit. You haven't seen anything.
Length has a lot to do with developing an environment, characters and an overall story. I don't do rush job stories.
Again, length != quality.
On another note, these "excellent" films that you keep boasting about must be phenomenal. So good that you conveniently keep forgetting to list any of them.
Crysis is from the guys who made Far Cry. I sure as hell wasn't expecting much, and I was actually suprised by how much better the narrative was compared to Far Cry. I don't understand how the feeling of really being there is related to any of this.
Don't come to me saying that a thoroughly hyped game like crysis should be allowed to get away with shiny graphics and only so-so gameplay.
Huh? You're moving the goal posts. We're talking about characterization and the originality of the storyline, not gameplay.
It's a bit presumptuous of you to assume that you are the only person who could possibly watch anything produced outside of Hollywood. In fact, I have lived in 6 different countries over my life and have seen many films from many different cultures.
Anyone who claims that quality films are few and far between and that there aren't any films with an excellent story is obviously not well versed in films. It's like saying that there aren't any games with good gameplay.
Length is the only way to develop the depth that is required for some stories. So yes, length can play a major role in the quality of a story.
Which doesn't mean that length is the same thing as quality.
There's nothing to criticize, it's just a copout. You don't want to talk about the subject and instead of just not talking about it you kick over the sand castle and leave the sandbox in a huff.
From the trailers and TFA, heavy rain will be MGS4-like in that it's about pressing the right buttons at the right time. Thus the relevance
Resident Evil 4 also has quicktime events, but that doesn't make it an interactive movie.
Crysis... I honestly can't say I played it long. I tried it at a friend's who had the gear to run it. My experience went like this : I am in a plane, I can move my head around, I jump out of the plane, I can move my head around a bit.. uiii.. shiny clouds... I land and run for 30 sec. first cutscene. I run a bit more, shoot 2 enemies, next cutscene... I run a bit more... cutscene... I run a tiny bit more... the sun goes up.. uhh.. cutscene. That's where I gave up.
You're making shit up. After you've parachuted down, there isn't a cutscene until you find Aztec. Cutscenes are few and far between in the game.
Interestingly, the best game of the last few years in my opinion used a relatively old (but quite good) engine and had exactly TWO cutscenes. The first one when you woke up, and the last one where you were not served cake. Somehow it was able to convey a complex and interesting story all the same.
Yes, because somehow cutscenes are the devil and can never be used to tell a story because of (insert arbitrary reason here) and because the Half-Life method of storytelling works for every imaginable kind of storyline and gameplay.
Ironically enough, Crysis uses the Half-Life method quite a lot.
Were you seriously expecting characterization and originality?
The best part probably was during the assault on the harbour. Only - as is so damn typical in these games - the military didn't do jack shit to attack the harbor, it was only your own actions. The first two minutes were very immersive, but after that it was once again just you against the entire korean army. Not very believable, and not very immersive. And that was the BEST part of crysis, no less (to me anyway).
You're a one man army, so why would they launch an assault on the harbor when one guy is enough? Since VTOLs are their method of transportation, they can't even assault the harbor due to the AA gun that's stationed there. You do fight alongside regular forces later on.
Are you serious? What makes you think games are an invalid form of art, or inferior to film?
Where did I say they're an invalid form of art? Did I or did I not specifically say "made to date?"
There's tons of games I can think of with better stories, design, music, ect. than the average film.
We're not talking about average films.
In some ways I would even say there's more creativity and artistic merit in the design of old and simple games like Pacman or Tetris than the average film.
Due to the 10 cut-scenes you have the pleasure to watch while trying to get from A to B.
Nonsense. Cutscenes don't occur that often. The reason why it takes you time to go on foot is because - get this - the environments are huge.
Realistic graphics in a game don't make a good game. They can help make a game better. If a game is 90% cutscenes, intercut with "now press the A-,X-, up-, up- buttons, then pause exactly 4.5 secs, and press Y to get to the next 10 minute long cutscene" interaction, then they are the equivalent to a (BAD) Steve Jackson Gamebook or, more accurately, one of the old Laserdisc-based games. They are not games. They are movies with an interactive element thrown in.
Ok, and what does this have to do with Crysis, or modern games in general? MGS4 may have lots of cutscenes but MGS4 is one game.
Are you serious? Maybe there is something wrong with me after all. Crysis was acceptable, but it sure as hell did not have much of a story. It had a bit of a background "story", after all they needed some explanation for why you run around on a island shooting koreans, but it sure as hell didn't have what I would call a real story. The story was at all times placed firmly in the background of running around and blowing stuff up. And the graphics of course.
I didn't say it has the storyline of Lost, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a story (which I had no trouble keeping up with). It's a fairly basic "oh shit aliens attack" plot, but it's told effectively.
I speak from 25+ years experience of gaming when I say that a game only needs to be entertaining and immersive, not necessarily realistic.
Nobody ever said it has to be realistic.
And when it comes to adventure games, then the prime requirement is to have a big wedge of logical puzzle solving along with the gradual revealing of an underlying plot.
And advanced, cinematic graphics are somehow mutually exclusive with puzzle solving and a plot?
The fact that the global warming crowd has no choice but to mod down the opposition as "troll" shows that they don't have a leg to stand on. Case closed.
TF2 was not the first shooter game to have that kind of visual style. XIII was released in 2003, and Killer7 in 2005. There are probably even earlier examples. TF2 also doesn't hold a candle to Eternal Sonata.
Slashdot Mirror
The submitter appears to think that this is for real (as do several commenters at Spill), but you can tell that it's obviously a joke. Michael Bay doesn't even write scripts.
6 Mbit is way too expensive over here.
Only a few, few places will have the necessary network speeds in five years.
I'm not trolling and you have no way of knowing my age.
You're full of shit. You haven't seen anything.
Again, length != quality.
There's no point in listing them.
Crysis is from the guys who made Far Cry. I sure as hell wasn't expecting much, and I was actually suprised by how much better the narrative was compared to Far Cry. I don't understand how the feeling of really being there is related to any of this.
Huh? You're moving the goal posts. We're talking about characterization and the originality of the storyline, not gameplay.
Anyone who claims that quality films are few and far between and that there aren't any films with an excellent story is obviously not well versed in films. It's like saying that there aren't any games with good gameplay.
Which doesn't mean that length is the same thing as quality.
And of course some asshole had to mod me -1 Troll just because he couldn't come up with a counter-argument. Pathetic.
I regularly watch excellent films. Maybe you should watch something other than mainstream Hollywood productions.
Length != quality.
Jesus. Am I the only person in the gaming world who watches quality films? That would explain a lot, I guess.
No.
There's nothing to criticize, it's just a copout. You don't want to talk about the subject and instead of just not talking about it you kick over the sand castle and leave the sandbox in a huff.
The art of storytelling in a video game is perfectly comparable to the art of storytelling in a movie.
Speedy light goes in, speedy light doesn't come out.
Just use this video as a model. Should be easy enough to understand then.
Not everyone is into intellectual copouts.
Resident Evil 4 also has quicktime events, but that doesn't make it an interactive movie.
You're making shit up. After you've parachuted down, there isn't a cutscene until you find Aztec. Cutscenes are few and far between in the game.
Yes, because somehow cutscenes are the devil and can never be used to tell a story because of (insert arbitrary reason here) and because the Half-Life method of storytelling works for every imaginable kind of storyline and gameplay.
Ironically enough, Crysis uses the Half-Life method quite a lot.
Were you seriously expecting characterization and originality?
You're a one man army, so why would they launch an assault on the harbor when one guy is enough? Since VTOLs are their method of transportation, they can't even assault the harbor due to the AA gun that's stationed there. You do fight alongside regular forces later on.
Sorry, but if you think Metal Gear qualifies as a work of art you need to watch more movies.
Where did I say they're an invalid form of art? Did I or did I not specifically say "made to date?"
We're not talking about average films.
There's nothing artistic about either game.
Nonsense. Cutscenes don't occur that often. The reason why it takes you time to go on foot is because - get this - the environments are huge.
Ok, and what does this have to do with Crysis, or modern games in general? MGS4 may have lots of cutscenes but MGS4 is one game.
I didn't say it has the storyline of Lost, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a story (which I had no trouble keeping up with). It's a fairly basic "oh shit aliens attack" plot, but it's told effectively.
Nobody ever said it has to be realistic.
And advanced, cinematic graphics are somehow mutually exclusive with puzzle solving and a plot?
The fact that the global warming crowd has no choice but to mod down the opposition as "troll" shows that they don't have a leg to stand on. Case closed.
Ahahahahahahahaha.
Oh, wait... you're serious.
Gamers should watch more movies in order to understand that few if any video games made to date can compare to them.
TF2 was not the first shooter game to have that kind of visual style. XIII was released in 2003, and Killer7 in 2005. There are probably even earlier examples. TF2 also doesn't hold a candle to Eternal Sonata.