Jegergryte said:

So, er, what happens if you make an RPG like a movie in terms of interactivity and gameplay?

Why do people assume that if you want a game like a video game you mean the bits least suited to an RPG, but if you want a game like a movie they mean obviously in ways that actually make sense?

AluminiumWolf said:

Because people understand "cinematic" in a broader way than the limited definition you supplied above. And because I think many people consider video games to have cinematic elements that people appreciate, which they include in their broader use of the term "cinematic". Whereas they associate the notion of making rpgs more like video games to entail something else than the feel and thrill of jumping from a tower in the first assassins creed, rather they think of the limitations of the genre, rather than the positive aspects - which is already at least partly included in the "cinematic" category.

At least that is my opinion. And I think previous posts support that. Read them, cinematic does not mean, in this context the same as the definition you supplied - it does not mean to make the game into a film… that should be obvious if you actually, actually read any of the previous posts properly.

Jegergryte said:

Yes. Like I say, we need a word that means for video games what 'cinematic' means for movies. Cause 'total non interactivity' is not what people mean when they say 'cinematic'. Yknow, something that means 'evokes the feeling of playing a video game'.

(I tend to read 'I want the game to be cinematic!' as 'I want the game to be like a movie, only I don't want to put any thought in to how to make that work in a real time interactive format where you only get one take!')

AluminiumWolf said:

No we don't need a term for that, its already there; in "Cinematic" - it encapsulates the positive aspects from both films and video games. It is only silly to have to separate the two - when the term entails the (imagined) visual drama, action and suspense and action that a film (and video game) can produce in the viewer transposed onto the gaming situation - the shared imaginary space in which the rpg happens.

If you want to remain on the dictionary definition of a word, which does not include the more common way of it use within these circles, be my guest - but you are doing it more difficult for yourself and those you try to have a conversation and discussion with. Because your precise interpretation of it becomes incompatible with the larger and more broad interpretation that - as far as I know - exists and is used in the/this (role playing) gaming community.

So if it is a discussion of the nature and meaning of a word you're after, this is perhaps not the place - although you must understand that words' meanings are contextual.

Your last part I'm not sure I understand… but I guess its tied up in your rather narrow interpretation of "cinematic" … due to some love for computer games that you feel is overlooked, which it is not.

Jegergryte said:

I would agree, but the kneejerk reaction people have against anything they perceive as being derivative of video games kinda implies that there needs to be a word to legitimise video games.

Literary -> theatrical -> cinematic -> like a video game?

(For that matter, 'like a TTRPG'!)

AluminiumWolf said:

1. When computer games listed as a starting point is a FPS I can related to the kneejerk reaction - because they seldom have good stories or table top friendly mechanics - nor are they story oriented or social in the same way as "conventional" rpgs. Even if you can go online and shoot other people or play co-op… they have limitations that an rpg should not have, the linearity of any computer game is a joke compared to interactivity of rpgs.

2. I think you are overreacting - and/or choosing your words … poorly when making comparisons or coming with examples. Be precise in what you mean to say and use good examples, detailed examples. Make sure your point comes across clearly.

3. Some people are purists and will react negatively however you approach the subject. Ignore them.

I think most people can admit that computer games have aspects that can be a source of inspiration. Perhaps not mechanics and the GUI and gameplay solutions of a PS3 1st or 3rd person shooter, but stories, twists and the grand scope of things.

Just to reiterate and underline my main point.

In my opinion c inematic should NOT be understood as relating specifically to films and/or cinema. Rather it should be understood to refer to feelings related to sequences of good roleplaying, good descriptions and storytelling (from both players and GM alike). These are likely to be either "visual", above-the-top, action oriented, rhetorically impressive from roleplaying, lucky rolls for athletic or picking pockets (or the like), described with flair, flavour and panache. Not (hopefully) limited by strict and limiting rules and mechanics that favour either (too) realistic and/or deterministic rules for movement and combat or somesuch limitation.

A book can be conjure this feeling, like reading some of Zahn's work, or Allston for that matter. A comic book can create such scenery, like the Darth Maul 4 issue series from like 10 years back or so - when Darth Maul took down the Black Sun vigos and stuff, real nice cinematics there.

To an extent, I kinda think that when movies were the new thing people probably suggested they didn't need a word as everything good about movies could be described by the term 'theatrical'.

And I don't think Call of Duty occupies an enormously different space to Star Wars. Especially since Star Wars was Lucas' homage to the Flash Gordon Etc. serials he loved as a kid which definitely occupy the same space as Call of Duty. Or at least Halo.

http://www.punchingsnakes.com/?p=679

+++++There’s a reason I love meta-questions about the video game press. Getting the answers is my way of learning the business. One of those meta-questions is how seriously video game journalists should take their jobs. Let’s sketch out the poles here. One side says “We’re just writing about toys so let’s not get all full of ourselves,” and the other side says “We’re writing about one of the most important forms of art in the 21 ^st century so how dare you say they’re just toys?” Most people fall somewhere in the middle.+++++

It seems you want to carry the computer game torch towards legitimisation and acceptance, on a level I'm not sure I understand (people here accept and enjoy computer games it seems, mostly, yet the way you keep going about this is both confusing and lacking in substance). Perhaps a blog would be a better forum to express yourself; in whole sentences and better constructed posts than the ones here.

I support your enthusiasm towards video games, certainly, but I'm uncertain as to how it relates to this beta-test. It seems you're missing a style of gaming on your table, then create it since no one else has.

Jegergryte said:

It does. I perceive this thread:-

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=319&efcid=3&efidt=716646

as trying to reject stimpacks as to gamey. Probably Fallouty specifically. And you get people arguing that it is okay to cut people in half with a single swipe of a lightsaber because that is 'how it works in the movies'.

So more acceptance of work done on making stuff fun in a real time interactive format rather than a pre-scripted movie might be.. Helpful.

I think you got the right intention, but wrong angle. This obsession with film vs video game is not really… productive - and this is not necessarily a critique against you personally or only. but leaving from work now. Home later. reply more properly then.

AluminiumWolf said:

From my point of view and of reading that thread, you focus entirely too much on the game vs film perspective. They want to change the name, to keep it consistent with earlier star wars rpgs. The focus is more on naming convention than "doing away" with a "gamey" element as you put it.

I realise that you are a video game buff, you think it needs to be legitimised and play a larger role in the game design - or something along those lines. I would suggest you focus more on the game itself versus seeing any comment, that you can interpret as naysaying, as "slander" against computer games. This has little to do with "acceptance" of video games, or the "rejection". It has to do with a focus on how people feel rpgs should be put together. References to films is mainly to the star wars films (the original trilogy), which is the main source for this setting and the star wars universe. This is not to say that "films" as a category necessarily is preferential to "video games" as a category… you might disagree, but I feel that you are focusing entirely too much on aspects that has little to do witht this beta discussion. It's like you're carrying a torch for something you seem to think is superior to anything else, against something - which I have understood - you don't have in your possession (the game itself). In other words you trying to participate on a level and in a way that is neither productive nor keeping to the essence of what this beta test is about.

I guess… I think video games are quickly getting on for being the leader in geek culture.

Modern heroes are guys like Nathan Drake, Soap MacTavish, Chris Redfield, Solid Snake, Master Chief or Commander Shepard.

Or Prophet, Nomad and Psycho. Or The One Free Man. Or I dunno. *******… Mario.

But you won't be able to play anything that feels remotely like their adventures without using a system intended to replicate the feel of playing a video game (even more so if you are trying to replicate the Through Plot of a game without allowing people to revert to checkpoints if they die or whatnot), any more than you will get a 'cinematic' game without using a system intended to help the game evoke feelings of being in a movie.

I mean, maybe the place for this is a game that does for video games what Feng Shui and Hong Kong Action Theatre! did for Hong Kong movies (working title - 'Triple A' - Characters like Kratos, Alex Mercer, Niko Belik and Marcus Fenix team up to battle, like, an evil organisation dedicated to selling used games. Or something.)

But I have seen groups of people who do nothing but play and talk about video games then sit down and I would swear they would be happier playing something where their characters can act like they do in the games.

I was listening to a podcast the other day that kind of touched on this topic, then I saw THIS ARTICLE.

Please keep in mind, I have only skimmed this article right now. but it got me thinking. It seems 100% in par with how this happened to me.

Back the day we never used maps. In fact, I am pretty certain all the people I played 1e with back in the 80s never had even read the movement section. Then along comes 3e. Suddenly everyone was using it, suddenly it became the norm. I remember several times while playing 3e or Pathfinder and being in tight quarters, then people mulling over positioning for minutes and minutes.. and thinking to myself, "God, we could have had a whole other round completed."

I am pretty certain this final nail in the coffin in this current backlash was caused by 4e.

Minis and maps are a related but different topic. I like them, but a 'Video Game' rpg could be mapless just as easily as an 'Anime' rpg. It is all about the style, yknow?

AluminiumWolf said:

Whatever that actually means. I'm sure there are some trekkies or browncoats out there disagreeing

AluminiumWolf said:

I disagree. I don't need check points - the players need to not be stupid. The cinematic feelings usually comes along if they players are immersed in the game, the story engaging and the action tense - I need no specific system that is designed with either computer games or films in mind, I need a story, good players and to know the rules of whatever system I play. Used to play RMSS and HARP for years, had very good cinematic elements and feel (in the broader sense not just films. One of my players in HARP was a huge computer game buff - his first character which died spectacularly in a pointless huge fireball, was based on Ninja Gaiden). And neither HARP nor in particular RMSS is made with cinematics in mind, but rather realism - although HARP is more on the high adventure side of things, but still real gritty. No need for save points or auto-regen in cover. People think more and act - in my opinion - more intelligently if they have to fear for their character… with no risk of what you call "perma-death" the whole game just becomes a series of events that is of no real threat to the character. The result is often that players are not as invested in the game emotionally, which to me mean that the game is not as good.

AluminiumWolf said:

"Act" like they do in the games can mean vastly different thing. Most often - in my experience - this means that players wants to start higher level so they can have the skill/abilities that reflect the character they are based on - this is doable within most system I know of. This does not - as far as I'm concerned - mean that players want (or should get) the ability to not die as a inherent part of the system (be it check points, save points or auto-regen/revive). Because then you end up on a deterministic path where any death is scripted and planned ahead - it becomes more like a film or theatre piece… there is only the aforementioned illusion of interactivity.