Halo was a console exclusive for a while and it created a massive boom for FPS games and now look at where the industry is today...

Dude, your anti-cinematic game bias is showing....and it's quite crude to say the least.

You sound so much like every oldtimer cliche of "stuff used to be alot better in my day....these days just sicken me." that I can barely make an effort other than to facepalm this entire spiel.

Oh, and btw: Game ARE popcorn entertainment. As in they're not going to be as deep and thought provoking as you want them to be.....as that is not what sells on the scale the gaming industry hopes for/wants. Yes, some make such games, but it's always going to be a niche market so get used to it & enjoy some senseless fun & violence for once.

Because there isn't a single respectable artistic medium out there that simply copies other artistic mediums. Sure, most (if not all) learn lessons from one another, but videogames are doing much more than just learning a few lessons from movies... they're trying to be movies. There's no hope for the medium artistically speaking if that continues to be the normal practice.

This is your opinion and nothing more.....and btw I find such games quite enjoyable, and love when they make them. I don't see anything wrong if they make more of them. If you want more games made your way then fund them.

I think both styles have their fans, and that's good. I said myself that I liked the interactive movie feel of Mass Effect for example. It's just that games can do so much MORE than that and this developer is acting like the interactive movie is the pinnacle, the gold standard. I disagree completely.

So, basically you're saying that you don't think things are ever going to change, so nobody should want things to change? Your argument is basically "lighten up and turn off your brain," which...I'm sorry...is not very convincing in the slightest.

Besides which, I never mentioned anything about "games were better in my day," and I didn't even PLAY videogames until a few years back.

I've seen interactive movies.....and such games aren't just interactive movies. You make it sound like such games are just FMV with a button needed to be pressed every 10 minutes.

Also maybe it is the pinnacle, albeit of that TYPE of gaming(cinematic gaming/etc)? Certainly not as a whole mind you.

Did you even read my post?

"there isn't a single respectable artistic medium out there that simply copies other artistic mediums. Sure, most (if not all) learn lessons from one another, but videogames are doing much more than just learning a few lessons from movies... they're trying to be movies."

If you don't want games to rise above the low-brow level they're at right now, then fine... but don't try to dismiss those of us who do. I, for one, want to see games reach an acceptable level of artistic maturity.

I never said things wouldn't change, it's just that it isn't very realistic that they will(what with people spending big on such titles and liking them in greater numbers these days).....and even so games still get made for niche gamers all the time, even AAA titles, and those complaining about cinematic games should be happy with what they have and not try to rain down upon other gaming areas they don't like for the sake of stirring the pot.

If you want different games then fund them, but don't have the gall to complain about the "downfall of modern gaming" via cinematic gaming and then do nothing to change it.

Games low brow right now? What nerve of you to say that, as if you talk for everyone.

And what do you want them to be like? Shakespeare or hamlet?

And as I said if you want gaming to change then fund it or make it so....don't be whining about it like that's going to do anything.

Let me put it into a good example using the game I mentioned before, Deus Ex. In Deus Ex you come to a point where your brother is being hunted by the bad guys and tells you to run for your life. At this moment you can run, and he will die, or you can stay and fight the bad guys and he will live.

That is interactive storytelling like only games can do. For one thing your decision changes the story. For another there are gameplay ramifications and hurdles to get past in order to effect the story in a more positive way. The player feels like they are directing the experience, shaping the world around them.

Another example would be a game like Morrowind, where you discover the story through exploration. There is no real plotting outside of a vague spiderweb of quest chains, but if you discover information whole exploring it adds to the story. If you read into books or notes, talk to people the game never makes you talk to, you discover more of the world and storyline. The game creates a "story" as a place and circumstance, living mortal gods and religious conflict, and then places you into the story to discover the narrative.

These two examples are something movies, books and music can NEVER do. It is impossible for them to tell a story in those ways, as that is the realm of video games alone. So when someone says "yo we make good cutscenes between our linear shooting action and more people should make better cutscenes and linear story moments" it irks me. It bugs me. Because that is not what developers should be aspiring to. Yes it works, and it works well for certain genres, but it is not the pinnacle of gaming storylines or anything special. It's emulating Pixar in between gaming segments.

Not buying games is commendable and all, but it won't accomplish jack squat as others will still buy those games & cancel out any effect you might've had. And by changing the industry I meant offensive and active attempts at change, not passive ones like game boycotts.

And as I said before, some developers pursue such gaming styles but not all do....trends change over time leading to new styles, and other games get made that you may like in the meantime.
No, but to paint a picture as you did(such as gaming of such styles is only fit for those with limited mentality) makes it look like you're trying to say that only uncivilized people play such or should play such & that such games are crap. Not saying this is what you were trying to say here, just how you came off to me.

And again....why is such senseless entertainment a bad thing if that's what one is after and enjoys? And why do games need to be high brow to be better or more enjoyable to you?

So, I'm not permitted to voice my objections until I've funded my own developing studio or contributed thousands to some obscure indie developer? That's nonsense. I'm a gamer, and a game developer. Just because I don't happen to have a shitload of extra money lying around to fund someone with doesn't mean that I don't have the right to comment and object to the state of the industry.

"And as I said before, some developers pursue such gaming styles but not all do..."
The majority of AAA developers, and the ones that get attention, are pursuing the "games as movies" philosophy. I fail to see why I should be complacent with something that I see as damaging to games.
For pete's sake...are you listening? This has nothing to do with the base-level enjoyment of mindless action games. I love mindless action games. Everyone does. It has everything to do with the possibilities that games hold, and the fact that developers are ignoring those possibilities. Senseless entertainment isn't always a bad thing, but it's a bad thing when it's getting in the way of a medium's development.

You're trying to make this out into an attack against people who enjoy cinematic games, when it's actually an attack against the philosophy. I wasn't at all implying that anyone who gets enjoyment out of mindless action is mentally handicapped. I'm saying that mindless action and cheap thrills should not be the standard. And that doing things like some other medium does them should not be the ending goal.

Go back and read what StingingVelvet wrote, because he's expressing exactly my own views better than I've been doing. It's about the possibilities that are being ignored, and the potential that might never be realized.

1. I never said that. Just that you should put your money where your mouth is somehow if you want your words to mean something. It's one thing to say you want change and quite another to work for it.

You don't have to open a gaming studio. You could campaign for better games through email campaigning of game studios and the like, and show them through lists of likeminded people that you guys want such and such types of games & that you have the money to spend on them if they make it so...among other things you could do like funding indie projects and the like/etc.

And why should you be "complacent"? Maybe not complacent but at least more tolerant of other people's gaming likes and what they want of the industry....because there are games being made for everyone nowadays, with various niche markets, that everyone has something they can enjoy.

But complain all you want, as is your right. It won't change anything however and will just paint you as one of the multitudes who complain they want change without actually doing anything about it.

1. Again if it's getting in the way of the way you want it to go then do something about it.....until then you're just another voice in the often ignored choir.

2. I'm sorry if I made your words out to be something they weren't, but sometimes one's tone and choice of words can make one read things into such that may or may not be there & I sometimes read a person wrong.

3. I read it, and get it for the most part. I just don't care if the gaming traditions change majorly in near future. I enjoy gaming for what it is, not for what I feel it's lacking.

Again...I don't support games I disagree with with my money. I develop my own games, and try to do my best to follow the philosophy that I think is most beneficial to the genre. I take the time to debate with others and express my philosophy, in the hopes that other people will stop supporting these sort of games with their money.

I'm doing plenty to put my "money where my mouth is."

Doing email campaigns would be a complete waste of time if cinematic games are still being supported with people's money. Because that's what devs care about.

Besides which, you first claim that I should be doing things, and "working for it," then you go on to say that I should accept that "the industry doesn't have to listen to you because you don't like what they're doing(sad but truth)?" How does that make any sense?