Post 2010s kino

I had a dream where I drank some green liquid that made me invisible, you can probably can guess what I did after that (rape) but whole experience was so kino its hard to describe, everything had this green filter over it and it was night, it looked very beautiful.

Lot of the basic mooks in Lovecraft's stories can be beaten as well. Reminder that Innsmouth got eventually stomped out by US military.

In games, you can keep fighting, but it's the overall atmosphere and feeling if you are ever going to actually win the war that defines how optimistic the setup is. This is why I think every good horror game always feels a bit too long. That feeling when you are desentisized to the scares and the game keeps going on and on, that somewhat shellshocked kinda feeling, that's the point where you are one with the horror. It's great.

Emulate Silent Hill 2 if you want story and horror.
Play Doom 3, original version if you like action and horror.

Attached: doom 3.jpg (2118x1354, 597K)

hi swikar

Through the use of the Insight system, the game manages to tie you and the player very closely.

The world has a lot of hidden things to it, be they invisible creatures, or hidden sounds. The higher Insight you have, the more of these hidden things you (and the player character) can see in the game, and the more of the world you understand. This comes with a price. Higher insight leads to more damage of certain types taken and enemies having more magical attacks, some which cause Frenzy, a kind of madness that, if filled up, breaks your mind and damages you. In some areas new enemies pop up altogether where they wouldn't have if you didn't have enough Insight/understanding of the hidden things in the world.

When you lower your Insight, the world calms down a little, as if you make yourself more ignorant, and therefore less susceptible to the madness.

The way this ties the player in is by making the player see and hear less creepy shit, and therefore have an "easier" time playing the game.

Video games will never be truly art on the same level because of the interactive part specifically.
Interaction diminishes the artistic value immensely because with film, or a book, or a painting you get an exact fixed unchangeable artistic expression delivered to you just like it is intended, while with games whatever other interactive element is introduced only diminishes the original artistic intention and focuses on the viewer/player. Like said, the more a game is considered "art" it has less interactivity in it.

Video games will forever remain merely an entertainment gimmick and nothing more

>videogames have better cinematography than most capeshit and refn flicks

It's completely the opposite. Interactivity can bring much deeper immersion and participation to the piece, potentially increasing the artistic value of said piece many-folds. Games can react and adapt. Movies are just shitty static linear narratives without the potential for insight like books have.

blurred shiny glow in the dark digitally rendered washed out lighting is by no means good cinematography

compare it to any actual film and it's laughable

Attached: SORCERER.jpg (2800x1575, 3.72M)

pffffahahahaha

If you think those frames are even competent aethetically you are in the wrong medium

I wouldn't say that as a blanket statement, I think most video game devs are just hacks and most video game fans don't care about quality products.

Something like Morrowind for example would never work in a format that you couldn't personally explore and lose yourself in, but the way the setting, the culture, politics and religion of its people and the main story are intertwined perfectly IS a work of art.

based kino dream fellow kino dream haver. i feel sorry for the saps who cant remember theirs ever.

>these are the people who made br threads two years ago
at least you're 18 now

Whoever made pic related is a faggot for doing such a sloppy job. Nevertheless.. this is the defining Kino of this century so far. And it was released on television. Imagine that.

Attached: 1555872596168.png (1379x1781, 3.78M)

>Interactivity can bring much deeper immersion and participation to the piece
And the more interactive it is the less artistic it is. Take a game and make it as interactive as real life and you have zero artistic expression there. Once the focus switches to the player instead of the artist it stops being an artistic expression and becomes something more resembling a toy.
>potentially increasing the artistic value of said piece many-folds
Factually wrong.
Would Crime and Punishment be a better piece of literature if it was interactive? Would 2001 be a better film if you could choose how the narrative goes?
>Movies are just shitty static linear narratives without the potential for insight like books have.
This is just retarded, there are thousands of films with non linear narratives and the "potential for insight" is absolutely the same no matter the medium.

What interactivity gives you is the control to be the writer/camera operator/actor/director, which 99% of people are not. You're not a better artist than the artist. You are not a better writer than an actual writer. You are not a better camera operator than an actual camera operator. You are not a better editor than an actual editor.

Wish I could afford a PS4.

Attached: 1569067098248.jpg (1920x1080, 738K)

just switch the tabs and never come back you pathetic manchildren

A open world game set in the Dream Lands would be cool.

Every Chad plays FIFA.

>plays with children’s toys
>calls other people underage

How's the new cut?
It's out, right? Haven't really been following.

Attached: 1555948159884.jpg (4000x4055, 3.52M)

favorite cinematography/camera work

Capeshit (Marvel more specifically) is notorious for having dull cinematography.

Even if it has a lot of flaws and runs like shit, it still simply is the best game of this decade. Not like it has had any real competition. Games suck nowadays