What's the main problem with cinematic "choose your own adventure" games? Why are they all so hated...

What's the main problem with cinematic "choose your own adventure" games? Why are they all so hated? What can be done to fix them?

Attached: Pack_Heavy_Rain.jpg (487x514, 76K)

Unpopular opinion but I love them. I do feel like they need SOMETHING else, but I’m not sure what the answer would be. I’d never buy one at full price in their current usual state

the main problem is there isn't fucking gameplay and they're supposed to be GAMES that's the big clue. walking from A to B and rapidly pressing X for le quick time event might technically be gameplay but you know what I mean. absolute cancer for journos and mouth breathers

There is nothing wrong with them apart from being over-hyped for what they are. I've played all David Cage's games and liked them all. The plot of all of them was always kinda shaky and lacked it's own take on subject matter but enjoyable nonetheless.

It's a fairly logical extrapolation of old point and click adventure games minus the puzzles which is perhaps what could be done to fix the cinematic games. Although at the same time if I am playing Heavy Rain and asked to solve the "piano puzzle" from Silent Hill it may break the mood slightly so balance of difficulty of puzzles would be quite important.

Games don't do story well because they need to add gameplay, which fucks up the pacing because gameplay is pretty much antiethical to pacing.
Just make a movie and abandon gameplay altogether. It's not like the story can deviate that heavily because there's too much work involved in that.

The main problem with these games is that you can't really choose your own story.

Variations are absolutely minimal

All of Tell Tales games are just that but even less of gameplay. The only thing they got over Beyond/Detroit etc... is higher quality of writting.

I can't hugely comment since I haven't replayed any of them in a long time but from what I remember of Detroit the story deviates quite a bit in places. I think the main problem is that choices aren't quite as pronounced as people hope they'd be beyond simple "Character dies".

There isn’t a problem if you look at these games’ sales figures and the anons loving on them just above this post.

As someone who dislikes these games tho, I think it’s a fatal error to make a “game about a story” instead of a “story about a game”. In Quantic Dream’s games, you are effectively an actor playing a specific role, and choice is an illusion as all the options presented to you are clear and the consequences are predetermined. In a more traditional game, you are given a set of tools and tasked with solving problems however you can with the tools provided. For example, there’s hundreds of ways to 1cc a game like Metal Slug, and the choices you’re making during the game are multitudinous and feel natural. Everything you do in a game like Heavy Rain is contrived by comparison, and the variety of possible win conditions are reached by far fewer actual player choices.

Yeah, I guess in my head I categorize them as interactive movies more so than games. I still think there is potential in this weird genre of “games,” but the quick time events meant to gamify them are pretty dumb

That's basically the thing. The only variations that occur are actually SUBSTRACTIONS of gameplay. Not additions. There is never a "you chose right option so you'll now get to play a completely different segment of the game". It's always just "you got this character killed so now you're going to skip all of the remaining parts for this character

They're Western. Yea Forums will screech about them, while defending their garbage weeb VNs.

>there isn't fucking gameplay
Define gameplay

>might technically be gameplay
No technically about it. It either is or is not gameplay.
>you know what I mean
I honestly don't.

Would it be better to remove some “gameplay” in favor of more differentiation in the actual story?

There are bits of the story where things play out differently and depending on your choice you may end up in entirely different area (Detroit towards the end did that with Kara and negroid) but subtractions is also beneficial for tension, being afraid of permanently losing a character does add tension to the quick time events.

The man is also right.

Holding down "W" like in Stanley's Parable is hardly gameplay, think about that and you'll eventually figure out where the line blurs between gameplay and just walking around listening to dialogue.

>Holding down "W" like in Stanley's Parable is hardly gameplay
But it is.

Tell me what you think "gameplay" means.
Giving me examples of gameplay you don't like and telling me to figure it out from there isn't an answer.

Literally nothing, games get shitty when they pretend they are normal games when they are basically movies

But Until Dawn is actually kind of good as far as the genre goes. It's just a stupid horror movie and it's not up its own ass like David Cage's shit

On a contrary I like walking simulators (Right now I am playing Station and Event [0] ) but I do accept that they don't have gameplay in traditional sense.

Gameplay is something that is physically as well as mentally engaging. Moving tetris blocks on screen is hardly the same as BroodWar micro but it is still physically and mentally engaging e.g. as I said above more than holding down "W". Old Point and Click adventure games have the physical engagement of puzzles even if they are simple "move blocks until picture forms" but it's still more than "walk forward press button".

People have trouble accepting that niche things exist, for Yea Forums to not be acceptant of it is contrarian at best but as put it, it's because they aren't jap.

>focus entirely on story
>story is shit

>Gameplay is something that is physically as well as mentally engaging.
>Old Point and Click adventure games have the physical engagement of puzzles
I thought I knew where you were going with "physically engaging" but now I think you're just making shit up to be honest

It'd make sense of physical engagement was defined by the player's actual effort to create inputs and affect the game.
For example, a fighting game is very physically engaging.

But... a point-and-click?
Puzzles?
Shouldn't that be mentally engaging?

Where does something like a turn-based RPG fall, where most of the gameplay is simply walking around, reading text/watching cutscenes and selecting options from various menus?

And even defining gameplay by "engagement" is a bit half-baked, because engagement isn't something that can be concretely defined. It's entirely subjective.

Maybe add great game play and less focus on shory

The plots all start good but fall apart. The twists are stupid and it's obvious that the writers had good ideas but rushed till the end. Also the gameplay sucks even for an adventure game. QTE. Choices don't matter most of the game. No skipping dialogue or fmvs...

there is no fixing them when david cage games print money with their shit writing poorly translated from french into english