What Do Gamers Mean By “Cinematic”?
In response to the feedback I got from the article Why RPG Adventures That Emulate a Movie Are a Bad Idea I want to address what we gamers means when we say that we want a “cinematic” game, as well as what we can use from movies to make our games better.
First things first, the word cinematic means having to do with the cinema. RPGs are not films, and we gamers are not talking about anything actually related to a film. Obviously when we say that we want a game to be cinematic we are redefining what the word actually means.
I believe that what gamers really mean is that they want a game that includes three qualities that are often associated with the cinema:
- Action – We want activity, we want combat, and we want it to be fast paced.
- Stunts – It is not enough for there to be battles and conflicts. There has to be wild leaps across flames, car chases where the PC’s vehicle flips and keeps going, and impossible flights where the aircraft flies through a building as it collapses under the weight of a giant ape.
- Epic – On top of all that we want these games to be about the PCs saving the world, the galaxy, the entire known universe from the ultimate bad guys.
So if that is what we mean by cinematic what we can take from movies to help us achieve these things? We can use the tricks that movies use to pull off the above.
The first thing is that we can establish early in our game just how crazy we will let things get in the game. That is the reason why so many action movies start with a big opening sequence, so that the audience is overwhelmed form the start and suspends their disbelief as early as possible.
The next trick is to suggest a stunt by having the bad guys try something crazy first. Ever notice that the good guys in a movie pull a stunt usually after the bad guys have pulled an easy stunt off first? If your players hear you describing the bad guys pulling off some simple stunts they will be tempted to ask “Can our PCs do that?” The answer to that question? “No, your PCs can outdo that!”
The epic part is the most subjective part of the equation. If an action film is set in a small town than the epic aspect is achieved by having the plot move towards some event that involves the whole town. A fire breaks out that spreads out of control to every building, or every single townsperson succumbs to a virus and need to be given the cure, or the townspeople all band together behind the heroes to make a last stand against the outlaws.
Notice how in the end it is always the entire town that is involved? That is the secret to epic – no matter what the entire setting is involved during the climax of the plot. Add a villain that is the equal, possibly the better, of the PCs and you have epic in your game.
Is this what cinematic games are all about? Is there anything else that we can take from movies in order to improve our games with? You tell me by leaving a comment below.
There is a disconnect there I think. People want “cinematic” because cinema gives them an experience and part of that is the emotional experience. People have a tendency to think it’s the action and excitement but actually the emotional impact (and that is what is impressed on the viewer) comes from the story telling and in heroic/action blockbusters it often involves the main protagonist getting screwed over until over coming all odds to win or do the right thing.
It seems to me, people want the “over coming all odds” without the “getting screwed” part when gaming though. They don’t want to lose that magic sword that they spent all their XP on or don’t want the world they’ve created being shattered apart. They want the epic and over-the-top action but that’s only “visuals” or style. Mostly because “getting screwed” involves a little nasty railroading by the GM which players don’t appreciate. I remember seeing a graph that illustrated the dips and highs of a heroic like plot, right up to the point where everything is lost, and the heroes succeed.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that we should take from cinema is in part pacing and the willingness to break things in game to make a better story-experience.
Mark Cunningham – I disagree, but I do see where you are coming from. To me the emotional response is evoked by having those big splashy action scenes to play in. Pacing is part of the experience, but you can’t have split second timing in a game. You can only say that the action took place in split second.
This is one of the reasons why I don’t like the term cinematic for describing games anymore. The word does not mean what we as individuals want it to mean. Therefore when you and I use the same word we might be saying very different things yet mistakenly assume that we agree on what was said.
Hi, thanks for the description. That makes sense to me.
I think your three areas (action, stunts, and epic) are much better descriptors than “cinematic”.
I’ve used “cinematic” camera effects in my descriptions of action. For example, describing action in slo-mo or bullet time. It seemed to work pretty well with the players.
Kevin Richey – Excellent example of yet another possible definition for “cinematic” as it applies to RPGs! Thanks.
It looks like cinematic play is really about a couple things:
1) the group’s agreed-upon level of Suspension-of-Disbelief.
2) being intentionally more descriptive in your character’s actions, freed from constraints according to #1.
Does that help the definition at all?
Have you ready any of Dan Bayn’s articles or game books? His writing could be very inspiring for cinematic play. Check out his stuff on RPGNet and Wushu. Even if you’re not interested in playing Wushu, his writing is a lot of fun to read.